Sticking it to the Mann

Global warming has stopped. Get over it.  A response to Michael Mann in the Richmond Times Dispatch

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The collapsed global warming scare certainly has some odd characters coming to its defense in this paper. Michael Mann (Aug. 25), whom the Attorney General of Virginia investigated under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000 after some statistical peculiarities in Mann’s failed attempt to abolish the medieval warm period, now bloops another blooper.

He tries to deny the embarrassing near-17-year pause in global warming because “NASA found the warming continues unabated, with the past decade the warmest on record”. As an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the UN’s climate panel, let me correct his latest gaffe.

clip_image002

The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months. But go back 20 years and some warming shows up. The temperature climbed from 1993-1996, then stopped.

So the latest decade is a bit warmer than those that went before, but there has still been no warming for almost 17 years. Even the climate-science chairman of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, admits that. Elementary, my dear Michael. Tut, tut! Statistics 101.

Mann says there is “evidence that humans are warming the planet”. There can’t be. For 200 months there has been no warming at all. Get over it. Get a life.

Mann says his discredited attempt to rewrite medieval temperatures “has not been disproved”. Well, here is what Professor Ross McKitrick, who exposed Mann’s statistical peculiarities in the learned journals, had to say about it:

“… The conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments …”.

And here is the report of three Congressional statisticians in 2006:

“… we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

“Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

Mann goes on to say, “Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings …”. His double use of “independent” was scarcely the mot juste. Here is what the three statisticians told Congress:

“In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of co-authored papers with him.

“Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.”

Mann then complains at my pointing out that his earlier offensive references to climate “ ‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ would be illegal in Europe as being anti-Jewish, racialist hate-speech.” He says he is Jewish. Then he should know better than to use such unscientific and (in Europe) illegal terms, calculated to imply Holocaust denial on the part of his opponents.

Mann says the House of Lords says I am not a member when I say I am. Sigh! Mann knows no more of British constitutional practice than he does of elementary statistics. Hansard records that the House has recognized my title to succeed my late beloved father, but does not record the House as saying I am not a member. Facts wrong again, Mike, baby. Try doing science, not invective.

Finally, Mann says I “impersonated a delegate from Myanmar” at a UN conference. Do I look Burmese? Do I sound Burmese? Did the chairman of the conference say he thought I was Burmese? No. He said he knew I was not from Burma. Facts wrong yet again, Mickey.

Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm as predicted. Not only Attorneys General but also taxpayers will soon, and rightly, be demanding their money back from the grasping profiteers of doom who so monstrously over-egged this particular pudding.

###

Lord Monckton is an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report. He has lectured worldwide in climate science and economics and has published several papers in the learned literature. Oh, and his passport says he is The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

About these ads

203 thoughts on “Sticking it to the Mann

  1. Yup, Mann made warming is for real. Mann oh Mann.
    Last year I tweeted Mann and I got a NON scientist response about frozen hockey stick. I said the sun is freezing your hockey stick in the ice.
    He blocked me after he responded to hide behind a blocking wall. I always wondered why he did not ever include rings from fossilized horns from animals. Some animals horns grow like tree rings.

  2. All of the above despite increasing levels of CO2! The IPCC relies on climate models where the primary driver of temperature is levels of CO2. Over the last 17 years, we have seen flat temperatures and increasing levels of CO2. The models are false.

  3. As a former debater, and if this were a debate round, here is where I would attack -

    ““Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

    really says it all I believe

  4. It’s a complicated business, but this is why there is confusion about Lord Monckton’s title. Until a few years ago all hereditary peers (Lords) in the UK could speak and vote in the House of Lords and so could Life Peers, who are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Government but cannot pass on their title. The law was changed in 1999 to limit the number of hereditary peers who can vote and speak to 92 (elected by the others). The other few hundred, including Viscount Monckton, keep their titles and are entitled to use them, and are entitled to stand for election if one of the 92 seats becomes vacant. Christopher Monckton is not using his title fraudulently.

  5. Mike says in the article “We are simply trying to make sure the public understands what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe is happening” in response to Monckton’s criticism of the term “deniers”

    Every time these climate experts go on and on about climate change, criticizing skeptics as “deniers”, their language is one about “belief”. That doesn’t sound concrete enough to me to be used in conjuction with accusations of denial. You can deny a fact, you can’t deny a belief.

