Posted by: Barry Bickmore | September 1, 2015

No, the Hockey Stick Has Not Been Falsified

I hear a lot from commenters who come here from Mark Steyn’s site that the Hockey Stick has been “falsified”.  As Dave Appell points out, the proper response is to ask which one, of the ~36 Hockey Sticks that have been produced so far, are they talking about?


Responses

  1. Presumably reasonable people can agree that if the study uses bristlecones then they should be ditched. Presumably reasonable people can agree that if the methodology involves principal components analysis without centring the data, then the study should be ditched too. Presumably, reasonable people can agree that if the reconstruction doesn’t have a hockey stick shape, then it is not actually a “hockey stick”.

    Right?

    • 1. Bristlecone pine proxies aren’t as bad as certain people want to think.

      2. Using PCA without centering the data doesn’t make much difference.

      3. Let’s call it “Hockey Stick shaped” if it falls within the error bars (or very close to them) of the original “Hockey Stick” graphs that some people get their panties in a wad about.

      • Tamino also did a lot of work on that for a more lay audience.

        As usual, deniers don’t know what the hell is going on but don’t really miss it, since that reality stuff is just so… well… *limiting* for them.

      • That’s patently disingenuous. When the Hockey Stick was being presented to the public and policy makers nobody, least of all Mr. Potato-Head, was cautioning people about the error bars. No one warned that the uncertainty was so high that there could be an entire Medieval Warm Period hiding in the confidence interval.

        Instead it was all “OMG, look how stable the environment was until the 20th century!”

        The warmists certainly didn’t caution people to take the Hockey Stick with a whole salt-shaker because of the error bars, so they shouldn’t be able to hide behind those same bars now.

        • Nope, it;s not disingenuous. Unless you meant to say that of Bishoprick.

          “was cautioning people about the error bars. ”

          None of you deniers ever bother with them either. EVER. So null and void criticism.

          There could also be NO MWP globally. Indeed since only regional studies show one, there likely was no notable MWP. We didn’t have global weather reports on 15th Century TV.

          And NONE of the possible error bars make an MWP warmer than today. Nor do they allow for a warming faster than the last 100 years has seen.

          When deniers require THEIR claims to be taken with a continental-sized shaker of salt because they don’t even know what error bars apply (or are), THEN you can complain about science not doing it everywhere.

          Because, retard, the HS paper DID include error bars.

          Just because you never bothered to read what the science says (or, indeed the IPCC) doesn’t mean people weren’t told about it in every avenue that it was possible to put the information in.

          • BAHAHAHA!

            You goddamned dimwit! You ended up attacking papers from the list yourself.

            Because you ALWAYS rely on some buffoon like Bickless to tell you what to think rather than checking the sources yourself.

            Stupid lemming!

            • Insane laughter is, again, not proof of your claim, nutbar.

            • You were too stupid to realize that I was quoting papers from Appell’s own list. So your criticisms actually helped prove my point. And that’s why I’m laughing at you.

              You should invent your own martial art called Wow-Fu. When an assailant attacks you would immediately starting punching yourself in the groin as fast and as hard as you can. That’ll show ’em!

            • No you weren’t you insane diseased nutbag.

              Where does this quote come from in Appel’s list?

              “OMG, look how stable the environment was until the 20th century!”

            • Nope, I was attacking your conclusion, retard.

            • You’re lying again. When you thought that I was introducing *new* papers into the discussion you criticized the material. It was only after you finally got it through your head that these papers were from Appell’s list that you completely changed your story and started accusing me of misquoting, fantasy reading etc.

              For example you noted that some of the papers address too localized of an area which is a valid criticism.

              Just another example of how so many on the global warming bandwagon start with a conclusion and then work backwards looking for evidence. And then they claim to represent Science!

              Just plain stupid and dishonest.

            • No, I was critisizing your conclusion, retard.

            • And, no, the post you laughed to was in answer to a post that DIDN’T quote ANY science paper. AT ALL.

            • You were criticizing the papers I cited because you were too dense to realize they were from Appell’s list. Once your finally internalized that simple fact you changed your story.

              But it’s fairly easy to show your dishonesty. For example you said the following about the Torneträsk paper.

              “So i s looking at a single area. Not globally.”

              And I agree that’s why this paper cannot be considered, by itself, as either proving or disproving the HS.

              When you thought I was advancing the paper you disagreed with the paper, not any conclusion I had drawn.

              You’re simply lying.

              Again.

            • Your reading comprehension continues to plumb the depths.

              I clearly said what I was laughing at. Namely,

              “You ended up attacking papers from the list yourself.”

            • NOWHERE in this thread did I criticise any papers at all.

              NO. WHERE.

              So please stop lying.

              If at all possible.

            • This thread started with Bishopprick, then Barry, then you, then me, then you laughing, then me saying laughing insanely is no proof of an error on my part, then you claiming that I have criticised a paper you quoted. about. NOWHERE was a paper quoted.

            • No, I was criticising your conclusions which are wrong.

            • You’re lying again to try and weasel out of yet another embarrassing gaffe.

              You were claiming that the papers I quoted could not be used to draw conclusions about the HS. For example some examined too limited of a geographic area. And on this point we agree. Those papers should not be on any list of supposed confirmations of the Mann HS.

              But once you finally wised up enough to finally realize the papers were from Appell’s list you started lying saying that you were only criticizing my conclusions.

            • “You were claiming that the papers I quoted could not be used to draw conclusions about the HS.”

              All you have to do is prove where you quoted “OMG, look how stable the environment was until the 20th century!” from.

              NO papers used that. Ergo, no quotes from papers to refute or counter.

    • Why do you presume such a ridiculous claim?

      Oh, I get it, your definition of reasonable is “a denier like me”, amirite?

      And since so many didn’t use bristlecone pines at all, yet still managed to get the same hockey stick, this would rather indicate that REASONABLE people would agree that bristlecone pines aren’t proof of a bad reconstruction.

      However, that definition of reasonable would be “Will have solid and supported reason for their decision”. IOW not a denier like you.

    • Andrew,
      Since I really can’t face commenting on your site, maybe I can suggest here that you at least find someone who understands a bit of physics to correct the ridiculous errors that your commenters make. I would imagine it must be incredibly embarassing for you to have comments that show such a level of ignorance. Oh, hold on, maybe that’s a feature rather than a bug?

      Presumably reasonable people can agree that if the methodology involves principal components analysis without centring the data, then the study should be ditched too.

      No, why? It’s been shown that you get the same basic result whether you short-center, or not.

      Presumably, reasonable people can agree that if the reconstruction doesn’t have a hockey stick shape, then it is not actually a “hockey stick”.

      Only if your goal is be a pedantic nit-picker and to not put any effort into actually getting what others are trying to say. Again, this may be a feature, rather than a bug.

    • Okay, I messed up the blockquotes above, but you probably get the point.

    • Since Montford wrote falsehoods in his book, I cannot imagine why anyone would ever believe anything from him…
      See dog astrology discussion from Hockey Stick Illusion talk page.
      Montford fabricated the claim that Lindzen confirmed a non-existent Deming claim about Jon Overpeck.

  2. Bishop Hill is a source of denialist twaddle. Note that the commenter doesn’t mention that the thirty-six hockey-sticks rely upon different data and therefore his comment is both irrelevant and disingenuous nonsense. Follow the link in the headline article to see the studies for yourself)
    If BH was correct then the hockey-sticks would be falsified, but they haven’t-been, and the data keeps on accumulating and confirming the rapid, unprecedented rise in global temperatures. Note in human-terms, temperature rise is slow (and non-uniform – we are talking global averages), but in geological time, temperature rises this rapid have never been seen and it’s unequivocally CO2, and that CO2 results from human activities, starting with the industrial revolution.
    The hockey-stick shape is in multiple data-sets and the same shape keeps-on appearing.

    BH is referring specifically to a study that uses tree-rings, it cannot have any relevance to other studies that use boreholes, lake sediments, ice-cores, stalactites etc.
    BH talks about ‘reasonable people’, the trouble is if BH had been reasoned into his position (which seems impossible, given the immense-amount of available data), the steady supply of fresh data that has repeatedly shown him to wrong , but despite this, he continues to spout the same old denialist nonsense. If only he were reasonable, he would have started telling people the truth. It’s as if it wasn’t the data, but there was some hidden agenda for BH saying what he says.
    I wonder what that might be?

  3. the appropriate response is to accept the criticisms, then work to improve standards so that those criticisms are not valid.

    Instead the actual response is to reject the criticisms and claim that those involved are whiter than any other group of people on this planet or any other planet at any time in recorded history or indeed all the other parallel universes that might conceivably exist.

    And strangely that kind of statement is not believed.

    • Response to what criticisms? Pretending to falsify some result by following a procedure that is slightly different in some ways? That’s the trouble with some people. They want to be able to make largely idiotic criticisms, and then blame everyone else for not being “reasonable” enough to accept them.

    • Scottish Sceptic
      Strawman arguments aren’t convincing. Try being honest in future.

    • You mean exactly as MBH did when doing their follow-up paper in 1999?

      And exactly NOT what M&M did when THEIR paper accrued much and well deserved criticism?

      Or is this some weird Jabberwocky-like denier definition of your words that only you can supply?

    • To clarify, your first para is what MBH and actual scientists do.

      The second one is what Soon, Wegman, M&M and so on have done.

      Do you actually know what’s going on out there in the real world outside your echo chamber?

    • “the appropriate response” is to test the validity of the data and the studies in relevant ISI WoS Journals, not in blogs and websites that are intended to bamboozle the scientifically unwashed. But of course that doesn’t match the agenda of the denialists like yourselves.

  4. The appropriate response to spurious criticisms and pointless quibbles is to dismiss them, SS.

    Also to be dismissed is such juvenile silliness as “whiter than any other group of people on this planet or any other planet at any time in recorded history or indeed all the other parallel universes that might conceivably exist.”

    • And this is why SS should not engage in spurious criticisms and pointless quibbles, because we dismiss his idiotic ravings for exactly that reason.

  5. Of course, on the few occasions where deniers have made predictions, their refusal to visit reality and calibrate their stories by it leads to predictable results:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html

  6. Ooh, like this stick? http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/9/1/more-appell-comedy-gold.html

    • Keep going, now…. You forgot to add that said stick is within the error bars of Mann’s original Hockey Sticks, and supports his stated conclusions.

      • That we have a similar temps as 2000 years ago? The error bars of Mann’s stick allow for a completely flat trend?

        • Mann’s original Hockey Sticks only went back 600-1000 years, not 2000. In any case, his main conclusions were that the last decade was likely the hottest during that period, and that the recent rise in temperature seems relatively rapid. Both of these conclusions are supported by the graph you linked. And I’m just eyeballing it, but it does look to me like the period from 1000 on would be within Mann’s error bars.

          • Muller summarizes,

            Link to National Academy report,

            http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

            • Muller admits he was wrong on the whole thing:

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

            • Hey Abortion-That-Lived,

              Learn how to read a calendar.

            • What does the date have to do with it?

              Muller claims he was wrong.

            • You still haven’t learned how to read a calendar?

            • Still haven’t said why reading a calendar is important.

            • In the comments for the previous blog post to this one, Bickmore was attempting to skewer Muller for continuing to criticize the Hockey Stick in an op-ed authored by Muller on September 25, 2013.

              So how in the world can you link to a BBC article from a year earlier and claim that it shows Muller accepting the HS?

            • Because he still is saying that the Hockey Stick is robust. It’s STILL the result of his work.

              Therefore he was wrong on the HS being wrong.

              Nothing later can change that, because his work STILL SHOWS A HOCKEY STICK.

            • By no stretch of the imagination is Muller saying that he was wrong to criticize the HS.

              A ‘Hockey Stick’ is a long period of stable climate followed by a sharp increase in temperature. Muller’s work *only* addresses the last 250 years.

              If you’d simply watch the linked video you’d understand just how nonsensical your claims are.

              Admit it. You thought that you finally (after six months! ) were going to make a valid point. But now that I’ve shown your BBC article means nothing you’re throwing a big queeny fit.

            • By no stretch of the imagination is Muller right with his criticism since HE HIMSELF gets the same answer.

              HE AGREES that the HS is correct. His own work does the same thing.

            • By no stretch of the imagination does that report cast into doubt the MBH reconstructions. Indeed it soundly endorses it.

              Did you not even read it?

            • Complete nonsense. Clearly Muller says the exact opposite in the interview I linked.

              You’re simply using the Invincible Ignorance argument.

