Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Penn. State, or State pen. ?

My advice: exercise wisdom when choosing your heroes.

Jul 15, 2017 at 1:11 AM | Phil Clarke

You missed out the Nobel Prize that Mann claimed.

Has he been so busy writing 200 Pal Reviewed articles that he has not had the time to let this case get to Court?

He ought to be celebrated as the first Climate Scientist NOT to find the MWP and LIA, as everyone else did, and now they are managing to find them again. I wonder how they managed to hide from Mann?

Jul 15, 2017 at 1:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Stephen McIntyre lies on his blog.

Hmm...Aren't Tim Ball and Mark Steyn being sued by Mister Hockey Stick for telling the truth?

Where's your truth Phil?

Jul 15, 2017 at 2:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Hello Phil, I know just ignored this but it won't go away.

Julian, thanks for commenting.

Because I wrote first about North American tree ring proxies, please do not assume that this is the only issue that I noticed. There are many other issues, but each one takes time to write up.

As to the issue of choosing series ex post, this has been a longstanding concern, originating with my first encounter with Jacoby and D’Arrigo, discussed in one of the earliest Climate Audit posts in Feb 2005 here Jacoby and D’Arrigo had collected data from 36 northern sites, from which they selected the 10 “most temperature sensitive”. They purported to test for statistical significance but did not test the effect of selecting 10 of 36 series.

Jacoby and D’Arrigo archived data for the 10 series that they used, but refused to provide me with data for the other 26 series when I requested it.

In 2004, Climatic Change had asked me to review a submission by Mann. In my capacity as a reviewer, I asked for the data which Mann had refused to provide me as a critic. Schneider said that no reviewer had ever asked for data in 28 years of running the journal. I was unimpressed with this precedent and re-iterated my request. Schneider said that he’d have to consult with his editorial board to establish a policy; I said fine. Ulitmately they agreed that authors would have to provide data. Mann continued to refuse and abandoned the article.

Under the new policy, I requested data for the other 26 series for JAcoby and D’Arrigo, which had been published in Climatic Change. Schneider made a halfhearted effort to get data from Jacoby, who sent the remarkable refusal letter replicated in the CA post linked above.

From a statistical perspective, you’re doing exactly the same thing as Jacoby and D’Arrigo in your tree ring data – perhaps even worse. If you’re screening series, you need to keep track of how many series you tested and rejected. Unfortunately, with JAcoby and D’Arrigo, who are important contributors to your project, we do not know how many series were thrown out because they didn’t have the “Jacoby signal”.

If you use biased statistical methods, your results become untrustworthy. It seems quite possible to me that the modern warm period is somewhat warmer than the medieval warm period, but you cannot demonstrate this with ex post screening.

Jul 15, 2017 at 2:25 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

I had thought that there had been no legal judgements about climate change.

I was mistaken. There was a case in New Zealand.

Jul 15, 2017 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Hello Phil, I know just ignored this but it won't go away.

It will. Oh, it has.

Another McIntyre Nothingburger.

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Jul 16, 2017 at 1:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Jul 16, 2017 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Jul 16, 2017 at 1:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I had thought that there had been no legal judgements about climate change.

I was mistaken. There was a case in New Zealand.


Jul 16, 2017 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Phil Clarke is reduced to stuttering.

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Phil Clarke is reduced to stuttering.

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:49 AM | clipe

And regurgitating William M Connolley and Co, All part of the Hockey Teamster World Wide Web of lies and deceit.

If Mann had some science, he would have been keen to get to Court and prove it.

Jul 16, 2017 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Phil Clarke is reduced to stuttering."

Reminds me of the old joke about the Stork margarine advert "can you tell talk from mutter".

Jul 16, 2017 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Mr Clarke: one can get the measure of an article by its use of highly-charged phraseology, “According to self-appointed climate science auditor…” being an excellent example. The implication, here, is that one should NOT appoint oneself as a “climate science auditor”; perhaps one ought to wait until invited by the appropriate people. Sorry, bub, but in science, as in all life, anyone may appoint themselves as auditor/expert/whatever; it is only by the quality of how they audit or express their expertise that others (i.e. us) may apply their own, personal, self-appointed audit. You, it would appear, are happy to let others do that for you, not realising that you have automatically applied your own (self-appointed) audit on both Deep Climate and Mr McIntyre.