    So it’s always about belief with these guys? They don’t “know” climate change is happening? I don’t believe in gravity. I know it exists. I don’t believe that if I mix vinegar with baking soda that bubbles of CO2 will be produced…I know it.

  6. There are so many contradictory news about the ice, about the weather, about CO2, about the Oceans, the tornadoes , the clouds, the sun, that one would spend the entire day reading what some “papers” said was true, while other “papers” proved it was not. And end up with one’s head full of data, and of charts, and not understanding what they meant.
    So now, I’ve opted for reading the texts written by people I trust, and who know how to write, and who make reading about climate ( and about climate policies ), a great pleasure.
    Now I never miss Lord Monckton, or Willis Eschenbach, or Lomborg, or, of course Dr R. Linden… And then I go to the texts they mention.
    And I can read it all here. In this very blog.

    ¡ Great blog, and Thank you for everything Mr Anthony Watts !

  7. As usual Lord Monkton cut to the detail with sure precision! Always a joy to listen to & read! The trouble with the warmists is that they all too often indulge in ad hominem attacks, typical & classic politics tactics learnt from the far left & far right Socialists of old, when they really shouldn’t do it, with Monkton it’s rather like yanking a tiger by the tail, he will chew them up for breakfast.

  8. Mikey probably hid the Medieval Warm Period where he hid the decline.

    And there ain’t no sunshine in that hidey hole.

  9. I am sure that no other branch of science has supported so many scoundrels. Mann is one of many. His work has been falsified, but he still defends it. But he is one of quite a few. However, he and his ilk are still winning where it counts. Politicians still trust every word they utter, and go about saying that AGW is the most dangerous threat the world has ever seen. Some say it is more threatening than international terrorism. We sceptics have a long way to go before the governments of the world join us.

  10. Thank you for your efforts, and your continuing work to save us – the members of the global planet – from those who seek to destroy us and enslave us with artificially high energy costs and deliberate energy restrictions in the name of saving us from the exaggerated costs of future energy use.

  11. I saw Mann’s op ed piece in the Richmond paper this weekend. I was tempted to respond to refute his perceptions of the issues, but Chris Monckton did a great job before I could get to it.

  12. The Mickster, in addition to suffering from chronic lying syndrome (CLS), seems confused. In no way do the two statements “the warming has stopped for almost 17 years” and “the past decade was the warmest on record” have anything to do with one another. The latter does not in any way negate the former. He is merely clutching at straws, and mighty flimsy ones at that. Furthermore, picking the past decade is nothing but a blatant cherry-pick on his part, and a form of lying.

  13. Certainly Lord Monckton does not look Burmese. And no one, not even Eli, believes that Lord Monckton sounds Burmese. Even the chairman of the conference was not foolish enough to say he thought Lord Monckton was Myanmarese. Well at least not when someone pointed this out after Lord Monckton talked having been recognized as a speaker from Myanmar

    Why Eli even read about that at Watts Up With That, and the happy bunny even saw that Chris wrote that he took the seat of the representative of Myanmar and Chris asked to be recognized as same
    ———————–
    The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.
    ———————-

    REPLY: Why not? You believe you are a bunny and speak in tongues. At least people listened to Monckton that day, even though they didn’t like what they heard. – Anthony

  14. Yeah But….

    Just wait for the Watermelons to come out in force saying anything against Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Not a lord, Not a scientist, Not a climate scientist, Not published, does not understand the finer points, is a d*n**r and therefore is not credible, is in the pay of Big Oil, Big Gas or Big something.

    Or maybe they will try the old trick of discrediting the actual evidence of what he said. My guess is anything but the last one.

  15. Eli proved Roy’s point. Roy thanks Eli. I think I got that correct in the most pretentious Eli way.

  16. The bunniboi is clearly miserable because Lord Monckton was smarter than the entire UN/IPCC contingent, doubled and squared.

  17. Thanks for this clear assessment of corruption of the scientific method by a government-paid labs. If politicians saw CO2 as a cause of ‘man made climate change’, why did they take the route of economic destruction?
    When I was a child 50 years ago, scientists said tropical rain forests provided 75% of the world’s oxygen, as trees convert CO2 to O. Why did climatologists not see that destroying those forests had a major impact on the amount of CO2? So far, I’ve not seen a timeline study of the forests’ destruction. If governments were really concerned, instead of demonizing affordable energy and taxing citizens, why was there no discussion about the forests?

