Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Latest Hockey Stick

And PC defends this tripe with an apparent straight face.

Jul 13, 2016 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, Real Climate Science tripe is the most expensive tripe you can buy. Real Bimbos must take great offence to being compared to such a waste of effort, and Real Tripe Boilers produce something that some people want to consume.

Jul 13, 2016 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil's been inadequately briefed and somehow has the stomach for the ridicule it brings his way.

Jul 13, 2016 at 8:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Thanks for bringing up 'redefining', Phil, an ancient and dishonorable episode by the consensus alarmist crew. Perhaps Gergis here has redefined what 'peer review' is. Certainly, many peered at it.

Jul 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Nothing to discuss here. Read Jo Nova, then move on. MWP still with us, Pause returns later this year.


Now: anyone know what's going to happen to CCC? I'm really concerned for Gummer's future. Wouldn't want a savant straying into the wilderness would we?

Jul 15, 2016 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

Capell, I think CCC disbandment and redundancy notices should be printed on recycled paper. It would be the decent thing to do.

Jul 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. This week there was a report about the ink on receipts and guarantees quickly fading so that they become useless. If they had known this, do you think climate scientists would have printed their predictions using such materials? Climategate would never have happened and CRU would have a cast-iron explanation for losing their data.

Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Supertroll, I think the fading of print that you describe first became apparent (disapparent?) with the early fax machines in the 80s, using heat sensitive paper rather than ink.

Now that printer ink is more expensive than gold dust, given the cost of cartridges, it is no surprise that a failed technology is making a comeback. Consumer legislation requires that a receipt be provided at point of sale. I do not know whether the durability of a receipt is specified under EU Law, but invisible receipts keep the Black economy going in the EU, and ARE the economy in Greece!

Jul 15, 2016 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Oh dear Phil C,

It seems Germany's remarkable transition to powering the country with rainbows and unicorn farts has gone horribly wrong. A major power giant is about to go bust

Forget hokey-cokey sticks Phil, what have you got to say about this real problem?

PS hope my html works

Jul 16, 2016 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith

David Smith, your link does work. Under EU rules, is Germany allowed to bail out and renationalise a power producer that is running commercially in competition with private industry, in other countries including the UK?

French and German companies have done very nicely ripping off UK taxpayers, by acquiring the privatised utility companies. The UK taxpayers could buy them back for a quid, or a Euro, which ever is more acceptable.

Jul 16, 2016 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sorry, but I do not find Pierre Gosselin credible. This just looks like alarmism, based on selectively quoting a newspaper article. If you read on you'll find a Professor of Energy stating that a bankruptcy is impossible. True, RWE and E.ON have been battered by the introduction of subsidised renewable energy, plus a depresssed oil price which have driven wholesale prices lower, and their strategic planning has been demonstrably lacking, Brexit did them no favours, and they are being forced to contribute more to nuclear cleanup costs than they would like but RWE, for one, is still turning a decent profit.

Lower energy prices, a good thing for most people, surely?

Jul 16, 2016 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, yes correct, everyone likes lower energy prices. Calling unreliable and expensive energy 'renewable' was one of the biggest con tricks of the failing Green Blob era.

Quite how a Professor of Energy can deem bankruptcy impossible is beyond me. There again, why do we need a Professor of Energy to advise on anything? Energy companies either have a product that people want to buy, or they do not have a product that people want to buy. It is called supply and demand dconomics.

Could he retrain as a Professor of Delivery Pizza and Mobile Hairdressing? Both are legitimate businesses, that some people choose to use, and some use because they have no other options.

Jul 16, 2016 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Und wenn es nicht klappt, weil der Brexit dazwischenkommt oder eine andere Unwägbarkeit? Zur größten Pleite in der deutschen Wirtschaftsgeschichte wird es selbst dann nicht kommen, wenn die nackten Zahlen sie eigentlich erzwingen würden, glaubt Georg Erdmann, der an der TU Berlin Professor für Energiesysteme ist. Der Staat würde sich schon etwas einfallen lassen, eine Prämie für den Betrieb von Kohlekraftwerke zum Beispiel, um RWE vor dem Untergang zu bewahren, zu groß wäre sonst das Chaos auf dem Strommarkt, zu unsicher die Finanzierung des Atomausstiegs. Stichwort: Systemrelevanz. Damit hat sich bisher noch jeder Konzern am Leben halten lassen, dessen Tage gezählt waren.

A better translation might be 'a bankruptcy in such a strategic industry will not be allowed to happen'.

The point is, Gosselin's alarmism is unfounded. As the results reported in the ft indicate the company is profitable.