              What I found most interesting about the National Academy report was how much it recognized the excellent work done by McIntyre. To quote,

              “Regarding metrics used in the validation step in the reconstruction exercise, two issues have been raised (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, 2005a,b). One is that the choice of “significance level” for the reduction of error (RE) validation statistic is not appropriate. The other is that different statistics, specifically the coefficient of efficiency (CE) and the squared correlation (r 2 ), should have been used (the various
              validation statistics are discussed in Chapter 9). Some of these criticisms are more
              relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more
              general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published recon-
              structions have been underestimated. Methods for evaluation of uncertainties are dis-
              cussed in Chapter 9.”

              and,

              “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions the
              leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could
              then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction. To see how this can
              happen, suppose that instead of proxy climate data, one simply used a random sample
              of autocorrelated time series that did not contain a coherent signal.”

              and,

              “This exercise demonstrates that the baseline with respect to which anomalies are
              calculated can influence principal components in unanticipated ways. Huybers (2005),
              commenting on McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a), points out that normalization also
              affects results, a point that is reinforced by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) in their
              response to Huybers.”

              Obviously the McIntyre-haters never bothered to read the National Academy report.

            • http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

              Is NOT an interview, retard.

            • The two M&M papers are ridiculously flawed and Muller pointing to them shows how little regard he has for truth or accuracy in science.

            • How can you be so stupid? The interview is the YouTube video I linked.

              What in the hell is wrong with you?

            • Muller didn’t point to the M&M papers. It was the National Research Council report.

            • Where?

            • Where what numbskull?

            • Where is what you claim, retard.

            • Are you really this stupid?

              I posted a link to a YouTube video of Muller discussing the National Research Council Report.

              I then posted a link to the report itself.

              And this is why this blog is such junk. You have to spend day after day after day explaining the glaringly obvious to Wow.

            • Ah, so you ARE banned but are refusing.

              Odd, given your whining about how this site sucks.

              Why not just post on McI’s bog, give you love him and think his blog so much better?

              Oh, by the way, ever single post you made has terrible errors in it, along with vitriolic hate, unsubstantiated attacks, and erroneous assertion.

              Sorry, all complete and utter failures.

      • He also forgot to add that that stick is for the NH extra tropics only (90N – 30N) and that the paper explcitly states

        This amplitude is considerably larger than that in the pioneering reconstructions (e.g. Jones et al. 1998; Mann et al. 1999; Crowley and Lowery 2000) which were hampered by a very limited and unevenly distributed set of proxy data.

        Given that the origin of this was a claim that MBH98 and MBH99 were junk and had been thoroughly debunked, that would seem relevant. I’m unaware of anyone who would call something that has been thoroughly debunked pioneering.

        • Remember, deniers are told what papers to link and how to present them. You don’t want to make them have to READ it and understand it, do you? That’s FAR more work, far too much for a gish gallop.

          Remember, this was pulled off bishoprick’s site.

          It’s that bashed bishop that should have read the paper before telling his acolytes to go forth and spread the word.

  7. Which one are they talking about? And they got it from Mark Steyn’s site? It’s pretty obvious that they are talking about one that Michael Mann did. Assuming he did a famous one, that’s probably the one.

    • Well, since the others got the same answer, and Steyn is an incompetent hack with no ability to arrive at a conclusion based on solid evidence he can comprehend and explain to others, they’d be wrong.

      As evidenced by those ~36 others that are also hockey sticks.

      Being in disagreement with all other reconstructions would be a first and essential requisite for Mann’s hockey stick being wrong.

      But maybe you can explain why it’s wrong yet still the same as the others you say aren’t wrong?

      • I was just answering his question. Which one? That one.

        I offered nothing else on the matter. Dave Appell asked an odd question.

        But for the rest of what you say, I’m not sure it’s all true. I am not convinced that being in disagreement would be an essential requisite for being wrong. Unless right and wrong are defined by agreement, which would be non-scientific.

        • Well, they’re just plain wrong, then, since that one isn’t proved wrong, it’s proved right by the other ~35.

          So the ACTUAL answer to “Which one has been falsified” is “None of them”.

          “Dave Appell asked an odd question.”

          No he didn’t. You have an odd brain.

          “But for the rest of what you say, I’m not sure it’s all true”

          See previous point answering your cognitive point. Same answer here.

          “I am not convinced that being in disagreement would be an essential requisite for being wrong.”

          If it has the right answer, then it’s right. What’s to be convinced of?

          “Unless right and wrong are defined by agreement”

          Well, agreement is the result of coming to the right conclusion.

          “which would be non-scientific.”

          No. It seems like your brain malfunctions also extend into your fantasy reconstruction of what science IS as well as the other parts of reality.

          • Here’s what Mr. Buckhorn wrote. I did not click the link so I guess it’s possible he asked the question instead of Mr. Appell.

            “As Dave Appell points out, the proper response is to ask which one, of the ~36 Hockey Sticks that have been produced so far, are they talking about?”

            As for the rest I don’t know what to say. I’m going to back out so we don’t dig ourselves deeper into whatever sort of hole we are in where we are saying agreement is the result of coming to the right conclusion.

            In your defense, what I came here to say want all that valuable in the first place so this hasn’t done any damage.

            • Dang. I wrote Bickmore and my phone corrected it to buckhorn. Sorry about that.

            • Upon further reflection, I believe I misinterpreted what you meant when you said it was not an odd question. I apologize.

              The rest stands, though. Agreement is NOT the result of coming to the right conclusion. If many come to the same conclusion that should be a good thing to bet on, though.

              You seem to be starting from the premise that you are correct. Which is just what Steyn is doing. I don’t think that’s what Mr. Bickmore is doing, which is why I come here.

            • As Dave Appell points out, the proper response is to ask which one, of the ~36 Hockey Sticks that have been produced so far, are they talking about?”

              And since none of them HAVE been falsified, the answer to the question there is NONE OF THEM.

              They are talking of a fictional one, one that doesn’t exist: the one that they say is falsified IS NONEXISTENT.

            • “The rest stands, though. Agreement is NOT the result of coming to the right conclusion.”

              That, however, is only what you’re claiming. *I* am claiming coming to the right conclusion results in agreement with others who ALSO come to the right conclusion.

              If nobody agrees, then nobody can be expected to have the right answer. You know, like God. NOBODY agrees with others which god they mean, so they ALL disagree, therefore they are most likely ALL WRONG.

              Billions of people agree that the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is equal to about 3.14 when they work it out. A handful work out 10 and they are wrong and we know that because we can agree when we do the calculation that the answer is equal to about 3.14.

              If everyone agrees in the result they get, the result is correct.

              If nobody else agrees with the result you get, your result is INCORRECT.

  8. If it was not possible to infer an objective reality by agreement with others whose SUBJECTIVE reality necessarily differs, then there would be no science and we’d have to be solipsists, which means several million years ago we were eaten one by one by predators whilst everyone else went “Well, I hallucinated that that person existed and that they got eaten by that tiger, but there’s no proof that ever happened in real life, so I won’t bother defending them from attack, since it never provably happened”.

    Thinking that GETTING agreement is “nonscientific” is merely an anti-science idiocy to try and make everyone’s subjective OPINION equal so as to lever in whatever personal fantasy they want and demand it get “equal time” in the “controversy”.

  9. Did Bickmore look at these “hockey sticks” ballyhooed by Appell?

    • Here’s one hockey stick from the list. Only it’s not a hockey stick, but a commentary on climate reconstructions.

      http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorit/Frank_etal_WIRESCllmChange_2010.pdf

      Quoting,

      “Icons of past temperature variability, as featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over nearly two decades, have changed from a schematic sketch in 1990, to a seemingly well-solved story in 2001, to more explicit recognition of significant uncertainties in 2007.”

      And,

      “The 1990 sketch was replaced 11 years later by a quantitative reconstruction for the entire NH by Mann et al. 16 Annual precision and y-axis in degrees Celsius contrasted strongly with the 1990 figure and suggested a marked increase of knowledge. The little varying, yet slowly declining temperatures over about 900 years of natural variability, reversed by the strong upward trend over the past century, served as a symbol for human impact on temperature change. The existence of an MWP and LIA were hinted at, but only as part of an almost negligible pre-anthropogenic temperature change. Even though this reconstruction was presented with calibration uncertainties, their common omission in subsequent discussion, may have led to an overly optimistic assessment of the degree to which past temperatures were understood.

      And,

      “In the most recent IPCC report, further consideration of existing and the development of new reconstruc-tions, methodological disputes, and analysis called for a retreat from the 2001 position that recon-structed temperatures were well understood.”

      And for those divergence fans,

      “The climatic signal in proxy records is now routinely calibrated—and often verified—via compar-isons with instrumental records allowing assessment of proxy trustworthiness in the recent period.”

      Take that Mr. Hide-the-Decline!

      This particular publication could be used by the *defense* at the Mann libel trial. Mann’s hockey stick was presented as a “seemingly well-solved story” from which the IPCC had to “retreat”.

      IMHO it shows that too many “scientists” fail to properly exercise their skepticism when presented with a story that they already want to believe. And that’s why it is necessary for people to be able to criticize these stories even to be point of using the world “fraudulent”.

      • And it analyses the hockey sticks to conclude on whether the HS shape is valid.

        The conclusion is that it is.

        • Show the evidence for your claim.

          • The name and abstract of the paper, retard.

            • Really? Show a quote that supports your claim then.

            • Read the paper yourself.

            • And once again Wow brings the stupid.

              Obviously I did read the paper since I’m quoting from it.

              And clearly you’re just making up stuff.

              Again.

            • Obviously you did not, otherwise you would have not reached your conclusion.

            • So, show some quotes from the paper that prove your point.

            • Which claim and which paper do you wish to have verified because you’re immensely incompetent, Loco?

              Just making CERTAIN you aren’t going to whoosh those goalposts by claiming I verified the “wrong” thing.

            • First you tell me that the “name and abstract” of the paper show that I’m wrong. Then you tell me to “read the paper yourself”.

              But now you’re asking what paper are we talking about.

              Could it be any clearer that you’re just engaging in avoidance tactics?

              You’re an utter fraud.

            • “But now you’re asking what paper are we talking about.”

              Yes, because in the earlier thread where you have cited NO PAPERS WHATSOEVER, you go claiming something about papers you quoted.

              In another earlier thread, where you cited a paper, you then claim it is an interview with Muller, WHICH IT IS NOT.

              So, yes, you could be talking about ANYTHING here. There’s no way to know in advance what paper you’re talking about and if I answer the one that you seem to be indicating in THIS thread, you may go “No, that’s not what I’m talking about, YU LUSE!”.

              So I want to see in a post that I can directly respond to PRECISELY what you demand I prove wrong.

              You have form for making up information in one thread about a completely different thread

            • First you tell me that the “name and abstract of the paper” show that I’m wrong. Then you tell me to “read the paper yourself”.

              And now you’re trying to claim that you don’t know which paper we’re talking about?????????????

              How in the world can you say that the “name and abstract of the paper” show that I’m wrong if you don’t know which paper?

              Because you’re just making up stuff. You’re a complete and utter fraud.

            • So you are continuing to try to ensure that you can change which paper and which claim you are on about when I prove you wrong.

            • Well, lets do this paper you claim is contrary to the claim of this blog post:

              Conclusions
              We find that the hemispheric-scale warmth of the past decade for
              the NH is likely anomalous in the context of not just the past
              1,000 years, as suggested in previous work, but longer. This
              conclusion appears to hold for at least the past 1,300 years

              from

              http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

              Titled Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

              Or this paper:

              http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364

              which you claim refutes the global record of a hockey stick, but the paper is titled

              Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

            • Well, lets do this paper you claim is contrary to the claim of this blog post:

              Conclusions
              We find that the hemispheric-scale warmth of the past decade for
              the NH is likely anomalous in the context of not just the past
              1,000 years, as suggested in previous work, but longer. This
              conclusion appears to hold for at least the past 1,300 years

              from

              http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

              Titled Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

            • Or this paper:

              http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364

              which you claim refutes the global record of a hockey stick, but the paper is titled

              Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

              If NEITHER of those are the one you’re claiming needing proof you’re wrong on, then you will need to say which paper and claim you make of it you mean.

            • And here we go with the endless avoidance tactics.

              As every one can very clearly see on September 8th at 12:02 AM I linked to one of the papers from Appell’s list and quoted from that paper extensively.

              As expected Wow-for-Brains told me I was all wrong and his “evidence” was,

              Wow: “The name and abstract of the paper”

              Wow also told me to

              Wow: “Read the paper yourself”

              And now here we are with Wow trying to claim that he just doesn’t know what paper I’m talking about.

              HOW ABOUT THE PAPER I LINKED TO AT THE START OF THIS THREAD YOU IDIOT!

              It should be abundantly clear that Wow is simply LYING. How could he tell me that the “name and abstract of the paper” prove me wrong if he didn’t know what paper was under discussion?

              Wow then turns around and proceeds to re-link to every other paper I linked except THE PAPER THAT STARTED THIS THREAD.

              And to add to the nonsense, Wow’s next big “win” is that I’m misrepresenting the National Academy of Sciences report as an “interview”. Wow chortles that “IT IS NOT”. Well of course its not.

