"An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that"

So it means what you want it to mean.

And I thought academic writing should be straight forward and clear .... oh well.

Well, he was spot on about CO2 Science

But rather than its promise of “separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change”, on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.

The annals of misinformation.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

https://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

Not a site a reputable journalist should use as a source.

Apr 22, 2018 at 3:00 PM | Steve Richards

That is how the Consensus Empire of Settled Science was forged. Now it is simply melting down, under its own manufactured heat.

We still don't know which are the bits worth saving, as between Hockey Teamsters such as Mann Schmidt and William M Connolley, the lies and deceits have caused systemic and toxic contamination of Climate Science, from its roots to its slightest twiglets, as Phil Clarke demonstrates with all his vitriol for Climate Audit.

Phil:
"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

Gosh that's all of $100,000/20 = average of 5,000 per year. Whoowe, such corruption! And this is a reason for a reputable journalist not to trust the site? Based on this strict application of your high moral status regarding fossil fuel funding what do you think of those from your side of the fence who have sought and accepted dirty oil money?

When it comes to entertainment, Phil, you are certainly tops for comedy value. Your furrow is so deep you've vanished from sight.

Phil Clarke makes claims about honesty in Climate Science, but ignores what Climate Scientists say to each other.

From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca> To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500

Dear Phil, Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy.

I would also appreciate a copy of the Lenca series used in this study.

Regards, Steve McIntyreAt 02:46 PM 2/9/2004

Phil Jones wrote: Mike, FYI. Sent him the two series - the as received versions. Wonder what he's up to? Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn't want the Alerce series. Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work. Cheers Phil

Mann responds, explaining how Climate Science "works":
HI Phil, Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be sure it falls into the "no good" category. ●There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component●.
● I would not give them *anything*.
● I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails.
● There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril! talk to you later, mike

Your furrow is so deep you've vanished from sight.

Apr 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM | DaveS

Climate Science started in the gutter. Since then, furious digging has not benefitted the Earth at all, but the holes in the Climate Science keep getting deeper.

Supertroll - read the link, your arithmetic is based on a false premise.

GC - What are the chances McIntyre already had the data he was asking for? There is precedent, after all ;-)

Writing for The Guardian in July 2010, Fred Pearce wrote about the 5 EMails that troubled him most, from the release known as ClimateGate.

He was (still is?) assuming the EMails were hacked. Was he provided with evidence that CRU withheld from the Police investigation?

Hacked climate science emails. Climate wars: the story of the hacked emails
The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit
The five most controversial emails leaked from UEA's Climatic Research Unit with expert commentary from Fred Pearce on what they do – and don't – reveal
Fred Pearce. Wed 7 Jul 2010 08.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis

He starts badly, with misinformation about "Hide the Decline", presumably supplied to him by a Climate Science Spin Doctor. Thereafter, the remaining 4 are very significant.

Why was he wrong about "Hide the Decline"? Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
"Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction. ......... "

Briffa's honesty led to a decline in CRU, Climate Science, the Hockey Teamsters and the IPCC.

But there was more:
https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/20/hide-the-decline-ii/

Then Mann got very silly:
https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/21/hide-the-decline-the-other-deletion/

But dirty trickery had never declined
https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
"A few days ago, we discussed the unresponsive answers provided to climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus in February 2003 when he inquired about the validity of tree ring widths as proxies due to the inconsistency (divergence) between temperature and ring widths, answers characterized by Severinghaus here as not being a “straight answer”.

In first quarter 2003 (almost exactly the same time as Severinghaus’ inquiry), Soon et al raised almost precisely the same question in Soon et al (EE 2003). The answer of Mann and a long list of coauthors (Ammann, Bradley, Hughes, Rutherford, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Trenberth and Wigley), which is the topic of today’s post, took hide the decline to new levels.

As noted above, Soon et al (EE2003) clearly articulated the impact of the divergence problem on the validity of temperature reconstructions: ...... "

I wonder why Phil Clarke never reads Climate Audit, and never learns?

