Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

Surface Detail said:

Oh dear. You don't know what surface mass balance means, do you? :lamo

Click to expand...

He does you seem not to.

Jack Hays said:

It is self-explanatory, and is the best brief takedown of IPCC BS I have seen.

Click to expand...

If that's the best " takedown of IPCC" reports that you've "seen," you don't read much. There are, to be sure, better albeit failed, attempts to discredit the findings of climate change researchers like the IPCC.

You do not, apparently realize that the debate to which Nir refers:

1. Was conducted among non-natural scientists,
2. Was political, not scientific in nature, and thus never aimed to be a presentation of the scientific case for or against existential AGW. In contrast, the IPCC's report is a scientific presentation of the case for existential AGW and for the likelihood of the risks attendant to AGW coming to fruition and in roughly what timeframe one might might expect them to do so.
3. Had "This house would rather cool down the planet than warm up the economy" as its rubric, and primary debaters at the Cambridge Union tend to direct their remarks to the debate topic and theme rather than toward whatever tangential topic they may abduct to deflect away from the actual topic/theme.
   
   

Nirpresents the following objections:

• "To begin with, any one who appeals to authority or to a majority to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing."
  • The report I referenced was composed by the authorities; they aren't appealing to other authorities. The Cambridge debaters aren't climate change experts, thus they must rely on the authoritative content they read and of which they've analyzed the methods, findings and discussions published by climate change researchers.
  • See the exception to the appeal to authority fallacy. Nir apparently is not aware of it.
• "Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans."
  • That is so; however the report to which I referred provides evidence, data, analysis of the verity of both the warming and its anthropogenic etiology.
  • 
    
  
  
• "there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature."
  • There is no need for a "smoking gun." Scientific conclusions result from myriad bits of evidence that amassed lead to a sound/cogent conclusion.
• "CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years."
  • That remark and its connection to Al Gore refers to a statement by Congressman Joe Barton of TX. I bid you read some analysis that Nir apparently has not:
    • The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
    • Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
• Mann's "hockey stick got it wrong re: 15th century temperatures. (I've summarized him because he doesn't succinctly state this objection.)
  • This objection derives from McIntyre et al's 2004 shoddy analysis of Mann's "hockey stick" paper. You can read a layman's exposition of the argy-bargy among McIntyre et al, Mann et al, Wahl et al and Rutherford at the two linked pages below. One can find the original paper titles there. The short of it: Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be legit, and McIntyre has been shown to full of ****.
    • False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
    • Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
    • Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

Reading on in Nir's essay, I had enough when I got to the sentence where he wrote, "The body of evidence however clearly shows..." and then proceeded to neither cite nor link-to so much as one literature review -- his own or someone else's -- that corroborates his claim about what "the body of evidence" shows. Contrast Nir's approach to making his case to mine. I wrote that Mann's "hockey stick" has been tested and confirmed and that that the refutations of it have been invalidated, and then I provided links that allow anyone who wants to to obtain the documents that present the arguments of both sides. I'm not asking anyone to believe what I wrote is so merely because I'm the author of the remarks.

Surface Detail said:

OK, perhaps not voices in his head. More likely anti-science propaganda put about by spoof websites like WUWT.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem = signal of lost debate.

Xelor said:

If that's the best " takedown of IPCC" reports that you've "seen," you don't read much. There are, to be sure, better albeit failed, attempts to discredit the findings of climate change researchers like the IPCC.

You do not, apparently realize that the debate to which Nir refers:

1. Was conducted among non-natural scientists,
2. Was political, not scientific in nature, and thus never aimed to be a presentation of the scientific case for or against existential AGW. In contrast, the IPCC's report is a scientific presentation of the case for existential AGW and for the likelihood of the risks attendant to AGW coming to fruition and in roughly what timeframe one might might expect them to do so.
3. Had "This house would rather cool down the planet than warm up the economy" as its rubric, and primary debaters at the Cambridge Union tend to direct their remarks to the debate topic and theme rather than toward whatever tangential topic they may abduct to deflect away from the actual topic/theme.
   