  18. Lord Monckton again demonstrates nobility of character, as well as of bloodline. A great job of putting this whining, lying blatherskite in his place.

    Now, if only der Fuehrer would read Lord Monckton’s piece. Fat chance of that, unfortunately.

    @Peter Stroud -
    I’d say that the CAGW crusade is a bigger threat than international terrorism – if, in fact, it isn’t a form thereof, with similar objectives of destroying society, liberty and the world economy.

  19. Can someone produce the hockeystick graph that Mann is talking about? The one I remember has a blade that shoots up dramatically. I don’t remember the version that Mann is obviously refering to that shoots up a little then levels off for 17 years. Even in Al Gore’s fictional movie “Inconvenient Truth” his little platform kept going up and up. I don’t remember it going up and stopping for the rest of the movie.

    BTW, what is Mann going to say when the temperatures start dropping for the next 10 years? I’ll tell you what he’ll say in 2023: “Global warming is still happening, most scientists believe this to be true. The late 20th century was the warmest period of the past millenium with 1998 being the all time record. Lord Monckton is not a Lord. Anyone who disagrees with me is a denier”

  20. Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm as predicted.

    Oh no, now you’ve gone and done it. :-) For anyone who wants to argue that the IPCC does not do predictions see here and here where we thrashed out the issue and the sceptics won.

  21. Chris Monckton wrote:
    The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months.

    Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?

    It’s precisely this kind of cherry picking that keeps some people from being taken seriously.

  22. How much cooling (versus just stalling) would have to have been shown before the AGW crowd would have to say that the present decade was NOT the hottest in the present record? Let’s use their logic. They are obviously using an average from a decade of temperature averages. So let’s put the decade to hypothetical test using only negative slopes. Easily done with linear trend lines between the two decadal points being used by the AGW crowd. One could then easily show how far that crowd would be willing to show up as clowns. And all accomplished by using their decadal start and end points, their use of decadal averages, and their use of linear trend lines. Logic wins most handedly when the oponent side uses the proponent’s logic. Its like having the rival team accidently fail to remember which basket is theirs and score one for the other side. Makes them look stupid but is fun to watch!

  23. Step 1: Decide to be a real scientist.

    Step 2: Choose climate for your specialty.

    Step 3: Examine the evidence, compare to accepted claims and theories.

    Step 4: Choose one:
    A. Choose another specialty.
    B. Establish alternate income as you can’t get work in your field if you say the truth, establish legal defense fund for when you get sued for telling the truth, and give up all hope of ever being regarded as anything but a crackpot denier by the “climate science establishment”.

    For 4B, be prepared for when your kids come home from public school and want to know why you want to overheat the Earth with toxic carbon pollution and kill all the poley bear cubs. How can you be so evil?

  24. David L wrote:
    BTW, what is Mann going to say when the temperatures start dropping for the next 10 years?

    Do you often try to win arguments by first positing that you are right? Does that ever work?

  25. Oh, dear. Monckton is no more a member of the House of Lords than I am, as explained to him by the Clerk of the House. No amount of squealing by Monckton will change that. His inherited title is Viscount and the title was created in 1957. He inherited after the 1999 Act changed the composition of the Upper House. He knows this and yet persists in repeating what is demonstrably untrue. I cannot respect someone who repeats that lie, as that is exactly what it is.

  26. PS. Calling someone a denier is not an offence in Europe, although some may find it offensive. Monckton knows that too.

  27. “Mann says there is “evidence that humans are warming the planet”. There can’t be. For 200 months there has been no warming at all. Get over it. Get a life.”

    I really like the tone of this remark. This is where all skeptics and other critics of the IPCC and its fellow travelers should be now.

  28. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Chris Monckton wrote:

    The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months.

    Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?

    It’s precisely this kind of cherry picking that keeps some people from being taken seriously.

    Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

    We could use that UAH “cherry” if you prefer, but the difference between the two is not statistically significant …

    w.

  29. I think Michael Mann and his behavior is possibly explained by a little rhyme:

    Can’t you see?
    It’s all about me.