GC - What are the chances McIntyre already had the data he was asking for? There is precedent, after all ;-)

Apr 22, 2018 at 9:16 PM | Phil Clarke

Are your sources reliable? There are too many precedents, after all, ;-)

Another McIntyre Nothingburger

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/unforced-variations-dec-2011/#comment-221072

No sense of proportion, some people.

Apr 22, 2018 at 9:58 PM | Phil Clarke

"gavin" at Real Climate is not a reliable source.

Why was he wrong about "Hide the Decline"? Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

That CA post is dissected here

even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation.

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Nice example.

True: Schmidt initially failed to credit McI with finding an issue with data held by the BAS, but subsequently contacted BAS to ensure the correct attribution was given. Not sure Schmidt has too much to worry about, reputation wise.

Apr 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM | Phil Clarke

So did he lie because
a) he always does?
b) he does not understand honesty?
c) he had something else to hide?
d) he likes making himself look stupid?
e) he couldn't face being proved wrong, yet again, by Steve McIntyre?

I have no idea, but even with an explanation from International Mystery Man Gavin, about why he lied, why should anyone trust his explanation, given points a), b), c), d), and e) above?

I don't expect Schmidt is very keen to be called as a Witness by Mann's Lawyers.

●●●●●●

Meanwhile, back at the thread and noting Phil Clarke's belief in gavin's honesty ......

One of the significant topics not previously discussed on this thread, is UHI Urban Heat Island effect. This has been used to prove Global Warming Theory with corrupted data.

https://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/
●In a recent CNN interview discussed at RC here, Joe D’Aleo said:

"Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe’s stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it’s a lot colder in rural areas than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting — that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set."

Gavin Schmidt excoriated this claim as follows:

"D’Aleo is misdirecting through his teeth here. … he also knows that urban heat island effects are corrected for in the surface records, and he also knows that this doesn’t effect ocean temperatures, and that the station dropping out doesn’t affect the trends at all (you can do the same analysis with only stations that remained and it makes no difference). Pure disinformation."

If Gavin Schmidt is relying on Jones 1990 (yes, Phil Jones of CRU at UEA) then he has a problem:

Real Climate or SurReal Climate Science has quite a few problems with Jones 1990
https://climateaudit.org/category/surface-record/jones-et-al-1990/

As Climate Scientists keep trusting each other whilst knowing that Peer Review in Climate Science is not intended to find anything wrong with the work of consenting Hockey Teamsters, Jones 1990 should be one of the first to be called in for a Competent Review (ie a Review without 97% of Climate Scientists)

Nice example.

Apr 23, 2018 at 1:27 AM | Phil Clarke

Deep Climate lists the following as his information sources. Are they "nice" examples, because:
a) they agree with, and are Hockey Teamsters?
b) "DC" is no more a Climate Scientist than I am?
c) "DC" has the same surname as Phil Clarke?

Surface temperature data and references
Berkeley Earth. Data: Berkeley Earth data overview page.

Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000103 [link (“Methods paper”)] and [appendix]

Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:1.. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000101 [link (“Results paper”)]

● Muller? BEST?

Cowtan, K. and R.G. Way, 2013: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Volume 140, Issue 683, pages 1935–1944, July 2014 Part B Cowtan and Way overview page

● Cowtan AND Way?

HadCRUT4 (HadSST3). Data and overview: HadCRUT4 — HadSST3.

Morice, C. P., J. J. Kennedy, N. A. Rayner, and P. D. Jones, 2012: Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D08101, doi:10.1029/2011JD017187.

