The IPCC fraud case (but not the planet) hots up
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Two weeks ago I reported the central error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to its secretariat. After the contributing scientists had submitted their final draft report, the bureaucrats and politicians had tampered with the HadCRUt3 graph of global instrumental temperatures since 1850 by adding four trend-lines to the anomaly curve and drawing from their relative slopes the unjustifiable and statistically indefensible conclusion, stated twice in the published report, that global warming was “accelerating” and that the “acceleration” was our fault.
Global warming is not accelerating. The planet is not hotting up. There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits. That includes the Hadley/CRU data. There has been no warming for 23 years according to RSS satellite dataset.
The IPCC’s central projection of warming since 2005 (bright red), taken from the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, is visibly at odds with the linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the latest version (HadCRUt4) of the monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly curve (dark blue):
I received no reply to my report of the IPCC’s erroneous conclusion that global warming was “accelerating”. So today I wrote to the IPCC again:
“I am an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wrote to you two weeks ago to report a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report. I have had no reply. My letter of two weeks ago is attached, together with a copy of a letter I have sent to the Inter-Academy Council asking it to use its good offices to persuade you to reply. I have also sent a letter, for information only at this stage, to the police in Geneva, since it appears that a fraud may have been committed by the IPCC.”
In my letter to the police in Geneva, which I also copied to the Serious Fraud Office in London and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I wrote:
“The attached correspondence evidences a fraud at the IPCC. Its secretariat has not responded to my report of an error in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). The error is serious. I can prove it is deliberate. It is designed to demonstrate by deception that the world is warming ever faster and that we are to blame. It is one of a series of ingenious, connected frauds that have profited a few at great expense to many.
“The frauds are wilful deceptions calculated to cause loss to taxpayers by tampering with scientific data and results so as to exaggerate the rate and supposed adverse consequences of global warming. Scientific debate is legitimate: subjective distortion of objective science for profit is not.
“This letter is for information. If after a further week the IPCC (to which I am copying this letter) fails to acknowledge my report of its error as its own procedures require, I shall invite you to investigate this and other connected frauds, which involve larger sums than any previous fraud.”
The IPCC has not delayed in replying this time:
“We acknowledge receipt of your message copied below and of your letter dated 4 May 2013, received earlier today as an attachment to that message. Your email with attachments of today is the first communication received at the IPCC Secretariat from you on this matter.
“We would like to inform you that the error claim that you have submitted is now being taken care of as per the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports, available on the IPCC website. Steps 1 and 2 of the protocol are now completed; the IPCC Working Group I will deal with next steps as appropriate. As per the protocol, the IPCC Secretariat will inform you of the conclusions of the process.”
I have thanked the IPCC for passing on my report of its error in the Fourth Assessment Report and have told the police the IPCC have now replied. It is clear from the IPCC Secretariat’s reply that Dr. Pachauri, to whom I had reported the error in writing and in person as long ago as 2009, had not passed my report of the error to the Secretariat as he should have done. No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.
When the error has been investigated and the IPCC has reported back to me, I shall let you – and the prosecuting authorities of three nations – know the outcome.
Well done, your Lordship. The cat is officially amongst the pigeons. Let’s see them try to obfuscate/prevaricate/bluff/bullsh*t their way out of this 🙂
I agree – well done, Lord Monckton. It’s people like you, Anthony Watts and Christopher Booker who force Pachauri and the IPCC to realise that they are being watched by the people they despise and try to ignore, ie anybody who disagrees with them.
This should be interesting.
“He was coming ’round the bend doing ninety miles an hour when his whistle broke into a scream”– from the 19th Century American folk classic “Casey Jones”, who mounted his personal steam-whistle on each engine that he drove.
Let’s see how Railroad Bill Pachauri, Tata Industries’ glaciator-of-choice, deals with Outing by Brenchley. Let’s just say that Rajendra K. ain’t no Gunga Din.
“No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.”
-giggle-
GO, CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON!
Thank the lord.
This reminds me of Qing-Bin Lu’s problems with correction of biased errors to state the truth.They can’t handle the truth!
Handmaidens to the oligarchy, the BBC has finally arrived at the NO Warm party….
http://BBC.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Nice. The world not only needs you, Lord Monckton, but another million at least. You have our full backing. First, they need to be held to account. Second – imprisonment. If only there were a way around Due Process..
Sometimes when things don’t work as they should someone has to stand up and make it work as it should. Thank you Lord Monckton (again).
A man of intellect and a man of action. The world sees so few such
Eugene WR Gallun
You would think that the IPCC would give one of their expert reviewers the courtesy of a reply.
AR5 is going to be a brawl. I can’t wait.
Thank you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and God bless.
This is truly great, Lord Monckton, but can you get the prosecuting authorities of three nations looking into it anyway? The IPCC might claim to look into it and even claim to put it right, but it will be hidden in small print on the bottom of page 307 and won’t go into the summary.
Don’t let these fraudsters go. They shouldn’t get away with all they have already done.
Brilliant letter. You are a force to be reckoned with. Cheers to you. 🙂
Whatever would we do without you? THANK YOU!
Thank you for your efforts and your courage, Lord Monckton.
Not only did Pachauri allegedly not pass on Monckton’s report but we find I also note that Pachauri is a brazen LIAR.
Perhaps a typo’ “The planet is not “hotting” up” should be The planet is not heating up.
Small correction:
………..but I also note that Pachauri is a brazen LIAR………….
“He was goin’ down the grade makin’ 90 miles an hour
When his whistle broke into a scream”
Is from “The Wreck of the Old 97”
The recorded version by Vernon Dalhart in 1924 is considered the first one million seller country music hit song.
Check it out on Wikipedia.
Possible IPCC replies:
But if you filter out the decelerating, then it is still accelerating.
If you look at the period when temperature was going up, and compare this to the period when it wasn’t, in comparison it is accelerating.
We appreciate such contributions in making the acceleration more easily understood.
We fully expect the acceleration to resume, once the current pause in acceleration ends, in line with climate models.
The climate models successfully reproduce the acceleration in the past, so we expect they will successfully reproduce the acceleration in the future.
The fact that temperature increases are decelerating is projected to be temporary. Overall climate change is still occurring and we must make every possible measure to combat it. The sooner we act, the less the acceleration will be in the future.
Other factors not previously known such as aerosols are causing the deceleration, but the underlying acceleration is still there.
You get my drift. It will likely be a whitewash.
You may not have to rely on the police to investigate and lay a charge. In the jurisdiction where I live, one may swear an information before a magistrate.
Is there any police department, or law enforcement agency, that is even in a position to deal with this? It’s the freaking UN – something that by its very nature is a hive of scum and villainy, that institutionalizes mass rape, that is doing its level best to keep the wealthy wealthy and further impoverish the third world.
Why is the media not DOING ITS JOB…. and the media’s job is to keep the public informed, not what they’re currently doing which is to glorify socialist and communist ideals while mocking and marginalizing honesty and anything remotely off to the right.
