Also remember, this is using the ludicrously pessimistic assessment of climate change that the IPCC was founded on. This is already redundant. All the climate models over-estimate the actual warming. HadCRUT4 has recorded about a third of a degree of warming since 1990 in thirty years. Getting to 1.5° by 2100 will require that fabulous acceleration of which the faithful yearn for each Earth Day Pentecost. To get to dangerous climate change we need that and a half. 

- M Courtney.

Fact Check. The OLS trend in in HADCRUT4 since 1990 is 0.017 degrees/year. Multiplied by 28 years gives 0.475 degrees. A linear extrapolation ( no acceleration) to 2100 yields 1.87C.

Source: http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/trend

Just by the way, but are you related to Richard Courtney, that coal industry guy who used to falsely award himself a Ph.D?

https://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-astounding-diplphil-courtney.html

Up your game, Phil Clarke.
I can easily find sources on the internet saying nasty things about someone with the same name as you.

michael hart, the problem for "Phil Clarke" is that more than one person uses the name, so the Phil Clarke collective accounts for many different lies deceits and confidence tricks without necessarily knowing how contradictory some of them are. But that is what Climate Science is all about as Real Climate keep proving.

Phil Clarke nailed Climate Science with this piece of propaganda:

"Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke"

We still don't know which "list". Liars? Fraudsters? Failed propaganda artists that Climate Science kept supporting with more misappropriated taxpayer funding? Watts Up With That revealed the truth .......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/08/zombie-science-the-worst-example-of-climate-data-torturing-ever-withdrawn-gergis-2012-becomes-gergis-2016/

Michael H, Indeed claiming a degree you have not earned is pretty nasty to those who actually did the work to gain theirs, and would count as dismissable misconduct in most academic posts. But I withdraw the question, and curse my fading memory, it seems already to have been answered...

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-ar5-hearings-live-stream/#comment-1552834
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/climategate-20.html?currentPage=2

michael hart, the problem for "Phil Clarke" is that more than one person uses the name

Delusional. I've never seen a post here under my name that I didn't write.

Add it to the list.

We still don't know which "list"

Yeah you do, later in the same thread I linked to this:

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

A list of hockey stick-shaped reconstructions.

The birds had simply high tailed it somewhere where there were fewer windfarms.
Evidence? 

The paper says so, as confirmed by the Lead Author, Maria Thacker.

"They (wind farms) trigger changes to the balance of animals in an ecosystem as if they were top predators," she said.

"They are the 'predators' of raptors—not in the sense of killing them, but by reducing the presence of raptors in those areas."

From https://phys.org/news/2018-11-farm-predator-effect-ecosystems.html

Not that those who get their 'science' from WUWT will discover this simple fact.

"A list of hockey stick-shaped reconstructions.
Dec 21, 2018 at 1:50 PM | Phil Clarke"

All as honest as Gergis, just like Mann's original? Why has so much money been wasted by Climate Scientists on Hockey Sticks?

Has Mann apologised for his libellous slurs yet? Or does he just like to accuse and run away?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-request-for-harvey-et-al-attack-paper-on-dr-susan-crockford/

If only Climate Science could admit its mistakes, and publish Science not lies and propaganda.

A big difference between the BBC site and WUWT is that you can address the author of the article; 

If you're not banned, like expert on climate data homogenisation and the surface record, Victor Venema or Columbia University and GISS climate scientist Jan Perlwitz.

And who knows how many more?

Of course, it's his blog and he can run it any way he wants, but his claims to welcome informed, open and honest debate don't sit well alongside his regular banning of those who might actually provide some.

M Courtney: If that is the case then of course I sincerely apologise. Out of interest do you know the subject of his Doctoral thesis, and which institute awarded the Ph.D and when?

Assuming it is the same guy, online he made no mention of a Doctorate, (e.g. see 'About Richard ….' here

Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath)

(Oddly, Cambridge claim not to have a record of Dr Courtney, nor to offer a DipPhil, doubtless some administrative snafu).

A little odd, but irrelevant to this thread so I won't mention it again, and I am happy to stand corrected.

Dec 21, 2018 at 4:15 PM | Phil Clarke

Do you have a record of Mann's claims to have a Nobel Prize?