In case you are not aware, the phrases, “Mike’s nature trick,” and, “Hide the decline,” are phrases to be found in the infamous “Climategate” e-mails. It might well have been these phrases that inspired Mr McIntyre to perform his personal audit of the conclusions reached by the hockey-stick team. The response, “Why should I give you the data? You will only use it to prove me wrong,” might well have helped to encourage Mr McIntyre’s auditing. He has also been completely open with his auditing, so that anyone (this includes you, Mr Clarke) may review his work, and bring to everyone’s attention any flaws; that his work has only resulted in obfuscation and ad hominems from the likes of you, and most of the Believers, speaks volumes about the quality of his work.

Jul 16, 2017 at 12:23 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke is reduced to stuttering.

The captcha is defective.

Jul 16, 2017 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke is hoping William M Connolley's fasification of Science via Wikipedia will triumph

Jul 16, 2017 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Being a straightman now Phil. Too easy.

Jul 16, 2017 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Phil Clarke, is the UK Green Party wary of scandal by association?

"Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate.

Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.

I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team.

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task."

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ah, Mr. Connelley! This Mr. Connelley?

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterGlyn Palmer

Jul 16, 2017 at 1:52 PM | Glyn Palmer

Yes, the one who helped set up Real Climate with Michael Mann, (and others) then tried to erase the MWP, LIA and even the 1970s New Ice Age scare.

Phil Clarke believes in William M Connolley of the UK Green Party, and the dishonest approach to Science.

Jul 16, 2017 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jul 16, 2017 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I had thought that there had been no legal judgements about climate change.

Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'

Jul 17, 2017 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

I viewed the film at the parties' request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. 
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.


I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Mr Justice Burton, denying the attempt by Stuart Dimmock (with financial backing from one C.Monkton) to have AIT banned from English schools.

Gore's spokesman responds to the 9 inaccuracies here

Jul 17, 2017 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

The trouble is, Mr Clarke, is that this “rebuttal” that you are so enamoured with remains just suppositions and assumptions, and remarkably evidence-free. Give us some FACTS to support these guesses: for example, those polar bears – was it “unprecedented” that polar bears should be found, drowned, or unprecedented that polar bears should drown? Perhaps we should bear in mind (ho, ho – see what I did, there?) that these areas are now more heavily trafficked by humans, so many events that might actually be common might never have been witnessed before, thus the alarming epithet “unprecedented” might not really be accurate.

It is curious to note that one “rebuttal” is actually confirmation that Gore was wrong about Hurricane Katrina: “no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

But, no, such consideration will not cross your mind, will it, Mr Clarke? Far, far better for you to stick with the narrative, and maintain the alarmist position that this is all going to end in tears. Never let FACTS get in the way of a good scare story, eh? Remember: exercise wisdom when choosing your heroes.

Jul 17, 2017 at 1:52 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

It is curious to note that one “rebuttal” is actually confirmation that Gore was wrong about Hurricane Katrina: “no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.”

But that is not what he said. He did not attribute the formation of the storm to GW; he did, quite rightly say that tropical cyclones are powered by warm water, so if the water is warmed, the cyclone will be stronger.

And then of course
came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but
it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what
happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water
temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content
increases. And you’ll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes
into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at
that Hurricane’s eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are
no words to describe it.

Movie transcript.

Jul 17, 2017 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Jul 17, 2017 at 1:17 PM | Phil Clarke

If Gore needs and can afford someone else to respond fo him, did he apologise for the errors or hand back any of Gore's ill-gotten gains?

I only ask, because you think it significant that private funding was used to expose Gore's profitable scam.

Michael Mann is not losing any personal money by delaying his legal action.

Gore and Mann are quite happy about the cost to individuals.

Jul 17, 2017 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie