"Not exactly, he was asked for some copy and he delivered.
Apr 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM | Phil Clarke"

Is that Mann's excuse aswell?

"The shockingly inaccurate headline 'Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past' was almost certainly tacked on by a subeditor, and a denier meme is born".

It is amazing how inventive you can be. Do you have a shred of evidence that an unnamed subeditor invented the headline? Are you not guilty of the same misdemeanour (concocting your own storyline) you accuse the Independent of?

Climate Science needs ECS to be high, to make Mann's bent Stick seem plausible, assumes it is, and keeps getting things wrong as a result.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/

"....  you have a shred of evidence that an unnamed subeditor invented the headline? "
Apr 5, 2019 at 3:19 PM | Supertroll

Lack of evidence has never been a hindrance to Real Climate Scientists. They just make stuff up, and blame everyone else for pointing out the mistakes their Peer Review experts didn't see, because they were too busy boosting their importance and earnings.

If they had evidence to back up their nonscience, they would not be facing an unprecedented climate science funding disaster.

Do you have a shred of evidence that an unnamed subeditor invented the headline? Are you not guilty of the same misdemeanour (concocting your own storyline) you accuse the Independent of?

No I don't, but no I'm not; that is just the way it almost always is, reporters deliver the text, sub eds, (sometimes aka copy editors) add the 'furniture' including the headlines, pull quotes and pictures. There is a good process reason for this; at the time the piece is delivered the author will not know what else will be on the page, how much page real estate is available etc. It's just usual practice, even more so in the online world where the headline must be optimised for search engines, a skill few journalists have. Here's an actual copy editor (albeit an American one):

Here’s the kicker: When it comes to the actual production of the newspaper, the reporter’s job is pretty much done. A copy editor may call a reporter if they have questions about a story, but for the most part, reporters are not terribly involved in pagination and copyediting. Meaning, by the time a story is ready for its headline, the reporter’s off the clock. (So to speak.) You never really know how much space you’ll have for headlines until a story is on its page. Are we talking a large-point impact headline with fewer characters? A tight three-line, single-column hed? A wordy, unrushed feature-ish headline? What use is it for a reporter to suggest a headline that may not even be feasible once the story’s on the page? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the people actually involved in putting stuff on the page (say, the copy editors) to write the headlines, since they would know what would be feasible and what wouldn’t be? Yes!

That is the process answer, the practical one. At the risk of irking some reporters, there’s another reason: Copy editors are better at words and as such have the skills necessary to be the superior headline-writers. Reporters can be great writers, yes, but their skill set is somewhat different: They excel in gathering, distilling and organizing facts. Many do so quite elegantly, with the help of editors who challenge them, fix structural issues, give advice and render other assistance.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-newspaper-headlines-written-by-copy-editors-and-not-by-reporters-and-how-did-this-practice-begin-historically

See also What do sub-editors do?

Another common complaint of subbing is that the wrong angle has been taken in the headline and standfirst. Often with a complex piece, getting across the thrust of the argument in a few words can be our most challenging task, and sometimes readers will disagree with our decision. There is an element of subjectivity here, which is one of the reasons a "revise" sub takes a look before the piece goes online.

And the fuss when the Indie did away with theirs subs about a decade after this pisspoor piece was published, passing their duties on to desk editors

Desk editors on the Independent titles will have to double-check names and dates, make copy fit house style, write picture captions, pull quotes, headlines and other furniture.

So when I wrote that the headline was almost certainly the work of a sub-ed, I was merely stating established industry fact.

I just had to smile a few years ago when the alarmists started claiming that none of them had ever talked about future 'catastrophe'. The narrative is as plastic as it wants to be. I wish someone would explain that to the frightened kids.
=========================

"So when I wrote that the headline was almost certainly the work of a sub-ed, I was merely stating established industry fact.
Apr 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM | Phil Clarke"

How does Climate Science establish its own "facts", when it has no evidence to support them?

Trump is not in a very sympathetic mood concerning liars, and dodgy dossiers that form the basis of a consensus amongst Democrats, Greens, Climate Scientists etc. The long awaited swamp draining can't happen soon enough.

Now that AO-C's New Green Deal is causing divisions amongst Democrats, why should they vote for Green Austerity when they can look this side of the Atlantic to see the harm caused?

Trump is not in a very sympathetic mood concerning liars

Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA haHa Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA haHa Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA ha Ha Ha HA ha Ha HA ha.

Dishonest Don as an arbiter of truth. Good one. This is a man (I use the word in its loosest definition) who lies about everything, from his golf scores upwards.

Keep them coming.

Heh, he tells BIG TRUTHS, instead of BIG LIES.

Yup, 'struth, there it is.
=========

What is so scary about him is that he has a narrative more aligned with reality than the narrative depended upon by the left, by climate alarmists, and by propagandists like Phil Clarke.

Read it and weep, Phil. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
=================================

Apr 5, 2019 at 9:41 PM | Phil Clarke

You still believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, lying Climate Scientists and fabricated evidence.

If Trump reduces US Taxpayer funding of Climate Science AND funding of the UN's IPCC, do you think 97% of Climate Scientists will be laughing because they did not get honest?

Will anyone mourn the demise of Climate Science as most of the world celebrates?

a narrative more aligned with reality

In other words, every national science academy and scientific association of any standing has it all wrong, and the 5-lies-a-day pussy-grabbing 'reality' TV star has it right.

Through the looking glass, people.

"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.

- Donald J Trump.

a narrative more aligned with reality

- Kim.

Yup, they are all wrong that catastrophe looms.

And there were muslims in NJ celebrating, maybe not 'thousands and thousands'.

You've swallowed the Kool-Aid.

Sorry 'bout that.
==============

So, 'thousands and thousands' was a lie, and that's Ok?