              WOW IT’S STARING RIGHT AT YOU IN YOUR GODDAMN STUPID FACE!

              On September 7th I linked to a YouTube video of an interview with Richard Muller talking about the NAS report. I then included, in the same comment, a link to the actual report. How is the world could Wow see the link to the report and not to the video? They’re right next to each other! I’m guessing that Wow is using his phone.

              What in the hell is wrong with this moron? Is this just a tactic to frustrate any dissenters into concluding that this lousy blog is just the theater of the absurd? Or is Wow just that stupid?

            • So when I don’t reply to your demands, it’s avoidance, and when I DO reply to your demands, it’s still avoidance…

              Right….

            • “As every one can very clearly see on September 8th at 12:02 AM …”

              No they can’t, because NOWHERE in this thread do you post that, so it would require you to say where that was said. Which you never did.

              CLEARLY you also said what I posted. And it was bullshit.

              And, as predicted, you chopped and changed to something else. Which is why you never can say what you’re talking about. Because you want to make pretend you’re not wrong when you clearly are.

              Moreover, that link doesn’t exist. It 404’s.

              No such paper.

              So how did you manage to quote it, hmm?

            • What in the absolute hell are you babbling about??????

              If you really tried do you think you could compose a coherent sentence? Could you please stop using indefinite references?

              “…NOWHERE in this thread do you post that, so it would require you to say where that was said.”

              How in the hell is anyone supposed to guess what ‘that’ means?

              “CLEARLY you also said what I posted”

              How is anyone supposed to guess your reference to ‘what I posted’?

              Honestly, you are the worst writer I’ve ever encountered.

              ——————————

              At the end of your inchoate rant you complain that my link doesn’t work and state “no such paper”.

              1. So you admit that you haven’t even **tried** to look at the paper I linked until now. So how could you have told me to “read the paper yourself” since you obviously did not?

              2. If you never even **tried** to read the paper I linked then how can you accuse me of chopping and changing anything?

              This blogging software appears to be interpreting ‘a/’ as a format. Copy the link into the URL box of your browser. Add back the ‘a’ turning ‘zorit’ in the URL into ‘zorita’ and you’ll get the pdf.

              Sorry for the inconvenience. Except that now we know you have a tendency to yell and scream about papers that you don’t even **try** to read. Nice own goal.

            • So, you criminal buffon, you’re claiming that you never made the post “By: Locus on September 8, 2015 at 12:42 am”????

            • Oh, and for that paper, try the conclusions:

              “Current anthropogenic activities have led to unprecedented trajectories and states in the earth’s coupled climate system”

              And you didn’t start this thread with it.

              And your post on this contained NOTHING WHATSOEVER indicating how it refuted MBH.

            • “On September 7th I linked to a YouTube video ”

              No you didn’t, you lunatic.

              No link in the first post.
              Link to nap.edu in the second.
              No link in the third and final post you made 7th Sept.

            • Can someone **please** explain to me what in the world is wrong with ‘Wow’???

              On September 8th at 12:02 AM I posted a link to one of the papers from Appell’s list. I quoted extensively from that paper. What is so hard for Wow to understand?

              Now today he’s accusing me of denying that I posted to a **different** paper at 12:42 AM.

              What in the world is Wow babbling about?

            • Unbelievable. After all of your hysterical accusations of my supposed quote-mining you provide a **truncated** sentence and don’t even indicate that with an ellipsis.

              Here’s the complete sentence,

              “Current anthropogenic activities
              have led to unprecedented trajectories and states in the
              earth’s coupled climate system, but characterization
              of the natural climate variability will at least allow a
              better understanding of the basic operating rules and
              patterns of climate change.”

              And that’s what the Frank paper was about. Mann’s hockey stick greatly underestimated natural climate variability and that’s why subsequent work was needed to “allow a better understanding of the basic operating rules and patterns of climate change”.

              My original post on this subject consisted largely of QUOTES from the Frank paper. If you don’t like those statements then take it up with the authors. And then ask Appell how this paper ended up on his list of supposed HS confirmations.

            • Alright this is just getting absurd.

              On Sept 7th at 11:30PM I replied to one of Bickmore’s comments. My comment contained a link to a YouTube video of Muller being interviewed and a link to the National Academy of Sciences report which Muller refereed.

              *** I am staring at the thumbnail for that YouTube video right now embedded on this page. ***

              It shows the interviewer dressed in a dark suit with a pale blue shirt and a yellow tie. Click on it and the video plays.

              Just in case there was some sort of format error I downloaded another browser and sure enough the video thumbnail shows up on this page as well.

            • When a non-sockpuppet Loco nutbar comes back, I’ll answer his questions.

              Yours are all entirely fictious, starting with the identification.

              Your insanity is the same, and the lack of any intelligence is identical, and the lies you spew are the same style of BS that loco does, but you aren’t Loco, you’re just fucking about.

              EVERY SINGLE POST Loco nutbar fruitcake has posted has had ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT FROM REALITY. Pretending the same insanity imaginary posts doesn’t change that.

            • “*** I am staring at the thumbnail for that YouTube video right now embedded on this page. ***”

              No you aren’t. You’re imaging it. No post 7th Sept contains any link to Youtube. Not one. Not from anyone, least of all that nutjob Loco, so how you can be looking at a youtube video is anyone’s guess.

              However, you have been shown his results agree with the HS, his contentions about it wrong as he himself admits, and he even goes further than the IPCC in attributing this to man-made causes.

              I have given you those links.

              Go look at them, instead of an imaginary youtube video.

            • The only link Loco nutbar gives 11:30 is to nap, not youtube.

              Sorry, whoever you are, you’re absolutely wrong. See for yourself:

              Muller summarizes,

              Link to National Academy report,

              http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

              By: Locus on September 7, 2015
              at 11:30 pm

            • “Mann’s hockey stick greatly underestimated natural climate variability”

              No it doesn’t. Go look yourself. Cut the graph off at 1400 so you see the entire range, and the only one that wiggles above is the EIV land only index, and that only barely.

              Moreover, as the conclusion states, there is still a hockey stick: unprecedented recent rise in temperatures.

              You’re just as useless as the real loco nutbar, with even less credibility.

            • “On September 8th ”

              Which isn’t September 7th.

              “I posted a link”

              No you didn’t. The real Loco nutbar did. Not you.

              “I quoted extensively from that paper.”

              He did quote many words from it.

              “What is so hard for Wow to understand?”

              Nothing. Everything understood about quoting. What’s NOT THERE is any evidence it shows MBH98 is wrong. Or even the claim that it does. Just a petty name calling.

              What he DIDN’T quote was the conclusion that agrees with the hockey stick: unprecedented recent rise.

              What’s so hard to understand about that?

              “Now today he’s accusing me of denying that I posted to a **different** paper at 12:42 AM.”

              No, I’m assuming that, since Loco nutbar (which isn’t you, you’re just a stand-in or temp) insisted that the paper I referred to wasn’t a paper that he referred to himself, he was admitting he was denying he posted about that paper. The words “I never made that post” didn’t appear, but since that paper wasn’t one he claimed to have posted about, he was implicitly denying having made the post.

              If he wishes to admit he posted it now, he admits to lying about denying having made the post. If he was not denying it, then he admits to lying about my lack of response to his demand for proof his claims about a paper were incorrect, since I clearly DID reply with evidence of his claims about a paper he referred to.

            • Yes I did post a link to a YouTube video.

              I’m looking at the html for this page right now and THERE IT IS!

              Either Wow is lying through his teeth, which is always possible, or he’s got browser problems.

              And that’s why this blog is such junk. You have to spend all of your time just trying to teach Wow the buffoon how to browse the Web.

            • By the way, nutbar, you DO realise that you can now be charged with a criminal offence, right?

              Computer trespass.

    • Another hockey stick from the list is this paper.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

      Authored by Michael Mann himself.

      News Flash! We interrupt this regularly scheduled program with an important news bulletin. In 2008 Mr. Potato-Head said that his paper from ten years ago is still full of awesome! Film at 11:00.

      Cold fusion believers continued to perform research until the 2000’s. Did that make their previous work any better?

      • News flash! Loco nutbag gets it wrong again!

        • Another meaningless, information-free comment from a sack of monkey crap.

          • Barry, can we please send these 2 children to their rooms until they learn to behave like adults?

            • Watch out Colon, Loco will go librarian-poo on yo ass for trying to delete his comments…

            • You seriously need to get out more.

            • What is that claim supposed to do?

              You don’t know a damn thing about me. All you’re trying to do is make out a fake concern to hide a weaksauce attack against me.

              You need to get a brain, Colon. Your current one doesn’t work worth a lick.

            • As far as I can recollect I’ve only initiated an exchange with Wow once and that’s when Wow was asking Bickmore to delete my comments. Otherwise all I ever do is *respond* to Wow’s attacks. If Wow were to stop replying to *every single one* of my posts I’d have nothing to do with him.

              I always start by directing my arguments to Bickmore or to other prominent bloggers like Eli Rabett. Outside of that I stay out of everyone else’s conversations whereas Wow interjects himself into every conversation on this blog.

              If you want to criticize me for stubbornly responding to all of Wow’s taunts, well you’ve got a point. If you want to criticize me for engaging in crass vulgarity, well guilty as charged. But on this thread I think I’ve provided some good argumentation in pointing out that Bickmore has been touting a list of papers without apparently taking the time to find out what the papers actually say. You’ll note that Bickmore never even tried to provide a rebuttal.

              If you have some commentary for Bickmore that you feel is of higher quality I’m looking forward to reading it.

              You’re out of line to lump me in with Wow. Way out of line.

              Have a nice day.

            • “As far as I can recollect ”

              But you’re a fantasist, Loco. You make shit up and then pretend that it’s real. You even pretend things never happened when they did, and then pretend the claim was never made when your error is proved wrong.

              So your “recollection” is entirely orthogonal to reality, only intersecting it on random chance than any actual relevance to it.

            • Loco nutbar, your posting history to date on this thread is:

              3 Started threads
              2 Started threads that were entirely 100% insulting me or making claims against me
              8 replies to others (five of them to yourself)
              16 Replies to me, all bar a few calling me an abortion

              so about 10% of your posts were new thread starts that didn’t demand a contradiction from me, but could have been from anyone who actually understands reality.

              Your recollection is, as always, faulty.

            • *shakes head*

            • *Scratches head*

    • Similarly this paper from the list was co-authored by Mr. Potato-Head

      http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/11017.full.pdf

      Look that’s not to say that the paper is automatically flawed. But it shouldn’t be on a list of confirmations of Mann’s previous work.

      • Why? It DOES confirm the HS.

        • Except the IPCC no longer does.

          http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts

          • I’d trust the IPCC more in saying what they think and do than a denier blogroll that would infect any anus it was in contact with.

            You know, like yourself, retard.

            • It’s the *IPCC* that’s discarded the Hockey Stick. That’s the point of the Frank paper.

            • No they haven’t. They still accept the hockey stick.

            • The Hockey Stick was replaced by the “Plate of Spaghetti” according to the Frank paper, which your side touted.

            • And one strand of that is STILL the MBH result.

              Therefore NOT ABANDONED.

              ALL of them still show a hockey stick.

            • You obviously don’t know what a hockey stick looks like. If anything the current IPCC climate reconstruction looks more like the Lamb graph than the HS.

              The Medieval Warm Period has been restored.

            • Yes I do.

              You obviously don’t know what “Hockey Stick Graph” means if you think it’s an accurate depiction of a stick you play hockey with.

            • Right, right.

              They called it the “hockey stick” graph because it looked like a basketball.

              You’ve made a fool out of yourself and once again you’re simply trying to weasel out of the consequences.

            • Nope, they called it a Hockey Stick graph because it looked a bit like a hockey stick.

              Like I surmised, you don’t know what “Hockey Stick Graph” means.

            • They called it a Hockey Stick because it resembled a hockey stick. A long straight section with a blade at the end rising at a steep angle.

              However, the latest IPCC report now replaces the long straight section with the pronounced hump of the MWP. The reconstructions don’t look like a hockey stick anymore.

              Like I surmised. You’re just lying again.

            • That isn;t how they described the hockey stick graph, retard. That is how you would describe a hockey stick.

            • And here we go with the Orwellian language.

              According to Wow a “hockey stick graph” is **not** supposed to look like a …. hockey stick.

              Unreal. Unreal and patently dishonest.

            • Ah, here goes retard. Again.

              So, it’s a literal hockey stick, right? So you can pick it up and play a game of hockey with it. Right?

              Oh, no? You can’t? I guess that it can’t mean literally a hockey stick, then, can it.

          • So you admit your claim of this paper was wrong.

            Except you never admit it in words, only by not defending your claim against it.

            • What in the hell are you blabbering about here?