What is a railway man doing as head of the IPCC? Just joking. 😉
Has Pachauri apologized to the the former Deputy Director-General of the Geological Survey of India after wrongly accusing him of being involved in voodoo science over Pachauri’s fairytale of Himalayan total meltdown by 2035? Pachauri is a disgrace along with the other great hypocrite, Al Gore, who is a world renowned fiction writer who was taken to court and found to have made several things up.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/22/stories/2010012261962200.htm
The song was based on a real event. My grandfather, a railroad man, knew Casey Jones. A long time ago…I am 82, and am referring to my own grandfather.
re: Zek202
JimBrock
So Pachauri is really feeling the heat now! Good job Lord Monckton!!
I do not expect the IPCC to roll over and expose its scurvy belly to us any time soon.They will drown it will babble and hope to wear us out with their paperwork and time.
Lordy!
There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits.
This matter regarding the 17 years was the case earlier, however the situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
The details are below and are based on the SkS site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.094 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.094 +/- 0.109 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.089 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since July 1994.
(By the way, RSS shows a slightly negative slope since December 1996 or 16 years and 5 months through to April 2013.)
Christopher Monckton – you da man!
[snip – Joel – we are not going to have you derail yet another conversation with an off-topic rant about an unrelated metric. Save for an appropriate thread – Anthony]
Wow! Wow! Wow! Lord Monckton rocks! Someone finally stopped whining and did something with those scum sucking frauds! Thank YOU, SIr!
[snip – Joel – we are not going to have you derail yet another conversation with an off-topic rant about an unrelated metric. Save for an appropriate thread – Anthony]
[snip – pointless- mod]
Not one to ‘rain on a parade’ but … Bureaucracy and Legalities work in strange ways. Refer to the 2nd Founding Principal of the IPCC !
For the IPCC and allies the AGW is a fact.
The ‘role’ of the IPCC is to determine a number !
What is the ratio of humans (committing AGW crime) to natural variation ?
That ratio will specify the number of humans to be culled in order to achieve ‘balance.’
Global genocide.
That is the motive of the UN and the IPCC is the erred boy messenger.
Cheers
It’s nice to see somebody get serious about charging these fr**ds with fr**d.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Thank-you for your due diligence in finding the error and your persistent in forcing what does appear (as the gross error was fundamental and was not addressed) to be a blatant attempt to commit a fraudulent act to be addressed.
Heaven help us if we did not have the many ‘skeptics’, blog contributors, and blogs to help protect the public’s interest in the ‘climate wars’.
You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Best wishes,
William
Many may not understand the true science behind global warming. Al Gore actually got this right, but in a way, I think, few properly appreciate.
Beginning with his initial associations with climate science (from someone who later retracted their CO2 beliefs to a large degree) former VP Gore “got it” and I think we all owe him the credit that he is truly due. He is actually responsible for the evolution of the algorithm into what today is the ALGOREithm.
The ALGOREithm represents a revolutionary leap forward in the calculus of polemics. Prior to the invention of the ALGOREithm, subterfuge and skullduggery were often found to be fraudulent and socially unacceptable as a result (citing recent rulings in SEC v Madoff, US Department of Labor v Enron etc.). However, in the late 1990’s Dr. Michael Mann expanded on this revolutionary new concept with the elevation of the field of mathematics to the next level, now recognized as matheMANNics.
MatheMANNics afforded a unique and previously unknown means of quantitatively integrating indeterminate quantities, ambiguous social constructs, tunneling low energy IQ neurons, lost and deleted data, fashionable mixing/matching of incompatible data, pretzel peer reviewing, plausible/reversible deniability and single variable gaseous processing, with the constants of misprision and fraud, that when matheMANNicly factored into an ALGOREithm results in a complete and natural replacement for rational thought.
The remarkable thing about ALGOREithms and matheMANNics is that they are seemingly difficult to deny even when disproved! Which means, of course, that instead of theory we now have a new paradigm which might righteously be christened a “Pachauri”.
Werner Brozek says: “…For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990….”
Werner, is some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset?
[snip. Ad homs like that are not welcome here. — mod.]
Great post that gives me hope!
By the way, straight from the IPCC, their state role:
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
+++++++++
For certain, they can not have an outcome that suggests there is no AGW.
But they’re absolutely dishonest about dealing objectively, especially in light of the fact that they can NOT be objective given their role.
FAIL
Lord Monckton:
Thank you very much for your courage, persistence, and scientific knowledge and efforts to back them up. Few, if any, are doing as much for truth in this vital issue determining the degree of human misery and death that the fraudulent claims of accelerating global warming are causing worldwide.
You are not only a scholar and scientist but a humanitarian as well. Thank you Sir!
Christopher, I hope you are not in any way vulnerable to depredation by the U.S. Internal Revenue Gestapo.
Thank You
TheInquirer, which part of the statement “there has been no rise in global temperature for 18 years” do you not understand?
Lord Monckton; thank you for all your efforts, you are a credit to science and mankind!
From Day 1, the modelling was based on fake science. Read it here: 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
‘Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the so called greenhouse mechanism’
This was either a very clever deception or a bad mistake. Apart from two minor bands at ~10 µm, there is very little CO2 absorption in the 8-14 µm ‘atmospheric window’. There is absorption at 7 µm and 15 µm. The latter is the major IR absorption band.
Therefore the argument that CO2 blocks the aw was wrong but using it they claimed the World was going to heat dramatically and flood. None of these events have happened.
I suspect they made a mistake in the science then went public, got fame and backing from the carbon traders including Al Gore and Ken Lay of Enron. When better minds identified the errors, ‘the team’ apparently set out to construct a web of deceit to cover up the initial mistake. The latest missive is here: PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Pierrehumbert is clearly a good physicist but uses weasel words to imply the ~15 µm ‘OLR bite’ blocks the whole emission spectrum. It does not yet the IPCC has now switched to this argument. This is bogus because it’s easy to show how it bypassed. There are many other errors in the physics.
PS even if there were surface IR emission > 23 W/m^2 [they exaggerate this 6.85x], it could not be thermalised directly.
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, I thank you! You are truly a great man, gentleman and scholar meriting a ranking with Great Britain’s finest scientists and statesmen of history.
I do have a curious question or two; You’ve copied the question/complaint to “Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia”, did you intend sending a copy to the Attorney General of the state of Virginia, rather than the United States Federal Attorney General?
The United States Attorney General may be contacted at;
I do agree that the Virginia Attorney General, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, offers a far better chance of serious interest, but I’m not sure he has jurisdiction; unless fraud can be connected to some perpetrator in Virginia, say at the University of Virginia.
@ TheInquirer “There are measures that evidence an increasing rate of warming, including arctic ice loss, sea level rise and ocean temperatures among others.”
Rather than say that you are lying, let me say instead that perhaps I am confused. Perhaps you can educate me. It is my understanding that when it comes to estimating global temperatures, the best method, the most accurate method, the method with the smallest error bars, is to measure temperatures with globally distributed thermometers. Granted, there are other methods for estimating temperature. You mention arctic ice loss, sea level rise and ocean temperatures — all of which have error bars that are certainly larger than Monckton’s cited data sets. Consider this analogy. Monckton says “Jason Calley is bankrupt. I have examined his bank accounts, income, and debts. Standard accounting procedures show that he is broke!” TheInquirer responds, “No, Jason can’t be bankrupt. He is wearing expensive shoes and a nice suit!”
