look hard at the games those benefiting financially from alarmism are playing with statistics my friend, don’t be a sheep…

Some people just don’t get irony.

Please name the peer-reviewed paper or papers in which it was discredited. Denier blogs are not credible scientific sources.

Tree rings, aka measuring devices. The measurements made with these measuring devices diverge so greatly from measurements made with other measurement devices (thermometers) that it had to be hidden using a trick.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.dk/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.dk/2014/02/answering-gish-galloping-critic.html
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.dk/2014/02/answering-gish-galloping-critic-part-2.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

The last post has some revealing comments by Judith Curry. See 74, 107, 168, and 185, and make sure you read the responses.

I think it’s clear that Curry isn’t using the term hiatus to refer to a slowdown (“For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature…”), so an undeniable increase in warming would unequivocally disprove her prediction. More important, is the stadium wave paper so tied to the ‘hiatus’ and its continuation that an abrupt renewal of warming would call the paper’s fundamental logic into question? I’m aware that minor flaws don’t necessarily undermine a paper’s findings, but this would be more than a minor flaw.

“I assume that this is a case of casting about among the data for patterns and finding one, and instead of the pattern being real it is an artifact of the method.”

As I wrote, I’m unfamiliar with Curry’s research, but what if this is a recognizable pattern in her work that contributes to results that give lower attributions to human causes?

“…she clearly does not deny that AGW is real and important.”

As you wrote above, no climate scientists deny the reality of AGW. If they did, no other scientists would take them seriously, and it’s hard to see how they, by denying fundamental physics, could have become scientists at all. (This is one of the more interesting dividing lines between the blog septics who reject every proof of climate change, and the scientists they invoke.) Judith Curry and others like her don’t deny the contribution of human activity, but they do try to minimize its effects, and have istead tried to emphasize other causes. In so doing they have supported a fossil fuel friendly policy of no need to do anything now.

“seem” to have gone up. So you base your whore article on guess work. Great job.

Seem to me the moon is made out of cheese, so I’ll just write a whole article explaining how the moon is made out of cheese and just arbitrarily claim the science is settled, even though millions of scientists in all spheres of science disagree with the man made global warming scam.