No warming, you say? Bullshit; that is not just a warming trend, it is an ACCELERATING warming trend.

You are just too blinded by your denialist opinions to see it.

Apr 9, 2018 at 7:40 PM | Entropic man

Your trypo accepted, but are your guesstimates using the end of the Little Ice Age, or some other arbitary point in time?

Has UK weather produced warmer temperatures? Does the "acceleration" include the "pause", where nothing happened?

Nothing looks like a Hockey Stick at all. Apart from a Real Climate Hockey Stick.

Has UK weather produced warmer temperatures?

Oh, Yes

Will the device of asking endless rhetorical questions ever end?

Will the device of asking endless rhetorical questions ever end?

Apr 9, 2018 at 10:02 PM | Phil Clarke

Will you ever answer anything about Mann's Hockey Stick or are you not allowed to?
Are you still waiting for instructions about ECS?

Your unproven "Science" simply has to justify its own dependency on continued Taxpayer funding. If Climate Science can't, then so be it.

Has UK weather produced warmer temperatures?
Oh, Yes
Will the device of asking endless rhetorical questions ever end?
Apr 9, 2018 at 10:02 PM | Phil Clarke

What happened to 1976? That was warm.

No warming, you say? Bullshit; that is not just a warming trend, it is an ACCELERATING warming trend.
You are just too blinded by your denialist opinions to see it.
Apr 9, 2018 at 7:40 PM | Entropic man

Are you still DENYING the Medieval Warm Period?

Can you explain why your maths about ECS does not match observed data?

Pielke has called out one of Podesta's offensive attack dogs
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/pielke-harasser-judd-legum-turns-tail-and-runs-from-debate-challenge/

"WUWT readers may recall that we recently highlighted how Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. had had enough of the bullying, smearing, and libel, from the Center for American Progress (CAP) who had written hundreds of negative articles and ultimately, bragged about getting Pielke fired from a writing job.

Pielke called him out, in the form of a public debate, with proceeds to charity. Predictably, Legum ran away from that."

As Climate Science is going on the offensive, without any scientific defence, what should 97% of people infer?

Golf Charlie

Phi and I have given you a wide range of data on ECS, the MWP, the Hockey stick and other topics.

You repeat your questions as though you have forgotten everything.

Do you have Alzheimer's?

Golf Charlie

Public debates on climate change tend to be unproductive. The two sides are arguing from different stances.

The scientist is mainly interested in evidence, the denier is mainly interested in rhetoric.

Golf Charlie

"Can you explain why your maths about ECS does not match observed data? "

Another "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

What you fail to recognise is that ECS values match observed data because observed data is what one uses to calculate ECS.

I can imagine a debate between Pielke and Legum. Pielke would spend the debate asking the same loaded and misleading questions you do. No useful purpose would be served.

Apr 9, 2018 at 11:45 PM | Entropic man

If Climate Science can't get honest about Mann's Hockey Stick, what can Climate Science be trusted to do with any honesty at all?

If ECS is a product of theory, assumptions and observations, then observations confirm that the Consensus has pitched ECS too high.

97% of Climate Scientists are wrong. The Lukewarmer position that any warming will be negligible has a better chance of survival in any US budget cuts.

Do you have Alzheimer's?

Apr 9, 2018 at 11:17 PM | Entropic man

Is that the way Green Activist Non Violent Direct Action works these days? It certainly makes you a true disciple of the Hockey Team, including William M Connolley.

Were you born a deceitful liar, or do you get paid to pretend?

Pielke would spend the debate asking the same loaded and misleading questions you do. No useful purpose would be served.

Apr 9, 2018 at 11:45 PM | Entropic man

The number of times I have asked you about Mann's Hockey Stick, is the same as the number of times you have refused to answer. Can you understand that?

No wonder Mann does not want to go to Court. His Peer Reviewers don't have faith in his Hockey Stick either.

After I wrote an article for Nate Silver at 538 in 2014, he called up Silver (and Silver’s lead editor) to demand I be fired.

No. In the real world, Pielke was only ever a freelance contributor, and Silver simply declined to commission any more articles after Pielke submitted an article on climate change damages that was well, less than brilliant.

Response.
Response.

In fact it was Pielke who emailed climate scientists threatening to sue, after they published a rebuttal to his piece.

Seems Anthony Watts doesn't like free speech. Quelle surprise.

Apr 10, 2018 at 9:18 AM | Phil Clarke

You provide links to John Abraham? Is that the one still addicted to Skeptical Science's fraudulent 97% Consensus, who writes so enthusiastically about it for The Guardian, and others tied into Podesta's Center for American Progress?

Kerry Emanuel:
"Looking ahead, I collaborated with Yale economist Robert Mendelsohn and his colleagues in estimating global hurricane damage changes through the year 2100, based on hurricanes “downscaled” from four climate models. We estimate that global hurricane damage will about double owing to demographic trends, and double again because of climate change."

As there are no reliable Climate Models, is this a reliable source for predictions?

Golf Charlie

"Were you born a deceitful liar, or do you get paid to pretend? "

Another "Have you stopped beating your wife? question.

Please set an example of how a climate change denier should debate, without the insults.

Oreskes (Science 2004) performed a literature review by identifying studies in the ISI database published 2003-2013 and indexed with the keywords 'Climate change', this produced 928 papers which were then …

… divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Doran and Zimmerman (EOS 2009) performed a survey of scientific opinion, asking if global temperatures had risen and human activity was a significant factor. Of 77 practising climate scientists who responded 75 (97%) answered Yes to both.

Anderegg et al (PNAS, 2010) Used a dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data and found that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field supported the position of the IPCC.

Cook et al (Environmental Research Letters, 2013) categorised 11 ,944 abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming' and found 'Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming'. They also invited authors to rate their own papers, which produced a 97.2% endorsement rate.

There have been various critiques of the Cook methodology, notably from Richard Tol, however even he concedes that

The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.

The consensus is strong, because the science is strong.

"No warming, you say? Bullshit; that is not just a warming trend, it is an ACCELERATING warming trend."Apr 10, 2018 at 11:37 AM | Entropic man

Have you forgotten already?

"Do you have Alzheimer's?"
Apr 9, 2018 at 11:17 PM | Entropic man

Is this how the "Science was settled", with Non Violent Direct Action?

You produced your (?) calculations about proving the range of ECS was high. Where is the science to prove your calculations? Observations indicate you are wrong. There has been no acceleration of warming. Sea level rise has been at a consistent rate. Where is the problem?

You have maintained that Mann was right to erase the MWP and LIA, and deny past warming and cooling.

IF Climate Science has some factual basis, and that CO2 has some limited effect, why attack Pielke? MacIntyre? Curry?

Does Center for American Progress recommend making accusations about mental health, Alzheimers etc, when there is no other science available?

Apr 10, 2018 at 12:10 PM | Phil Clarke

Astrologers claim their ramblings are based on evidence, but they don't get Taxpayer funding.

8 out of 10 owners say their cats prefer cat food.

Why do you rely on faked up public opinion surveys if the science is settled? It is hardly a recommendation for Climate Science.

Do you want to get back to ECS, or are you not able to?

WUWT report on a Climate Research project trying to produce information that will be useful, and people might want to pay for.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/private-firm-attracting-climate-research-funds/

"Where the Trump administration sees waste, the small but rapidly expanding Silicon Valley climate services firm Jupiter Intel sees opportunity. Jupiter announced Monday it is launching a community science program to invest in academic climate research, the same kind of research the president’s fiscal 2017 and 2018 budgets placed on the chopping block."

"If this climate research funding model is replicated across the world, climate science might actually advance."

The consensus is strong, because the science is strong.

Apr 10, 2018 at 12:10 PM | Phil Clarke

Only to the weak minded , gullible and desperate. You seem to be forgetting that Climate Science has proved that it is not capable of finding its own mistakes, so how can Climate Science certify the strength of its own science?

Pruitt does not need a Red Team v Blue Team debate.

Radical Rodent. Climate Science has had to deny that the climate has always changed, because Mann fabricated his Hockey Stick.

Climate Science has assumed that all feedbacks will lead to more warming.

Climate Science has had to invent an achievable target. 2°C seems to be that target. If the latest papers are correct, ECS would lead to total warming of about 2°C anyway, and Climate Science is claiming we have had about 1°C already.

No one has yet suffered or noticed the 1°C warming we have had. I have previously stated that the UK is no warmer, but if it is less cold in winter, who cares? This last winter has been the coldest in the last 5?-10? years?

In the absence of a scary figure for ECS, Climate Science has nowhere to go, without US Taxpayer funding. The EPA/Scott Pruitt does not control all US Climate Science funding, but the panic has set in, and Entropic Man and Phil Clarke do not want to have anything to do with revised estimates of ECS.

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/scott-pruitt-needs-to-go-further-demand-transparent-peer-review-temperature-reconstructions-and-adjustments/

"Scott Pruitt Needs to Go Further; Demand Transparent Peer Review, Temperature Reconstructions and “Adjustments”
The New York Times is spittin’ mad at Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt. In just the past week, the paper has attacked Pruitt four times – from the front-page to the editorial page — following his announcement that the agency would not longer be permitted to rely on so-called “secret science” as a basis for taking regulatory action. And at no point in this onslaught has the Times allowed the truth to intervene."

"Since 1994, EPA and university researchers it funds have been hiding scientific data from Congress and the public data. EPA has used the data and studies in question since 1997 as the basis for issuing unnecessary and draconian (if not outright punitive) air quality regulations. During the Obama years, EPA relied on these studies to issue regulations that wiped out 94 percent of the market value of the U.S. coal industry. The largest companies were forced into bankruptcy. Thousands of miner jobs were killed, wreaking havoc on communities that depended on the jobs."

Phil Clarke still seems to value fabricated public opinion surveys. Trump can use the list of blogs in Mann's Harvey et al 2017, to check what the opinions were of those blogs, and those that posted comments, about key Climate Science Peer Reviewed Literature.. A clear pattern might emerge, that could be plotted by a 16 year old maths student.

Apr 10, 2018 at 6:58 PM | golf charlie

It wouldn't even include any air travel, or poolside drinks at a tropical island conference.

Climate Scientists should not follow Polar Bears too closely. They bite.

Pushing back against “The stupidest scientific paper ever published”

Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago April 11, 2018

Climate mauling, polar bears, and the self-inflicted wounds of the self-righteous
By Dr. Susan Crockford

"The BioScience paper “Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy” (Harvey et al. 2018) is a smack-talk response to my pointing out that polar bear numbers did not plummet as predicted when mid-century-like sea ice conditions arrived unexpectedly in 2007 (Crockford 2017). Here is why this shoddy piece of work will go down in history as a self-inflicted wound for the polar bear community (and biologist co-authors Ian Stirling and Steven Amstrup) and an own-goal for their wanna-be climate-hero friends, Stephan Lewandowsky, Jeff Harvey, and Michael Mann."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/11/pushing-back-against-the-stupidest-scientific-paper-ever-published/

Mann's contribution to the beginning and end of 97% of Climate Science funding by Taxpayers. It really is about time that Climate Scientists learned how to Peer Review.

No warming, you say? Bullshit; that is not just a warming trend, it is an ACCELERATING warming trend.
You are just too blinded by your denialist opinions to see it.

Apr 9, 2018 at 7:40 PM | Entropic man

Cooling on the way?
http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/11/array-of-data-shows-atmospheric-temperatures-in-free-fall-ocean-surfaces-cooling-off/#sthash.brMUuLvf.dpbs

Climate Scientists could rediscover the variable heat output of the Sun, but taxing the hottest countries won't generate much revenue.

"Furthermore, the occurrence of a grand minimum now would help the climate field. We really do not know the full influence of the Sun’s solar cycles on the Earth’s climate. There is ample circumstantial evidence that it has a significant impact, such as the Little Ice Age that occurred during the last grand minimum, as well as the unusually cold climates that also matched past weak cycles, now, and also in the early 19th and 20th centuries. Studying a grand minimum with today’s sophisticated instruments could help measure precisely how much the Sun’s sunspot activity, or lack thereof, changes the climate here on Earth."

READ THE FULL STORY HERE

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/11/solar-activity-crashes-the-sun-looks-like-a-cueball/