May 1, 2018 at 1:52 PM | Phil Clarke

Mann's co-authors at Real Climate are hardly trustworthy, independent or reliable sources.

ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

May 1, 2018 at 5:27 PM | Phil Clarke

Perhaps you should stop doing it then?

GC - Good, I welcome the commitment to constructive engagement.

You quoted McIntyre writing on McIntyre's blog as saying that McIntyre's criticisms of the Mann-Bradley-Hughes hockey stick study had never been rebutted. I am sure McIntyre finds himself very convincing.

But I then quoted a piece by Distinguished Professor Mann arguing that at least one of McIntyre's claims was 'demonstrably false'. I also provided links to other rebuttals. As we have agreed, simply describing Mann as 'unreliable' is hardly a response, maybe he can be, maybe not, but you certainly have not shown that he is wrong in this case. So I invite you to engage with the argument and illustrate what is unreliable about Mann's point - to me it seems well-argued and well-supported, and McIntyre's claim more than a little economical with the truth.

Second point - so what? The MBH hockey stick studies were groundbreaking multiproxy studies, involving many methodological choices. It is of course legitimate to argue things could have been done differently (provided it is done in good faith), what Wahl and Amman showed is that 'doing things differently' has no significant impact (c0.05 degrees C from memory) on the conclusions. Which may explain why all subsequent reconstructions bear a similar hockey stick shape - it is there in the data.

Another case in point, in their 2005 paper (not actually published in any climatology journal), McIntyre and McKitrick claimed to be unable to reproduce the hockey stick, and applying what they said was the MBH method, found warmer temperatures than today in the 15th century. Now the MBH method applies a stepwise process, with one of the steps starting in 1400AD, and an important proxy series, the Gaspe cedars, starts in 1404, MBH included the proxy (by applying a default value for 1400-1404, which made no difference to the result but enabled them to retain the proxy) but, because the proxy had no data at the start of the step M&M deleted data for the whole step, losing 49 years worth of data. No wonder their curve was different! Nearly everyone now believes 15th century temperatures were actually cooler than today, to the extent that it is part of the period dubbed the Little Ice Age.

I think this was dubious 'auditing', however I look forward to you engaging with the argument.

May 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM | Phil Clarke

The IPCC did not have a problem with the Climate's History, as portrayed by Lamb. How did the IPCC then decide to prefer Mann?

If you are referring to the diagram published as Figure 7.1c in the first 1990 IPCC report, this was
based on Lamb's approximation of the Central England Temperature.  It was intended only as a schematic diagram, and known not to accurately reflect the global average temperature. Also, you note that, being a schematic, there are no numbers on the temperature scale (surely a red flag to a 'sceptic'?). We do know however that CET has risen by 1C since Lamb's last data point in 1950.

Here is Steve McIntyre's attempt to update the figure to approx 2000.

Source:https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

I note you chose not to 'engage' with my earlier questions about McIntyre's claims and Mann's rebuttal. That's fine; you don't have to if you don't want to.

Phil Clarke, is it about time for the IPCC to reconsider Mann?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/02/is-climate-alarmist-consensus-about-to-shatter/

Is climate alarmist consensus about to shatter? Anthony Watts May 2, 2018

Foreword by Paul Driessen

"A new study by climatologists Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry concludes that Earth’s “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) to more atmospheric carbon dioxide is as much as 50% lower than climate alarmists have been claiming. That their paper was published in theJournal of Climate  suggests that the asserted “97% consensus” of climate experts may be eroding."

"Indeed, say other noted climatologists, there are good reasons to think ECS and alarmist errors are even greater than 50 percent. For one thing, there is no persuasive reason to assume our planet’s climate system and deep ocean temperatures were ever in “energy balance” back in the late 1800s – so we can’t know whether or how much they might be “out of balance” today. Moreover, solar, volcanic and ocean current variations could be sufficient to explain all the global warming over the period of allegedly anthropogenic warming – which means there is no global warming left to blame on carbon dioxide."

●"If this is indeed the case, there is no justification for the punitive, job-killing, poverty-prolonging energy policies that “climate consensus” and “renewable energy” proponents have been demanding."●

Radical Rodent, in line with Green Blob methodology, the issue of ECS values raises a simple question.

When did Climate Scientists first know they got ECS wrong? They were warned about it but decided they knew best.

Lewis & Curry: ECS (5-95% range) : 1.15−2.7 K.

IPCC:  the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.

Not quite earthshattering, even less so when you consider the issues with N&C identified by Andrew Dessler.

Also, the author of the WUWT article is a spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a Christian evangelical association, and yet he boldly asserts that climate models predicted 'on average, four times as much warming as actually occurred from 1979 to the present.' which is a clear breach of the commandment not to bear false witness.

By the way, the Cornwall Alliance believe that Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

So, 5 minutes of my life I won't get back spent reading balony from an evolution denier.

But I forgive you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance

seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

Well, Cal Beisner claims the ECS estimates are based on models that predicted, on average, four times as much warming as actually occurred from 1979 to the present.

That was written 2014, so we are talking about a rise of about 0.16C/decade. So a factor of 4 would be 0.64C / decade or a total of over 2.2C for the period. The predictions from IPCC AR3 are archived here, baselined in 1990, the fastest-warming scenario takes 70 years to reach +2C. (Note that the emissions scenario that most closely matched what happened, A1F1, had a temperature trend of +0.16C/decade for 1990-2010, not too shabby).

Utter BS, in other words. But accurate enough for WUWT, apparently.

Utter BS, in other words. But accurate enough for WUWT, apparently.

May 2, 2018 at 9:47 PM | Phil Clarke

Which bits of Real Climate and the Hockey Team are not BS/Baloney, or don't you understand irony and hypocrisy?

I am certainly not aware of anyone at RealClimate telling an out-and-out porkie like Beisner just did.

Are you?

May 2, 2018 at 10:13 PM | Phil Clarke

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia

Anthony Watts / October 14, 2010

Bishop Hill had the news first, which is fitting since Mr. Connolley is based in Britain.

In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.

Phil Clarke, Climate Science has a credibility issue, and remains in institutionalised Denial.

https://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

What is Climate Science doing to convince Trump and Ebell that it is worth the money?

Ha. McIntyre is simply indulging in his usual highlyselective reading.

https://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/#comment-479402

And while Connolley had some privileges temporarily revoked at wiki, there was no suggestion of any dishonesty.

That's a 'no', then.

”All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.” This is either technically true, or wrong, depending on how you interpret “re-wrote”. If you use an edit counter you can discover that I have, to date, edited 5,474 unique articles, so it has gone up by a few since LS wrote (actually I wouldn’t swear that total didn’t include talk space, but never mind). But that raw number is nearly meaningless, because it includes articles such as Aesop, where I reverted vandalism, Berkhamstead Castle, where I added a picture, I removed the S word from the CRA , and… I’m sure you get the picture. I can’t quite make it up to Z, but I did remember the XAP2. If you want to know how many articles where I’ve valiantly kept at bay the forces of wacko-dom, you need something more intelligent than an edit counter or a Delingpole.

https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM | Phil Clarke

Will Connolley be called as an expert witness in Mann v Stein?

https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM | Phil Clarke

MRDA?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang)

Hah, Phil; see German auditors about the Energiewende.
=====================

kim, Energiwende is now frakking up the EU.

Hark hark har, gc. I want 'HARK CAR', as a vanity tag for an Audi, AKA, a Horch.
=============