.....

Hilarious. I invent facts that are listed on NOOA/NASA, IPCC etc websites.

lee wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:
No, you take your arguments distorting the science and the facts from denialist sites and then with your riding instructions come here and regurgitate the BS as if you came up with "problems" you found in the NOOA/NASA and IPCC claims and materials. Admit it, you get this sh!t from denialist sites. But that's OK, just be ready to say whose sites you get it from and what research you have done to ensure that your not getting distortions of the science from compromised sites.  For a non scientist its easy to get misled by all the complexities involved and i would have thought any rational HONEST person interested in ascertaining the truth of the matter would have made sure to make those enquires without any hesitation. So answer the question!!!!!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:


1) we quote from multiple sources, many the actual warmist sites you love to quote
2) you need to prove that funding sources affect outcomes. What about government funding which very obviously comes with a pro-AGW bias?

mariacostel wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

“Claims based on the ‘Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited.”

PROFESSOR PETER STILBS, PHD Professor of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, member of the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society, and Docent of Physical Chemistry at Uppsala University and Åbo University. Member of the International Advisory Board for the RSC journal Chemistry World.

In September 2006 Professor Stilbs and the Royal Institute of Technology hosted 120 participants from 11 countries representing a wide spectrum of views at a conference on “Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability”. At the conclusion of the meeting, he wrote342: By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement that: 1) It is likely that there has been a climate trend towards global warming underway since 1850… 2) There are many uncertainties in climate modeling… 3) Natural variations in climate are considerable and well-documented… 4) There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last thousand years. Previous claims based on the “Mann hockey-stick curve” are by now totally discredited.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3929-3943). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

“The work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies.”

DR DAVID DEMING, PHD Geologist, geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma. Associate Editor of Petroleum Geoscience and Ground Water. Author of peer-reviewed papers published by Science and other journals, and of “Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear”, published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration.

The Medieval Warm Period - when Greenland got its name and was extensively farmed, and vineyards flourished in much of England - was a matter of uncontroversial historical record. But, once you’ve decided to “repeal” it, it’s amazing how easy it is. On December 6th 2006 Dr Deming testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works52: I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. 53” The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the Little Ice Age took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages. The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.” In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “hockey stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph.

Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 746-768). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

“Very few paleoclimatologists agreed to the shape of the (hockey stick) curve.”

PROFESSOR PER HOLMLUND, PHD Professor of Glaciology at Stockholm University. Member of the national committee of geophysics at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and if the International Meteorological Institute. Former Director of Tarfala Research Station, and member of many expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic. Swedish member of the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the International Arctic Science Committee, the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, etc.

Eventually, Mann was forced to issue corrections to the two MBH papers in successive months in June 2004 (in Geophysical Research Letters) and in July 2004 (in Nature). If the correction does “not contradict the original publication”, Nature’s policy is to publish it as an “addendum”. But, “if the scientific accuracy or reproducibility of the original paper is compromised”, only a “corrigendum” can be published. Both of the above were “corrigenda” - yet Mann refused to accept the plain meaning of that word. In 2005 Professor Marcel Leroux wrote319: After describing their errors, they still considered (2004) that “none of these errors affect our previously published results”! …The corrigenda issued by Mann et al are “a clear admission that the disclosure of data and methods… was materially inaccurate.” At the IPCC there would not be even a corrigendum. Many serious paleoclimatologists were astonished by Mann’s hockey stick, and then appalled at its adoption by the IPCC for the Third Assessment Report. For the Fourth Assessment Report, they attempted to restore some sanity. Reviewing the Second Order Draft, Professor Holmlund wrote320: This remark concerns the handling of the Mann “hockey stick”… When Mann et al presented their hockey stick six-to-seven years ago they formatted paleodata in such a way that climate modellers could use it. But very few paleo climatologists agreed to the shape of the curve and nowadays we have much better data to use. It is therefore natural to describe the Mann curve in a history of science perspective, but not as a valid data set. A good example of a good modern curve is the one presented by Moberg et al… It has at least the variation seen in almost all paleo climate records for the past millennia. In the present IPCC text the view described is that we have the hockey stick and then later some scientists have raised critical voices. The basic meaning is that the hockey stick is still the number one description of the past millenia. This is not flattering and it certainly mis-credit [sic] the report. I believe that it is rather easy to go through the five pages and update the spirit of the text and perhaps make some adjustments in the figure captions. But Mann’s Hockey Team were still running the show and any suggestion that the IPCC acknowledge valid criticisms of the stick met with rejection. Professor Holmlund received the following response: Rejected – the Mann et al curve is included for consistency and to maintain a historical context for the current state of the art.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3647-3648). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.