Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[DKW 86 7,429]

For the record here. I have supported AGW for some time. I do not know how homer can say he did not know. bens even went back and posted some of my old comments from months ago, yet homer STILL says he honestly has never seen even one post from supporting AGW. I do not believe him at all.

He said he didn't remember any off hand. It was a fair question asking for clarification. Really? You buy that?

The question homer asked had a quoted post of mine attached to it. That post was altered by homer. he then asked a question that had nothing to do with the conversation that was ongoing and indeed had nothing at all to do with AGW. I answered the question in context with my quote that was included in his post. Looking back, it LOOKs like i was answering his crazy completely detached from the conversation question, BUT i was in my mind following along in the conversation about the previous post.

It was a direct question, regardless of the conversation at hand. That you didn't bother to read it before answering is your problem, not ours

That sums it up. My post was altered and a crazy, detached, out of the blue, change in the conversation was somehow appended to the altered quote of mine that actually had ZERO to do with the question.

He chopped out the picture and asked you a direct question. Not exactly a "crazy, detached, out of the blue" change in topic. He then added a question that had ZERO to do with the original post or conversation.

Back to the original conversation. Bens has presented a graph in the thread that had comments embedded in the graph. He then directly misquotes the graphs and i pointed it out to him. He presented other evidence to back up his misquotes, but he still misquoted his own material. So, in fact he ultimately has two separate references that directly contradict each other. IE one of them is a lie. Either Graph quote is a lie or website quote is a lie, but one quote is a lie. They both cannot be true.

Wrong. I didn't "misquote" anything. I commented on Dr. Spencer's dismissal of the models in their entirety with his bastardized comparison in his graph and his words. He basically said "look at this. The vast majority of the models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed.

I have had it with the simpletons on my side of the aisle. Well on both sides of the aisle. An educated, well read man can see both sides of any issue. He can share that with his friends and acquaintances. But on this forum there are two sets of folks, The Sewing Circle PC Loons and the Righty Tighties that just cant seem to get away from the simplest of talking points.

Rarely do I see you jumping the right's case like ours recently. "Sewing circle" and "PC crowd" are your stock insults now." You dont read my IMs either. Raptor, Proud, and others would say otherwise.

You know them both:

Right: Blame Obama! ACA is Evil! Cops are always right! FOX NEWS! Repeal the ACA!

Left: AGW is sacred dogma and can never be questioned by anyone! Even when John Cook and SkS are caught red handed counting Deniers as supporters of AGW in the 97% Claim, the 97% is religious dogma and must be true!!!! Blame Bush! MSNBC! TPM! ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER! blah blah blah.

I see strawmen. But you see them only from one side. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Now me: Fox is a nuthouse but Bret Baier is a good anchor. MSNBC is a nuthouse too, but i do watch Morning Joe while at the gym. The ACA was implemented by lying to the American Public, but it has been an overall blessing. The ACA has problems that need addressing, but it will never be repealed. AGW is a valid advocacy point, but some of the dogma folks, John Cook being one of them is nutz. Spencer was one of the foremost advocates of AGW for a while but now says his data (the latest most accurate data we have) does not support some of the shrillest advocates. The Left demonize Spencer and others for just disagreeing with the ACA most extremist Supporters. The ACA supporters after being embarrassed for years with the apparent pause that lasted possibly as long as 15 years has essentially just decided to add fudge factors and make that data fit their models.

That's ridiculous. Dr. Spencer's dishonesty has been demonstrated repeatedly here. And there has been no pause.

I support AGW but i can clearly see that altering the data, sounds just like what happened at UEA btw, is very very suspicious. I have dared to question the AGW crowd and therefore, must now be lashed to the whipping post for my heresy and have people declare months if not years of support just did not exist or that they cannot (conveniently) remember them.

Climategate has long sense been debunked as a manufactroversey. A bunch of out of context e-mails and mined quotes. There was no wrongdoing.

Who was talking about "Climategate Emails?" We were talking DATA here. The UEA was asked to produce its' dataset and they could not produce it. They said they had "lost"

the dataset...REALLY? How did other scientist replicate their work? They didnt. No one had a clean copy of the data set. Now think about that for one moment. If any of us had submitted a project to a University without at first doing the bare minimum and copying the original data set, WELL I WOULD EXPECT A ZERO, even in a freshmen class. The leaders at the UEA want you buy into the idea that they NEVER backed up their datasets...Sorry, that just cannot pass a smell test.

