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. The Clintel Foundation has achieved some notoriety for publishing a document claiming that "there is no climate emergency" and getting over1500 people who are either scientists or professionals to sign the document. A few of the signatories were climate scientists (though most are retired). This publication was not authored by any of them. The two named authors are Marcel Crok and Andy May. Marcel Crok calls himself a "science writer, climate optimist, speaker, co-founder of the Climate Intelligence Foundation." Andy May calls himself a "writer and petrophysicist," by which he means he has a B.S. in Geology and spent his career working for Exxon before becoming a climate blogger who maintains his own blog and frequently contributes to WUWT. The contributing authors fare little better

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 old, debunked contrarian talking points and present them in a manner that looks more respectable 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, but he chose not to use his expertise. 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, and the instrumental record. Acco