From <>

Jul 16, 2016 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Currently RWE has “45 billion euros in long-term liabilities, 8 times its equity“, the FAZ reports.

From Phil's link

"page (404)

The requested page could not be found."

Jul 17, 2016 at 1:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Wasteful, profligate, harmful economically, but not bankrupt. Where's the justice?

Jul 17, 2016 at 4:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil perches upon, and proclaims from, a stupendous ash heap of leftover green and alarmist dogma. Too big to fall, the harder they come.

Jul 17, 2016 at 4:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke, bankruptcy law, particularly in Germany, is not one of my specialist subjects. I am going to guess that it is not one of yours either.

I do not wish bankruptcy on any company. I can think of numerous reasons why bankruptcy for such a large company would cause numerous problems for millions of people and every Government they deal with, plus the EU.

I do not understand how you can state that such a large and strategic company will not be allowed to go bankrupt, without State Intervention. The UK Government bailed out certain banks, and effectively acquired ownership of a majority shareholding, so it was not a Nationalisation. Is this what you mean, or what your sources are relying on?

Bank failures are due to the worst failings of greed and capitalism.

Green Blob failures are due to the worst failings of greed and capitalism. The UK Taxpayer has been bled dry by subsidising these scams. Do German taxpayers have deeper pockets and reserves of patience and tolerance?

Jul 17, 2016 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Being accused of unpleasantness by the warmists is like having ones child-care arrangements criticised by Herod

Jul 18, 2016 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Phil hasn't any idea what got hackles up in the first place. Not only is the umpire blind, his rulebook ain't in Braille.

Jul 19, 2016 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

....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.
Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM Phil Clarke

More denier unpleasantness at

In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single word. Rather than “taking the easy way out” and simply correcting the “typo”, Gergis instead embarked on a program that ultimately involved nine rounds of revision, 21 individual reviews, two editors and took longer than the American involvement in World War II. However, rather than Gergis et al 2016 being an improvement on or confirmation of Gergis et al 2012, it is one of the most extraordinary examples of data torture (Wagenmakers, 2011, 2012) that any of us will ever witness.

The re-appearance of Gergis’ Journal of Climate article was accompanied by an untrue account at Conversation of the withdrawal/retraction of the 2012 version. Gergis’ fantasies and misrepresentations drew fulsome praise from the academics and other commenters at Conversation. Gergis named me personally as having stated in 2012 that there were “fundamental issues” with the article, claims which she (falsely) said were “incorrect” and supposedly initiated a “concerted smear campaign aimed at discrediting [their] science”. Their subsequent difficulty in publishing the article, a process that took over four years, seems to me to be as eloquent a confirmation of my original diagnosis as one could expect.

Jul 23, 2016 at 8:27 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, your link to Climate Audit is highly significant, and very revealing about the level of desperation now being demonstrated by the original Hockey Team and the IPCC. It is well worth a read, but this quote is an interesting summary and/or appetiser!

"Because IPCC AR5 had used results of Gergis et al 2012 in a prominent diagram that it was committed to using, and continued to use the results even after Journal of Climate rescinded acceptance of Gergis et al 2012 (see here),  Gergis et al had considerable motivation, to say the least, to “obtain” a result that looked as much like Gergis et al 2012 as possible.  The degree to which they subsequently tortured the data is somewhat breathtaking."

Jul 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

And over at Jo Nova we learn that the West Antarctica Peninsular has been cooling, not warming according to BAS. How long until we get the headline

Climate Science Proves Confirmatjon Bias


Jul 23, 2016 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

ssat 4:11, climate science doesn't "prove" anything, as that would destroy their faith.

Instead they rely on Cooked up Consensus opinion surveys, courtesy of Lewandowsky and the devoted disciples at Skeptical Skience, including President Obama.

Jul 23, 2016 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

A paper that which claimed to have used detrended data, but the method used had not, in fact, detrended the data? Now what does that remind me of? Ah Yes McIntyre and McKitrick 2005.

Surely you realized that the proxies combine the signal components on which is superimposed the noise? I find it hard to believe that you would take data with obvious trends, would then directly evaluate ACFs without removing the trends, and then finally assume you had obtained results for the proxy specific noise!

Email from David Ritson to McIntyre.

Clearly anyone describing Joelle Gergis as a 'data torturer' is not interested in being 'pleasant'; that the author of the phrase is someone who blatently mined a resultset pushes the irony meter well into the red.

Jul 25, 2016 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Clearly Steve McIntyre learned from his mistakes and Gergis didn't.

Jul 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo