So in hundreds of pages of legal submissions Mann wrote 'I shared a Nobel Prize with other IPCC contributors', when the correct form of words is 'I contributed to the IPCC, which shared the prize', and he amended 'their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” to 'the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt'

Yeah, case closed. The man's a monstrous fraud.

Nothing on the science, as I predicted. Really, this is all you have?

Clipe - Nick Stokes deconstructs McIntyre's dissembling better than I in the comments

click

"Nothing on the science, as I predicted. "
Mar 9, 2019 at 10:07 AM | Phil Clarke
Mar 9, 2019 at 10:11 AM | Phil Clarke

Can you or Nick Stokes explain why all the predictions in Mann's Hockey Stick, and those predictions based on the corrupted science that went into it have failed?

US Democrats are going to need someone to defend Mann's Hockey Stick fairly soon.....

Mar 9, 2019 at 11:58 AM Radical Rodent

As nothing happens as predicted by Mann, the scale of adjustments and back dated adjustments has risen to unprecedented levels.

As Climate Science can't get honest, US Democrats are going to be polarised by Mann's Hockey Stick. Those that find themselves nearer the North Pole can check claims for vanishing Polar Bears, and the accuracy of Climate Science blogs as scheduled in Mann's epic work of fiction smearing known as Harvey et al.

From the authors of Harvey et al, US Democrats will be amazed at the number of dishonest blogs they have been referred to by Hockey Teamsters.

But Phil Clarke insists that Mann is a reliable and honest "Primary" source.

The analysis includes results for a global temperature index as described by Hansen et al. (1996). The temperature index is formed by combining the meteorological station measurements over land with sea surface temperatures obtained from in situ data before 1982 (Rayner et al. 2003) and from satellite measurements thereafter (Reynolds and Smith, 1994; Smith et al. 1996). Any users of the temperature index data, i.e., the results including sea surface temperatures, should credit Reynolds and Smith (1994) and Smithet al. (1996). (See references.)

NASA GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) Analysis

Mar 9, 2019 at 1:03 PM | Phil Clarke
Unreliable source. Only ever audited internally.

This is an accurate presentation, plus some nice cartoons for US Democrats to discuss,

https://polarbearscience.com/2018/04/10/climate-mauling-polar-bears-and-the-self-inflicted-wounds-of-the-self-righteous/

It won't be long before US Democrats are wishing they had shot Climate Scientists in the arse with tranquilisers. To win support from the US Gun Lobby, this could be one of their noble peace prizes on offer.

Mar 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM | Radical Rodent
Phil Clarke only considers one source to be "Primary", once he has been told what it is.

Nic Lewis demonstrates continued problems with NASA GISS, and Hockey Teamster Schmidt. Someone must have Peer Reviewed it for them.

https://climateaudit.org/2018/02/05/marvel-et-al-s-new-paper-on-estimating-climate-sensitivity-from-observations/

Marvel et al.’s new paper on estimating climate sensitivity from observations
A guest post by Nic Lewis. Introduction and summary

"Recently a new model-based paper on climate sensitivity was published by Kate Marvel, Gavin Schmidt (the head of NASA GISS) and others, titled ‘Internal variability and disequilibrium confound estimates of climate sensitivity from observations’.[1] It appears to me that the ★novel part of its analysis is faulty, and that the part which isn’t faulty isn’t novel.★"

"★As some readers may recall, I found six serious errors in a well-publicised 2016 paper by Kate Marvel and other GISS climate scientists on the topic of climate sensitivity★.[2] Two of the six errors were subsequently corrected.The median ECS that Marvel et al. infer from1979-2005 historical simulation data is 2.3°C, significantly lower than the median long-term ECS estimate of 3.1°C.[12] However, there is an obvious possible explanation for these low ECS estimates from historical simulation data."

"The 1979-2005 period is particularly unsuitable for ECS estimation since strong negative volcanic forcing arose during its first half, but not thereafter. There is evidence (including from Marvel et al.’s 2016 paper) that volcanic forcing has a low efficacy – it has much less effect on global temperature than the same CO2 forcing.2 [13] Accordingly, over the 1979-2005 period one would expect volcanism to increase the trend in F by a greater percentage than the trend in T, hence increasing the estimate of λ and depressing that of ECS."

What was ECS guessed at originally?

"What is keeping you? Perhaps some sort of disorder?
Mar 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM | Radical Rodent"

The Green Blob are causing Energy Poverty in the UK, EU, Australia and Canada, whilst ensuring underdeveloped countries remain underdeveloped.

Only China and Russia have benefitted, but US Democrats still haven't figured it out. Trump has, and with AO-C's assistance, he is looking forward to the next elections.

Phil Jones relied on Chinese data for his UHI busting paper, that got eaten by the black dog now haunting CRU at UEA.

All of Climate Sciences predictions, based on factors of fudge fed into Computer Models, would be celebrated,, but unfortunately, they were all wrong, and are still all wrong.