              Honestly my claim is what I said.

              “Look that’s not to say that the paper is automatically flawed. But it shouldn’t be on a list of confirmations of Mann’s previous work.”

              You can’t expect people to be impressed when someone confirms their own work. Would you accept that McIntyre’s previous work has all been vindicated by his subsequent work?

            • Retardo, you seem to be using a different email address.

              In case this is because Barry wants to cut back on the spamming, your remaining points unless from the original (by icon appearance) email address will not be answered.

    • Oh brother! This paper from the list is co-authored by Richard Muller. The same Richard Muller who says that Mr. Potato-Head’s conduct was so out of line that Muller won’t read his papers any more.

      http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

      And this ends up on a list supposedly vindicating Mann?

      Besides this paper only talks about climate reconstructions extending back to the 1750’s.

      • The same Richard Muller who says he was mistaken about the Hockey Stick, and confirms that the feature is valid:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

        • Hey Abortion-That-Lived,

          Learn how to read a calendar.

          • What relevance does that have, you foul-mouthed feculant fool?

            • Learn how to read a calendar.

            • What relevance does that have?

            • Your article is from 2012. But Muller was still criticizing the HS in an op-ed from 2013. Don’t you remember me arguing with Bickmore about this in the comments for the previous blog post?

            • He cannot claim the HS is wrong since HE STILL GETS ONE.

            • So what are you saying here? That Muller is wrong for continuing to criticize the HS?

            • Yup.

              Easy, wasn’t it.

          • But you started off by saying,

            “The same Richard Muller who says he was mistaken about the Hockey Stick, and confirms that the feature is valid:”

            So now you’re admitting that you were lying when you said this. Why did you lie?

            • Why on earth do you claim that I am now saying that is a lie?

              He ABSOLUTELY gets the same HS. He even SAYS so. So no criticism changes the conclusion of the HS. He could criticise it because it was written by Michael Mann. Or used in the IPCC. Or because the toilet fairy told him in his sleep to do so.

              He states SPECIFICALLY that he agrees that he was wrong to think the HS was fake or a result of bad mathematics.

              He states SPECIFICALLY he was wrong about the HS. It is real.

            • Where? Where does Muller state SPECIFICALLY ( or even generally for that matter) that he was wrong about the HS.

              He certainly didn’t say so in the interview I posted. And he certainly didn’t say so in the op-ed I linked in the comments for ‘Mark Steyn’s Genius Legal Gambit’ either.

              So where?

            • here
              http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

              and here
              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501ere;

            • Watch the interview I linked!

              Muller very clearly shows his continuing disdain for Mann and his hockey stick. The interview was recorded well after his BEST study results were released. Muller clearly states the substantive differences between his study and the HS. Muller clearly states that the important “discovery” of the HS was the supposedly flat handle and not the warming of the blade which Muller says has been known since 1980. Muller continues to publicly criticize the HS.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html

              Prove your comment. Show a quote where Muller says that he was wrong to criticize the HS. Remember the HS is not the same as global warming! Muller says that he believes in anthropogenic global warming but that the HS was a lousy piece of work.

            • Are you going to pretend that this is a youtube link too, retard?

              Oh, and Muller is being batshit insane here.

            • I did post a link to a YouTube video. You’re just too dumb to know how to browse the Web.

              And if Muller is being “batshit insane” in this op-ed from 2013 then how can you claim that Muller accepted the HS in 2012.

              And that’s why this blog is such junk. Wow can’t even keep his own stupid stories straight.

    • This paper from the list says that it’s been warmer at times during the interglacial periods. But *if* the IPCC *predictions* for 2100 come to pass, the temperature will be the warmest.

      http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

      So I guess we’ll just have to wait until 2100 to see if this hockey stick confirmation works out. See you then! It’s on my calendar.

      • But the error bars you DO NOT MENTION mean that you’re incorrect.

        See also:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html

        And note that the URL is to **Economic**.

        Strange place to put a science paper, never mind one about the CLIMATE.

        • Hey Stupid,

          Then why the hell is this paper on Appell’s list of HS confirmations?

          You are completely useless.

          • Where does he say that?

            • Right here I’m literally telling Wow that I’m quoting papers from Appell’s list.

              Any normal person would check Appell’s list and realize their mistake. But not our hero! Instead Wow doubles down on the stupid.

              Unbelievable.

            • And I’m telling you right now that your conclusions are wrong.

            • First the point was that you were especially stupid not to realize that I was quoting papers from Appell’s own list. Who asks “where does it say that?” when it was just so easy to check yourself?

              Second you’ve changed your story. At first you argued that the papers were flawed. But once you finally(!) understood that they were from Appell’s list you invented this fairy tale that you were telling me that my conclusions were wrong.

              You’re simply lying.

            • You were QUOTEMINING.

              Just like when I tell everyone you said “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

            • Typical Wow sleaze.

              Show some proof of my supposed “quotemining”.

            • Typical Nutbar “Logic”.

            • I’m simply asking that you provide some evidence to back up your constant accusations.

              But of course you never do.

            • Yes, you’re demanding proof. Which you will the demand proof of AGAIN in a different thread or just later in this one.

              The evidence HAS been given you.

            • All you ever do is scream Q-U-O-T-E-M-I-N-I-N-G!

              And then when I ask you to provide some proof of your accusation you just run away.

              Because you’re lying.

            • Well that’s wrong, godbothering moron.

            • Show some ( ANY! ) evidence that I’m a “godbotherer”.

              Is Bickmore a “godbotherer”?

            • YOU are, you’ve said “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

    • Did you?

      • Duh!!!

        Since I’m quoting papers that are on the list the answer is obviously YES.

        Just how goddamned stupid are you?

        • And I quoted you claiming “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

          • And just like I said. Every time Wow loses ( which is every time he opens his mouth ) he resorts to the most reprehensible tactics I’ve ever seen.

            What I actually said was,

            “Please show where I said God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”

            And now Wow keeps trundling out this butchered quote in an attempt to discredit me.

            Despicable.

            • And every time you quotemine and make an asinine and unsupported conclusion, I quote from your post to show that quoting something doesn’t mean it supports your conclusion.

              But you’re a retard and will refuse to let this sway you.

            • You’ve never been honest a day in your life you congenital liar.

              Your “argument” continues to be the stupidest thing I’ve EVER seen.

              How in the world does your admission to quoteming *me* have ANY bearing on the veracity of my comments?

              How How How How How How???????

            • Wrong again, Loco.

            • So explain how I’m “wrong”.

              I’ll ask the question again.

              How in the world does your admission to quoteming *me* have ANY bearing on the veracity of my comments?

              How How How How How How???????

            • Explain how you’re “right”, loco.

              “How in the world does your admission to quoteming *me* have ANY bearing on the veracity of my comments?”

              Because your comments are quote mines and therefore your conclusions from them invalid.

              Duh.

            • So prove your accusation. Show how my comments are “quote mines”.

              You never provide any proof to back up your accusations.

            • Lying again, huh?

              Sad fucking muppet.

          • This is without a doubt the dumbest argument ever.

            How does Wow’s admission of lying prove anything other than Wow is himself a liar?

            It’s like saying that people rob banks, therefore you are guilty of bank robbery.

            I’ve literally never encountered a stupider argument or a stupider person than Wow.

            • It’s the same argument you use, dumbass.

              However, you “believe” it to be valid when YOU use it and are NOT using it to illustrate the error of the argument. Or are lying.

              Whereas I am honest and using it as demonstration of the error in the argument.

            • I most certainly do not argue like you do. I provide evidence to back up what I say.

              You just make accusations and then bizarrely claim that your lying about me is proof that I must be lying.

              Unreal.

            • Same imbecillic rewording to a different thing. Yes, you and I argue differently, YOU are a moron and use idiocy, lunacy and outright lies to “argue”, I don’t.

              HOWEVER, you ALSO quotemine and that reason is the same reason why you refuse to accept the claim that you have said “God won’t let AGW happen”.

            • You always resort to idiocy and outright lying.

              After I destroyed you in the Merchants of Doubt thread you resorted to inventing a phantom source of court documents to prove that you were “right”.

              In this thread you keep repeating a supposed quote of me that you falsified.

              But of course you never are able to provide a singe shred of evidence to support your accusation of my supposed quotemining.

            • Still faking up a different reality to the one in front of your face, Loco?

            • Still making accusations that you can’t prove dimwit?

              Show some proof of my supposed quotemining.

            • When you pretend you’re quoting Judge Greene and only quote the word “slight” and put your own words around them (actually, that lying snake Addler’s words, but you repeat them like you wrote them).

  10. And here’s an abstract from yet another paper on Appell’s list.

    “We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’. ”

    I’d like to draw your attention to the phrase,

    “… indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.”

    So this confirms Michael Mann’s hockey stick how?

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364

    • And you didn’t mention any error bars, Loco, therefore your claims are false.

      • Not to mention that this is tree rings, which you’ve proclaimed (and Bishoprick has also proclaimed) evidence of bad reconstructions.

        YOU YOURSELF cannot believe the papers you spout.

        However, this isn’t a problem for the scientists since they won’t cherry pick and pretend they’re being reasonable, they are scientists and look at all the evidence and note all of it.

        Note that the paper heading is:

        Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

        So i s looking at a single area. Not globally.

        And if this is a hockey stick as per Loco nutbar’s claim here, where is the hockey stick in his proof this hockey stick disproves Mann’s?

        • BAHAHAHAHA !

          This paper is on YOUR list of HS confirmations and you end up attacking it!

          You are so STUPID!

          • Still with the insane laughter as replacement for thought, Loco?

            • So what were you *thinking* when you trashed a paper that supposedly was proof of the Hockey Stick’s validity?

            • Unlike you, I was thinking.

              And I was trashing your conclusion. They’re fucking retarded and unsupported fantasism.

            • You’re lying again. You were trashing the papers because you were too stupid to realize that I was quoting from Appell’s list.

            • No I wasn’t, I was trashing your erroneous conclusion.

            • You’re lying again. You were complaining that the paper addressed too small of a geographic area to discredit the HS.

              Which is one of the reasons it should never have been included on Appell’s list.

            • Still wrong, Loco.

            • Typical useless response from the Invincibly Ignorant Wow.

            • Still making it up, Loco? Why? It doesn’t work.

            • Show some proof that I’m “wrong”.

            • Which paper did you mean, hmm?

              Because one of your papers was about a small region and therefore nothing disproving the HS, a global reconstruction.

              You can’t just go “Oh, that’s all you think is wrong with my claim?” and pretend like it’s not enough.

              Well, actually, you can and do because you’re a freakshow.

  11. It would require some serious sifting to ascertain whether “Wow” has serendipitously made any valid points here in his mindless attempts to refute “Locus.” But Locus handily refutes BB, who tirelessly perseveres in his Quixotic attempt to defend Mann and his (pseudo-)science, when nearly all others abandon him.

    Clearly we are dealing with propaganda; the primary question is where does the propaganda end and the science begin? The secondary (but more germane) question is, what motivates the propaganda? Are the preachers of doom really convinced of looming climate catastrophe and of our ability to forestall it? Or more to the point, is there any consensus on what should be done to postpone the doom, to save the roasting coastal cities, their burning quenched only by the rising seas. Can Diogenes find a rational if not an honest philosopher among the modern catastrophists?

    Some favor Nuclear–some build while others shut them down. Many favor coal–China and India build while the US shuts them down. The wealthy buy electric cars paid in part by subsidizing the taxes of the middle class, while the poor go hungry as forests are cut down to produce methanol and firewood. The climate religion is the worst thing that ever happened to the environment–or the poor.

    But what motivates them? Any monolithic, overriding fear or philosophy.? Some are inspired by Marx and Mao: climate mongering is merely a mechanism to bring about their desired economic reform. Others are diehard Malthusians–the more you feed them the faster they breed. Abolish UNICEF and save the world. The others? Who knows, scientists are always right, or something like that. Copernicus was right; so was Darwin. Ergo the common folk and the Church are always wrong. If the press says 97% of scientists agree, who am I to disagree?

    Accordingly there are no such things as unworkable solutions. If you wreck the global economy, starve the poor, and impoverish the middle class, well good for us. Keep the damn oil in the ground.

    And burn the trees.

    –AGF

    • Shorter agryfarter: “I shall project my deceptive and unabashed idiocies on everyone else. Do NOT look behind the curtain.”.

  12. Here is a glimpse of the small time propaganda motivation: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17255/un-and-oxfam-caught-bribing-journalists-to-write-climate-change-scare-stories/

    Poor journalists–especially Third World journalists–are about as immune to perks as big city policemen. Most people can be bought, and there is big money passing around. And here’s the big time: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/19/billionaire-george-soros-warms-up-to-coal-as-stock-prices-hit-bottom/

    So is this a veteran blockbuster at work, or is this his way of keeping coal in the ground? Either way we get an idea of how much money is behind the climate religion, all the while the propagandists project their modus operandi on the poor, honest skeptics. –AGF

    • Always projection with you lot, isn’t it.