Funny that you ignore the fact that Spencer's UAH data has seen adjustments as well. Why do you think there are currently 10 versions of it? Still waiting for Spencer and Christy to finish with their v6.0. It was due a decade ago. I and anyone else should expect some work on datasets. Ten versions? That sounds like ten version from just being saved to me. :wink:

I will still soldier on. God knows someone needs to fill the divide between the two sides here. I guess i had part in creating the right side so many years ago. So i will do my part to fix what i broke.

Well you're doing a terrible job casting yourself as some sort of centrist here. The worst of your vitriol is reserved for the likes of Homer, Tex, ICHY, and me it seems.

At least i try to be in the center.

[homersapien 11,391]

Why do Homer and Bigbens turn every topic into personal attacks on those who disagree with them?

DKW calls me a liar so I am attacking him? :-\

[homersapien 11,391]

For the record here. I have supported AGW for some time. I do not know how homer can say he did not know. bens even went back and posted some of my old comments from months ago, yet homer STILL says he honestly has never seen even one post from supporting AGW. I do not believe him at all.

The question homer asked had a quoted post of mine attached to it. That post was altered by homer. he then asked a question that had nothing to do with the conversation that was ongoing and indeed had nothing at all to do with AGW. I answered the question in context with my quote that was included in his post. Looking back, it LOOKs like i was answering his crazy completely detached from the conversation question, BUT i was in my mind following along in the conversation about the previous post.

That sums it up. My post was altered and a crazy, detached, out of the blue, change in the conversation was somehow appended to the altered quote of mine that actually had ZERO to do with the question.

Back to the original conversation. Bens has presented a graph in the thread that had comments embedded in the graph. He then directly misquotes the graphs and i pointed it out to him. He presented other evidence to back up his misquotes, but he still misquoted his own material. So, in fact he ultimately has two separate references that directly contradict each other. IE one of them is a lie. Either Graph quote is a lie or website quote is a lie, but one quote is a lie. They both cannot be true.

I have had it with the simpletons on my side of the aisle. Well on both sides of the aisle. An educated, well read man can see both sides of any issue. He can share that with his friends and acquaintances. But on this forum there are two sets of folks, The Sewing Circle PC Loons and the Righty Tighties that just cant seem to get away from the simplest of talking points.

You know them both:

Right: Blame Obama! ACA is Evil! Cops are always right! FOX NEWS! Repeal the ACA!

Left: AGW is sacred dogma and can never be questioned by anyone! Even when John Cook and SkS are caught red handed counting Deniers as supporters of AGW in the 97% Claim, the 97% is religious dogma and must be true!!!! Blame Bush! MSNBC! TPM! ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER! blah blah blah.

Now me: Fox is a nuthouse but Bret Baier is a good anchor. MSNBC is a nuthouse too, but i do watch Morning Joe while at the gym. The ACA was implemented by lying to the American Public, but it has been an overall blessing. The ACA has problems that need addressing, but it will never be repealed. AGW is a valid advocacy point, but some of the dogma folks, John Cook being one of them is nutz. Spencer was one of the foremost advocates of AGW for a while but now says his data (the latest most accurate data we have) does not support some of the shrillest advocates. The Left demonize Spencer and others for just disagreeing with the ACA most extremist Supporters. The ACA supporters after being embarrassed for years with the apparent pause that lasted possibly as long as 15 years has essentially just decided to add fudge factors and make that data fit their models.

I support AGW but i can clearly see that altering the data, sounds just like what happened at UEA btw, is very very suspicious. I have dared to question the AGW crowd and therefore, must now be lashed to the whipping post for my heresy and have people declare months if not years of support just did not exist or that they cannot (conveniently) remember them.

I will still soldier on. God knows someone needs to fill the divide between the two sides here. I guess i had part in creating the right side so many years ago. So i will do my part to fix what i broke.

:bs: :bs:

(Did I use enough emoticons?)