Once US Democrats realise that ditching Climate Science is the first stage in beating Trump, things will get interesting for:
BBC
Guardian
EU
Royal Society
Hollywood
etc

Most of them will benefit from the vacancies that follow.

WUWT reports on Climate Science pets at Greenpeace, pushing propaganda that is killing innocent people.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/09/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to-poor-farmers-despite-environmentalist-opposition/
"A study by German researchers in 2014 estimated that activist opposition to the deployment of Golden Rice has resulted in the loss of 1.4 million life-years in just India alone."

"In 2016, an open letter signed by 100 Nobel Laureates directly called on “Greenpeace to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general.” The laureates pointed out that “scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production."

Sure Phil, AGW is real. It is also probably trivial and surely net beneficial to the whole biome and to humanity. The purported impending climate catastrophe, driven by a narrative of fear and guilt, is already the 'cure worse than the disease'.

We need to fear cooling, not anthropogenic warming.

H/t Judy Curry for 'cure is worse than the disease'.
========================

Heh gc, I fear you credit US Democrats with more sense than they have. They are desperately committed to the hoax narrative of climate doom, and will probably march right over the cliff with it.

I'm reminded of what someone once said of Rupert Murdoch, that he found a niche market for Fox, 'half of America'. There are a lot of doubters of climate doom in these here United States.

I much believe and even more surely hope, that the prominence given climate and energy in the next year and a half will create even more doubt.

Climate doom is simply not in our future. False narrative doom may be, if not already here.
==================

I was recently amused by an author who called Philip II the 'King of Spain and Gloom'. Phil is a Prince of Gloom, rubbing himself in ecstasy in his Estoril of Story.
============================

Mar 10, 2019 at 8:02 PM | kim

Nancy Pelosi has already cooled over AO-C and her plan to destroy the US Economy. Pelosi is the leading US Democrat, but AO-C leads in public interest. Neither of them is running for President, so they will take their supporters to opposing candidates.

If Democrats want to have a public debate/fight about the failures of Climate Science driven politics, why should anyone else interfere? Team Pelosi will have more knowledge of the fraud and corruption that AO-C despises, but has not realised is the foundation of Climate Science based within Democrat ranks.

AO-C could ask any member of the Hockey Teamsters to support her in tag team TV debates. TV could advertise them as Beauty and the Beast vs ............ Popcorn sales would rise

The comments at WUWT and elsewhere are lighting up with OCD syndrome.

Ocasio-Cortez Derangement.

Heh.

Mar 11, 2019 at 10:27 AM | Phil Clarke

Are you offering to be part of AO-C's Tag Team in debate with opposing Democrats?

Bernie Sanders has been lapping up Climate Science propaganda, all rival Democrats have to do, is go to:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/11/washington-times-tornado-drought-impacting-democrat-climate-change-narrative/

Alright, alright, alright. 'Escurial of Scary'. I dunno, I still like 'Estoril of Story' better but it just won't go. Art has led me astray.

Re: Alexa O-C, the 'Boss'. She doesn't know where she is before she's somewhere else.

H/t Hector Munro.
=============

Kim, US Trade Unions understand redundancies caused by Climate Scientists.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/12/unions-split-with-democrats-over-green-new-deal/
Unions split with Democrats over ‘Green New Deal’ March 12, 2019
From The Washington Examiner

by John Siciliano | March 12, 2019 03:45 PM

"Trade unions are firing back against the progressive “Green New Deal” agenda and, in doing so, are revealing a split between left-leaning labor and climate advocates in the House and Senate.

The “Green New Deal” is “not achievable or realistic,” read a letter from AFL-CIO energy committee heads Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, and Lonnie Stephenson, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

“We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families,” the union bosses wrote.

That's good to see, gc. We go mad as a herd and recover our senses one by one. Though in this case it may be millions of union members by millions of union members.

The debate is coming alive, and coming out of the tiny niches of skeptics.

I'm optimistic. Phil shouldn't be. Well, he should be optimistic for the future of society in this slowly evolving climate; he should be pessimistic for the future of his reputation as a propagandist of a false narrative of fear, guilt and doom, in the pursuit of money and power. If he hasn't made any money by his role, it's a total loss.
=======================

Mar 13, 2019 at 9:05 PM | kim

I celebrate AO-C's spectacular arrival into the forefront of US Politics, and the fact that she will get publicity over here.

Let US Democrats engage with each other's throats over the merits of compulsory austerity to line Green Blob pockets with other people's money, before they take on Republicans.

I have never understood how traditional Labour constituencies allowed their MPs to support Miliband's disastrous Climate Change Act, and close down UK manufacturing. US Trade Unions have obviously spoken to their UK and EU counterparts.

There is huge scope for optimism. Demographically, in a generation, most of the US will look like California does now. Trump will be a faded bad dream, Fox will have no friends.

Paid for posting? Really? I have more money than I could ever need and genuinely do not give a fig about any reputation.

And no, we are not cooling, not for half a century.

Methinks you protesteth overly much.

Why do you think it will cool in half a century?
================================