    • AG, I didn’t read your second link, but the first one was absurd. Conservative groups hand out “journalism awards” all the time. http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/02/07/cbs-to-receive-award-from-fringe-group-at-cpac/185339

      • Let’s compare:

        Mine: “Details of the bribes – which take the form of ego-boosting “awards”, global travel in CO2 generating airliners and financial payments…” is their description of the original:

        “The authors of the top five prize-winning stories will be invited to attend and cover the COP21 UN climate summit in Paris. UNDP will support the top two winners and Oxfam, as a special partner in the contest, will cover travel costs and per diem for writers of the next three best stories worldwide.”

        Yours: The recipient won’t be there to receive the award–I don’t see that there is any financial remuneration on the table.

        Yours: The prize is ostensibly for accuracy in media.

        Mine: It is highly unlikely that accuracy will be rewarded.

        Mine: The prize is specific–climate, i.e., climate danger. Accordingly we have little reason to suspect that any measure of skepticism will get points–irrational alarm will.

        Yours: I don’t know what the writer was rewarded for, but there was certainly no carrot dangling out in front.

        Yours: an award that may never make it on a resume.

        Mine: a race with a goal–motivation to exaggerate.

        So what’s absurd? Your comparison. –AGF.

        • yes, lets compare.

          You: Here is a glimpse of the small time propaganda motivation
          Barry: Here is another glimpse of the small time propaganda motivation
          You: Hey, this is BIG TIME propaganda motivation, not small time like yours!!!!

          Everyone: WTF???

      • Remember, Barry, angryfart here doesn’t care if there’s nonsense or not. All that matters is that the message is sent.

        Proper little drone, he is.

      • Barry, is Loco nutbar just mistyping his email address or is he trying to get his spamming posts through a block?

      • Barry, retardo is still using a new email address.

        Is this fine, or is the criminal fuckwit allowed.

    • So an NZ blogroll has a claim that it was “climate change scare stories” but doesn’t prove that they are climate change scare stories. It merely asserts they are.

  13. Some blogger decides to concoct a list of hockey stick confirmations and whether through dishonesty or incompetence puts together a thoroughly dubious collection. It took just a few minutes of reading abstracts or skimming the papers themselves to note glaring problems. Some papers were authored or co-authored by Mr. Potato-Head himself. Others noted that there may have been periods in the past as warm as today. But worst of all one paper was clearly critical of the HS and one was co-authored by Richard Muller, one of the loudest HS detractors.

    And no one noticed.

    This list originated with Milks and then was successively lauded by Appell, Bickless and finally “And Then There’s Physics”. That last blogger should probably append ” … but No Reading Comprehension” to his pseudonym.

    Despite all of the sneering about “rubes” being manipulated by “deniers”, none of these winners took the time to click on the links. Even if you were absolutely confident in the source of this list wouldn’t you take a look just out of curiosity?

    Nope, they just accepted it on faith because as everyone knows the key to being a scientist is accepting uncritically anything that you want to hear. A few months back Bickless penned a particularly inane piece that argued that science is really based on appeal to authority. You may want to re-think that dude or at the very least find a better authority than Appell.

    But of course this giant ice cream sundae of stupid just wouldn’t be complete without the cherry on top that is this blog’s resident mad-dog troll, Wow, aka The-Abortion-That-Lived.

    Never wasting an opportunity to make a fool out of itself, Wow attacked my quotes with gusto, failing to notice that I was ** citing the papers from Appell’s list **. So by all means, tell me how a paper’s focus is too geographically narrow! I could probably post the MBH98 paper here claiming it refuted the HS and the idiot warmists would tear it to bits for me.

    Given the abysmal performance of the warmists in this matter of the so-called 36 hockey sticks, could anyone still not realize that global warming is championed by liars, poseurs and frauds?

    • So you claim.

      However, you’re mad, so really, what does it mean other than sound and fury, signifying nothing?

      Facts: The recent warming blows past faster than any recent record for 400,000 years. The global temperature is HIGHER than ever in that record. And this will continue due to the natural effects of CO2 on global temperature.

      The hockey stick has not, EVER, been falsified.

      • “Facts: The recent warming blows past faster than any recent record for 400,000 years.”

        Our retard in residence never heard of the “Eemian,” and never saw a graph in his life:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

        –AGF

        • AG, note that the time scale is compressed by about a factor of 10 in that region, relative to the most recent period.

          • And how is that relevant?

            • Why is it not?

            • I believe the burden of proof is on the pinheads to demonstrate relevance. Next you’ll demand a peer reviewed paper proving no likelihood of methane induced catastrophe. –AGF

            • Indeed. Your burden of proof is to substantiate your claim.

              Try doing so instead of going “How’s that relevant???”

            • No, you have made a claim it’s not relevant. Substantiate it.

            • There you have it in a nutshell: prove the sky is not falling. –AGF

            • We do? Where?

            • Prove anyone is saying the sky is falling, angryfart.

        • Oi, moron, ever heard of “1950”? That’s what the graph ends in.

          Oh, and while you’re here blowharding, what do you think of this news:

          http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

          Hmmm?

          • Rehashed propaganda aimed at the most ignorant (like you), on par with the methane hype which neither NASA nor the IPCC has ever taken seriously (do you?). Assuming there is any truth to the report, all it shows is that Exxon had a few employees gullible enough to accept the debunked nonsense that was going around then and now.

            As for 1950, where do you get that BS? And are you claiming the present is warmer than the Eemian (of course)? You simply can’t comment without idiotic prevarication. Sea level was 20 feet higher back then (much of the Greenland ice cap melted).

            You have never had an honest or intelligent thought in your life; your purpose is entirely to misinform. We repeat: you are a pathological liar. –AGF

            • 1950 is the definition of “Today” in paleo studies.

          • So rehashed = recently confirmed
            Propaganda = reporting what the people involved ACTUALLY ADMIT TO.

            Clearly you have no knowledge of what you speak.

            But, hey, why not substantiate your claims. Hmm? Burden of proof and all that….

            • Look, pathological liar, why don’t you just provide a link from some crackpot who says the present is warmer than the Eemian. You’re the one making idiotic claims. We’re still recovering from the LIA–the coldest period of the Holocene. The 1940’s were warmer than the present. The MWP was warmer than the 40’s. The Eemian was warmer than the MWP. Take it from there, guppy. –AGF

            • You already showed it, angryfart.

            • No, angryfart, you’re the one making ridiculous claims. such as when a graph that has 1/10th the time resolution, this fact is not important when talking of the rate of warming in another graph.

        • And you’ve been told before that that graph relates to the Antarctic spot temperatures, yet the arctic spot temperatures are, today, around 5C anomaly and up.

          • I wonder what that’s supposed to mean. –AGF

            • Yes, you probably do.

              After all, it’s not “on message” for you. So best ignore it. It’s not GoodFact.

              Here’s a couple of hints: 5 is greater than 4, and 1950-1960 was colder than 2000-2010.

            • More gibberish.

            • Where?

      • Why would anyone believe what you say? You’ve just demonstrated that you can’t even tell whether a paper supports or contradicts your own position.

        • People would believe what I say because it is verifiably true.

          Why should anyone believe a nutcase who doesn’t even understand what is going on in the world in front of them like you, nutbar?

          • Hey Abortion-That-Lived,

            Why should anyone believe you? You lied for MONTHS about downloading documents from Court Case Online.

            • So you keep claiming.

              Just like you claim you never said “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

            • Typical. Wow gets frustrated and out come the lies.

              So why don’t you post your “instructions” for downloading the case documents from Court Case Online?

              Oh, that’s right.

              Because you’re lying.

            • Are you denying now you said those words when you earlier confessed to them????

            • And just like I said. Every time Wow loses ( which is every time he opens his mouth ) he resorts to the most reprehensible tactics I’ve ever seen.

              What I actually said was,

              “Please show where I said God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”

              And now Wow keeps trundling out this butchered quote in an attempt to discredit me.

              Despicable.

            • Making shit like that up doesn’t make it true, Loco.

            • Well you’re the expert on making up stuff that isn’t true.

              You always resort to butchering my sentences and inventing phantom sources of information.

            • You always resort to butchering the sentences of scientists and judges, so as to arrive at the conclusion you wish to be true in the face of all evidence to the contrary, Loco.

              You just get SERIOUSLY butthurt and think quote mining wrong when it’s done to you, you godbotherer.

            • Prove it.

              Which judge’s sentence did I butcher? Which scientist’s sentence did I butcher?

              Show some evidence that I’m a “godbotherer”.

              You just make stuff up. That’s all you ever do.

            • I already did you feculant retard. Go back to the thread and read it again.

            • And this is why this blog sucks.

              Wow just keeps making accusations that he can’t back up.

            • I do back them up. Then you go and whine in a different thread as if that had never happened.

          • Why should anyone believe your assertions? You can’t even tell if a paper supports or contradicts your own position.

            • It’s always projection with you denier retards, isn’t it?

              You quotemine a paper and think that you can show it supports your conclusion, when it doesn’t because you’re quote mining. Like you claiming “God wouldn’t let AGW happen” from your posts.

              You don’t know that the paper comes to a different conclusion, but denier blogrolls claim that these papers do so, and you credulously accept it without thinking.

            • This is what happens when stupid people like Wow get flustered and start spluttering with blind, inchoate rage.

              What denier blogrolls?

              Show some evidence of my supposed quote-mining.

            • notrickszone is a denier blogroll. so is realclimatescience.

            • Here’s what Wow said,

              “You don’t know that the paper comes to a different conclusion, but denier blogrolls claim that these papers do so, and you credulously accept it without thinking.”

              You claimed that I came to a different conclusion about these papers because denier blogrolls claimed something different.

              So, I’ll ask again. What denier blogrolls told me something different?

              I have to laugh when Wow accuses me of accepting claims without thinking. Because that’s precisely what I’ve shown Wow and Bickmore to have done with Appell’s list.

              And now Wow is just throwing a big queeny fit.

            • “So, I’ll ask again. What denier blogrolls told me something different?”

              Which blogrolls did you read?

            • You’re the one who said,

              “… but denier blogrolls claim that these papers do so, and you credulously accept it without thinking.”

              So I’ll ask again. What denier blogrolls make false claims about these papers?

            • Which blogrolls did you read that told you the conclusion you’ve made, Loco?

              If you DIDN’T get it from denier blogrolls, then you just fabricated the result yourself. These are your only two options, Loco.

            • So you admit that you were lying when you accused me of just following denier blogrolls.

            • No.

        • I know what the paper says, nutbar. Your conclusions are not supported by the paper. And that is what I argue against: your fantasy reading of a paper to say what you want it to mean, not what it actually means.

          • Hey Abortion-That-Lived,

            Don’t make an accusation and then run away. Prove it jackass. Show your evidence that I engaged in a “fantasy reading” of any paper.

            • I already have you garbage-spewing gang-banged bumboy.

            • You’re lying again. All you’ve ever done is show evidence of your own quote-mining with your utterly reprehensible, butchered “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real” fraudulent quote.

            • Stop lying. I have given plenty of evidence.

              You continue to refuse to acknowledge it so that I have to quote the entire thing again.

            • You’ve never shown any evidence to support your accusation that I engaged in quotemining

              You’re simply trying to lie your way out of an embarrassing situation.

              Again.

            • Yes I did.

            • Show some evidence that I engaged in quotemining.

            • Your conclusions are wrong and the quotes you mine are out of context to “support” your erroneous conclusions, Loco.

              I’d like to draw your attention to the phrase,

              “… indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.”

              Which is from a paper titled

              Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

              Indicating that the abstract quote you were quoting was for Sweden. NOT global.

            • How can you still not get it through your head that THESE PAPERS I’M QUOTING ARE FROM APPELL’S LIST!

            • What quotes?

            • And here we go with Wow’s incessant harassment tactics.

              Fine I’ll copy my quotes AGAIN. And this is why this blog sucks.

              Here’s one hockey stick from the list. Only it’s not a hockey stick, but a commentary on climate reconstructions.

              http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorit/Frank_etal_WIRESCllmChange_2010.pdf

              Quoting,

              “Icons of past temperature variability, as featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over nearly two decades, have changed from a schematic sketch in 1990, to a seemingly well-solved story in 2001, to more explicit recognition of significant uncertainties in 2007.”

              And,

              “The 1990 sketch was replaced 11 years later by a quantitative reconstruction for the entire NH by Mann et al. 16 Annual precision and y-axis in degrees Celsius contrasted strongly with the 1990 figure and suggested a marked increase of knowledge. The little varying, yet slowly declining temperatures over about 900 years of natural variability, reversed by the strong upward trend over the past century, served as a symbol for human impact on temperature change. The existence of an MWP and LIA were hinted at, but only as part of an almost negligible pre-anthropogenic temperature change. Even though this reconstruction was presented with calibration uncertainties, their common omission in subsequent discussion, may have led to an overly optimistic assessment of the degree to which past temperatures were understood.