[AUDub 11,153]

For the record here. I have supported AGW for some time. I do not know how homer can say he did not know. bens even went back and posted some of my old comments from months ago, yet homer STILL says he honestly has never seen even one post from supporting AGW. I do not believe him at all.

He said he didn't remember any off hand. It was a fair question asking for clarification. Really? You buy that? Yes. It's clear to everyone but you. Even Strychnine, unassuming as he is, took the time to point this fact out to you.

The question homer asked had a quoted post of mine attached to it. That post was altered by homer. he then asked a question that had nothing to do with the conversation that was ongoing and indeed had nothing at all to do with AGW. I answered the question in context with my quote that was included in his post. Looking back, it LOOKs like i was answering his crazy completely detached from the conversation question, BUT i was in my mind following along in the conversation about the previous post.

It was a direct question, regardless of the conversation at hand. That you didn't bother to read it before answering is your problem, not ours. Conceding this one?

That sums it up. My post was altered and a crazy, detached, out of the blue, change in the conversation was somehow appended to the altered quote of mine that actually had ZERO to do with the question.

He chopped out the picture and asked you a direct question. Not exactly a "crazy, detached, out of the blue" change in topic. He then added a question that had ZERO to do with the original post or conversation. Which you answered, apparently without taking the time to read it. That's your problem, not ours.

Back to the original conversation. Bens has presented a graph in the thread that had comments embedded in the graph. He then directly misquotes the graphs and i pointed it out to him. He presented other evidence to back up his misquotes, but he still misquoted his own material. So, in fact he ultimately has two separate references that directly contradict each other. IE one of them is a lie. Either Graph quote is a lie or website quote is a lie, but one quote is a lie. They both cannot be true.

Wrong. I didn't "misquote" anything. I commented on Dr. Spencer's dismissal of the models in their entirety with his bastardized comparison in his graph and his words. He basically said "look at this. The vast majority of the models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed. I noticed you didn't address this. Have you elected to concede this point as well?

I have had it with the simpletons on my side of the aisle. Well on both sides of the aisle. An educated, well read man can see both sides of any issue. He can share that with his friends and acquaintances. But on this forum there are two sets of folks, The Sewing Circle PC Loons and the Righty Tighties that just cant seem to get away from the simplest of talking points.

Rarely do I see you jumping the right's case like ours recently. "Sewing circle" and "PC crowd" are your stock insults now." You dont read my IMs either. Raptor, Proud, and others would say otherwise. Really. I'll be happy to discuss your public behavior on this forum recently. Shall I go dig for examples and compare?

You know them both:

Right: Blame Obama! ACA is Evil! Cops are always right! FOX NEWS! Repeal the ACA!

Left: AGW is sacred dogma and can never be questioned by anyone! Even when John Cook and SkS are caught red handed counting Deniers as supporters of AGW in the 97% Claim, the 97% is religious dogma and must be true!!!! Blame Bush! MSNBC! TPM! ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER! blah blah blah.

I see strawmen. But you see them only from one side. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Not true. I'm not ignorning the ones you put up for the right.

Now me: Fox is a nuthouse but Bret Baier is a good anchor. MSNBC is a nuthouse too, but i do watch Morning Joe while at the gym. The ACA was implemented by lying to the American Public, but it has been an overall blessing. The ACA has problems that need addressing, but it will never be repealed. AGW is a valid advocacy point, but some of the dogma folks, John Cook being one of them is nutz. Spencer was one of the foremost advocates of AGW for a while but now says his data (the latest most accurate data we have) does not support some of the shrillest advocates. The Left demonize Spencer and others for just disagreeing with the ACA most extremist Supporters. The ACA supporters after being embarrassed for years with the apparent pause that lasted possibly as long as 15 years has essentially just decided to add fudge factors and make that data fit their models.

That's ridiculous. Dr. Spencer's dishonesty has been demonstrated repeatedly here. And there has been no pause. Conceding this one too?

I support AGW but i can clearly see that altering the data, sounds just like what happened at UEA btw, is very very suspicious. I have dared to question the AGW crowd and therefore, must now be lashed to the whipping post for my heresy and have people declare months if not years of support just did not exist or that they cannot (conveniently) remember them.

Climategate has long sense been debunked as a manufactroversey. A bunch of out of context e-mails and mined quotes. There was no wrongdoing.

Who was talking about "Climategate Emails?" We were talking DAT here. The UEA was asked to produce its' dataset and they could not produce it. They said they had "lost"

the dataset...REALLY? How did other scientist replicate their work? They didnt. No one had a clean copy of the data set. Now think about that for one moment. If any of us had submitted a project to a University without at first doing the bare minimum and copying the original data set, WELL I WOULD EXPECT A ZERO, even in a freshmen class. The leaders at the UEA want you buy into the idea that they NEVER backed up their datasets...Sorry, that just cannot pass a smell test. You were, because that's the basis for the long since debunked "lost data" claim. As a matter of fact, DKW. Here is the data if you want to see it.

Funny that you ignore the fact that Spencer's UAH data has seen adjustments as well. Why do you think there are currently 10 versions of it? Still waiting for Spencer and Christy to finish with their v6.0. It was due a decade ago. I and anyone else should expect some work on datasets. Ten versions? That sounds like ten version from just being saved to me. :wink: My oh my, Spencer and Christy adjusted their data, but it's OK when they do it. CRU or the NOAA does it, it's "fudging the numbers".

I will still soldier on. God knows someone needs to fill the divide between the two sides here. I guess i had part in creating the right side so many years ago. So i will do my part to fix what i broke.

Well you're doing a terrible job casting yourself as some sort of centrist here. The worst of your vitriol is reserved for the likes of Homer, Tex, ICHY, and me it seems.

At least i try to be in the center. You fail miserably at it.

[DKW 86 7,429]

Well maybe you are getting to see the other side of it now. When you are relentlessly questioned about it.

Dr Michael Mann uses his "Trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature data.

The UEA refuses to grant FOIA requests, delays, and attacks those that legitimately claim they want to see the data.

Now, later, the scientists in question have come around and have had to explain that they were indeed very arrogant and were using some very bad terms, made accusations against others that proved to be just as silly as the ones against them. You know. The more i look into all this. The more i read about the good work in AGW. The more i read about views other than mine, the more i grow and learn and that is always a good thing. But places like SkS is just the reverse mirror image of Daniel Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and others. Rush smears people. SkS smears people. They are both wrong to do so. SkS altered quotes, held meetings on how to troll the internet etc. Rush has made a career out of it.

We have bogus twitter armies for PBO. We have the NYT demonization of Marco Rubio for buying a damn fishing boat? We have attack dog journalists on both sides. Both sides get it horribly wrong. BOTH SIDES. The ones with the blinders on are the ones that ardently believe that only their side can tell the truth. How truly sad for them.

[AUDub 11,153]

Well maybe you are getting to see the other side of it now. When you are relentlessly questioned about it.

Dr Michael Mann uses his "Trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature data.

The UEA refuses to grant FOIA requests, delays, and attacks those that legitimately claim they want to see the data.

Now, later, the scientists in question have come around and have had to explain that they were indeed very arrogant and were using some very bad terms, made accusations against others that proved to be just as silly as the ones against them. You know. The more i look into all this. The more i read about the good work in AGW. The more i read about views other than mine, the more i grow and learn and that is always a good thing. But places like SkS is just the reverse mirror image of Daniel Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and others. Rush smears people. SkS smears people. They are both wrong to do so. SkS altered quotes, held meetings on how to troll the internet etc. Rush has made a career out of it.

We have bogus twitter armies for PBO. We have the NYT demonization of Marco Rubio for buying a damn fishing boat? We have attack dog journalists on both sides. Both sides get it horribly wrong. BOTH SIDES. The ones with the blinders on are the ones that ardently believe that only their side can tell the truth. How truly sad for them.

I'm just hoping you learn something from all of this.

Factual error. The "hide the decline" issue was so cleverly hidden that it was discussed by several authors and glaringly published in IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 onwards. And they weren't altering temperature data. It refers to tree ring density in higher latitudes.

Part of the reason is that they were being absolutely inundated with FOIA. Though they were slow and at times non-compliant. That's the harshest criticism to come out of the whole ordeal.

You should learn to rely more on SkS. Tune out the opinion portions if they bother you that much, but they do an excellent job compiling references on the matter. And Mr. Cook's study on the consensus actually wasn't half bad.

Ignore the whole "sides" issue. This is an issue that should cross ideological boundaries. Listen to the science on the matter.

[DKW 86 7,429]

bens, God forbid you or any of the Sewing Circle ever learn anything...

It amazes me how you folks just refuse to see that anything you think or ever thought could have a different view.

I mean it just amazes me. But ultimately, your journey is already over, you just havent figured all that out yet.

You do realize that you just parroted me in your last post right? No, i dont guess you do. That would mean you actually learned and God forbid that ever happens.

Mann's "Hockey Stick" has been debunked ad nauseum. He used a thousand of his "tricks" to get to it. There are bad players on all sides in this, ALL SIDES. Now you will bust a gut to tell the world that there are absolutely nothing but total complete honesty on yours, even when you know it isnt true.

I marvel, i mean marvel at how people can cling to their supposed love of newer and better technologies, love to refer to their love of science, etc. ...and in the same breath slam the data that the newest, best, most accurate technologies collect. For 15 years we all discussed The Pause, The Hiatus, The Whatever and how the data was there and wasnot even really questioned. Suddenly, POOF! data reclassified in an afternoon and 15 years of articles, reports, discussions, etc , etc ,etc all get tossed out the window and none of these "Supposedly ProScience" folks object for a second because the "new" data suddenly does away with an embarrassing anomaly. Now, anomalies appear in science all throughout the ages. It is why they are called...ANOMALIES. But the folks that are the true AGW Nutjobz, the religious fetishists, cannot have that AT ALL. They can never admit that there are problems with anything.

If the data doesnt meet their hallucinations, then the data is wrong! (Bye bye to the 15 Year Pause)

If the people dont meet up to their hallucinations: then the people are eeeeevile!

If anything doesnt meet their nutzo hallucinations: Then it must be shouted down...

[AUDub 11,153]

bens, God forbid you or any of the Sewing Circle ever learn anything...

It amazes me how you folks just refuse to see that anything you think or ever thought could have a different view.

I mean it just amazes me. But ultimately, your journey is already over, you just havent figured all that out yet.

You do realize that you just parroted me in your last post right? No, i dont guess you do. That would mean you actually learned and God forbid that ever happens.

Mann's "Hockey Stick" has been debunked ad nauseum. He used a thousand of his "tricks" to get to it. There are bad players on all sides in this, ALL SIDES. Now you will bust a gut to tell the world that there are absolutely nothing but total complete honesty on yours, even when you know it isnt true.

I marvel, i mean marvel at how people can cling to their supposed love of newer and better technologies, love to refer to their love of science, etc. ...and in the same breath slam the data that the newest, best, most accurate technologies collect. For 15 years we all discussed The Pause, The Hiatus, The Whatever and how the data was there and wasnot even really questioned. Suddenly, POOF! data reclassified in an afternoon and 15 years of articles, reports, discussions, etc , etc ,etc all get tossed out the window and none of these "Supposedly ProScience" folks object for a second because the "new" data suddenly does away with an embarrassing anomaly. Now, anomalies appear in science all throughout the ages. It is why they are called...ANOMALIES. But the folks that are the true AGW Nutjobz, the religious fetishists, cannot have that AT ALL. They can never admit that there are problems with anything.

If the data doesnt meet their hallucinations, then the data is wrong! (Bye bye to the 15 Year Pause)

If the people dont meet up to their hallucinations: then the people are eeeeevile!

If anything doesnt meet their nutzo hallucinations: Then it must be shouted down...

Not even going to bother to discuss this intelligently anymore, huh? I'm trying to engage you in good faith and you're churning out walls of text loaded with half truths, strawmen and outright idiocy. If there's a particular claim you want parsed, pick it out and let's go. Stop repeating points I've debunked ad nauseum.

[AFTiger 282]

Bigbens, you are quoting from Skeptical Science, a dubious site at best.

I don't understand why Mann mixed two disparate sets of data. When the tree rings no longer matched the real world temp reading, he simply dumped the rings and appended temp data. Tree rings also demonstrate moisture. Also, it was for the Northern Hemisphere only.