MC: The section you're quoting is entitled 'Gaps in knowledge and data' and is about the questions still to be addressed:it is prudent to end our assessment with our findings on where research might be directed over the coming decade so that the AR6 (should there be one) may be able to say more about the ethics and economics of climate change

 Despite the importance of the cost of mitigation, the aggregate cost of mitigating x tonnes of carbon globally is poorly understood. To put it differently, a global carbon tax of x dollars per tonne 259 Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods 3 Chapter 3 would yield y(t) tonnes of carbon abatement at time, t. We do not understand the relationship between x and y(t). 

This is just saying the precise economic efficiency of mitigation is 'poorly understood', which is a given in the literature, it is not stating that mitigation is useless.

The choice of the rate at which future uncertain climate damages are discounted depends on their risk profile in relation to other risks in the economy. By how much does mitigating climate change reduce the aggregate uncertainty faced by future generations?

Notice the question mark? This is just saying the question is one worthy of future research, it is not saying mitigation will have no effect.

Even the IPCC acknowledges that mitigation has no evidence to support it doing anything.

And yet they wrote a 1454 page report on how mitigation could be done? In fact the case for reducing emissions is more fully explored in WG2, in this report (WG3), the case for mitigation is a given, from the executive summary:

Mitigation is a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Mitigation, together with adaptation to climate change, contributes to the objective expressed in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufcient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner

See Table SPM2 for a tabulation of the various cost effective mitigation scenarios and the costs of delaying mitigation.

Tell me, how can the same document list cost-effective mitigation scenarios and conclude that 'mitigation has no evidence to support it doing anything'? Black=White again.

Dec 21, 2018 at 5:24 PM | Phil Clarke

If it has Climate Science and IPCC involved, and it is quoted by Phil Clarke, it is propaganda.

Do you have a record of Mann's claims to have a Nobel Prize?

Not personally, but it is in the public domain: it occurred in court documents for the Steyn libel trial.

This originally read

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

This was indeed technically incorrect and the Nobel Committee issued guidance on the correct form of words:-

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.” The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007

And so Dr Mann amended his deposition which now reads

The work of Dr. Mann and the IPCC has received considerable accolades within the scientific community. In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in climate change. The IPCC, in turn, has recognized Dr. Mann for his contribution to that award.

So from 'I shared the award' to 'I contributed to work that received an award'. 1 sentence in a 32 page document.

And he acknowledged the mistake:

There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.
After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award.
To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter [..] Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work

Can you say 'mountain','molehill'? None of this has the slightest bearing on the science, of course. Interestingly when the IPCC was awarded the Nobel, the then chairman said

All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee

I don’t recall any great eruption of indignation at that claim.

PS We did this one already. In tedious detail.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2585775?currentPage=5

So, Mr Clarke (Dec 21, 2018 at 2:06 PM), you are quite happy with negligible habitat loss for the sake of “renewables”. Interesting.

FTFY.

Heh, I remember explaining to Richard Tol that the science wasn't settled, on Tom Fuller's early blog, many long times ago.

Well, I've now settled it well enough and it is clear that anthropogenic global warming will be mild and net beneficial to
the climate, the biome and human society. Our injected aliquot of CO2 verges on the miraculous in its vernalling of the Earth and all the billions of bellies that bounty feeds.

Cornucopia, not catastrophe,

Alarm is absurd;
Chlorophyll and CO2:
Cornucopia.
===========================

Note to Neuranthill Phil: 'Energiewiende' now to be pronounced 'Energy Unwind'.
=====================

Dec 21, 2018 at 6:10 PM | Phil Clarke

That is not an accurate record. Climate Science remains full of lies, and can't correct them. So Trump is right to withdraw funding.

Well golly , by gosh a bent renewable energy academic? tsk... who'd have guessed?

Dec 21, 2018 at 10:14 PM | tomo

97% of Climate Scientists are not reliable with other peoples money.

Well golly , by gosh a bent renewable energy academic? tsk... who'd have guessed?

Enron? Well golly, by gosh a bent conventional energy company? Who'd have guessed?

$64 billion. Get a sense of perspective, my dishonest friend.