Apologist for a misogynistic, narcissistic fantasist - not a good look Kim.

Even if it had a certain inevitability.

I saw video. Granted it was not thousands and thousands, but of course, not all celebrants were captured on video.

The temperature record of the last 150 years has a gradual rise in temperature, with three episodes of greater rising at the same slope and interspersed with episodes of relatively flatness. This present pause is one of the flat regions. In other words, there is no really strong evidence of any contribution from rising CO2, or, if there is one, then it is counteracting strong natural cooling, the stronger the real sensitivity to CO2 then the stronger the natural cooling.

Personally, I believe that AnthroCO2 does and will contribute minimally to a rising temperature, which will only be net beneficial, basically slightly increased nighttime temperatures in high latitudes. And the AnthroCO2 is already feeding a vast number of empty bellies, possibly already billions of them, and certainly cumulatively many many billions.

Further, cheap energy has contributed massively to our present prosperity and any hysterical raising of energy prices by anathematizing fossil fuels will harm everyone, particularly poor people.

The catastrophe so far has been the 'madness of the crowd' which is the social mania of CAGW. It's been a tremendous waste of money, and lost opportunity costs compound. We have already damaged future generations with this hysteria.

So yes, the 'reality show host' and I are correct, and all those masses of politicized scientific organizations are wrong.

You'll see; just wait.
====================

I saw video. Granted it was not thousands and thousands, but of course, not all celebrants were captured on video.

So it is still a lie, and you're still apologising. Still not a good look.

The temperature record of the last 150 years has a gradual rise in temperature, with three episodes of greater rising at the same slope and interspersed with episodes of relatively flatness. This present pause is one of the flat regions.

What 'present pause'? Click

And the AnthroCO2 is already feeding a vast number of empty bellies, possibly already billions of them, and certainly cumulatively many many billions.

That's quite a claim, where can I read more about this miracle? You see, every study I have come across, admittedly as a lay person, seems to indicate a net cost to AGW.

The catastrophe so far has been the 'madness of the crowd' which is the social mania of CAGW. It's been a tremendous waste of money, and lost opportunity costs compound. We have already damaged future generations with this hysteria.

Search for the word 'catastrophic' in the IPCC reports or the work of the NAS (et al) and you will come up empty. Connolley perhaps said it best:

One of the more stupid debating tricks of the "skeptics" is to oscillate between Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you're very silly, and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they've invented they switch to if it isn't catastrophic we've got nothing to worry about, have we?

To which the answer is always some variant of if you can't imagine anything between "catastrophic" and "nothing to worry about" then you're not thinking. But I've got bored of saying it,

So yes, the 'reality show host' and I are correct, and all those masses of politicized scientific organizations are wrong.

I love a good old conspiracy theory, me. Good luck with that.

One of the more stupid debating tricks of the "skeptics" is to oscillate between Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you're very silly, and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they've invented they switch to if it isn't catastrophic we've got nothing to worry about, have we?

Has Connolley explained to AOC about this strawman?

Phil Clarke, can we assume from the lack of science and endless repetition of lies that Trump should declare the IPCC as the greatest threat to the world peace and tranquility?

Cutting off funding sources has proved pretty devastating for ISIS and had the support of the world.

Heh, only 12 more years, but no catastrophe.

Right, the social cost of carbon has been miscalculated. It's a benefit.

And no conspiracy is needed for social manias, the madness of crowds. This one has the urge for power and money manipulating through fear and guilt. Cannot be sustained, sorry.
=====================================

Within the margin of measurement error, no warming for a long time, so yes, the pause persists.

https://i.imgur.com/Y5LVxLK.png

H/t javier.
============

Ah, good old Javier: master of cherries.

In the same data the trend during the 'Pause' is indistinguishable from the trend before it. Not much of a pause then Click

This is a great example of Tobis's Law

If a large data set speaks convincingly against you find a smaller and noisier one that you can huffily cite.

Nonetheless, temperature now is within measurement error of 2003. By HadCrut 4.

What this pause does from now on is unknown, though no imminent warming, and probably cooling for a decade.

Besides, this is just sloshing around of the oceans, as Leif is wont to say. There's not a whole lot of evidence of much warming there either, and some of cooling.

So, we'll see, heh, if you had a little more faith in the pause you'd see it better.

The trouble for you is that AnthroCO2 is not living up to its purportedly ferocious warming potential, unless it is masking fairly dramatic natural cooling. In either case, it will be business as usual, and a gradual dimininution of guilt and fear for all of the world's CO2 producers. That's a bunch of us, too. You should be glad, really.

More likely AnthroCO2's effect is minimal, and net beneficial for several more doublings of CO2, certainly more than we're capable of unless we exhaust coal. And the greening, oh thank goodness for this serendipitic boon.
======================================

Oh, yeah, 'Only in it for the glory, the power and the money, Tobis'

Years ago, when I still commented at alarmist blogs I was holding forth on a prominent one with a swarm of fairly ignorant alarmists when suddenly Michael Tobis arrived. I celebrated his arrival, because I expected some intelligent conversation. Boy was I disappointed.

He answered none of my criticisms of alarmism, corrected my spelling to 'paean' from my 'The Precautionary Principle is a paeon to ignorance', and then commented no further.

I found I was censored and unable to comment after that. The enforcer had arrived.

That sort of crippling of discussion was typical of alarmist blogs way back then. Perhaps it's worse now.
====================================

To be more accurate, the blog upon which I was commenting was not an alarmist blog, rather a prominent leftist blog with a thread on a climate topic. I have forgotten which blog it was now, there were so many with the same behaviour.

Andy Revin's dotEarth was an exception. Dissent was tolerated there, I remember in 2008, before he required registration, a few of the bitter alarmists called it dotkim on occasion. Oh, boy, those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end.
===================================