Well done Monckton!
Now look out for a change in IPCC’s vocabulary – ‘anthropogenic global warming’ became ‘climate change’, I guess the next step will include ‘transient vacillation in the long term trend’ or something?
Did mention of the police bring them to their senses? I wonder why there have been no prosecutions?
henry@lord monckton
finally
perhaps some justice?
I don’t hold my breath
but, I know it is, indeed cooling,
However, we are accelerating into cooling,
so it will be more than 0.1 per century, soon
by ca. 2039 we will be back to where we were in 1950
more or less
when cooling changes back to warming
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Mario Lento says: May 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Perhaps a typo’ “The planet is not “hotting” up” should be The planet is not heating up.
_______________________________________
I think you will find this is a deliberate infantalisation. If one wishes to emphasise that your opposition is being infantile, you reply with in monosylables or with childish grammar.
.
Reply To: Joseph A Olson
Have you actually read the BBC article that you link to?
The content is the usual ” impacts of rising temperature are being felt particularly keenly in the polar regions” boiler plate.
The BBC have had to change the headlines to something closer to reality to avoid the accusation of bias, unfortunately they have not extended the same neutrality to the content.
TheInquirer says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:26 pm
Your chosen moniker is a misnomer.
Arctic sea ice loss is SST and weather related. NASA.
Sea level rates(rise and accelleration of rise) are normal (as normal as the last 200 years is/can be) U of Boulder, Colorado.
Ocean temps? SST: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997
Flat.
If you can deliver a metric that shows dangerous warming of the deep oceans do so. It has been shown that even if the energy of “4 Hiroshima bombs per second” is entering the deep oceans, without measurably affecting the surface, this, if it continues, will raise ocean temperatures by about 1 degree C every 200,000 years.
Go away you wilfully ignorant, insulting troll.
I await the outcome with interest.
Christopher Monckton sir, you now have their attention.
They wanted the spotlight for years and I believe they will now scramble to get out of it. Keep the lights shining and their feet to the fire for they are now really feeling the heat.
Viscount Monckton, thank you for your efforts. They are appreciated.
Read the BBC report as well. “nothing here move along”. The world media is in the tank. Thank god for the internet.
This will go no where. The AGW scam is too big to fail, well maybe a war will sort it out.
Henry Galt says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/monckton-challenges-the-ipcc-suggests-fraud-and-gets-a-response/#comment-1311602
HenryP says
actually, I think 1997 is a wrong pick because it represents ca. 1.5 solar cycle.
You can see it is far worse here (from 2002 = 1 whole solar cycle):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2014
.We already dropped about 0.1 since 2002 and the worst is still to come.
(Lord Monckton’s -0.1 degree per century is most probably wrong)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I can only echo the plaudits for Lord Monckton The Brave..
As identified by Mario Lento above, the IPCC, by definition, is NOT neutral – it is called the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate CHANGE. If it was neutral and truly interested in the outcome, it would be called the IPCR – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate RESEARCH…
Sadly the bbc are no less warmist than before, if you read the whole article it ends with;
“Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
“None. No comfort whatsoever,” he said”
****************************************
if at first you don’t succeed keep on sucking until you do suck seed.
Henry said
(Lord Monckton’s -0.1 degree per century is most probably wrong)
Henry says
I am so sorry. I do apologize. I see now that Lord Monckton did see we are currently cooling at -0.9 degree/century which is fairly close to what I get.
It`s a mighty rough road from Lynchburg to Danville and a line on a 3 mile grade…it`s on that grade that he lost his airbrakes you see what a jump he made…they were going down that grade makin 90 miles an hour when his whistle broke into a scream…he was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle and he was scalded to death by the steam.
My mother sang that little piece from the “Wreck of the Old 97” to me a hundred times.
BTW…BLESS THE LORD!!!
Saying “global warming” is not real? Who says that? The earth has warmed over the last 250 years. That last line of the BBC article is a strawman.
Christopher Monckton,
Nice play.
I suggest the following scenario. The UN bureaucracy (which the IPCC is) will start pointing fingers at the scientists who served as authors saying the scientists were unclear in their science assessments. The bureaucracy will say that is why they had to revise what the scientists said. The scientists are going to be shafted by the UN bureaucracy to protect themselves.
John
While on one hand it seems absurd to report an error in a graph to the police, on the other hand stunts like this seem necessary when the IPCC can’t be bothered to follow through on obvious errors for reasons of intellectual honesty alone.
So it begs the question of are these errors deliberate. Monckton’s claim that they are seems, unfortunately, far removed from far-fetched.
Possible IPCC replies:
But if you filter out the decelerating, then it is still accelerating.
If you look at the period when temperature was going up, and compare this to the period when it wasn’t, in comparison it is accelerating.
We appreciate such contributions in making the acceleration more easily understood.
We fully expect the acceleration to resume, once the current pause in acceleration ends, in line with climate models.
The climate models successfully reproduce the acceleration in the past, so we expect they will successfully reproduce the acceleration in the future.
The fact that temperature increases are decelerating is projected to be temporary. Overall climate change is still occurring and we must make every possible measure to combat it. The sooner we act, the less the acceleration will be in the future.
Other factors not previously known such as aerosols are causing the deceleration, but the underlying acceleration is still there.
You get my drift. It will likely be a whitewash.
————————————-
hahaha that’s what its like when I contact my congressman about….well, anything.
This should forever settle the quarrel about what Lords are really good for these days.
Well done, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, Sir – from a Lordship-free Germany!
Taking a modern science institute to court for fraud just so it tells the truth welcome to the modern world or should that read post modern science world.
mogamboguru says:
May 21, 2013 at 7:47 am
Well you may be Lordship-free but you have plenty of Grafs and perhaps even some Vizegrafs.
The IPCC has only to make a transparency of the temperature trends for the last 16 to 23 years, flip it over, say temperatures are rising (erroneously of course, but nobody accepts the blame and nobody can remember who flipped the chart), and publish it anyway.
That’s how some “administrations” claim to be “transparent”. You just wonder who do they think they’re kidding?
(BTW, kudos, Lord Monckton, for your brilliant manoeuvre. They’ve been put on notice now.)
Thank you David: I find it incredulous that the IPCC exists at all. As it can only be paid to deliver fear based on their certainty of a predetermined outcome, regardless of facts.
The IPCC is not open for debate. The IPCC is not in any way based on scientific principles.
It’s a gang out to tell us that a hypothesis is a fact (skipping the idea that theory is the next step), and based on that fact, The IPCC’s stated goal is to be paid to tell us what to do.
WUWT?
Another brick in the wall has come down. This is a thrilling time for windwarriors. Not so much for windpushers.
Of course this will be immediately reported by the BBC & other media outlets in the interest of public awareness……. [Sarc off]
Well done, Three cheers for Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts and Christopher Booker. Three more cheers for all the honest people and especially scientists who attempt to force Pachauri and the IPCC to admit that they are dissemblers. People are watching this struggle.
Monckton, the tip of the whip.
Perhaps the self serving at IPCC are now sitting a bit “higher’ in their chairs. There is a distinctly unpleasant odor there 🙂
Is 20114 too early to celebrate the end of the IPCC?