  30. DavidL

    happy to oblige with the Hockey stick

    Here it is graphed with REAL temperatures (CET) and shown against glacier movements. (closed blue line at top is glacier retreat/warmth, at bottom glacier advance (cold)

    The sticks constancy is remarkable as still being able to cause glaciers to advance and retreat. The string downturn at the end is real world CET which has been plunging for a dozen years.

    tonyb

  31. I am so sick of the bunch of liars that get awards for fraud….King Obama, Fat Boy Gore and the Court Jester Mann.

  32. Make no mistake. You see this as a global warming event. This is, in fact, the latest step in the liberal campaign to undercut Ken Cuccinelli’s credibility and get Terry MacAulliffe enshrined in Richmond.

  33. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Oh, dear. Monckton is no more a member of the House of Lords than I am, as explained to him by the Clerk of the House. No amount of squealing by Monckton will change that. His inherited title is Viscount and the title was created in 1957. He inherited after the 1999 Act changed the composition of the Upper House. He knows this and yet persists in repeating what is demonstrably untrue. I cannot respect someone who repeats that lie, as that is exactly what it is.

    Lord Monkton’s position:

    “The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1992 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so, as my passport shows, I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.”

    Margaret, what are your specific objections to Lord Monckton’s position? Please quote the sentence(s) you think are incorrect, and tell us why he’s wrong.

    Note that I take no position on this, as I am woefully unlettered in the rules of the House of Lords … Moncton’s position, as I understand it, is that he does not have a vote but he is a member, because only a specific law can remove the membership.

    As I said, I don’t have a clue … but you seem to object heartily to that position. SPECIFIC reasons why you object would be appreciated.

    Finally, Moncton has clearly researched his claims, cites relevant statutes, and believes his position is true. He may indeed be wrong … but he thinks his claims are upheld by British Law in the exact same way that you think that your claims are upheld by British Law.

    For you to call a man like that a liar as you did above, without a scrap of proof that he doesn’t believe his claims, is a slimy accusation which only damages your own reputation, not his …

    Regards,

    w.

  34. Margaret Hardman,
    Monckton said he is a Lord by title, not that he is a member of the House of Lords, which is the upper house on GB. He is correct. If he claimed to be a member of the House of Lords, you would be correct. If that is so, give a reference.

  35. From Margaret Hardman on August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am:

    Oh, dear. Monckton is no more a member of the House of Lords than I am, as explained to him by the Clerk of the House.

    The correct title is Clerk of the Parliaments. That letter is here:

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    But this was hashed out before:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/

    Since you apparently have problems with looking up facts, I’ll copy choice portions here for your ease of reading:

    Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.

    Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers, overlooking the River Thames just a mile downstream from the Houses of Parliament. His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”

    O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question. He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”. The conclusion of his 11-page opinion (see PDF at bottom of this article) , reviewing 1000 years of Peerage law, is clear on the issue:

    “Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

    To people outside of England, who don’t deal in formal titles of hereditary peerage, this might look like an overblown egotistic row . But in England, such things are considered very important and are a tradition of position that affects families and reputations going back centuries.

    What was that you said?

    He knows this and yet persists in repeating what is demonstrably untrue. I cannot respect someone who repeats that lie, as that is exactly what it is.

    You now know what you said is demonstrably untrue. You have repeated a lie. If you persist then by your standard I cannot respect YOU. Go away, annoying whining she-troll.

  36. Willis

    I gave the link to the Clerk of Parliament’s letter to Monckton above but the relevant bit is this

    “In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”

    This is a direct quote from a relevant case brought by another peer. It matters not what it says on Monckton’s passport, he is not a member of the House of Lords. If someone were to appoint him to that chamber then his status would change but at present he is not and has been told to stop making the claim. That he does not do so says something about the man.

    I hope this clears up the matter. Michael Mann on this matter of fact is outright correct. Hansard is the daily record of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament and without looking them up I don’t know what they say but as for Mann knowing nothing of the constitution of the United Kingdom, I trust both Monckton and Mann can read and I know who is telling the truth on this one. It is Michael Mann. I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.

    Margaret

  37. Fred says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:08 am

    Mikey probably hid the Medieval Warm Period where he hid the decline.

    And there ain’t no sunshine in that hidey hole.