              And,

              “In the most recent IPCC report, further consideration of existing and the development of new reconstruc-tions, methodological disputes, and analysis called for a retreat from the 2001 position that recon-structed temperatures were well understood.”

              And for those divergence fans,

              “The climatic signal in proxy records is now routinely calibrated—and often verified—via compar-isons with instrumental records allowing assessment of proxy trustworthiness in the recent period.”

              And here’s an abstract from yet another paper on Appell’s list.

              “We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’. ”

              I’d like to draw your attention to the phrase,

              “… indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.”

            • And NOW you’re pretending that you are replying to that post as if it was AFTER you lamely and laggardly decided to say what the hell you were talking about.

              So on those quotes, they DO NOT say that the HS is wrong.

              In the conclusions, they agree with the HS.

          • And here we go with another of Wow’s tantrums after he’s lost.

            First he said that the papers were not credible. But when Wow finally (!) got it through his stupid, stupid, stupid head that these were from Appell’s list Wow changed his story and now claims that the papers actually say something different.

            No Wow, the papers still stay the same thing. That you’re an idiot.

            • Nope, I was telling you your conclusions were wrong.

              YOU are the one with the tantrums.

              Every time I tell everyone you said “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

            • Once again, as usual Wow gets destroyed so he resorts to outright lying.

              What I actually said was,

              “Please show where I said God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”

            • Already done. Doing so again, when you have made this assinine claim scores of times already only indicates you will refuse to acknowledge it.

              Indeed angryfart gave the link and proves you said it.

              YOU have owned up to saying it.

              But you want to make accusations out of thin air as “punishment”.

              Since you’re now restarting the “REFUSE ALL EVIDENCE. DEMAND IT AGAIN” trolling, I will henceforth shorten the answer to “Already given”.

            • I’ll ask you again.

              How in the hell does your quotemining of me prove anything about the veracity of my statements?

            • The quotemining you do you accept as absolute truth and refuse to admit error by claiming “THESE WORDS APPEAR THERE!”.

              The quotemining you do NOT accept as the absolute truth are you saying “God would not let AGW happen”.

              Why does the “false” quotemine of your theological stance fail? Because the context is stripped to make it a different meaning from the one actually stated. Go see the definition of “Quote Mining” on rationalwiki.

              Same reason YOUR claims need more than “THOSE WORDS APPEAR THERE!”.

            • So where did I say “THOSE WORDS APPEAR THERE”?

              It’s you and only you that makes that kind of argument you lying little creep.

            • Nope, you make that argument all the time, retard.

              I only use it when showing everyone you’re a godbotherer.

            • Prove it.

              Show where I made that argument. Show where I tried to justify a misquote by saying “those words appear”.

              You’re the only loser stupid enough to argue like that.

            • I have done. Multiple times before. Prove that you’re going to read them.

            • And this is why this blog sucks.

              Every once in a while Bickmore shows up to lament the “feud” between me and Wow.

              Except that 90% of the “feud” consists of Wow making accusations that I’m quote-mining. And when I ask for proof Wow just goes into stall mode and claims that he’s already done so. Multiple times don’t you know!

              But those “multiple times” exist only in Wow’s fantasy world.

            • Is that statistic there the same type of made up bollocks as your “Most of [your] posts were starting a thread” claim?

    • “I was ** citing the papers from Appell’s list **.”

      Just like I was citing your own posts for the proof you said God wouldn’t let AGW happen, proving you disbelieve in AGW because you’re a godbotherer.

      • I wonder who this lying lunatic is talking to now.

        • I wonder who you are too, angryfart.

          • Look fool, you said: “Just like I was citing your own posts for the proof you said God wouldn’t let AGW happen, proving you disbelieve in AGW because you’re a godbotherer.”

            Who said that? I sure didn’t. You accused Locus of saying something similar in another thread:

            By: Wow on April 4, 2015
            at 4:34 am

            “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

            https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/merchants-of-doubt-for-mormons/#comments

            And of course you lied then as now. You are, after all, a pathological liar. Insane to boot. Really. –AGF

            • “Look fool, you said: “Just like I was citing your own posts for the proof you said God wouldn’t let AGW happen, proving you disbelieve in AGW because you’re a godbotherer.””

              Look you moron, I wasn’t talking to you.

              I was replying to loco nutbar, not angryfart.

            • Yes, angryfart, I accused Loco of it.

              Loco also said it. Hence my accusation was proved.

            • The hell he did. Show us the quote. Liar. –AGF

            • I did.

              “God would not allow AGW to be real”

              By: Locus on April 8, 2015
              at 8:26 pm

              Several times.

              “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

              By: Locus on April 4, 2015
              at 1:29 pm

              To Loco nutbar.

              On that thread.

              He even admits it was said.

              Locus on April 20, 2015
              at 8:27 pm

            • Please also note that no evidence was given to support the claim of me attacking his quotes with gusto.

              No proof of his claim at all.

      • For those of you who haven’t yet been exposed to The-Abortion-That-Lived here’s a primer on its favorite tactic.

        Wow: “You probably believe ‘X’ or some such bullshit!”

        You: “Please show where I said that I believe ‘X’”

        Wow will then delete the “Please show where I said that” from your sentence and “quote” you as saying “I believe ‘X’”.

        Of course you’ll object at the blatant misquoting but Wow will retort that “those words appear” and therefore the quote is “100% accurate”. Eventually Wow will claim that he’s entitled to such behavior because he’s accused “deniers” of the same thing.

        Have you ever heard such an asinine argument? Wow completely fabricates an accusation and then uses that as justification for being a cretin. It’s utterly reprehensible. The tactic is designed to create a verbal Stalingrad; to distract, infuriate, hinder and ultimately discourage critics.

        It’s what alpha-hotels like Wow do when they know they’ve lost the argument.

        • “Wow: “You probably believe ‘X’ or some such bullshit!”

          You: “Please show where I said that I believe ‘X’””

          Me: Please show where I said you believe X.

          You can’t. Because I didn’t say “you believe X”. Right there in your reenactment there you do the same thing again.

          Just like you did for every quotemine you produce but refuse to acknowledge, you snip out the bit you want and refuse to let anything other than the words you put there to be argued as not being written.

          Of course, you are really against it being done on you. But hypocrisy, along with raving insanity, is all you have to live with.

          • Hey Abortion-That-Lived.

            When I accuse someone of misquoting I show my evidence from the get-go.

            So prove it jerkwad. Show some evidence that I engaged in quote-mining or STFU.

            • And when you misquote others you don’t accept the context proves you wrong, you just keep screaming your bile filled hatred at everyone who is smarter than you. Which includes most slimes and amoeba.

            • You’re lying again.

              Show some evidence of my supposed misquoting.

            • Already done.

            • You’re lying again. All you do is make accusations and then refuse to provide any evidence.

              You’re simply a fraud.

              You’ve never shown any evidence that I’ve misquoted anyone.

            • Still fabricating a story to make you feel better, loco?

            • Prove that you’re not the one “fabricating a story”. Show some evidence to back up your accusation.

            • When you claim “You’re lying again. All you do is make accusations and then refuse to provide any evidence.” you’re fabricating the claim out of thin air.

              Duh.

            • Not at all. I’ve told everyone that you a pathological liar who lied for weeks on end about downloading the Mann lawsuit documents from Court Case Online.

              If anyone follows your supposed directions they’ll see for themselves what a fraud you are.

            • Yes, loco, you ARE a pathological liar. What’s new?

            • If anyone follows your supposed directions they’ll see for themselves what a lying fraud you are.

            • Yeah, right. More accusation without proof.

          • Typical Wow tactic. Accuse someone of “misquoting” but then refuse to provide any evidence.

            • You are misquoting.

              The paper does not prove the hockey stick is incorrect.

            • You’re lying again.

              Show some evidence of my supposed misquoting.

            • I have.

            • You’re lying again. You’ve never shown any evidence that I misquoted anyone.

            • No, I have.

            • You’re simply lying. You’ve never shown any evidence that I misquoted these papers.

            • I have. Still.

            • Prove it. Show some evidence that I misquoted these papers.

              You never do.

            • Prove you’re going to listen.

            • And this is why this blog sucks.

              Wow just keeps making up accusations he can’t prove in a desperate attempt to “win” by getting in the last word.

            • So you keep claiming, Loco nutsack. Without proof, I might add…

      • The Abortion-That-Lived jumps into the middle of EVERY conversation I’m having with Bickless but then throws a big queeny fit if anyone comments on one of *his* arguments.

        Wow is such a disgusting sack of monkey crap hypocrite.

        • Loco nutbar, why you cry so much when you’re losing?

          • How am I losing? I showed that Bickmore touts “evidence” that he doesn’t even read. And I showed that you’re a stupid liar who gets confused and attacks his own side.

            • In your own insane imagination you’re not losing, you can never lose because what you imagine happening is always what you want to happen.

              You’ve done neither of those things you claim.

              Sorry. Reality bites for the moronic idiots of the world like you, nutbar.

            • Look who’s talking. You’ve gotten destroyed over and over and over again.

              Which is why you continually resort to lying in order to “win”.

            • Only in the world of a disfunctional Walter Mitty like yourself have I been destroyed.

            • You’ve been exposed as a lying fraud.

              And so now you’re throwing a big queeny fit with your obsessive replies to punish Bickmore for not deleting my comments.

            • No, sorry, the only one exposed as one is you, Loco. Back when you demanded Barry delete my post for libel.

            • I never demanded that Bickmore delete your posts. I simply pointed out that scum like you would never be tolerated on a quality blog like ClimateAudit.

              Bickmore is a low-quality person who runs a low-quality blog that attracts drooling liars like yourself.

            • Yes you did.

            • No, I just rubbed Bickmore’s nose in the fact that McIntyre runs a much better blog.

              Which shows that all of Bickmore’s moral preening in his Merchants of Doubt for Mormons newspaper article was just a sham.

            • McIntyre is a charlatan and moron who spouts any old crap because he has millions of dollars in his company based on fossil fuel exploitation to maintain.

              Follow the money.

            • Proof please?

              As far as I can find McIntyre has almost exclusively been a mining executive, usually nickel or gold.

              http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/08/pdac/

              What’s the name of his fossil fuel exploration company?

            • And that’s the proof right there.

              His company relies on the money coming in, therefore he’s embedded in denial.

              Just follow the money (and it’s big oil).

  14. Which one? ALL OF THEM. Compare to CO2 and Temperature records from ice cores to see that there WAS a midieval warm period and a mini ice age during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum. There are the correlations that are valid. How can you have confidence in tree rings that can change depending on moisture available, nutrients available, MORE OR LESS CO2 AVAILABLE.and cloud cover. Wow. Way too many variables to have confidence in those measurements!!

    • And NONE of them conclude that it was warmer during the MWP (which was mostly earlier than MBH98, hence “not being there” is no more suspicious than no biscuits being in your PC), and NONE OF THEM conclude that it was warming at a rate anywhere near the current trend.

      Since these are the conclusions of the hockey stick, what the hell point do you think your whine was making?

    • “a mini ice age during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum. There are the correlations that are valid. ”

      Since we have a solar minimum AND NO MINI ICE AGE, then you’re proving AGW.

      I KNOW you didn’t intend to do that, pip.

    • “How can you have confidence in tree rings that can change depending on moisture available, nutrients available, MORE OR LESS CO2 AVAILABLE”

      Ask a dendrochronologist. Or read up on it.

      Then you’ll find out.

  15. Personal attacks are the refuge of scoundrels. Keep to the subject with facts and not emotions.

    • Then you’re guilty, Paul. As are the entire cast of the denier crowd.

  16. Given that the claim that there was a MWP is based ON dendrochronology, and denier memes like “CO2 is a plant food” ignores things like changes in agriculture, denier whines about how tree ring growth varies on too many factors is really rather rich.

    • This is the crap you get from the climate fanatics: lies, lies and more lies. Just like Oreskes, and Mann, and Cook, and Lewandowski, and thousands of others. But BB could not survive without the help of the professional liars who come to his rescue. All believers are intellectually challenged. Most are morally challenged too. –AGF

      PS, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

      • That’s just insanity dribble, angryfart.

        Has bugger all to do with the comment it was a “reply” to because you have nothing to counter the comment with other than “LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!” and, as Paul here pointed out, the scoundrel’s refuge of personal attacks, staying with emotions because you don’t have the facts.

      • PS, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

        • Where you will see nothing about “ON dendrochronology,” whatever that is. But Wow’s feeble mind drags any dialogue into the dirt. –AGF

          • Well, given I didn’t say it would, why are you whining?