●What does PD Jones understand about uncertainty?
● Is Had and CRUT reliable? https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/

Kennedy J.J., Rayner, N.A., Smith, R.O., Saunby, M. and Parker, D.E. (2011b). Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea-surface temperature observations since 1850 part 1: measurement and sampling errors. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14103, doi:10.1029/2010JD015218 [link]

Kennedy J.J., Rayner, N.A., Smith, R.O., Saunby, M. and Parker, D.E. (2011c). Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea-surface temperature observations since 1850 part 2: biases and homogenisation. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14104, doi:10.1029/2010JD015220 [link]

● Kennedy again with more pause busting busted https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/27/on-the-monumental-differences-in-warming-rates-between-global-sea-surface-temperature-datasets-during-the-noaa-picked-global-warming-hiatus-period-of-2000-to-2014/

NASA GISTEMP. GISTEMP Team, 2017: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.

● NASA GISS? Who runs that?

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345. [link]

NOAA GlobalTemp and ERSSTv4/v5. Data: at NOAA GlobalTemp page; ERSSTv3b/v4/v5 gridded data at NOAA ESRL gridded data page

Smith et al., (2008): Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), J. Climate., 21, 2283-2293. [link]

Vose, R.S.et al. (2012): NOAA’s merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 1677–1685 [link]

● Is NOAA more reliable than NASA GISS?

★Huang, B., V.F. Banzon, E. Freeman, J. Lawrimore, W. Liu, T.C. Peterson, T.M. Smith, P.W. Thorne, S.D. Woodruff, and H.-M. Zhang, 2014: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4): Part I. Upgrades and intercomparisons. Journal of Climate, 28, 911–930, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1.

★Liu, W., B. Huang, P.W. Thorne, V.F. Banzon, H.-M. Zhang, E. Freeman, J. Lawrimore, T.C. Peterson, T.M. Smith, and S.D. Woodruff, 2014: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4): Part II. Parametric and structural uncertainty estimations. Journal of Climate, 28, 931–951, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1

★Huang, B., Peter W. Thorne, et. al, 2017: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 (ERSSTv5), Upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1

★ There is a strong correlation with Pause Busting here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/5/supplemental/page-1/
"Q. In general, why do datasets transition?

A. The curation and stewardship of historical weather and climate data, like any vital records, must account for changes over time. These may include: the introduction or discovery of new source data (such as the digitizing of records previously held on paper), changes in the situation or usage policies of data providers, progress in the scientific understanding of data and related analysis (such as the relationship between buoy and ship-borne data), improved quality control techniques, and evolving computational and storage technologies.

Q. How is this new dataset related to the Karl et al. (2015) paper published in Science

A. The SST dataset used in the new NOAAGlobalTemp is the same as that used in Karl et al. (2015). The Karl et al. (2015) article used a different dataset for its land-based data. This dataset, with additional updates, is expected to be transitioned into NOAAGlobalTemp operations by early 2016, subject to any revisions arising from internal or external review."

The References?

Gleason, B., C. Williams, M. Menne, J. Lawrimore, 2015: Modifications to GHCN-Monthly (version 3.3.0) and USHCN (version 2.2.5) processing systems. GHCN-M Technical Report No. GHCNM-15-01. National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, NC. 20 pp. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20GHCNM%20No15-01.pdf

Huang, B., V.F. Banzon, E. Freeman, J. Lawrimore, W. Liu, T.C. Peterson, T.M. Smith, P.W. Thorne, S.D. Woodruff, and H-M Zhang, 2015: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4). Part I: Upgrades and Intercomparisons. J. Climate, 28, 911-930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1

Karl, T.R., A. Arguez, B. Huang, J.H. Lawrimore, J.R. McMahon, M.J. Menne, T.C. Peterson, R.S. Vose, and H-M Zhang, 2015: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.Science aaa5632. Published online 4 June 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5632.

Liu, W., B. Huang, P.W. Thorne, V.F. Banzon, H-M Zhang, E. Freeman, J. Lawrimore, T.C. Peterson, T.M. Smith, and S.D. Woodruff, 2015: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4): Part II. Parametric and Structural Uncertainty Estimations. J. Climate, 28, 931-951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1

The case for independent review of Climate Science, that Taxpayers have to keep paying for, is that Climate Science has proved incapable

Buoy SST series (Hausfather et al 2017). Data: Hausfather et al (2017) temperature series page.

