Wood Romances

Just recently an organization called Clintel (a combination of Climate and Intelligence) published a document called The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An Analysis of AR6.  Virtually none of this document has any substantial analysis of AR6. It basically regurgitates talking points that have been debunked for decades. The authors apparently compiled them into a single document with superficial references to AR6.  I'd like to highlight what I consider the one of the most humorously dishonest parts of the document. I have a page with an outline of Clintel's document and links to rebuttals of their arguments here . Clintel's Critique of the Instrumental Record In a chapter entitled "No confidence that the present is warmer than the Middle Holocene," Clintel wants to make the claim that we don't have enough certainty regarding the proxy evidence and the instrumental record to know if current temperatures are warm with respect to the Holocene. In an attempt to s...

If you participate in debates on climate science, how often have you been told that Al Gore predicted that the North polar ice cap would be gone by 2013? How often have you been given quotes from Edenhofer "proving" that AGW is a political hoax from a socialist agenda to redistribute global wealth? These kinds of claims are everywhere in these debates, but frequently when we investigate these seemingly outlandish quotes, they turn out to be fabrications - contortions of what was actually said. In other words, they appear to be blatant dishonesty and personal attacks on the part of people who generate the fake quotes.  To be clear, not everyone using these fake/contorted quotes know that they are fake or contorted. People frequently share and promote things without checking on their accuracy, so I thought I'd collect a few of the more prominent fake quotes here. I may add to this as time goes by, but I'll begin with these four that I think are both extremely common and...

Just recently I saw a video by John Robson from what he calls a "Climate Discussion Nexus." I've seen several of his videos before, and for the most part they simply put a nice-looking polish on old, debunked contrarian talking points so that you can see them with a higher production value than what you might see in a Tony Heller video. I've largely ignored most of these; John Robson is a historian, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't understand the evidence he's trying to refute. But in this particular video Robson's credentials as a historian could have served him well, if he had chosen to use his expertise to uncover the facts involved. The "Hockey Stick" as it Appeared in IPCC TAR In this video , John Robson attempts to describe the dissention between Michael Mann and his colleagues as they were preparing chapter 2 of the IPCC TAR. This chapter included the "hockey stick" graph with data from MBH99, Briffa 2000, Jones 1998, a...