            It WILL show you that the claims of the hockey stick STILL are validated: warmer than before, never warmed as fast before.

            • Yes, the absurd graph does. That’s why forests grew then that are only now being uncovered by ice. And that’s why they make constant “adjustments” to the record (mostly upward), to keep up the fools’ scare. The English new how to grow grapes in the snow back then–we’ll never recover the lost technology. And they raised sheep in Greenland. Good luck with that too. Still don’t now what ON dendro. is, which you seem to think the graph is based on. Tell us, what is it? –AGF

            • “Yes, the absurd graph does. That’s why forests grew”

              There’s no forest growth on the chart. Only temperature anomalies. Therefore your claim here is wrong.

              “And that’s why they make constant “adjustments” to the record (mostly upward),”

              The raw data shows a higher trend than the quality controlled data. Moreover your claim is unsubstantiated conjecture.

              “The English new how to grow grapes in the snow back then”

              No they didn’t.

              “And they raised sheep in Greenland. ”

              They’re doing it today too.

              “Still don’t now what ON dendro. is,”

              So who cares what you don’t now.[sic]

  17. Bringing the dialogue out of the dirt–a little, anyway:

    http://news.yahoo.com/starving-polar-bear-face-future-211432414.html

    What keeps the prey’s population in check? Available food supply and predation. What keeps the predators’ population in check? Available food supply. All species breed beyond the limits of food supply. When prey is scarce lions will attack even healthy wildebeests and risk being gored. The lion population is controlled by injury and starvation. And so it is with all predators.

    What limits a predator’s range? Available food supply and suitable breeding habitat. On the edge of the suitable range will be found the hungriest bears. When most bears survive the population increases, but the higher the population the greater the competition for food. Polar bear populations have been increasing since the international hunting ban, and are now approaching a saturation point–it may be time to introduce limited hunting.

    Their natural range is not only limited by available winter ice but also by available open water. Multi-year ice–more than six feet thick–is useless. Seals cannot maintain breathing holes in thick ice and bears cannot go too many months without eating. When Capt. Cook ventured north of the Bering Strait in 1778 he encountered a long wall of ice “ten or twelve feet high.” That would be close to a hundred feet thick and this was probably the situation during much of the Little Ice Age. There weren’t very many polar bears living north of the Arctic Circle. With the current warming and hunting ban they are thriving–maybe too well. Along with the propaganda.

    –AGF

    • Well that was a load of meaningless and pointless babble from you there, angryfart.

      Shows bugger all about proving the Hockey Stick wrong. You know, the point of this thread.

      • It goes like this: the endangered polar bears is junk science; the hockey stick is junk science. And all competent scientists know it. That’s why BB doesn’t and you have to bomb his site with perpetual BS. –AGF

        • No. Endangered polar bears is where polar bears are endangered. It’s not junk science.

          • Anyone reading agf’s comment on polar bears could easily be left wondering how and why exactly polar bears even exist, or indeed why they are white, if his comment had any merit. Of course they do exist, and the very fact of their existence reveals (if one had any doubts) that agf is not being honest and his comment has no merit whatsoever. It is of course a classic attempt to derail the thread. It shows agf is desperate to change the subject. As for his obnoxious side-kick, the less said the better.

  18. For those of you who haven’t yet been exposed to The-Abortion-That-Lived here’s a primer on its favorite tactic.

    Wow: “You probably believe ‘X’ or some such shit!”

    You: “Please show where I said that I believe ‘X'”

    Wow will then delete the “Please show where I said that” from your sentence and “quote” you as saying “I believe ‘X'”.

    Of course you’ll object at the blatant misquoting but Wow will retort that “those words appear” and therefore the quote is “100% accurate”. Eventually Wow will claim that he’s entitled to such behavior because he’s accused “deniers” of the same thing.

    Have you ever heard such an asinine argument? Wow completely fabricates an accusation and then uses that as justification for being a cretin. It’s utterly reprehensible. The tactic is designed to create a verbal Stalingrad; to distract, infuriate, hinder and ultimately discourage critics.

    It’s what alpha-hotels like Wow do when they know they’ve lost the argument.

    • I quoted your post PRECISELY *word for word*.

      You said “God wouldn’t let AGW happen”.

      There in black and white.

      This is what you claim to have done with Ansell’s paper. Therefore arguing against this is arguing against your claims of that paper.

      • Which is Ansell’s paper and where is your evidence that I misquoted it?

        • In the paper itself.

          • Not one of the papers I quoted has an author named “Ansell”. So could you possibly tell us what in the world you’re on about.

            • See the link in the above the line message, retard.

            • Still doesn’t change the fact that none of the papers I quoted has an author named “Ansell”.

              Care to sober up before posting?

            • That doesn’t change the fact that your claim is wrong.

            • How in the world can my claim about Ansell’s paper be wrong when none of the papers I discussed have an author named “Ansell”?

            • You made a claim of what Ansell wrote. That’s the paper.

            • You still haven’t explained who “Ansell” is.

            • It’s on a different thread, retard. Go read it there.

            • None of the papers I quoted here has an author named “Ansell”. Care to explain what you’re blabbering about?

            • You tell me. You’re the one who proclaimed it proved the HS wrong.

          • How do you know? You can’t even say what papers you are talking about!

            • After making a fool out of himself Wow always tries to create an alternative reality where he isn’t a complete jackass.

              With regards to the claim that I “can’t even say what papers” I’m talking about.

              As every one can very clearly see on September 8th at 12:02 AM I linked to one of the papers from Appell’s list and quoted from that paper extensively.

              As expected Wow-for-Brains told me I was all wrong and his “evidence” was,

              Wow: “The name and abstract of the paper”

              Wow also told me to

              Wow: “Read the paper yourself”

              And now here we are with Wow trying to claim that he just doesn’t know what paper I’m talking about.

              And this is why this blog sucks.

            • As to you not being able to say what papers you were claiming, YOU COULD NOT SAY WHAT PAPERS YOU WERE CLAIMING.

              That happens to be proving the accusation right there, retard.

  19. For those unfortunate few who’ve had to observe my running battle with The-Abortion-That-Lived, they’d recall that everything started when I quoted law professor Jonathon Adler about the weakness of Mann’s case.

    Wow said that Mann was instead “likely to succeed” and proceeded to unload on Adler. To quote Numbskull,

    “Adler is LYING about what the court says.”

    “Adler is lying about the Judge’s decision by use of quote mining.”

    “Adler: probably denier, at least a yellow journalist style luke-warmer. No pride.”

    “He’s a hack and completely conscience free in his life.”

    Whatever. Say what you like, it’s a free country. That is unless Mr. Potato-Head gets his way.

    But I started wondering where did the climate liars get the idea that Mann was “likely to succeed”? A few minutes searching and I had the answer. Bickless told his minions on Jan 26, 2014,

    “But there are limits on “free speech,” and now two different judges have ruled that they would allow the case to proceed, because it is likely to succeed if presented to a jury.”

    and provided the following link,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/23/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-two/

    Now I’ll give you just one guess as to who was Bickmore’s source.

    Yuuuuuuupppp! Why it was that same old lyin’, denyin’, yellow journalist, conscience free hack, Professor Adler. But what happened was that Adler quoted an entire paragraph from Judge Weisberg’s decision including the all-important sentence.

    “Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff.”

    Well Hell’s bells boy that “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff” clause spoils the whole party! That isn’t what the warmist cretins want to hear so Bickless just had to turn it into simply “likely to succeed”.

    Character assassination; the last refuge of worthless frauds like Bickless and Wow. Except Wow can’t even get that right.

    • “.Wow said that Mann was instead “likely to succeed””

      He is. The judges involved think it is already proven that they are factually wrong and that there was reckless disregard, which is enough for Mann to win.

      You just don’t like that and prefer your poodle lawyer blogroll, where he is not talking as a lawyer, just giving his opinion, because it “feels” better.

      • Well, Wow, why don’t you come out from your hiding place and place some bets? You’d get lots of takers. –AGF

        • Already have, dumdum.

          How about you?

      • Hey Abortion-That-Lived,

        You really are the stupidest person I’ve ever dealt with.

        The point is that

        YOU ARE USING THE SAME “POODLE LAWYER BLOGROLL” !!!!!

        to get your information on how the case has been proceeding.

        Get that through your stupid head.

        Man, that abortionist must have caused a *lot* of brain damage when he botched your procedure.

        • So? Yes, your poodle lawyer blogroll misquotes the judge and makes an asinine and stupid claim that you love because you’re paid to troll by your bosses in the Aussie coal industry.

          • Show some evidence that Adler misquoted the judge.

            • I already have. Several times.

              You’ve ignored them.

              But they’re there.

            • Typical Wow avoidance tactic. Wow’s evidence exists only in his imagination. Right next to the fantasy that he’s not a useless idiot.

            • It’s only my tactic to your tactic of “refuse to see evidence, demand it again”.

            • What evidence? You’ve never shown ANY evidence that Adler misquoted the judge.

              You’re just a lying fraud.

            • Nope, shown it before.

            • You’re simply lying again.

              You’ve never shown any evidence that Adler misquoted the judge.

            • You’re simply making it up again, Loco, you godbothering moron.

            • You still haven’t shown any evidence that Adler misquoted the judge.

              So you’re the one “making it up again”.

            • I totally proved Adlle-pate was lying about the case. Go back to that thread and read it.

            • Prove it. Prove that Adler misquoted the judge.

              You never do.

              Instead you lie over and over and over again about how you supposedly downloaded the actual court documents from Court Case Online.

              And this is why this blog sucks.

            • I did. Several times.

              There doesn’t need to be actual malice, the claims are provably wrong, and that actual malice may be found in the investigation into Steyn’s correspondence and papers of “proof”.

              Which addle-pate lies his arse off and quotes only “slight” from the judge’s ruling, since it’s the longest quote he can manage that he can pretend means there’s only a slight chance of Mann winning.

              He’s a lying toerag.

              Proven it time and time again.

  20. Bickless,

    Check out the latest counter-argument from your little rentboy, Wow.

    “Please also note that no evidence was given to support the claim of me attacking his quotes with gusto.

    No proof of his claim at all.”

    It’s trying to argue over my use of the word “gusto”????

    Now I know why you chose the warmists. Standing next to McIntyre you’re a mental pygmy. But next to ‘Wow’ you look like a flippin’ genius. But then again a pile of llama turds would look like a genius next to ‘Wow’.

    • Still whining, loco?

      Still making up bullshit claims as if you somehow know what reality looks like?

      Still failing?

      • And trying to argue over whether your comments were delivered with ‘gusto’ or not is winning?

        • Where on earth did you come up with THAT scenario???

          AND the question?

          • What in the hell are you babbling about now? Are you trying to claim that you didn’t say the following?

            “Please also note that no evidence was given to support the claim of me attacking his quotes with gusto.

            No proof of his claim at all.”

            Please detox before posting.

            • Are you trying to say you didn’t see

              “Where on earth did you come up with THAT scenario???

              AND the question?”

              Please get your nurse to re-medicate you before trying again.

            • Please sober up so that people can actually determine what in the absolute hell you’re on about.

              What scenario? What question?

            • What idiocy makes you decide I’m going to be drunk?

            • If you ever sober up, please explain what scenario and what question you’ve been drooling about.

            • If you ever find sanity, please feel free to tell us all and we’ll rejoice for your getting better.

            • Please sober up so that people can finally determine what in the hell you’re on about.

              What scenario? What question?

            • Please stop being insane.

  21. Barry, since retardo here doesn’t want to keep his puppy love for a blogrolling lawyer making asinine claims as a plebian of no standing to the thread he is shitting over already, feel free to delete his stupidity from this thread, since this is already posted enough times on that other thread.

    • Wow, I often will start a new thread because my *answer* is long or involved and/or because I want to highlight your mendacious idiocy. Apparently you also haven’t noticed that this blog has a limit on how far replies can be nested.

      So I started threads to respond to your incompetent attempt to trash papers that you didn’t understand were on Appell’s list, to respond to the triviality of your denial of ‘gusto’ and most of all to call attention to your repeated, grossly dishonest attempts to fool people into believing that I have some sort of religious basis for my skepticism.

      Now take a look at this comment section. You’ve replied to every single one of my comments. However, I’ve never replied to any of your comments if you were involved in another thread. You’re talking with agfoster, paul, alberto etc and not one comment from me.

      And that’s why I strongly object to Bickmore’s accusation that I’m engaged in “mutual troll-baiting”. If so I’d be running around replying to every single one of your comments.

      What’s actually happening is that every time you get checkmated you throw a big queeny fit and try to “win” by getting in the last word no matter how stupid.

      • I don’t remember saying anything about “mutual troll-baiting”. Could it have been someone else? However, this conversation between you and Wow has been worse than useless for a very long time. It’s not normal, guys.