Hausfather, Z. et al., (2017): Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances, 04 Jan 2017,
Vol. 3, no. 1, e1601207, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1601207 [ link] [Hausfather et al overview]

Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher were given a post to justify BEST. It was not universally appreciated
https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/

At least none of them co-authored with Mann on the Worlds worst scientific paper:
https://cliscep.com/2017/12/06/who-wrote-the-worlds-worst-scientific-paper/
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/18/two-technical-critiques-of-the-harvey-et-al-polar-bear-bioscience-attack-paper/

Phil Clarke where is the reliable evidence to support the Hockey Teamsters Theory of Global Warming?

Do you support D'Aleo's conclusions GC? Schmidt was precisely correct, and D'Aleo wrong. The station dropout issue has been shown many times over to have zero effect on the trend.

Going back to the McIntyre post - the one with the misleading selective quotation. It was about the 'decline', that is the fact that some tree ring proxies diverge from temperatures in the late 20th century, the so-called 'Divergence Problem'. This has been widely discussed in the literature, and was mentioned in the IPCC report where the graph under discussion was presented. But this does not fit in with McIntyre's climate science conspiracy narrative, and he writes

Yes, there had been previous discussion of the problem in the peer-reviewed literature (Briffa et al 1998) – a point made over and over by Gavin Schmidt and others. But not in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

But section 2.3.2.1 of the report mentions the issue explicitly, with references:

There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible nonclimatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999).

So McIntyre gets a fundamental point wrong. Either he hadn't read the report and is incompetent, or he has and is dishonest. Either way I am inclined to take everything he writes as false until proven wrong. Why bother with a site where everything must be fact-checked?

What was the relevance of that Gish Gallop GC? Could you not just answer Deep Climate's point about dishonest and selective quotation? I guess not. As DC and I demonstrated, McIntyre is simply unreliable.

But please do carry on putting your faith in NoTricksZone, Watts and the auditor. I'll stick with the academic literature and practicising and published scientists.

1.What was the relevance of that Gish Gallop GC?
2.Could you not just answer Deep Climate's point about dishonest and selective quotation? I guess not. As DC and I demonstrated, McIntyre is simply unreliable.

3.But please do carry on putting your faith in NoTricksZone, Watts and the auditor. I'll stick with the academic literature and practicising and published scientists.

Apr 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM | Phil Clarke

1. You mount your strawmen and send them gish galloping in all directons to avoid any requirement to prove Global Warming Theory. Same MO as Entropic Man. Same playbook?

2. Deep Climate relies on dishonest and unreliable sources, so discredits himself, as you should know yourself. DC is welcome to believe what he likes about Climate Science. I have no idea whether he is simply gullible.

3. Please carry on believing and relying on unreliable sources. But what are you going to do when the money runs out? Climate Science has survived having cut off funding for others. How long can Climate Science survive without funding?

Wouldn't it be better if Climate Science developed some honesty before it goes bust?

My argument is not that CO2 Science is unreliable because they took money from Exxon, my argument is that CO2 Science is unreliable - as amply demonstrated by the blog post from Nature - and they took money from Exxon, which may or may not explain their mendacity.

Tom Curtis writes about that headache-inducing animated gif

1)  Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), producer of the www.realclimatescience.com website is not a climate scientist, former or otherwise.  His qualifications are a Bachelors degree in Geology, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering.  So far as I can determine, he has never published a peer reviewed paper of any description.  He is well known as a serial misreprenter of data, a prime example of which is the gif which he produced, and you show.