Correction is 2014 (not 20114) too early to celebrate the end of the IPCC?
Nice one your Lordship
Lord Monckton,
You are treading on the liveliehood and reputation of some very powerful people in a very public way. It’s my prayer that you are taking approrpriate personal safety measures. One of those measures is of course to act in the open and publicly. There are other, more discreet measures, that you may want to consider.
Andy Wehrle
“…the IPCC Secretariat…” I should swoon. No personal or persons responsible by name, just an unaccountable nameless body. Weber’s “Iron Cage” perfectly described in that response from the Secretariat.
jorgekafkazar says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Werner, is some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset?
I am not an expert on statistics, but a more pertinent question for me would be what would Phil Jones and possibly the IPCC regard as official? For instance, would they regard the SkS numbers as valid or would they say we need “some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset”? If the latter is the case, would you know of a site that gives this information?
I bet sales of voodoo books, pictures of Lord Monkton, mannequins and needles in Geneva just went through the roof.
On second thoughts I figure the IPCC were probably well stocked already with books on voodoo science.
What’s the betting there are now feverish emails flying backwards and forwards between Pachauri and Mann.
I presume that means that Lord Monkton’s communications, any relevant emails, documents and records have now all been deleted, and the hard drives smashed and deposited down a bore-hole in Antarctica and have been sealed with radioactive waste. Working Group I is now circling the wagons and preparing their cover stories, and the Secretariat is busy transferring as much lucre as possible into their numbered Swiss bank accounts as possible while their is still time. /sarc
Actually, I presume business as usual until the Antarctic ice sheet melts or the fallbeil is reinstituted for aristocrats and bureaucrats.
I just with that it didn’t require a ploy that is essentially childish and stupid to get the attention of the would-be aristocrats, and nit wit bureaucrats in the UN. Can’t we send all of these people on a vital scientific mission to some distant planet? – first class of course! – other wise they would never get on the spaceship. Gawd, leave the rest of us in peace.
W^3
Monckton again huh?
When are you guys going to learn? Your continual reliance on this serial Walter Mitty just keeps demonstrating your lack of credibility.
But then, we all knew that already.
It is not correct, as Monckton says, that has not been any warming in the RSS data set for 23 years (it’s actually 17 years or so)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2013/trend
mandas,
When you are incapable of providing a scientifically compelling argument — which is always the case in your case — you attack the man.
Grow up.
For the first time in my life I can finally say: “Praise the Lord”
My Lord
I understand the necessity of the case, but I really wish that this argument over data and interpretation could be had without ringing the Police… As I applaud the progress you have made, I am saddened that you have been obliged to take the steps that you have in order to make it.
Yours in sorrow
Way to go, it’s good to see that mad dogs and englishmen still go out in the midday sun. I don’t think your criminal fraud complaint is going anywhere given the UN’s sovereign immunity though. Too bad, they’re all a bunch of windmill tilters.
Ivan says:
May 21, 2013 at 4:41 pm
It is not correct, as Monckton says, that has not been any warming in the RSS data set for 23 years (it’s actually 17 years or so)
There are two different things being discussed here. The 17 years (actually 16 years and 5 months) is NO warming at all with a slope that is essentially 0. The 23 years refers to the fact that we cannot be 95% certain that warming is occurring for this period of time based on RSS numbers.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
Note that 0.131 is larger than 0.123. If my math is correct, there is a statistically significant chance of 5.6% that there has actually been cooling in the last 23 years.
Jolly gud show, Lord Monckton. But watch your back? If our coalition get in on Sept 14, Tim Flannery will be sacked. And so he should. I remember studying one of his papers in late 1980s doing my degree in archaeology and palaeoanthropology. It was the mass deaths of African elephants somewhere in Africa. He compared their fate with the extinction world wide of the mega fauna. Being browsers not grazers, the big marsupials eventually suffered a similar fate that faced these elephants. With a drought present, the elephants collected around the only water hole for 50 miles. They ate themselves out, fearing to leave as they usually do, walking from one water hole to another. He changed his tune years later, saying humans caused their demise. (There is evidence that the giant buffalo and mammoths were trapped or driven over a cliff by native indians and large mammals do not breed every year) Although no evidence other than one skeleton bore a spear point around an empty water hole in Australia. Too small to kill the huge beast. Recently it was announced that in Australia, megafauna died from extreme drought and climate change, and humans had little impact on their demise. Others adapted, like the red kangaroo that is a grazer and not a browser. Gud bye Tim and find another job, if they will have you?
I am most grateful to Anthony and to the many commenters here who have been kind enough to support my attempt to restore reason and truth to the IPCC by seeking correction of a notorious and influential error in its Fourth Assessment Report.
It is sad that I have had to let the prosecuting authorities know of the IPCC’s profitable dishonesty. I am not sure whether any such authority has jurisdiction over the IPCC. But my highlighting the IPCC’s grave, influential, and damaging error – and not one of the few trolls who have commented here has dared to suggest that it is not an error – will also highlight the danger of handing power to a global body with authority over all and accountability to none.
One revealing fact has already come to light. Dr. Pachauri, to whom I reported the error in person and in writing more than three years ago, did not pass on my manifestly serious and well-founded complaint to the IPCC Secretariat: for the Secretariat denies it knew anything of the error until my recent letter.
Pachauri is answerable at Indian law not merely for misprision of a felony but also as an accessory to this uniquely costly fraud. I shall notify the Indian prosecuting authorities of the facts and invite them to investigate.
A charity that Pachauri directs in the United Kingdom has already found itself in trouble with the Charities Commission because I had proved that it had flagrantly under-declared its income to the Commission in a manner calculated to conceal the very considerable funding it had received from British taxpayers.
My report of the IPCC’s error will put Pachauri and other powerful global-warming profiteers and racketeers worldwide on notice that the worm has turned. Those of us whom he and they have so cruelly and senselessly vilified merely because we have quietly insisted upon restoration of the primacy of the scientific method in weather forecasting will no longer tolerate lies or frauds.
In 11th-century Iraq Alhazen, the founder of the scientific method, beautifully described the scientist as “the seeker after truth”. Philosophers of science from Aristotle. Lucretius, and Alhazen to Descartes, Huxley, and Popper have repeatedly indicated that the truth is the end and object of science, as it is of religion, of logic, of mathematics, and – as some of the climate fraudsters may now discover to their cost – of the law.
Ooops, did anyone think that Pachauri and the IPCC could clean up their act?? Here is an article on Pachauri speaking just yesterday in Istanbul (h/t Tom Nelson):
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/nobel-laureate-warns-against-sea-level-rise-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=47288&NewsCatID=359
Precise, professional and to the point. The silence is deafening!!!
Skiphil good one. Look atolls do sink, they also rise. Erosion is one problem, particularly if land has been removed for building purposes from the ocean or sea fronts. Bangladesh regularly floods and they like it. If ice increases like in a major glacial period, seas will drop alarmingly. It will give more land but those who depend on fishing will have to travel miles. We should fear another ice age or even mini ice age. We can adapt, and the Southern hemisphere will not be so affected as the Northern hemisphere.
I wouldn’t hold my breath, India is one of most corrupt countries in the world. He’ll slip out of this one, like the worm he his.
“the seeker after truth”= Honesty.
Honesty are like manners and my nan taught me manners are free, I guess honesty can be bought.
Thank You.
@Skiphil
Pachauri says:
“On many small islands, the sea level has risen above one meter.”
Name me just one.
I really like Monckton but every time he rattles his saber and makes ridiculous (even if perfectly justified assertions of fraud) he become less plausible as a critic.
Popcorn and armchair time!
Loving your work.
TheInquirer says: @ May 20, 2013 at 10:26 pm….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This song is just for you: VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWIIoSf4nw LYRICS: http://www.azirishmusic.com/songs/104.htm
jim bishop says: @ May 21, 2013 at 6:10 am
Sadly the bbc are no less warmist than before…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And behind the scenes they are no doubt scrambling to move what is left of their pension fund and individual savings to safer ground. No wonder the US stock market is looking great. /sarc
CD says: @May 22, 2013 at 2:51 am
I really like Monckton but every time he rattles his saber and makes ridiculous (even if perfectly justified assertions of fraud) he become less plausible as a critic.
>>>>>
I don’t see anything ridiculous about them. It may be naive to think they will be acted on, but that doesn’t negate their seriousness. Also, as a publicity stunt alone, what Lord Monkton has done is brilliant, and in order to win over the minds and hearts of the the general public on this issue, good publicity is a must.
Tim
I agree about the Lord Moncktons service but suggesting their actions are fraudulent is a step too far. You’ll find bad stats everywhere in government when they spin the facts.
I call ‘spin’ ‘lying”.
Forgive me for asking, how do you define ‘spin’?
Does the fact that everyone in government is telling lies justify lying?
Glad that someone is taking up the issue of temperature fraud. I ran into it when doing research for my book “What Warming?” It turned out that according to satellites there was a warming pause in the eighties and nineties but official temperature curves at the same time had a “late twentieth century warming” in that time slot. I began to understand why satellite data never appears in official records. I pointed this fake warming out in the book but was totally ignored. Until last fall, that is, When GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC in unison decided to get rid of that fake warming. Nothing was said and I doubt anybody has noticed but they apparently felt that they had to cover themselves. I must write this up with more documentation.
Lord Monckton correctly claims that the IPCC claim that global warming was ” accelerating” was false. He incorrectly claims that “the global warming is not accelerating” and that “there has been no warming for 17 years on any measure…”
Monckton’s claims assume linearity of the relationship between the spatially and temporily averaged temperature at Earth’s surface and the time. This temperature does not, however, exist. What we have are spatially averaged temperatures measured at discrete intervals in time and not supporting Monckton’s assumption of linearity.
Terry Oldberg says:
May 22, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Lord Monckton correctly claims that the IPCC claim that global warming was ” accelerating” was false. He incorrectly claims that “the global warming is not accelerating” and that “there has been no warming for 17 years on any measure…”
Monckton’s claims assume linearity of the relationship between the spatially and temporily averaged temperature at Earth’s surface and the time. This temperature does not, however, exist. What we have are spatially averaged temperatures measured at discrete intervals in time and not supporting Monckton’s assumption of linearity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
@terry: The only place I see the word linearity is in YOUR interpretation. I believe the issue is with the IPCC claims and the temperatures used by IPCC to make those claims. The numbers used to define the temperature values in question are not increasing at an accelerated rate. Even alarmist admit as such and are looking for the missing heat.
@Arno Arrak says:
May 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Glad that someone is taking up the issue of temperature fraud. I ran into it when doing research for my book “What Warming?” It turned out that according to satellites there was a warming pause in the eighties and nineties but official temperature curves at the same time had a “late twentieth century warming” in that time slot. I began to understand why satellite data never appears in official records. I pointed this fake warming out in the book but was totally ignored. Until last fall, that is, When GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC in unison decided to get rid of that fake warming. Nothing was said and I doubt anybody has noticed but they apparently felt that they had to cover themselves. I must write this up with more documentation.
++++++++++++++
One wonders if by getting rid of the fake heat, it makes the past a bit cooler such that today’s cooling look flat or looks like slight warming compared to the newly revised adjusted past.
They can play games like this all the time. They raise temperatures in the past to show warming. Then they cool the past to show present day warming. It’s like that drawing of the square staircase that always goes up hill, but leads back to the same spot if you keep climbing…
One Lord Monckton is not enough.
Here in Germany we need at least ten…
Thanks for everything you did!
Mr. Oldberg, in a characteristically confused comment, agrees with me that the IPCC was wrong to say global warming is accelerating, but disagrees with my statement that global warming is not accelerating. The truth is that by 2007 global warming was not accelerating, and it is not accelerating today.
Mr. Oldberg also says I was wrong to say there has been no warming for at least 17 years on any measure. However, not one of the five global mean surface temperature temperature anomaly datasets shows warming statistically distinguishable from zero for at least 18 years. See Werner Brozek’s earlier contribution to this thread. Measurements of ocean temperature, and particularly of deep-ocean temperature, are too sparse to provide reliable information. Measurements of sea level (which are not temperature measurements in any event) conflict with one another. The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites show a fall in sea level throughout the admittedly short period of record.
Mr. Oldberg continues to confuse himself by saying that I am making “claims” that “assume linearity of the relationship between the spatially and temporily averaged temperature at Earth’s surface and the time.” As I have pointed out before, I make no such naive assumption. However, as any elementary textbook of statistics will tell him, in a dataset subject to very wide uncertainties the least inappropriate trend-line is the least-squares linear-regression trend. Higher-order polynomial fits are not appropriate because the uncertainties in the underlying data are too great. The IPCC itself uses linear trends in the fraudulent graph that is the subject of the head posting. If Mr. Oldberg disagrees with its using linear trends, he should address his complaint not to me but to the IPCC Secretariat, which will refer his complaint to scientists for evaluation.
A few commenters have said that my reporting the IPCC’s fraud is a publicity stunt. No: it is a straightforward report of an error that appears fraudulent, in accordance with a procedure that I had recommended to the Inter-Academy Council and which the Council – and eventually the IPCC – accepted.
A few other commenters have said there is no point in reporting errors to the IPCC because it will merely use further statistical prestidigitation to air-brush the errors away. If the IPCC were to try any more fiddling to try to justify its indefensible graph, it would merely further – and perhaps fatally – undermine its already much-tarnished credibility.
For the IPCC, this is an interesting moment. If it now accepts that its tampering with the graph originally submitted by its scientists was unjustifiable and publishes a correction, it will have to endure some temporary embarrassment but will have demonstrated that it is, after all, interested in seeking after truth. Of course, those learned journals and government departments that explicitly relied upon the IPCC’s erroneous conclusion that global warming is accelerating and that we are to blame will also endure embarrassment and will have to rethink their habit of unquestioningly believing whatever its Four Gospels have proclaimed.
If, on the other hand, the IPCC attempts a fudge, or tries not to address the error at all, or tries in any unscientific or politicized fashion to uphold what an eminent statistician whom I had consulted says is indeed an unquestionable error, its officials know full well that its fraud – which its intransigence will have confirmed – will be referred to prosecuting authorities worldwide, together with reports of various connected frauds perpetrated not only by the IPCC but by “learned” journals, climate “scientists”, “environmental” groups and others who have racketeered and profiteered wantonly for decades at unprecedented expense to taxpayers. Enough is enough.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Your opening statement that I am “characteristically confused” is an example of an ad hominem argument. As you know, ad hominem arguments are illogical. Thus, for you to make this one is for you to deliberately muddy the waters that surround the matter which is at issue. For the future, if you were to avoid muddying the waters in this way, I would appreciate same. I think Anthony Watts would appreciate it also.
Regarding the claim of mine with which you take issue, the temperature at Earth’s surface fluctuates upward and downward on a daily basis. Thus, under literal interpretation of the phrase “global warming,” the proposition that there has been no global warming over an 18 year period is false.
Your claim that “…not one of the five global mean surface temperature temperature anomaly datasets shows warming statistically distinguishable from zero for at least 18 years” is based upon a model. Supposedly, underlying this model is a statistical population whose elements are global temperatures. The model assumes that the population mean varies linearly with the time. When you claim the warming over the 18 years is statistically indistinguishable from zero, your reference is to the time rate of change of the population mean and not to the actual temperature. Your assumption of linearity is additionally made in computing confidence bounds on the time rate of change. It is these confidence bounds that lead to the conclusion that the time rate of change is statistically insignificant.
The assumption that the population mean varies linearly with respect to the time is insusceptible to being tested because the vast majority of the elements of this “population” do not exist; the only elements of it that do exist are recorded temperatures in a global temperature time series and they are an infinitesimal fraction of the temperatures in the mostly imaginary “population.” The missing temperatures are insusceptible to being observed as they lie in the past. Thus, the assumed linearity is not testable. Under this circumstance, the scientific method does not allow one to make the linearity assumption.
=============================
Joseph A Olson says:
May 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Handmaidens to the oligarchy, the BBC has finally arrived at the NO Warm party….
http://BBC.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
=============================
Big story. I wonder why Roger Harrabin’s name wasn’t on the byline…
A linear approach sometimes gives you an insight of the non linearity of the system…
Note my results here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
which on energy-in (maximum temps.) led to me this..
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which led me to the conclusion:
that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 (looking at ENERGY-IN) and will last until ca. 2039. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. As per Lord Monckton’s graph, we already fell -0.1K. I estimate we will fall about -0.2K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2039. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
Mr. Oldberg, in a further characteristically confused comment, says I am not being nice to him when I say he is characteristically confused. Tough luck. If he continues to address to me his doubts about the use of long-established, standard statistical techniques that he should really address to the IPCC, and if he continues to do so in a whining, carping, bossy tone, and if he continues rebarbatively to repeat his confused argument that I am assuming linearity in a stochastic dataset when I am manifestly not doing so and have told him that repeatedly, then he must expect not to be treated as a grown-up any more. He should really go away and learn some elementary statistics before waffling on about his off-topic statistical prejudices.
If Mr. Oldberg does not like linear regression analysis, then let him write to his nearest professor of statistics and propose a new and better way of establishing trends in stochastic data subject to considerable uncertainty. His latest confused comment confirms, yet again, that he has not even the dimmest understanding of what linear regression is or what it does. For a start, it does not assume linearity. Linearity is an output from the technique, not an input to it, as any schoolboy would know, so it cannot be an assumption, now can it? Mr. Oldberg’s fatuous insistence that linearity is an assumption when it is by definition an output and not an input of linear regression is not adult.
Likewise, Mr. Oldberg absurdly twitters that I am assuming that the mean of the members of a time-series “varies linearly with respect to time”. Bilge. The mean of a set is its mean, and that is that: it is, unless otherwise specified, the sum over the entire set divided by the number of members in the set. It varies with respect to variations in the membership and values in the set, and not with time, except to the trivial extent that as a time-series gets longer there will be more members joining the set and thus possibly altering its mean.
It ought to be blindingly obvious even to Mr. Oldberg that, since the new members of a dataset can take various values, only a halfwit would assume that the values would always be such as to allow the mean to change at a linear rate, particularly since the datasets in question are stochastic.
He also spews nonsense when he says that members of the set are missing. Hogwash. The datasets mentioned in the head posting each contain monthly values. Each value is a member of the set. The basis for compilation is explained in the reviewed papers that describe the datasets. Let him read those papers before expatiating unlearnedly upon their methods.
He compounds his fatuity when he says that in saying the warming over the past 18 years is statistically indistinguishable from zero, I am referring to “the time rate of change of the population mean and not to the actual temperature”. Codswallop. I am referring to the linear trend on the data, which is the unique line that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the residuals (which are the differences between the data points on the line and the data points in the set). Though the mean of the entire dataset is indeed an input to the calculation, that mean does not change over the period, for linear regression treats the period as a whole, as even Mr. Oldberg ought to know.
And of course I am not referring to “the actual temperature”, but to the rate at which the temperature changes over the period.
He wails that the temperatures in the datasets are not the only temperatures that might have been measured. Welcome to that element in the uncertainty in the data that arises from incomplete spatial coverage. It is explicitly allowed for in the uncertainty values in datasets such as that from the Hadley Centre and CRU that was the subject of the head posting. However, if he is not happy with the data themselves, he should address himself not to me but to those who compile the data.
I have only scraped the surface of Mr. Oldberg’s bottomless ignorance in answering a few of his nonsensical, speciously academic-sounding points. He may like to go away and spend some useful time reading an elementary textbook of statistics. That would save him from further confusion, and from the inevitable embarrassment that results when he parades that confusion here with chirruping, pointless, off-topic persistence even after he has been repeatedly corrected.
In any event, the purpose of the head posting was not to discuss whether the IPCC ought to have used linear regression, or whether the data were all that they might be, but to explain that the IPCC had drawn an improper conclusion from the slopes of the multiple linear trends that it determined from a single dataset. Mr. Oldberg’s confused maunderings have nothing whatever to contribute to that topic. In future, I hope the moderators will tell him that if he wants to go off topic he should go away and troll elsewhere. And I am glad that, on this occasion, he came to the party late enough not to succeed in derailing the thread as he has so often done in the past. One hopes he is not one of those who are paid to try to disrupt this website.
Let him now go away and play in a sandbox more suited to his invincible ignorance. He will not be welcome here again until he has learned some elementary statistics.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Your claim that I am ignorant of elementary statistics is false and an example of an ad hominem argument. In a science blog such as this one, ad hominem arguments should be avoided as they are irrelevant to the scientific issue but capable of leading readers to conclusions that are false or unproved.
Contrary to your claim, linearity is a premise of linear regression analysis rather than being a conclusion from it. In concluding that the slope of your regression line is insignificantly different from nil, you take this premise to be true. If you have an argument for it being true, please share this argument with us.
Terry Oldberg: You’re making this too confusing. The IPCC said global warming is accelerating. Monckton said, according to all temperature sets, it is not accelerating. Yes – we all know there is not global temperature. But the data that exists, obviously does not hint at accelerating temperatures.
Simple enough?
Mario Lento:
You misunderstand the conclusion that is at issue between Monckton and me. It is Monckton’s conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the past 18 years.
Terry Oldberg: This is an interest aside. Using the same data that was used to show warming was accelerating prior to 18 years ago, that same updated data shows no acceleration for the past 18 years. I don’t have a problem with that notion.
Mario Lento:
How do you define “warming”?
Mr. Oldberg complains that I have questioned his knowledge of elementary statistics. Given the large number of elementary errors he has made in this thread, I drew the charitable conclusion that he is ignorant rather than willfully wrong. For instance, he again asserts that linearity is an assumption that is input to a linear-regression analysis rather than a result that is output from that analysis, and asks me to explain my position. But I had already explained it, and in some detail. Linear regression is a well-established statistical method by which even stochastic data (i.e. non-linear data) are used as the starting-point for an algorithm whose result is a straight line.
The straight line is a representation of the trend in the data. If there are considerable uncertainties in the data, as there are with the global temperature record, then linear regression is less inappropriate than any higher-order polynomial fit. And, as I have also had to say before, if Mr. Oldberg wishes to challenge the IPCC’s use of this standard statistical technique, then he should address his challenge to the IPCC and not to me. On the basis of linear regression the IPCC has drawn various conclusions about the rate of global warming, including the conclusion that there has been no warming for 17 years. If Mr. Oldberg wishes to contest that conclusion, then let him address himself to the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, whom I cited on the point in the head posting.
Mr. Oldberg is disingenuous in trying to maintain that he disagrees with me. He disagrees with the IPCC, with its chairmkan, and with every textbook of elementary statistics, and is quite unable or unwilling to provide anything other than pseudo-academic gibberish as justification for the nonsensical notions he espouses. He will not be permitted to derail any future thread with his baseless waffle about linear regression. If he really thinks he knows of a better way to represent the trend in a stochastic dataset, then let him write a constructive paper about it rather than whining pointlessly and ineffectually from the sidelines. We have all been very patient with him until now, but he continues to pay no attention to what he is told, and offers no science in support of his position, whatever it may be.
One understands that true-believers in the global warming nonsense are upset at the continuing failure of the planet to warm at anything like the predicted rate. But they would command more respect for their viewpoint if they were to debate the science honestly and competently, rather than mendaciously, confusedly and, worst of all, aprioristically.
you are funny, too,
Terry Oldberg says:
May 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Mario Lento:
How do you define “warming”?
++++++++
Warming is a relative term. Your question is not precise and I do not want to get into a dumb argument with you, where you tell me I assumed something.
You need to ask me the question in term of times scales. Warming measures temperature (as opposed to energy). I could say it warms every day during day time. I could say it’s warming from Feb through August. In the case of the past 18 years, warming has been from near zero to near slightly negative. In that time frame, which is what is being argued, warming is certainly accelerating.
Good enough?
Mario Lento:
Thanks for taking a stab at providing the meaning that you attach to “warming.” It sounds as though it is identical to Lord Monckton’s meaning. In a specified interval of time, one fits a straight line to the global temperatures. If the slope of this line is positive, it is “warming.” Otherwise it is not. Due to sampling error, confidence bounds must be applied to the slope.
When elements of this procedure are translated into statistical terms, shortcomings of it are revealed. Points along the regression line are sample means and they converge toward population means as the sample sizes increase. Thus, the procedure implies that the population means vary linearly with the time. This assumption cannot be tested, though, as at virtually all points along the regression line, the global temperatures are unknown. Thus, to assume linearity is incompatible with the scientific method of investigation.
In the above description, I’ve used the term “population” in reference to the set of global temperatures in an infinitesimal span of time. The “sample mean” is the mean value of the global temperature in a specified interval in a sample that is drawn from the population which is associated with this interval. The “population mean” is the mean value of the global temperature in a specified interval in the population which is associated with this interval. An “infinitesimal span of time” is wide enough to hold an infinite number of global temperatures.
Correction from my last sentence on May 24, 2013 at 1:40 pm: It should have read:
In that time frame, which is what is being argued, warming is certainly NOT accelerating.
Monckton of Brenchley:
*Your continuing attacks on my character are irrelevant, unfounded and illegal.
*That linear regression is “well established” is irrelevant.
*That the straight line is “a representation of the trend in the data” is irrelevant.
That “On the basis of linear regression the IPCC has drawn various conclusions about the rate of global warming, including the conclusion that there has been no warming for 17 years” is irrelevant.
*That I disagree with with “every textbook of elementary statistics” would have to be a conclusion from research conducted on “every textbook of elementary statistics.” In view of the prodigious effort that would be required, I doubt that this research has taken place. If it has, please cite it. If not but if you have found a single textbook of elementary statistics with which I disagree, please cite it and describe the points of disagreement.
Terry Oldberg: I am curious if to know what you think of the IPCC’s models. Do they pass muster in providing knowledge about climate?
Mario Lento:
Thanks for asking for my view on whether the IPCC models provide knowledge. As “knowledge” lacks a precise commonly accepted definition, I prefer to answer the question of whether they provide information about the outcomes from policy decisions on CO2 emissions. They provide no such information. That they provide no information makes them worthless for their intended purpose.
Though they provide no information, the models must seem to policy makers to provide information for they proceed toward regulation of CO2 emissions as though having information. That this is so seems to result from applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of participating climatologists and governments. I’ve published a pair of peer reviewed articles on this topic. The latest is at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
Terry Oldberg says:
May 24, 2013 at 4:11 pm
I do not assume that there is a linear trend Terry. Perhaps I was not not clear. What I hoped to make clear was that the time frames matter. During the past 18 years, certainly, the trend (that is the matter instigated by the IPCC) is NOT accelerating in the direction of warmth.
Mario Lento:
Whether linear or non-linear, trend analysis suffers from illogicality. It stems from the fact that in doing scientific research one works in an arena in which information is incomplete. A consequence is for the future to unfold as a sequence of events whose outcomes are uncertain. Thus, for example, if rain in the next 24 hours is predicted, it might not rain.
henry@terry
I am not sure what it is that you are accusing the good lord of. I see him as our spokesman for all of us who KNOW that CO2 does not cause warming, or if it does, only very indirectly so, by causing the biosphere to boom. Namely if you look at my tables at Las Vegas, that used to be a desert, you will see the difference Tmax – Tmin decreasing whereas in Tandil (ARG) where they hacked all the trees down, you see Tmax – Tmin rising.
I agree with you that global temp. as such is difficult to estimate. Therefore, from the beginning I figured that we must rather look at the average change from the average in a specific period of time at a certain place (weather station). To do that you need linear regression.So all of the (black) figures you are looking at in my tables, are the result of a linear regression.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
My sample of weather stations was balanced by latitude and 70/30 sea/land. I looked at average yearly temps. so that the influence of longitude is cancelled out.
How do I know my tables are right? First of all, if you look at the table for means, you will see that we warmed by about 0.013 or 0.014 degrees C/annum over the past 32 years. A similar result is reported by Spencer and he looked at data from the satellites. Others also reported the same result. So we warmed by about 0.4 K over the past 32 years, on average.