        • Your comment from Mark Steyn’s Genius Legal Gambit,

          “So if you insist on continuing your mutual troll-baiting with Wow, leave my name out of it. If you haven’t gathered that Wow is messing with your head and wasting your time by now, you need an intervention. (I’m saying this to you, instead of Wow, because you seem more earnest about it. Give up while you are still nominally sane.)”

        • Yeah, well, Barry, normal rather requires BOTH parties agree to some sense of normality.

          If one of them (IOW Loco nutbar here) is categorically and clinically insane then there’s either not-normal or only insane.

          If you think “Well, there’s no way to beat him because he’s not sane, so don’t respond”, then why let him have any words at all? If responding to it is not acceptable, then do not let the original through. If you let the original through, then you must let any response through too, otherwise you’re endorsing the insanity and REWARDING it. If you’re going to complain about how it just spirals into pointlessness, THEN THAT IS YOUR FAULT, Barry. Either sort it out or stop bitching. Because bitching about it isn’t doing anything other than adding to the pointlessness. Loco nutbar isn’t going to stop being insane or posting insanity, and I won’t stop slapping the stupid retard verbally, so complaining about it to anyone is pointless to the extreme.

          Remember, your screed of free speech means that the best answer to a bad message is a better message, not censorship. If you’re not going to allow a better message, why the hell bother with letting the bad message get up there in the first place? If you’re merely going to criticise a better message (maybe you believe you have a better one), then why not post it?

          Oh, too much effort keeping up with the denier retard spamming? Then stop whining to others doing the effort.

          Don’t have a better message? Then stop whinging about others trying.

          Don’t want pointles? DELETE THE BLOODY STUFF.

          Think my responses no better? Then do better yourself. Can’t be bothered? Then why complain?

          It’s sure as hell Loco nutbar, nor any drive-by denier, will be dissuaded from posting insanity by your opprobrium. They thrive on it, it PROVES you’re against them for telling the truth. How? BECAUSE THEY’RE DENIERS. They live in a fantasy land where they KNOW that AGW is false, they just haven’t found any way of convincing everyone of this truth. And they are attacked by those who don’t want the truth, so everyone who disagrees is proving them right. How? Because they’re insane.

          • Wow, nobody in their right mind would read pages and pages and pages of “You’re lying.” “No, you are!” “No, you are!” “No, you are!” etc, etc, etc. There’s something to be said for trying to counter what you feel is nonsense, but the Law of Diminishing Returns still applies.

            • Barry, who cares? The only answer to bad speech is more speech, right? Not censorship. Not non-participation.

              An endless round of “You did”/”No, you did” may be meaningless but really the only one guilty of promoting it is you. You can delete it all. Drop it in the big bucket. Loco doesn’t get the vicarious thrill of “fighting the good fight” and I don’t have to waste MY time rebutting the retard, and though you have to do some work to begin with, as he finds his moronic tirades purposeless and ineffective, he will stop or at the very least slow down to something approaching sanity levels of spamming.

              NOT doing so means you are guilty of promoting this crap.

              And the law of diminishing returns IS acknowledged. It’s why after Loco nutbar here has shown YET AGAIN that he’s not going to listen to any answer unless he can twist it to mean I (representing the fact of AGW) am wrong and/or he (representing denier fantasy land) is right.

              I *understand* what you’re trying to do here and why you’re “picking on me” (IOW you aren’t picking on me, but it *appears* like you are to someone looking to take it at BAD FAITH value), this doesn’t mean you’re not guilty of your inactions’ consequences, nor that I’m going to let you avoid seeing them.

              The pages may be written by me and nutbar, but their existence is due to your stance on letting it continue.

              I, however, am not the instigator of the rubbish here, Loco is. Check the chronology.

      • You often start a long tired screed and then repeat it, in all its boring and irrelevant length, in another started thread.

        Moreover, none of that is any reason for Barry to feel obligated to carry your bilge, when it’s all repeated crap.

        • The only repeated crap on this blog is your incessant lying.

          • Always projection with you retards, isn’t it.

            • Then why don’t you show your “instructions” for downloading the Mann court documents from Court Case Online?

              Oh, that’s right because you lied about that. Over and over and over and over and ….

            • Because I already have given them.

            • Ask Bickmore to confirm them. It’ll just take him two minutes and then he’ll know who the liar is on this blog.

            • Why ask Barry? I already know I wrote them. You’ve complained about them scores of times, so YOU know I wrote them too.

            • How stupid can you be? There’s no question of your authorship.

              Ask Bickmore to confirm that you actually can download copies of court documents from Court Case Online.

              But you can’t. Because you were lying.

              Again.

            • I repeat. I know I wrote them, YOU know I wrote them, WHY do I have to ask Barry if I wrote them?

            • And here Wow is being intentionally obtuse, pretending to not understand the issue.

              As I said before, there is NO QUESTION OF YOUR AUTHORSHIP!

              You just want to avoid the issue so that you don’t have to admit to lying on a massive scale.

              And this is why this blog sucks.

            • For all the whining about how you think this site sucks, you can’t keep away from it, even inventing new sock puppets to post.

              THAT is how much you think it “sucks”. It’s impossible for you to stop visiting and posting.

    • If Adler’s blog is so unreliable then why did *Bickmore* use it as a source of information about the progress of the trial?

      • Adler IS unreliable.

        If he only posted made up crap, he’d be RELIABLY posting made up crap.

        Duh.

        Retard.

        • Unbelievably stupid comment. In this context reliable does not mean consistent. I would never call Wow ‘reliable” despite the fact that he’s reliably wrong.

          So I’ll ask the question again. If Adler’s blog cannot be trusted to provide an accurate summary of the progress of the Mann lawsuit then why did Bickmore use him as a source?

          • Why does it not mean that in this context?

            If he doesn’t ALWAYS lie, then he sometimes supplies truth.

            But it DOES mean he is unreliable in his content.

            • You still keep avoiding the question. If Adler can’t be relied upon to provide an accurate summary of the progress of the case then why, why, why did Bickmore use his blog as a source?

              It really is a simple question but of course you don’t have a good answer so you have to resort to Invincible Stupidity.

            • Because Addlepate is unreliable to the meaning of what he reads, WHAT he reads doesn’t have to be fake.

              Duh.

            • Just more useless stupidity from a little creep trying to weasel his way out.

              Show any evidence that Adler is unreliable to the meaning of what he reads.

              You never answered the question of course. Why didn’t Bickmore use a source that *you* would consider to be always reliable?

              Here you’re admitting that what Adler reads is genuine. But when I simply repeated a quote from the judge that Adler provided you threw a big queeny fit on the Merchants of Doubt thread. Why did you do that?

              Of course because you’re too much of a simpleton to think up a real argument so you have to resort to childish avoidance tactics.

              You’re truly worthless.

            • “Show any evidence that Adler is unreliable to the meaning of what he reads.”

              His conclusions are wrong.

            • Prove it.

              Some some evidence that his conclusions were wrong. Hell for that matter start by telling us what conclusions you’re supposedly talking about.

            • This (which you’ve been told scores of times before, retard):

              At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.”

            • And this is why this blog sucks.

              Wow keeps trundling out this quote as proof that Adler was “lying”.

              But this is EXACTLY what Adler told everyone on his blog. That the judge only found “slight” evidence of actual malice but was allowing the case to proceed on the *possibility* that more evidence might be found during discovery.

              Here’s what Adler said,

              “Last year, the noted (and controversial) climate scientist Michael Mann sued National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress for blog posts written by Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg and posted on National Review Online and CEI’s OpenMarket blog, respectively. I blogged about the case in these four posts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Because the suit was filed in D.C. Superior Court, it was subject to D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to discourage nuisance defamation suits. Accordingly, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On July 19, Judge Natalia Combs-Greene of the D.C. Superior Court denied these motions. Barring a reconsideration or interlocutory review, this case could head to trial.

              In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a “close case.” She recognizes Mann qualifies as a “public figure,” at least in the context of climate policy debates. This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice — i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made. Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the “slight” evidence of actual malice “at this stage” of the litigation, “[t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.” As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.”

              http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

            • And that right there is the lie, retard.

              The “She further concluded that, despite the “slight” evidence of actual malice “at this stage” of the litigation”

              Which is quite obvious since the only word in quotes there was the single word “slight”.

              I’ve given the actual full quote multiple times.

              There doesn’t need to be actual malice, the claims are provably factually wrong, and that actual malice will likely be found in investigation, therefore the case would not be denied.

              Addle-pate is a lying twat.

          • Not to mention you haven’t actually shown your claim of Barry using that moron’s blog as a source for facts.

            • I guess I have to post this again.

              But I started wondering where did the climate liars get the idea that Mann was “likely to succeed”? A few minutes searching and I had the answer. Bickless told his minions on Jan 26, 2014,

              “But there are limits on “free speech,” and now two different judges have ruled that they would allow the case to proceed, because it is likely to succeed if presented to a jury.”

              and provided the following link,

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/23/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-two/

              Incredible.

              Wow always *claims* to have shown some evidence but never really did. Then he accuses me of an unsupported accusation only to have me shove this right back in his face.

            • If you’re posting it again, why bother since it was pointless before?

            • Typical Wow stupidity.

              It accuses me of not providing any evidence. So I have to repeat it. Then Wow complains that I’m reposting.

            • Well, that complaint you made has NOTHING to do with anything other than your sense of butthurt.

            • My complaint is that you’re employing Invincible Ignorance.

              You’re just a pathetic, lying fraud desperately failing about.

              You’re too stupid to scroll up before making yet another asinine accusation.

            • Go ahead and complain it if you like. Nobody cares.

            • Somehow Wow thinks that he can “win” if he just can get in the last word. No matter how stupid that last word is.

              All he has to do is shut up when he has nothing useful to say and that would end matters.

              But Wow just can’t seem to do that.

              And that’s why this blog sucks.

  22. ‘When a new scientific hypothesis is published, two questions always occur to me:

    1. Did the authors convincingly show the hypothesis was correct?
    2. If not, is the hypothesis actually correct?
    The answers to these two questions may not be the same. A good example is Wegener’s theory of continental drift — his idea was fundamentally correct, but he lacked the data and physical mechanisms to convince the rest of scientific community. It would take several decades before enough data were gathered that the scientific community wholeheartedly endorsed plate tectonics.’

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/the-return-of-the-iris-effect

    Well considering MBH99 overwhelmingly relied on tree rings, which stubbornly continue to diverge from temperature and which have increasingly been abandoned in proxy reconstructions since then (and will probably be totally discredited in 10-15 years as the divergence period will be as long as the correlated period – so which one is the anomaly?), and used the word ‘divergence’ exactly once (to hand-wave it away), and still sixteen years later we have no idea how warm the medieval period was and no credible explanation for tree ring divergence has emerged…how can anyone argue that MBH9x proved anything?

    If the word ‘proved’ makes you uncomfortable, well, let me rephrase that: how can anyone argue that MBH99 showed its main hypothesis was correct?

    It may have been ‘correct’ by chance, of course, if another study coincidentally happened to land within the MBH99 errors bars. I guess under this definition a binder can be called a hockey stick.

    • “1. Did the authors convincingly show the hypothesis was correct?”

      Yes.

      “2. If not, is the hypothesis actually correct?
      The answers to these two questions may not be the same”

      Redundant since the previous answer was “Yes”.

      So indeed they don’t have to be the same answer, because the second is dependent on a specific answer for the first.

      “Well considering MBH99 overwhelmingly relied on tree rings”

      Well, considering that is a load of tosh, it DOESN’T overwhelmingly rely on tree rings. Indeed the problematic ones (Bristlecone pines) were removed from MBH99 entirely.

      Given you don’t have the faintest clue what you’re on about, why should we expect anything else you claim to be valid or considered?

      “which stubbornly continue to diverge from temperature and which have increasingly been abandoned in proxy reconstructions since then”

      And not used at all, even in MBH98, when they diverged, hence a non-issue.

      “and still sixteen years later we have no idea how warm the medieval period was”

      We know something.

      It’s warmer now than at any time during the MWP. And your “we have no idea” doesn’t stop Loco and the other deniers insisting that it was warmer.

      So all sides think you’re wrong here.

      “It may have been ‘correct’ by chance”

      Given that several independent attempts to do the same have come to the same conclusion, and “chance” would have an equal chance of making every single one of those disagree, then the chance of this being “by chance” alone is nonexistent.

  23. By the way, I find it stunning that Appell managed to dredge 36 hockey stick reconstructions, but failed to stubmle on these:
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/01/i-hope-im-dreaming

    Either that’s a heck of a coincidence, or he just kept them from his readers because they didn’t fit the narrative.

    • Or that blog is a load of BS therefore SHOULD be discarded from discussion.


Categories

%d bloggers like this: