When we get to four Phils a climate prophecy will be four Philled.

Mar 8, 2020 at 8:38 AM AK

The consensusophiles will claim another victory. All people called Phil believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, and a faked up consensus, no matter how overphilled with errors.

Interesting list. Of the names I recognise, these seem to be qualified scientists (or qualified in their field), however few were ever selected to work for the IPCC, and many of the quotes are selective, very old or never actually said or written by the supposed author.

I guess the hyperlinks are supposed to take you to the source document where the quote was made, but half the time I tried this it just took me to, um another copy or version of the list.

Take entry number 2, Dr Lucka Bogataj who is quoted as saying “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…"

But the source for the quote is just a page at the 'Climate Realists' website, written by John O'Sullivan, (better known perhaps for writing erotic semi-autobiographical fiction, Google 'Vanilla Girl' - or rather don't) where neither these words or anything like them are sourced to Dr Bogataj, a mainstream climate scientist who does outreach for the IPCC and has been grossly misrepresented here.

Or click on Fred Singer, who is quoted as saying '“Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models

The link goes to a PBS interview from 2000, which is around the last time that particular claim was true, two decades later we have 41 years of satellite data and it unequivocally shows heating. Again the exact quote is not there, but to be fair Singer does say something similar.

Mike Hulme has written about this misrepresentation of his views before.

Similarly, Andrew Lacis, who was quoted thus:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.

Lacis was commenting on an early draft of the report, which he argued was too equivocal. He later said the final version was 'much improved'

The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.

My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as “very likely” at the 90 percent probability level.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/lacis-at-nasa-on-role-of-co2-in-warming/

So as the handful of quotes I checked had no actual merit, I have no reason to believe most of the rest do either. Fewer than 50 misrepresented sceptical statements over 20 years versus the output of thousands of scientists. Tough one.

Mar 8, 2020 at 7:41 PM Phil Stoat

Has the IPCC ditched all references to Mann's crocked Stick?

Well, in a way. The hockey stick studies date from 1998/99, in 2008 Mann and his team published an updated study with new methods and a greatly increased selection of proxies. The abstract reads

Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats.

The most recent IPCC report no longer cites Mann et al 1998/9 but it does mention the newer study and several others than confirm the earlier findings.

Mar 8, 2020 at 8:30 PM Phil Stoat

Does the IPCC stand by the original Hockey Stick?

How dare you, Michael Mann? Polite question 5 minutes +script. Response awaited.

https://youtu.be/trywf_p-lgs

Mar 8, 2020 at 10:29 PM Radical Rodent

Censorship came before the Holocaust.

Trump can ask Bernie Sanders to explain it to his supporters.

"Cue the denier… 😁

Mar 9, 2020 at 1:46 PM Radical Rodent"

Would that be Phil de Nile?

In case you missed this story in other news, this is Al Gore’s new $8.85 m beachfront mansion in Montecito, California right on the same beach that he predicted would be under water—a decade ago

That's odd, the image looks identical to this one, of a property for sale in Palm Beach. But Palm Beach is in Florida, on the opposite coast and 2,761 miles from Montecito.

I am sure there's an innocent explanation. LOL.

How true is this?

Well up to your usual standard.

It showed the largest temperature drop between 2016 and 2018, of any two years in a century. Global temperatures are now at pre-1980s levels.

Of course they are not, 2018 was warmer than every year in the 1980s by a good margin. It is just a cherry pick, take the warmest year on record - 2016 - compare with a more recent year, then further cherry pick the month (February) that shows the greatest drop.

Graph

Temperatures did indeed fall 0.43C from February 2016, the peak of an El Nino, to Feb 2018 (1.27 to 0.84C) but that was after they rose 0.6C in the previous 2 years. (0.67 to 1.27C). Neither trend is remotely significant for the long term.

Average anomaly for 1980-1989 : 0.26C, anomaly for 2018: 0.85C.

So the usual balony, ah, but all I really had to do was read on…

Donald Trump has Injected Truth into this Debate

Somebody needs to Inject some Truth into Mr Woltz.

(Data from NASA)

Of course they are not, 2018 was warmer than every year in the 1980s by a good margin. It is just a cherry pick, take the warmest year on record - 2016 - compare with a more recent year, then further cherry pick the month (February) that shows the greatest drop.
Mar 11, 2020 at 3:30 PM Phil Stoat

Why not pick a year from the Medieval Warm Period? Plenty of cherries to choose from

A -1-2C shift over 8,000 years hardly equates to a +2-3C increase in 2 centuries.

Then there's this.

A 1-2C shift over 8,000 years hardly equates to a 2-3C increase in 2 centuries.

Then there is this.

Mr Clarke, aside from the location of the property in the photograph, do you not find it a little odd that so many of these (very wealthy) persons predicting “catastrophic” sea level rises should decide to buy beach-front property? Perhaps you think that they are actually making a noble sacrifice of their fortune to rescue the finances of the poor souls selling these doomed lands?

Mr Clarke, aside from the location of the property in the photograph

It was not even a competent fabrication, RR. Your source grabbed an image of a beachfront property and lied about it being Al Gore's California residence, which is nowhere near the seafront. Once again, do you even read this stuff before linking?

do you not find it a little odd that so many of these (very wealthy) persons predicting “catastrophic” sea level rises should decide to buy beach-front property?

Names?

Not sure where you managed to find that 2-3°C claim.

It is mainstream, uncontroversial science.

The Obamas' house is actually set back from the coast at an elevation of more than 3m (10ft). Even if the rate of sea level rise doubled, it would take 500 years to reach the property.

Another deeply flawed list 'proving' the greenhouse effect and AGW is false (including plenty of your hated ad-hominem arguments, ironically). Too many errors to list them all, but the basic thesis is that the sun is driving global warming, not CO2. In support acclaimed solar scientist Mike Lockwood is cited

Vocal climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research wrongly said in 2008: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of 1940-2005 warming, as] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase”. Yet in 1999, physicist Dr Michael Lockwood FRS (Wiki) wrote in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !

16) Lockwood showed that averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value !

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

The paper was covered in the press, eg by the BBC

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

In a followup paper Lockwood noted that

By the end of solar cycle 23, the annual mean of the open solar magnetic flux (deduced from geomagnetic activity) had fallen to a value last seen in 1924, 

In summary a geologist claims the sun is responsible for global warming and cites a solar astronomer in evidence, while failing to mention that the exact same specialist has published results showing the precise opposite.

Keep 'em coming.....