A few days ago, we discussed the unresponsive answers provided to climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus in February 2003 when he inquired about the validity of tree ring widths as proxies due to the inconsistency (divergence) between temperature and ring widths, answers characterized by Severinghaus here as not being a “straight answer”.

In first quarter 2003 (almost exactly the same time as Severinghaus’ inquiry), Soon et al raised almost precisely the same question in Soon et al (EE 2003). The answer of Mann and a long list of coauthors (Ammann, Bradley, Hughes, Rutherford, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Trenberth and Wigley), which is the topic of today’s post, took hide the decline to new levels. http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

[AUDub 11,153]

Bigbens, you are quoting from Skeptical Science, a dubious site at best.

I don't understand why Mann mixed two disparate sets of data. When the tree rings no longer matched the real world temp reading, he simply dumped the rings and appended temp data. Tree rings also demonstrate moisture. Also, it was for the Northern Hemisphere only.

SkS does a good job compiling their sources and do not do any research on their own (aside from Cook et al 2013 concerning the consensus, which was an excellent paper, by the way) perhaps you should question those rather than the site that compiles them?

DKW's factual error, along with other prominent "skeptics" like Palin and Inhofe, was to assert that this was an attempt to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Not the case. At all. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the proxy data was processed to more closely match directly measured temperatures.

As for why he mixed the data, it was to show recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over deep time. Again, it wasn't exactly a secret either. The trick was openly discussed by Mann in a 1998 research paper on the matter and the aforementioned IPCC report.

And I'm aware of the fact that the divergence problem specifically addresses northern latitudes.

As for McIntyre's post, it's worth noting that he chopped out the statement "I think this is all published now so it should be possible to set the whole record straight." Here's a query and response on the rest of McIntyre's drivel from Gavin Schimdt over at RealClimate:

Paul Briscoe says:

2 Dec 2011 at 11:45 AM

I’m wondering if someone here can help me.

A very persistent blogger who is clearly a “disciple” of the Climateaudit blog has drawn my attention to the latest post there regarding the Mann et al (2003) EoS critique of Soon & Baliunas:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

Having compared Figure 1 in EoS03 with the original Briffa et al (2001) paper, it does appear that the “tail” (post 1940) has been left off the EoS plot, although McIntyre also appears to have exaggerated this by adding in data that was not included in the original plot!!

I don’t buy into the predictable McIntyre conspiracy assertions and I don’t see how it affects the findings either. However, others are now using this to claim that the EoS rebuttal of S&B is flawed. Can anyone here comment on this in a way that can help me to counter such claims?

Thanks

[Response: I agree that there is nothing much here. The point of the rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas (as can be seen in the emails) (published version here) was to point out how illogical their conclusions were based on their analysis. Note that they claimed that they could state it was warmer in a period before the present based on whether a proxy suggested it was either warmer, drier, or wetter in a 50 years segment, compared to today. This was simply unfounded, and so their conclusions did not follow from their analysis. (Indeed, a much better attempt with a similar approach was published by Briffa and Osborn (2006)).

The divergence issue as a recognised problem predates this paper by years (Briffa et al, 1998), and was discussed in the almost contemporaneous Jones and Mann (2004) paper. That paper was a little clearer about what was done and why (i.e. fig 5):

The various other (smoothed) NH reconstructions shown in the enlargement to Figure 5a have been scaled by linear regression against the smoothed instrumental NH series over the common interval 1856–1980, with the exception of the ‘‘Briffa et al.’’ series, which has been scaled over the shorter 1856–1940 interval owing to a decline in temperature response in the underlying data discussed elsewhere [briffa et al., 1998a].

I note there a few typos in the Eos figure 1 though (signs of fast turnaround perhaps). It should say 1856–1940 in the key for Briffa et al. for instance (as it is in Jones and Mann, 2004). But overall the issues in the Eos paper just have nothing to do with the problems with the MXD series. It could have been left out of that (rather crowded) figure without any problem, which obviously they would have rather done if they 13 authors thought there was something problematic. It should be made clear that Briffa and colleagues are well aware that the MXD decline is a problem and that without a resolution (either related to processing, tree sensitivity, direct anthropogenic effects or all of the above), people will rightly have a question mark over that series. But the the bigger point is that this is just one series out of many, and showing that S&B had a completely wrong approach doesn’t depend on any of those issues. – gavin]

[Further response: It’s interesting to add that in Briffa et al, 1998, they state:

“Over the hemisphere, the divergence between tree growth and mean summer temperatures began perhaps as early as the 1930s;”.

– gavin]

[DKW 86 7,429]

SkS does a good job compiling their sources and do not do any research on their own ( 1) aside from Cook et al 2013 concerning the consensus, which was an excellent paper, by the way) perhaps you should question those rather than the site that compiles them?

2) DKW's factual error, 3) along with other prominent "skeptics" like Palin and Inhofe, was to assert that this was an attempt to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Not the case. At all. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the proxy data was processed to more closely match directly measured temperatures.

1) 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

I could post links all night blowing up the Bat-Crappers at SkS doing the 97% Consensus Survey.

When SkS Shuts up and posts the work of others, it is a pretty good site. The work they do on their own....is just crazy i mean flat out bat-crap crazy.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

A.) SkS Misquotes the AGW Skeptics into SUPPORTING AGW as the primary cause of warming to be able to claim the 97%. Did you get that? SkS Flip-Flops the Opinions of the Skeptics into SUPPORTING AGW.

B.)The question of "Do Believe that Humans contribute to Global Warming?" Well, most of even the Skeptics do think that humans do contribute. Cook and SkS then goes on to promote that those surveyed really think that "Humans are the Primary or the Only Contributors to Global Warming." That is not a true representation of their opinions nor of their work.

2) I have not presented anything here that has had any factual errors. If you really want to start this back up, bens has cited two directly contradictory quotes that I have roundly called him out as a liar on. If one is indeed true, than the other must be indeed untrue and therefore he has indeed LIED.

3) bens cranks up the lie machine again. I am not an AGW Denier at all. I believe that AGW is definitely for real. I do have real live questions about at what level the Humans are actually contributing. I actually am very worried that when the sun spots start to get more active that we will be swamped in a new heat wave. I am simply asking and pointing out that there are huge holes in the AGW Communities numbers, data and work. Scientists are humans and humans do indeed make mistakes.

[AUDub 11,153]

I could post links all night blowing up the Bat-Crappers at SkS doing the 97% Consensus Survey.

When SkS Shuts up and posts the work of others, it is a pretty good site. The work they do on their own....is just crazy i mean flat out bat-crap crazy.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

A.) SkS Misquotes the AGW Skeptics into SUPPORTING AGW as the primary cause of warming to be able to claim the 97%. Did you get that? SkS Flip-Flops the Opinions of the Skeptics into SUPPORTING AGW.

B.)The question of "Do Believe that Humans contribute to Global Warming?" Well, most of even the Skeptics do think that humans do contribute. Cook and SkS then goes on to promote that those surveyed really think that "Humans are the Primary or the Only Contributors to Global Warming." That is not a true representation of their opinions nor of their work.

2) I have not presented anything here that has had any factual errors. If you really want to start this back up, bens has cited two directly contradictory quotes that I have roundly called him out as a liar on. If one is indeed true, than the other must be indeed untrue and therefore he has indeed LIED.

3) bens cranks up the lie machine again. I am not an AGW Denier at all. I believe that AGW is definitely for real. I do have real live questions about at what level the Humans are actually contributing. I actually am very worried that when the sun spots start to get more active that we will be swamped in a new heat wave. I am simply asking and pointing out that there are huge holes in the AGW Communities numbers, data and work. Scientists are humans and humans do indeed make mistakes.

1. Your characterization of the study is a misrepresentation. Have you even bothered to read it? It's freely available online. I'd suggest you do so, particularly the abstract. And carefully.

2. You did present a factual error. Here, I'll be nice enough to quote it:

Dr Michael Mann uses his "Trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature data.

They weren't altering any temperature data. They were discussing melding actual, directly measured temperature data with the tree ring proxies.

2b. Still quick with the liar card. I've made myself abundantly clear on the matter. Spencer's words, which I directly quoted, say as much. That his doctored "97.2% of models are wrong" graph says as much is one thing. That he says it represented a failure for the models entirely is another. Clear?

And notice that I haven't called you a liar at all. At worst, you are mistaken about your aforementioned factual error.

