Another Smoking GISS/USHCN Nuke | Real Science

This proves that the post 2000 USHCN adjustments are much larger (more than 200%) than they are publishing. Game over. They show 0.5F, when the real adjustments are closer to 1.2F

JoNova: My reply to Paul Bain: The name-caller is hurt by the names they throw « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

I have never said: The IPCC are wrong because the government funds them (which would be an ad hom). The IPCC are wrong because 28 million weather balloons, 6,000 boreholes, 3,000 ocean buoys, and hundreds of thousands of original raw surface stations suggest the IPCC are exaggerating the future temperature increases by around 6 – 7 fold.

What A Bunch Of Crooks | Real Science

NOAA adjusts temperatures upwards by 1.4F relative to 1940, and then has the audacity to announce every month that temperatures have been above normal for X months

How The Hockey Stick Works | Real Science

Like Briffa’s trees, the National Academy Of Sciences 1975 report showed that temperatures were plummeting since 1940.

Monckton’s reply to Eos on Climate Denial | Watts Up With That?

The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.