   

Nirpresents the following objections:

• "To begin with, any one who appeals to authority or to a majority to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing."
  • The report I referenced was composed by the authorities; they aren't appealing to other authorities. The Cambridge debaters aren't climate change experts, thus they must rely on the authoritative content they read and of which they've analyzed the methods, findings and discussions published by climate change researchers.
  • See the exception to the appeal to authority fallacy. Nir apparently is not aware of it.
• "Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans."
  • That is so; however the report to which I referred provides evidence, data, analysis of the verity of both the warming and its anthropogenic etiology.
  • 
    
  
  
• "there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature."
  • There is no need for a "smoking gun." Scientific conclusions result from myriad bits of evidence that amassed lead to a sound/cogent conclusion.
• "CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years."
  • That remark and its connection to Al Gore refers to a statement by Congressman Joe Barton of TX. I bid you read some analysis that Nir apparently has not:
    • The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
    • Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
• Mann's "hockey stick got it wrong re: 15th century temperatures. (I've summarized him because he doesn't succinctly state this objection.)
  • This objection derives from McIntyre et al's 2004 shoddy analysis of Mann's "hockey stick" paper. You can read a layman's exposition of the argy-bargy among McIntyre et al, Mann et al, Wahl et al and Rutherford at the two linked pages below. One can find the original paper titles there. The short of it: Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be legit, and McIntyre has been shown to full of ****.
    • False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
    • Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
    • Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

Reading on in Nir's essay, I had enough when I got to the sentence where he wrote, "The body of evidence however clearly shows..." and then proceeded to neither cite nor link-to so much as one literature review -- his own or someone else's -- that corroborates his claim about what "the body of evidence" shows. Contrast Nir's approach to making his case to mine. I wrote that Mann's "hockey stick" has been tested and confirmed and that that the refutations of it have been invalidated, and then I provided links that allow anyone who wants to to obtain the documents that present the arguments of both sides. I'm not asking anyone to believe what I wrote is so merely because I'm the author of the remarks.

Click to expand...

The Hockey Stick has only been replicated by those who replicate its errors.

Xelor said:

Perhaps you should read more than one chapter or a handful of sentences from

Click to expand...

<snip>

I hope the AR6 addresses the little understood variables even deeper. Without a complete understanding, their work is useless. That graphic the depicts the added discussions from the FAR to the AR5, is a joke. Those few items are so lacking in detailed understanding. If the wish to improve there credibility, then they need to become credible.

Jack Hays said:

It is self-explanatory, and is the best brief takedown of IPCC BS I have seen.

Click to expand...

This forum has so many comedians.

"Shaviv's arguments and research conclusions have been undermined by subsequent research[3] and his analyses critiqued as "based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and [drawing] untenable conclusions.."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nir_Shaviv

He also gets Koch money.

The only time I am surprised is when you use a hack that isn't getting Koch money...

late said:

He also gets Koch money.

Click to expand...

I find that most people who tie two variables together without question, do so because they are that way themselves. They think everyone else does the same thing. Does this mean that as a progressive, you vote for democrats because you rely on their promise of tax payer money being funneled to you?

Lord of Planar said:

I find that most people who tie two variables together without question, do so because they are that way themselves. They think everyone else does the same thing. Does this mean that as a progressive, you vote for democrats because you rely on their promise of tax payer money being funneled to you?

Click to expand...

Excuse Junkies are addicted to excuses.

So how corrupt their source is doesn't matter, as long as they get to inject that excuse.

Surface Detail said:

Oh dear. You don't know what surface mass balance means, do you? :lamo

Click to expand...

Your point is that the IPCC has defined Surface Mass Balance to exclude calving
and ice flow. Here are the operative statements.

....Antarctica’s mass budget is dominated by accumulation and outflow in the
form of calving and ice flow

Because the ice loss from Antarctica due to surface melt and runoff is about 1%
of the total mass gain from snowfall, most ice loss occurs through solid ice
discharge into the ocean.

Click to expand...

So the IPCC wants us to believe that ice bergs and ice flows are more than snow fall.
What they don't talk about is the fact that the relationship between snow fall and
discharge of solid ice into the ocean is separated by decades or maybe centuries,
which would mean that temperature and "Climate Change" has nothing to do with it.

But of course they imply that it is relevant to climate change. They have a whole
section on the "History of the Marine Ice-Sheet Instability Hypothesis" starting on
page 1175 in chapter 13 or their AR5 report. You know, the hypothesis that says
warm water sinks, travels for miles under sea ice and the ice shelves to eat away
at the grounding line of the ice cap. Bear in mind that the sea ice forms several
degrees below the freezing point of the fresh water ice cap that this tongue of
"warm" water is supposed to melt. Oh! Do they mention sea ice in their discussion?
No they don't.

I am reminded of a saying that I recently ran across.

"Never Underestimate the Power of Carefully Worded Nonsense."
​

Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true.
-- Tooby & Cosmides

Jack Hays said:

The Hockey Stick has only been replicated by those who replicate its errors.

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

Roughly 40% of the world's population live in coastal areas. It's not just the rich who are affected.



So on that basis, we should continue polluting? That doesn't add up.