3. For not being a denialist (your words, not mine. I said skeptic) you sure parrot a lot of their talking points.

[autigeremt 6,646]

[AUDub 11,153]

That suit must be very uncomfortable there regardless of what he's sitting on.

[homersapien 11,391]

If 97% is wrong, can anyone cite a credible study showing a different result?

[DKW 86 7,429]

If 97% is wrong, can anyone cite a credible study showing a different result?

I will when i get home but the study I saw was basically 93%.

[homersapien 11,391]

If 97% is wrong, can anyone cite a credible study showing a different result?

I will when i get home but the study I saw was basically 93%.

Seriously?

You are going crazy over a study that said 97% when you think the correct answer is more like 93%?

[AFTiger 282]

Actually, the study was poorly designed and relied on a value judgement from the author. The absolute consensus is more like 0.3%

http://www.friendsof...sensus_Myth.pdf

http://wattsupwithth...e-97-consensus/

[AUDub 11,153]

Actually, the study was poorly designed and relied on a value judgement from the author. The absolute consensus is more like 0.3%

http://www.friendsof...sensus_Myth.pdf

http://wattsupwithth...e-97-consensus/

Interesting that you bring up Tol, who argued that the result of the paper is likely correct and the consensus is likely in the high 90%.

His problem was with perceived methodological problems with the paper. I wonder why Watts would post that.

Also worth noting is that the paper he wrote objecting was severely flawed and did not pass the peer review process.

[DKW 86 7,429]

Actually if you are exactly rigorous, it is actually .3%

If you are being humanly gracious, it may be as high as 93%.

But nowhere is it 97% and it is laughable that anyone would ever think it would be anywhere near that high.

[AUDub 11,153]

The .3% assertion makes no sense at all and has been rebutted many times.

[DKW 86 7,429]

The .3% assertion makes no sense at all and has been rebutted many times.

Actually, http://www.wsj.com/a...578462813553136

When reading the abstract below, from WSJ btw, PLEASE KEEP UP WITH THE EXACT AMOUNT OF WARMING CLAIMED.

One paper's claim may be for "ANY" contribution. One paper's claim may be for "MOST" etc. That changes the outcomes of the research drastically. But by the end of this well researched and well documented and well sited article you will understand that the 97% Claim is just crap. The most damaging rebuttals come from real live science journals too.

The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 (79/3146=.03%) responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem..

I still believe that Man has some contributive effects on AGW. My family and myself are taking actions to lower our own contributions that are costing us $1Ks. But we are putting our $$$$ where our hearts are. We give real $$$ to various organizations that are working to make the planet better in many ways and have for decades. My father was an Environmentalist as far back as 1968 or 69. My son would have it no other way. I dont just give lip service to my believes like some here apparently do. STILL, the 97% Claims are about as bogus as can be and in fact the .03% seems to be about as common as the 97% claims seems to be.

Have a great day...

[homersapien 11,391]

Actually if you are exactly rigorous, it is actually .3%

If you are being humanly gracious, it may be as high as 93%.

But nowhere is it 97% and it is laughable that anyone would ever think it would be anywhere near that high.

Now that's funny!

DK cites a range of 0.3 to 97 then says it might be 93 but it's "laughable" to say it could be as high as 97.

Did you really graduate from Auburn? What was your major?

(And EMT, if he is going to seriously post such statements, my question is quite reasonable.)

[homersapien 11,391]

I still believe that Man has some contributive effects on AGW. My family and myself are taking actions to lower our own contributions that are costing us $1Ks. But we are putting our $$$$ where our hearts are. We give real $$$ to various organizations that are working to make the planet better in many ways and have for decades. My father was an Environmentalist as far back as 1968 or 69. My son would have it no other way. I dont just give lip service to my believes like some here apparently do. STILL, the 97% Claims are about as bogus as can be and in fact the .03% seems to be about as common as the 97% claims seems to be.

Have a great day...

How did you come to your beliefs then? Did it occur in a dream? Did God tell you?

[DKW 86 7,429]

No, if you cant handle the fact that 97/=93 then you have a problem with simple math.

Read the WSJ piece. Maybe i was too kind at 93. Maybe it is much closer to .03%...