This warming is an average, taking over time. Obviously the speed of warming in each year is different. This is best seen in my first table, on the bottom, where we can see a gradual drop in maximum temperatures that seemed to follow a binomial distribution. In the end, I decided it must be an A-C wave. I hope it is, because if it is not, I am not sure where we will end up.
So, don’t tell me statistics does not work. It works!! And it tells everything you want to know. I am stunned that nobody has yet been able to reproduce my results.They are all just lazy, or they rather do not want to know what the figures are telling us.
[The average temperature data from the stations were obtained from http://www.tutiempo.net.
I tried to avoid stations with many missing data. Nevertheless, it is very difficult finding weather stations that have no missing data at all. If a month’s data was found missing or if I found that the average for a month was based on less than 15 days of that month’s data, I looked at the average temperatures of that month of the preceding- and following year, averaged these, and in this way estimated the temperatures of that particular month’s missing data]
Based on my results, we can see that by 2040 we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less.
Henry P:
I’m with you in your enthusiasm for bringing the discipline of mathematical statistics to bear on the AGW issue. In attempting to apply this discipline, frequently people make logical errors. A long background in the design and management of scientific studies equips me to spot these errors. When I spot them, I flag these errors for the perpetrators in the hope that we can work them out of our collective thinking on the AGW issue.
I disagree with you, though, when you claim to know that CO2 does not cause global warming. The global temperature record going back to its beginning in 1850 contains only 5 or 6 events. This number of events is too few by a factor of at least 30 for scientifically based conclusions to be reached about whether CO2 does or does not cause global warming.
Henry@lord Monckton
Something that I have been wanting to ask you, and I am sure many others also would like to know, for clarity and for the sake of honesty,
do you actually make some money out of your activism against the whole global warming scam?
If the forecast is that the likelihood of rain tomorrow is 90% and rains falls tomorrow, the forecast was 100% correct. If the forecast is that the likelihood of rain tomorrow is 10% and rains falls tomorrow, the forecast was 100% correct. Science is wonderful!
mitigatedsceptic:
If the model claimed the likelihood of rain tomorrow to be 90% and it rained tomorrow and the forecast was 100% correct the methodology was illogical and unscientific..
henry@terry
My tables show that the ratio maxima : means : minima
is something like 6:2:1, if you take it over the longest period.
So clearly it was max pulling up means and minima.
Data sets other than my own only report means
(very shortsighted since you can get all info?)
Like I said, a few places where there was a big increase in greenery
showed some heat entrapment. So what do you want?
In the end I decided that more carbon is OK, seeing as that it (i.e. more greenery) might help us a bit against common (coming) cold.. (it is mot much, looking at figures for energy on photo synthesis). Note that as from 1995 we have started on a curve downwards, globally cooling. According to my calculation we are now about 1926, i.e.
ca. 6 years away from the drought known as the Dust Bowl droughts 1932-1939 that devastated the Great Plains.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Since Mr. Oldberg continues to assert that linearity is an input to linear regression rather than an output from it, there is little point in continuing to instruct him. His motives are unclear, but his contributions are unhelpful and silly.
Henry P asks how much I make out what he calls “global warming activism”. Well, I occasionally get a speaking fee, and that’s about it. And I’m not an “activist”: merely an interested observer who conducts his own research from time to time, publishes it, and tells people about it if they ask.
But if Exxon-Mobil are reading this, perhaps they could arrange for this month’s check to reach me. And last month’s hasn’t arrived either. In fact, every single check they ever sent has failed to arrive. Perhaps global warming has interfered with the US Postal Service.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Your latest argument is that my argument is discredited because it is “unhelpful” and “silly.” However, your argument is illogical. In logic, an argument is discredited if and only if its conclusion is proved to be untrue. This, you have repeatedly failed to do. In case you’ve missed it, my argument is that the linearity of the relation from the time to the population mean is unproved where the “population” contains the global temperatures at Earth’s surface. To claim the existence of an algorithm that establishes the linearity without revealing the nature of this algorithm does not constitute a proof.
Similarly, I also asked Shell why they did not support me….
I got no answer other that they decided to go with the “public opinion”
I suspect that public opinion will quickly sway our way once people have to shovel snow in late spring and when summer starts with freezing temps at night…..
I have long been mystified by the flat spot in the global temperature curve from 1940 to 1980 and to a lesser extent 1890 to 1920. It certainly doesn’t correspond to the CO2 concentration.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/09/13/global-temperature-statistics-the-denial-edition/
The climate is reasonably predictable, it is what we expect, but weather is what we get, and weather kills us. Spring, summer, autumn & winter, northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere come in different months. Sea Ice melts during the Arctic and antarctic summers when there is sunlight nearly 24 hours a day. But real climate change is between mini ice age and full glacial episodes to warmer interglacial periods we are experiencing now.
No agriculture was possible until about 10,000 years ago, anywhere on the globe. We need warmth, so we get more precipitation to grow and cultivate plants. These gizzards of climatologists ripping off the tax payer, urging we pay for environmental damage being experienced by third world countries and islands is a rip off. However, we can offer help for them to reach sustainable agricultural methodologies that suit their region. Good luck Lord Monckton and I hope you get a reasonable response and Australia bans their carbon tax.
Don’t forget cities create pollution and the Urban Heat Island affect. Luckily most agriculture is conducted outside large cities so what is the need to examine the temps in country areas? Important of course. Remove humans and cars from large cities? Because they are the biggest polluters.
Lord Monckton would remember the 1950s London SMOGS, I lived in Potters Bar and traveled by steam train to the City where I worked for the Bank of England, Cheapside, next to St.Pauls. The old Lady of Threadneedle street, (B of E HQ where they keep the gold bullion) had air purifiers in their buildings. To cut out the SMOG being breathed in by workers, especially in the gold bullion vaults. My petticoat had a 2 inch hemline smut or dirt ring, steam trains were filthy things to travel on, although I loved them. Smoke free zones were introduced by 1963 and within 10 years dolphins were coming into the lower reaches of the Thames, and swallows nesting on business houses again, (a good luck omen). Diesel and electric trains kept our underwear cleaner, LOL.
Lord M.,
Pretending to have faith that the authorities will proceed and investigate as mandated may well be a necessary and useful stratagem. It’s hard to read when my fogging eyes are rolling involuntarily, however.
Monckton takes on the Masters of obfuscation and perdition-by-process, once again. They will bide their time, concoct some gobbledeguk and wriggle out of it as ever. Bureaucrats won’t be dictated to by their subjects, but Monckton won’t let them off the hook. It can only end in tears.
Pass the popcorn…
Which police has jurisdiction over the UN bureaucratocracy anyway, btw.?
As UN employees don’t pay national taxes which state’s laws are they subject to, when transacting UN business ?
Haven’t there already been attempts to ‘clarify there position’ as being effectively outside the law of any Nation.
Might it therefore take something like a UN resolution to sanction them ?
Do these UN IPCC representatives have a conscience ? Or is it just about con-science ?
Edie, they have Dr Pacharie or whomever running T.E.R.I that promotes clean and green energy for third world countries. One Kenyan bush hospital had one solar panel, and could not run a small refrigerator to keep vaccines in, and run the lights at the same time. So they use gas lamps at night! That is a poor hospital.