Click to expand...

Who’s polluting? And what are you going to do about it?

Eventually enough melt, desalinization and rising temperatures will disrupt ocean currents, which will affect prevailing winds, and we will sink into another prolonged ice age.

Even if we're significantly causing it, there's really not much we can do about it. Most of the motivation from the left wing is with the desire to convince people to vote Democrat.

It would be like if we are aboard the sinking Titanic and liberals are saying "everyone do your part, grab your dixie cups and start bailing!"

late said:

This forum has so many comedians.

"Shaviv's arguments and research conclusions have been undermined by subsequent research[3] and his analyses critiqued as "based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and [drawing] untenable conclusions.."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nir_Shaviv

He also gets Koch money.

The only time I am surprised is when you use a hack that isn't getting Koch money...

Click to expand...

Seriously out of date and an uninformed hit piece. Shaviv is not an Associate Professor. He is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Koch money?

Xelor said:

Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true.
-- Tooby & Cosmides

Click to expand...

Just two of many. You may want to keep your head under the covers until the monsters go away.

M&M at the NAS Panel

Mar 13, 2006 – 5:01 PM
Back to reporting on our presentation to the NAS panel, after which I’ll report on Mann. We presented last in the day, immediately following von Storch. Hughes and Mann presented on Friday morning. We gave them a long written presentation, and touched the high points in our PPT, also providing them with a CD of […]

By Climate Audit

[h=3]Wahl and Ammann Again #1[/h]Aug 30, 2006 – 11:09 AM
I asked KNMI what were the studies that had "refuted" our work. It seems to be Wahl and Ammann. I’ve never understood the traction of Wahl and Ammann with climate scientists. I doubt that any of them have worked through the details, but Wahl and Ammann issued a press release that all our claims were […]

Neomalthusian said:

Eventually enough melt, desalinization and rising temperatures will disrupt ocean currents, which will affect prevailing winds, and we will sink into another prolonged ice age.

Click to expand...

Uh... Yeah, no, that's not how it works.

Even if we're significantly causing it, there's really not much we can do about it. Most of the motivation from the left wing is with the desire to convince people to vote Democrat.

Click to expand...

Environmentalism doesn't have to be partisan; in fact, when the ball first got rolling in the early 70s, it was bipartisan. It was quite successful as well, especially with reining in some of the more obvious and egregious forms of pollution, especially air pollution.

There's a lot we can do, mostly focusing on curtailing emissions of greenhouse gases. There are plenty of ways that's compatible with conservatism, ranging from carbon trading plans, to encouraging energy independence, to the increasing monetization of renewable power. We've already taken some small steps that have not destroyed the entire nation, such as popularizing LED bulbs, adopting hybrid vehicles, raising gas mileage standards, and increasing the use of lower-emission fuels (notably natural gas).

Texas -- hardly a bleeding-heart-liberal state -- produces more power from wind than any other state, and some believe that the reduced regulation on the grid facilitated that growth. That's straight-up capitalism.

longview said:

That the sea level is raising is not a effect of CO2 based climate change.
The Sea level has been increasing at the same rate for many decades before the CO2 levels started increasing.

Click to expand...

LOL, no.

Jack Hays said:

Seriously out of date and an uninformed hit piece. Shaviv is not an Associate Professor. He is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Koch money?

Click to expand...

"The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks...

noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Koch funds a wide array of organisations that oppose climate change. The place than brainwashed Mike Pence, propaganda machines, K Street lobbyists, ALEC, about a hundred to the tune of 100 million bucks that we know of. If you spend some time looking into their activities, you will realise there is more, a lot more, dark money.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/


I didn't pay attention to them until they spent a freaking million bucks here in Maine to kill gay marriage. We are a poor state that only has a little more than a million people.

Btw, the Kochs won. But we came right back the next election and did it again. I started digging and found their corrupt fingers in thousands of pies across the planet.

Republicans slapped a lawsuit against them over ownership of the voting rolls. They had promised to turn them into a modern database, and then welched on the deal. Voter rolls are only second to money as the lifeblood of politics. The stink went national, and they backed down when what they were doing was about to get national attention. They tried to take over the Republican party.

So yes, Koch money


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

When it comes to climate change, Shariv is either a kook, or looking to make a fast buck. Take your pick:

Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked

But that's true for all of them.

Visbek said:

Uh... Yeah, no, that's not how it works.

Click to expand...

Oh? Do explain.

Environmentalism doesn't have to be partisan; in fact, when the ball first got rolling in the early 70s, it was bipartisan. It was quite successful as well, especially with reining in some of the more obvious and egregious forms of pollution, especially air pollution.

Click to expand...

Was that what I was talking about? Pollution?

There's a lot we can do, mostly focusing on curtailing emissions of greenhouse gases. There are plenty of ways that's compatible with conservatism, ranging from carbon trading plans, to encouraging energy independence, to the increasing monetization of renewable power. We've already taken some small steps that have not destroyed the entire nation, such as popularizing LED bulbs, adopting hybrid vehicles, raising gas mileage standards, and increasing the use of lower-emission fuels (notably natural gas).

Texas -- hardly a bleeding-heart-liberal state -- produces more power from wind than any other state, and some believe that the reduced regulation on the grid facilitated that growth. That's straight-up capitalism.

Click to expand...

Wow, great. Sounds like we’ll reverse this whole atmospheric CO2/climate change thing any day now.

late said:

"The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks...

noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Koch funds a wide array of organisations that oppose climate change. The place than brainwashed Mike Pence, propaganda machines, K Street lobbyists, ALEC, about a hundred to the tune of 100 million bucks that we know of. If you spend some time looking into their activities, you will realise there is more, a lot more, dark money.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/


I didn't pay attention to them until they spent a freaking million bucks here in Maine to kill gay marriage. We are a poor state that only has a little more than a million people.

Btw, the Kochs won. But we came right back the next election and did it again. I started digging and found their corrupt fingers in thousands of pies across the planet.

Republicans slapped a lawsuit against them over ownership of the voting rolls. They had promised to turn them into a modern database, and then welched on the deal. Voter rolls are only second to money as the lifeblood of politics. The stink went national, and they backed down when what they were doing was about to get national attention. They tried to take over the Republican party.

So yes, Koch money


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

When it comes to climate change, Shariv is either a kook, or looking to make a fast buck. Take your pick:

Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked

But that's true for all of them.

Click to expand...

Please take your silly conspiracy theorizing elsewhere. There is absolutely no case to be made on the basis of speaking engagements. I think I'll trust the Institute for Advanced Study. And btw, the critical "Heartland" document was a forgery.

Neomalthusian said:

Oh? Do explain.

Click to expand...

'kay

There is no evidence that ice ages are caused by any changes in prevailing winds.

Slowing winds -- which are a result of global temperatures rising -- will not reduce global temperatures. It does often push Arctic air further south, but that doesn't cause an "ice age," and it doesn't reduce global temperatures. What it does is occasionally inflict damaging cold snaps on northern latitudes.

Those same changes to winds (particularly the Jet Stream) can result in warmer temperatures as far north as Alaska, and other parts of the western US. This can result in droughts and heat waves.

Was that what I was talking about? Pollution?

Click to expand...

CO2 emissions are a type of pollution.

Wow, great. Sounds like we’ll reverse this whole atmospheric CO2/climate change thing any day now.

Click to expand...

Wow, sarcasm. So clever

Some of us are in fact trying to make positive change. While there is still a ways to go, and some American elected officials are unconscionably trying to make things worse, there is actually a lot of opportunity for improvement.

No one is saying "we can fix it instantly." However, the faster we get working on it, the more damage we can mitigate. And of course, the longer we delay, the more harm will result.

Jack Hays said:

Just two of many. You may want to keep your head under the covers until the monsters go away.

M&M at the NAS Panel

Click to expand...

Frankly, I haven't any idea of what paper McIntyre and McKitrick are referring to in the essay at the site to which you've linked. I clicked on the "a long written presentation" so I could read the relevant paper, and it goes to a "dead" link. Ditto for the PPT link. I can tell that the page is basically McIntyre explaining what transpired at a NAS event, presumably one that transpired after his having submitted to the NAS presumably this (click here) letter of objection to Mann et al NAS.
What does the above mean? It means McIntyre (1) doesn't understand regression analysis and fit analysis well enough to criticize it, (2) asserted that techniques were used and relied upon yet they were not, (3) he disregarded germane analysis when performing his own and (4) created a strawman and then launch into an attack of it, thus not addressing the actual content and findings in the document/research he was ostensibly critiquing.

And getting back to my opening remarks in this post. The reason I pointed you to the two Real Climate pages is because the contretemps between McIntyre and Mann has taken place, as scientific conversations do, over the course a series of papers and letters that have been published (Mann's) in peer-reviewed journals, not published in peer-reviewed (PR'd) journals (some of McIntyre's and none of Mann's) and/or presented at various meetings (both, without regard to whether the presented ideas were PR'd). The links I presented point one to the early "rounds" in the conversation. What you pointed me to ostensibly was McIntyre's "bitch and moan" blog of his own devising and that appeared in a "round." The discussion above is what came next.

It's worth noting that McIntyre appears to be consigned to the blogosphere, so flawed are his attempts to discredit Mann. To wit, more recently in his Ramsdorf critique, he mistook a measure of water movement as a measure of water temperature. (Ramsdorf's paper) Steve does have many blog posts, but quantity is irrelevant next to quality.


From 2014:

Jack Hays said:

Please take your silly conspiracy theorizing elsewhere. There is absolutely no case to be made on the basis of speaking engagements. I think I'll trust the Institute for Advanced Study. And btw, the critical "Heartland" document was a forgery.

Click to expand...

Heartland, famous for talking crap, says it's a forgery.

What makes your post weird is that I was talking about my experience, which didn't have a damn thing to do with "speaking engagements". Not to mention all the rest...

That's not just a strawman, it's an insult to strawmen everywhere.

But then Excuse Junkies don't need good excuses, they just need an excuse to feed the addiction...

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-H...TF8&qid=1530750606&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money

Xelor said:

Frankly, I haven't any idea of what paper McIntyre and McKitrick are referring to in the essay at the site to which you've linked. I clicked on the "a long written presentation" so I could read the relevant paper, and it goes to a "dead" link. Ditto for the PPT link. I can tell that the page is basically McIntyre explaining what transpired at a NAS event, presumably one that transpired after his having submitted to the NAS presumably this (click here) letter of objection to Mann et al NAS.

The ideas in that letter hold no water. Mann specifically have discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 and demonstrated (in the supplemental information) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals --> apply the "calibration," "validation," and "residuals" linked content to Wahl in post 27) is conventional and was described explicitly " . . .

As clearly explained in ProxyMa, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment. The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of Mann et al's central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the NAS report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see ProxyMa). They ignore Wahl's findings concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.
(Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes)
​

What does the above mean? It means McIntyre (1) doesn't understand regression analysis and fit analysis well enough to criticize it, (2) asserted that techniques were used and relied upon yet they were not, (3) he disregarded germane analysis when performing his own and (4) created a strawman and then launch into an attack of it, thus not addressing the actual content and findings in the document/research he was ostensibly critiquing.

And getting back to my opening remarks in this post. The reason I pointed you to the two Real Climate pages is because the contretemps between McIntyre and Mann has taken place, as scientific conversations do, over the course a series of papers and letters that have been published (Mann's) in peer-reviewed journals, not published in peer-reviewed (PR'd) journals (some of McIntyre's and none of Mann's) and/or presented at various meetings (both, without regard to whether the presented ideas were PR'd). The links I presented point one to the early "rounds" in the conversation. What you pointed me to ostensibly was McIntyre's "bitch and moan" blog of his own devising and that appeared in a "round." The discussion above is what came next.

It's worth noting that McIntyre appears to be consigned to the blogosphere, so flawed are his attempts to discredit Mann. To wit, more recently in his Ramsdorf critique, he mistook a measure of water movement as a measure of water temperature. (Ramsdorf's paper) Steve does have many blog posts, but quantity is irrelevant next to quality.

Click to expand...

As you wish. M&M have worked mainly in the blogosphere because groupthink in mainstream climate science has closed those channels to them. (Climategate provided some insight into that swamp.) You can follow this topic in detail at McIntyre's Climate Audit site but I doubt you will. Apart from the statistical incompetence of MBH98 uncovered by M&M, McIntyre's other criticism (as you acknowledge) is ex post selection of sample series. The highlight was Rose D'Arrigo's proclamation that you have to pick cherries to make cherry pie. There's not much to be done with people like that.

Fortunately nature looks like it will save us from climatologists' folly. With the Sun approaching minimum and temperatures already falling, several years (decades?) of cooling will likely make AGW untenable as a paradigm.

late said:

Heartland, famous for talking crap, says it's a forgery.

What makes your post weird is that I was talking about my experience, which didn't have a damn thing to do with "speaking engagements". Not to mention all the rest...

That's not just a strawman, it's an insult to strawmen everywhere.

But then Excuse Junkies don't need good excuses, they just need an excuse to feed the addiction...

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-H...TF8&qid=1530750606&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money

Click to expand...

Your claim about Shaviv and Koch is about nothing but speaker fees.

Jack Hays said:

Fortunately nature looks like it will save us from climatologists' folly. With the Sun approaching minimum and temperatures already falling, several years (decades?) of cooling will likely make AGW untenable as a paradigm.

Click to expand...

You have that backwards.

Warming while cooling? Adds support..