    Signature “hymn” for Mann’s “hidey hole” (just like he hides everything else):

  38. Heh. Didn’t seem to take so long to write it, yet Maggie and Willis both got comments in the meanwhile. Oh well.

    @ Leonard Weinstein on August 26, 2013 at 10:37 am:
    He didn’t claim to be a Member of the House of Lords, he stated the truth that he is. And yet Maggie is still wrong. Hopefully you see that now.

  39. The climate war trenches are being filled in. I’m waiting for a $5.00 remaindered copy of Mann ‘s book to see exactly what he said.

  40. Lord Monckton,
    I always thought that the IPCC was biased in selecting reviewers. How did you manage to become an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report?

  41. Mann then complains at my pointing out that his earlier offensive references to climate “ ‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ would be illegal in Europe as being anti-Jewish, racialist hate-speech.” He says he is Jewish. Then he should know better than to use such unscientific and (in Europe) illegal terms, calculated to imply Holocaust denial on the part of his opponents.

    Very respectfully, I would disagree. Those sorts of names – boorish though they are – have nothing to do with racialism or anti-Semitism in themselves. However, the names do clearly intend to put Sceptics on a par with anti-Semites.

    As for whether such language would be illegal in that great bastion of freedom [/sarc] Europe: who cares. As you know, laws don’t stop people hating other people, whether said hate is justified or not. But I guess you’re using language that the likes of Mann might relate to, so fair play.

  42. Eli Rabett says:
    “Chris asked to be recognized as same”

    I missed that part. Where did the good Lord specifically ASK to be recognized as same? Or are you just pulling things out of your Rabett hole?

  43. Michael Mann, the principle hysterian (keeper of climate hysteria history) of Climate Science, once again begs the question: Is there anything stupid he’s willing to leave unspoken?

  44. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am


    I hope this clears up the matter. Michael Mann on this matter of fact is outright correct. Hansard is the daily record of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament and without looking them up I don’t know what they say but as for Mann knowing nothing of the constitution of the United Kingdom, I trust both Monckton and Mann can read and I know who is telling the truth on this one. It is Michael Mann. I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.

    Margaret

    When you say “I don’t know what they say” but then further state “I know who is telling the truth on this one”, that’s an obvious appeal to authority, Margaret.

    If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason? Because he’s your hero Warmista?

    You should dig deeper for the truth, m’Lady. Mann’s behavior and research are not those of a scientist. Activist?–yes, but not scientist.

  45. Margaret Hardman says:
    “I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.”

    When it comes to legalities, you can always find a lawyer to represent either side of an issue. Are they “liars”?

    Is Mikey still claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner?

  46. Margaret Hardman says: @ August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am

    I trust both Monckton and Mann can read and I know who is telling the truth on this one. It is Michael Mann. I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.

    Margaret
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And now we know you can not read or comprehend what you have read. Read Kadaka’s comment AGAIN.

    I will even make it REAL EASY:

    Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers…

    His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”

    O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question.

    He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”.

    We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent.

    Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

    Mann is attacking the man and not the science and he falls flat on his face.

    The actual information about the Mereworth case:

    Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)
    Posted by Harriet Gore at 23:00, May 26 2011.

    FOR THE RECORD: YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
    by Baron Mereworth’s Counsel, Harriet Gore

    Was Baron Mereworth successful on 23rd May 2011 at the trial before Mr Justice Lewison? Yes he was.

    What did the court find? The court found that section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 did not repeal the Letters patent appointing and granting Baron Mereworth a successive Baron Mereworth to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament. The court also found that Baron Mereworth is entitled to the degree, title, dignity of Baron Mereworth as set out in his Letters patent. Most importantly, the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) admitted in open court that section 1 did not repeal the Letters patent. Before this admission, the Ministry of Justice contended that section 1 repealed the Letters patent.

    Why is this most important? It is most important because the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) will not appeal a decision based on its own admission which it made in open court.

    How important is Baron Mereworth’s success? It is very important because the rights set out in the Letters patent remain and can be enforced because the Letters patent was not repealed….

    http://www.serifwebresources.com/control.php?uid=f3a5a4684dbd9bb0e7f59f4114ceeb6c55b6b557&post=406860

    You and Mann owe Lord Monckton an apology.

  47. If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?

    Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.

    That’s doesn’t happen unless the planet has an energy imbalance. And the only known culprit of such an imbalance is manmade GHGs.
    Q.E.D.