2) Heller's gif does not demonstrate any significant change in values.  Rather, it exhibits a change in the range of the y-axis from -0.6 to 0.8 for "NASA 2001" to approximately -0.85 to 1 for "NASA 2015".  That represents a 32% increase and accounts for nearly all of the apparent change in trend - particlularly post 1980.  An honest presentation of the data would have plotted both on the same axis, and ideally on one graph to allow direct comparison, like this:

As can easily be seen, the temperature trend between 1980 and 2000 is nearly the same in all versions, and has certainly not doubled.  In fact, the GIFF is doubling misleading.  The 1998, 2000, 2012 and 2016 versions of the NASA GISS Meteorological Stations only temperature index are  downloadable here (as also for the Land Ocean Temperature Index).  the 1979-1998 trends are, respectively 0.184, 0.134, 0.169 and 0.177 oC/decade.  You will notice that largest change is the 27.2% reduction in the trend from the 1998 to the 2000 version, followed by the 26.1% increase from 2000 to 2012.
Clearly the history of changes is not one sided, indicating the scientists concerned are following the data.  Equally obvious is that Tony Heller has cherry picked an interval to show a rise in trend, even though the available history of adjustments results in a net reduction in the trend of the last two decades of the 20th century, not an increase.

Apr 23, 2018 at 11:24 AM | Phil Clarke

My argument is that Climate Science is unreliable because it fails to self correct, and has to rely on outside support.

My argument is also that Climate Science is untrustworthy, ungrateful and unworthy of Taxpayer Funding. I wonder if Steve McIntyre (and others) has ever received a polite acknowledgement, a thank you, or even a payment for all the help provided to Climate Scientists by doing what they claim to have done already, calling it Peer Review. The Peer Reviewers should refund any payments received.

How much of Climate Science is Coprology, preserved unchanged since Mann fabricated his Hockey Stick? Discard the toxic Green waste, and there may be something in the remnants worth saving. Those Climate Scientists who do know, won't admit to any faults, and outsiders who point out faults are attacked by Climate Scientists.

I think Trump and Pruitt have worked out that for all the billion$, Climate Science has never produced any justification for receiving any more money. If Obama and Holdren had convincing evidence, what was it? As a disciple of Paul Ehrlich, surely Holdren would do something to save his reputation?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
"Holdren was involved in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager in 1980. He, along with two other scientists helped Paul R. Ehrlich establish the bet with Julian Simon, in which they bet that the price of five key metals would be higher in 1990. The bet was centered around a disagreement concerning the future scarcity of resources in an increasingly polluted and heavily populated world. Ehrlich and Holdren lost the bet, when the price of metals had decreased by 1990."

Tom Curtis writes about  headache-inducing animated gif

Apr 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM | Phil Clarke

Is that the same Tom Curtis that expressed doubts about John Cook's 97% Consensus to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit?
https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/03/tom-curtis-writes/

Tom Curtis Writes

"While CA readers may disagree with Tom Curtis, we’ve also noticed that he is straightforward. Recently, in comments responding to my recent post on misrepresentations by Lewandowsky and Cook, Curtis agreed that “Lewandowsky’s new addition to his paper is silly beyond belief”, but argued that “the FOI data does not show Cook to have lied about what he found. He was incorrect in his claims about where the survey was posted; but that is likely to be the result of faulty memory.”

Showing both integrity and personal courage, Curtis has sent me the email published below (also giving me permission to publish the excerpt shown.) While Curtis agreed that Cook’s statement to Chambers could not possibly be true, Curtis re-iterates his belief that Cook is honest, though he is obviously troubled by the incident. Curtis also reports that, as early as last September, he emailed both Lewandowsky (cc Oberauer) and Cook informing them that no link to the Lewandowsky survey had been posted at the SKS blog, only a tweet – a warning inexplicably ignored by Lewandowsky and Oberauer in their revisions to Lewandowsky et al (Psych Science).

Tom Curtis writes ...... "

The rest of the thread, plus the comments make interesting reading, that may be unknown territory for Phil Clarke. Tom Curtis is treated with respect, but contempt for Lewandowsky and Cook grows, as it should.

Phil Clarke, is this the sort of evidence you don't want people to know about?

http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/23/12-new-papers-affirm-a-21st-century-cessation-of-arctic-warming-and-a-rapid-cooling-across-antarctica/#sthash.KCoETOdZ.dpbs

Could it be why Polar Bears are thriving despite the terrible statistics of Harvey et al?