On a thread about Aussie bushfires, up pops Kim with an ad-hom against professional statistician Tamino. Other than rude remarks, the greatest hit is a reference to an occasion when Ian Jolliffe, an authority on statistics, disagreed with Tamino's interpretation of a line in a Powerpoint presentation that he, Tamino, said supported his position on a relatively arcane statistical procedure in Mann et al 1998/9 (centred vs non-centred PCA).

Without getting into the weeds, the impact of the type of PCA (or indeed any PCA) used on the shape of the reconstruction is insignificant (see Wahl and Amman), but naturally this disagreement was trumpeted as the death of the Hockey Stick, when equally naturally, it was nothing of the sort.

Thin tea and so last decade

I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive(sic) is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick.

-Ian Jolliffe.

Jan 24, 2020 at 10:20 AM Phil Clarke

And so your lies and steady stream of misinformation continues.

Back in the real world, Australia should be cutting funds to the BOM, and JCU. Taxpayers are not being served well by their steady stream of misinformation polluting the country.

against professional statistician Tamino
Jan 24, 2020 at 10:20 AM Phil Clarke

Why does he keep approving Hockey Teamster statistical con tricks?

Logically, the coral reefs cannot bleach indefinitely as before long there'll be no more reefs.

Similarly the Arctic Ice cannot decline forever as once it is all gone, there's no more ice to melt.

By the same logic, Australian bush fires have an end point when the trees are all burned.

….predictions that fires will get worse apparently without limit are absurd. Not only would these predicted superfires fairly rapidly run out of trees to burn ….

Don't Worral, Be happy

Welcome to New New South Wales - Twinned with Death Valley.

Logically, the coral reefs cannot bleach indefinitely as before long there'll be no more reefs.

Jan 24, 2020 at 6:18 PM Phil Clarke

As a failed liar, you believe your fellow liars at JCU?

Presumably a failed liar is in fact tuthfull?

Jan 25, 2020 at 12:14 AM | Phil Clarke

You are a liar, and your lies keep failing.

If you are tuthfull, how many tuths have you got?

Well, I split one before Christmas, it got infected and had to be extracted, leaving me with a total of 29.

Heh, Jollife temporized about 'global warming', not, sadly, knowing enough about it, but he was highly critical of the Piltdown Mann's use of PCA. It is hardly an ad hom to call Tamino a biased alarmist, and a crude censor of informed skeptical criticism.

Tamino will not do well in the history of Science.
============================

Heh, you should be careful of your use of 'Cooling Kim', Phil. You might make me famous. I've proudly assumed your attempted smear of 'billion bellies kim'. It's apt.

And what about the Anthropogenic greening caused by our artificial raising of the CO2? Billions of bellies each day, many more cumulatively and forever, or until our anthropogenic aliquot is resequestered, whichever comes first.

I'm strongly of the belief that we will eventually have to support the CO2 level with artifices other than fossil fuel. It is too valuable, not for its warming alone, but for its greening. As a warming agent, it is too weak to help against the eventual cooling, but the greening, oh the greening; 'twould be miraculous were it not so easily understood.

Man's contribution through his serendipitic use of fossil fuels, is cornucopic.

Sorry, Phil, if that is news. It shouldn't be; I've told you many times.
======================================

Tamino will not do well in the history of Science.
============================

Jan 26, 2020 at 7:55 PM kim

He has approved some of the Hockey Teams greatest mistakes.

gc, Tamino's a sad and bitter case. I once said he looks at science as through a glass darkly. That was when I first learned his real name.
============================================

Fake news.

No Phil, all true. You'll learn.

The fact that anthropogenic warming will be net beneficial, and that anthropogenic greening will be(is) cornucopiously beneficial will relieve much of the world's people of unnecessary fear and inappropriate guilt. It is big, way big, but I hardly expect you to appreciate it.

You belong to a cult, a massive and historically doomed one.
==================================

You belong to a campaign predicated on guilt and fear, and it is all wrong. I hesitate to proclaim this social mania in its last stages, but the desperation apparent in your movement is a hallmark. I certainly don't expect it to end with a bang; it will end ridiculed and whimpering. I'm sorry for you and yours, for you have been fooled more than you are fooling any of us.
=================================

That
Despairing
Movement.

Heh.

Yep, massive. A maddened crowd, and possibly angry once no longer popularly deluded.
==========

Nobody endorses 'net beneficial', Kim, and you've ducked every challenge for evidence. Every professional body of standing has said the opposite.

You're ploughing a lonely furrow, well, just you, Trump and a handful of plutocrats.

Oh sure, net beneficial; warming is always good for the biome, and cooling hard on it. A lesson from paleontology. You could look it up.

Warming will mostly be manifest as higher winter nighttime temperatures in the northern latitudes, extending the growing period and feeding the masses(many billions?) This was known to one of the early researchers into warming by CO2, a point sadly neglected by the social mania of alarmism.

But, I'm glad to see that you have admitted that the experts decry the Piltdown Mann's use of principal components in his iconic Crook't Stick. The lie is really in the straight shaft, neglecting the effect of natural temperature change, a neglect which will haunt Mann's name into eternity, as nature goes about its periodic warming and cooling. Neither he nor his Stick have covered themselves with honor, and his gloria is temporary, his Stick a fraud.
==========================================

Ah, classic Kim.

You could look it up.

Well, I could if you were to provide some sort of reference or link, but that's not really your style is it? Who cares what happened on paleo- timescales? Our industry, infrastructure and agriculture developed over the last 12,000 years or so. In an unusually stable climate. To quote a paper published by the Royal Society

Earth’s climate is remarkably sensitive to forcings, i.e. imposed changes of the
planet’s energy balance. Both fast and slow feedbacks turn out to be
predominately positive. As a result, our climate has the potential for large
rapid fluctuations. Indeed, the Earth, and the creatures struggling to exist on the
planet, have been repeatedly whipsawed between climate states. No doubt this
rough ride has driven progression of life via changing stresses, extinctions and
species evolution. But civilization developed, and constructed extensive
infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now
almost 12 000 years in duration. That period is about to end.

Source

This was known to one of the early researchers into warming by CO2,

An un-named researcher, naturally. Wouldn't do to enable checking up would it?

The MBH/PCA point whooshes over Kim's head once again. It's a non-issue. It makes no difference. A classic McIntyre Mountain/Molehill scenario. You can use any PCA rules you like, you can do away with PCA altogether, as some researchers did, nothing significant changes

Meanwhile, back at reality, I would advise against trying to pursuade Australian farmers that climate change is 'net beneficial',

Climate change has reduced Australian farms’ average annual profitability by 22%, or around $18,600 per farm, in the past two decades, according to the agriculture department.

In a report released on Wednesday, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences has found that since 2000 changes in climate have reduced the revenue of Australian cropping farms by a total of $1.1bn a year.

The report notes that average temperatures increased by about 1C since 1950 and compares Australia’s climate over the period 2000 to 2019 with the period from 1950 to 1999 by holding other variables, including farm output and commodity prices, constant.

Climate change is not some abstract notion about a possible future. It is happening now, and no, it is not beneficial.

As I've mentioned before, Phil, you have the catechism of alarmism down pat. The problem is that much of the exaggeration is plain false. And the panic from exaggeration is causing us to make very poor energy decisions today which will impact future generations for a long while. Lost opportunity costs compound and we are losing much opportunity with our unhealthy focus on CO2. Never mind the unfortunate political decisions which are not inconsiderable. Nevermind either the dread of the future, which is unnecessary, and not inconsiderable. Campaigns based on fear and guilt instead of on good science will inevitably fail, and then where will you and yours be?

CO2 is not the climate control knob. It has small effect and we cannot burn enough fossil fuels to get two doublings of its atmospheric concentration. At one to one and a half degrees C per doubling, we cannot raise temperature even to the Mid Holocene temperatures. And since clouds and water vapor feedback are so poorly misunderstood that much warming per doubling may not even be true.

Natural warming, poorly understood, is not reckoned in the climate models, and has accounted for most of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The addition of AnthroCO2 has not changed the slope of that warming over the last 70 years, which would imply that CO2 has a negligible effect, or is opposing natural cooling. Take your pick; neither is cause for alarm, except that we haven't enough fossil fuel to oppose ultimate natural cooling and that is alarming. And eventual cooling is inevitable; a little warming may ameliorate our descent into glaciation.

Of course, increased CO2 concentration greens the whole biome, and that effect has been sadly neglected by the alarmists. We may already be filling an extra billion bellies, cumulatively many more.

Besides, if anthropogenic warming turns out to be heading higher than I think, we can turn to nuclear energy. Unreprocessable wastes can be subducted into the earth's crust, where they cannot surface before the radiation has dissipated

So-called renewables have two presently insoluble problems, low power density, and intermittency. They are a horrifying waste of money, which raises the price of energy, and adversely impacts all the people, particularly poor ones. You might be interested in Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans', which exposes the plutocratic scam that renewables are.

Australia? Hopelessly corrupted climate science and news there, as most everywhere.
================================================

"Climate change is not some abstract notion about a possible future. It is happening now, and no, it is not beneficial.

Feb 4, 2020 at 12:20 AM Phil Clarke"

All your other links are to professional liars, benefitting themselves.

Usual evidence-free and almost totally wrong stuff. Waste of time to fisk that lot but to take just one assertion …. The addition of AnthroCO2 has not changed the slope of that warming over the last 70 years, which would imply that CO2 has a negligible effect

Er, no

Heh, Phil, one of the worst of all hockeysticks. And from Tamino, no less.

I'm not sure I'm right on all of my predictions, but I am sure that catastrophe does not loom, unless it's cooling.

We shall see.
============

Tamino did not construct this latest stick, he merely plotted the data from PAGES 2K; as these data reproduce the Mann et al curve without PCA in any shape or form, logically that would mean the PCA thing raised above is an irrelevance (hint:always was, always will be).

I bet it will come up again though, 20+ years after the event. Zombie argument, like the others.