  48. This pointless debate as to whether Monkton is a member ot the House of Lords or not, is exactly what the wamers want.

    We know that Monkton is a peer of the realm through inheritance and he cannot vote in the House of Lords.
    Anything else is somewhat nugatory!
    It is not as if he pretended to be a Nobel Laureate like some Climate “Scientists”.

  49. well, now, Margaret Hardman, if you are fair-minded and if you would read the comment above at 10:42 by kadaka you will be forced to conclude that Monckton has a legitimate claim as a member of the House Of Lords. And then you will apologize for your “liar” comment. But perhaps you are a Michael Mann worshiper and you care not what the world thinks of you so long as you get your worshipful comments posted here.

  50. kadaka (KD Knoebel) on Aug. 26, 2013 at 10:42 says:

    ‘Go away, annoying whining she-troll.’

    I’d be a little careful. Maybe Margaret Hardman is a ‘he.’ Check out the last name.

    I know my preceding comment does nothing to further the argument but I don’t think MH’s comments do too.

  51. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.

    Any study that is not replicable is not science!
    Anyone who does not follow the scientific method is not a scientist!
    Any researcher who does not release data for replication is a fraud!

    That sums up everything about Michael Mann.

  52. Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

    False. UAH LT shows 0.24 C of warming in that time. The OLS sigma is 0.04 C, while that with autocorrelation is 0.33 C — i.e. warming, but at less than the 2-sigma level.

    The large uncertainty simply shows that there is a lot of auto-correlation in the system, i.e. that the time period is too short to make statistically signfiicant judgements about climate.

    Of course, some people like to make such conclusions regardless — “skeptics” now rely on it. Just a few years ago they were claiming the temperature records aren’t accurate. Funny how those claims have now disappeared.

  53. PS: The same claim applies to RSS warming in Monckton’s time interval. Why didn’t you jump on that one, Willis?

  54. Any study that is not replicable is not science!

    Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.

    GIven their divergence, it is not clear if either is correctly estimating LT temperatures.

  55. From Gary Pearse on August 26, 2013 at 10:51 am:

    I’m waiting for a $5.00 remaindered copy of Mann ‘s book to see exactly what he said.

    Ain’t that the cost of a new electronic version? Make sure it’s new, you don’t want used ones with worn-out data and margin notes scribbled after the Ends Of Files. They also might come from someone who read them on the toilet so you have to run them several times through the virus checker, to be sure.

    Dang, these here computerized books sure show how bad inflation has been. When I was young I would’ve said Mann sure wrote a lot of two-bit words. Nowadays they can be 32 bits per word, or more!

    Oh Gary, on Check Out click to donate to save the environment, think it’s only a buck. Then you’re guaranteed the electrons used to print and transmit your copy only came from Clean Green Renewables like wind and solar, as certified by WWF, EPA, and WTF.

  56. Sedron – re: ” RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.”, are you conflating data with analyses of that data? Is one even supposed to be a replication of the other?

  57. Whether Monckton is a Lord interests me not at all. Maybe some are suggesting that he is delusional for claiming that he is a Lord. That, too, interests me not at all. Claiming that one is a Lord is about as mild a delusion as I can imagine.

    When George Washington asked James Calvert to join his cabinet, he asked if Calvert would like to be introduced as Lord Baltimore. Calvert replied “No, I renounce the title.” At that point in the history of civilization, all questions regarding the importance of titles were answered.

  58. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am

    If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?

    Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    GRAPH Figure 1

    …Figure 1

    If we were to consider the “unadjusted” ocean heat content data (represented by the UKMO EN3 data in Figure 1) to be correct, then the ocean heat content for depths of 0-2000 meters flattened as soon as the ARGO floats had reasonably compete coverage of the global oceans in 2003-04. It’s only when the ocean heat content data is corrected, tweaked, adjusted, modified, whatever (represented by the NODC data in Figure 1), that the global ocean heat content continues to warm in relative agreement with climate models…. link

    The above graph (unmodified numbers) also agrees with the EPA graph the temperature has plateaued.

  59. And if the ‘global’ [sic] temperature stays perfectly level for another decade, or two, or three, maybe a century…
    oh what is Dr. Michael Mann to do?

    We all know what he will do, he’ll trumpet that the warming continues — unabated… look at the cold 70′s… it’s the hottest many decades (or a century, heaven forbid) on ‘record’…
    what a frickn joke and he calls this real “science” ??? He is a scientist by name only.

  60. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am
    If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?

    Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.

    That’s doesn’t happen unless the planet has an energy imbalance. And the only known culprit of such an imbalance is manmade GHGs.
    Q.E.D.

    Your first statement is meaningless, because 40% of ZERO is ZERO. Since Argo was only available since 2003, we don’t have even 15 years of meaningful ocean temperature measurements, much less the 15 previous years. From what is available, the trend is surprisingly constant over the last 30 years. The red line in figure 9 on the link below shows the global ocean heat content.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/nodc-provides-1st-quarter-2013-ocean-heat-content-update-alarmist-writes-science-fiction/

    Your second statement is clueless. Among other possibilities, a change in cloud cover also causes an energy imbalance.

  61. Reading conversations and legal summaries on arcane matters of English peerage rights is certainly more exciting than reading technical material on odor control at landfills using biofilters, but it hardly addresses Mister Mann’s ad hominem attacks on his detractors or Viscount Moncton’s response. Besides, I believe we’ve had a couple of discussions over the importance of British peerage, the last one was about 200 years ago.
    Mann’s claim to scientific acclaim is a long discredited temperature reconstruction that went from being the poster boy for global warming/climate change/climate disruption/extreme weather to disappearing. He has not yet been transparent in providing data and methods, as was common when I was doing research, for review.
    Mann has taken to attacking his enemies while his “enemies” seem to be playing dirty by using data.

  62. Okay people. Science is always open to debate. When the opinions of others that say the science is settled are open to debate, debate them. When they say the debate is over, F@#k them. Attack with all verocity as they do. The gloves are off and let’s see some bloodshed.

  63. Sedron L 17 years not long nothing, well its funny how one extreme weather event is more than enough to ‘prove’ AGW, now those 17 years have meant that weather is not climate line has been dropped in a desperate attempt to keep ‘the cause ‘ on track.

  64. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am

    “If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?”

    Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.

    That’s doesn’t happen unless the planet has an energy imbalance. And the only known culprit of such an imbalance is manmade GHGs.
    Q.E.D.

    Hold on there, Skippy. The Argo floats (beg. in ’03) have measured a .02°C rise, but the margin of error on those is .1°C, or 5X the alleged increase. It could almost as easily be a decrease, we just don’t know. As for pre-Argo measurements, don’t make us laugh.
    Your “energy imbalance” is as much a fantasy as the “missing heat” hiding in the deep oceans, and Dr. Spots’ traveling “Hotspots” Show.

  65. Poetry. Simply poetry……… Lesson Manny old fellow, don’t get into an argument with someone more verbally adept and honest than yourself.

  66. A great read, as always. Kudos to you, Sir.

    Stuff like this makes me believe that, when executed wisely, nobility does have some values indeed.

  67. In every article that I have read on this site the impression is that co2 rises in response to rising temperature. If that is true now that temperature is no longer rising and maybe falling does that mean co2 will begin to fall? Especially as human co2 according to articles read here only amounts to 4% of the 1% of the atmosphere that is Co2? As natural co2 responds to temperature and is vastly more than human contribution why wouldnt we expect co2 to fall?

  68. Sedron L says: (quoting Louis Hooffstetter)

    “‘Any study that is not replicable is not science!’ Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.”

    No problem there; time will tell which of these is correct. But with regards to Michael Mann, history has spoken: ‘Real Climatologists’ are backpedalling from tree ring studies and climate models, and the IPCC has disowned his work. It’s just a matter of time before Penn State smells the coffee. He will go down in history as the world’s first and foremost climate pariah.

  69. Recent quote about old history: When those jealous of Grant’s success and recognition tried to curb his advancement, claiming Grant had been drinking, and calling for his removal from command (vicious rumours mostly fueled by Grant’s rivals), President Lincoln flatly stated, “I cannot spare this man! He fights!”.

  70. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:59 am

    “Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?”

    What’s the difference? They basically have just a constant offset from one another. If you are arguing that one shows greater least squares trend than the other, but both are statistically indistinguishable from zero, then you got nuthin’.

    Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am

    “Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.”

    Laughable. It has been rock steady since ARGO came online. Only the 0-2000m range shows sustained increase. Two problems with that: A) if the heat is coming from retained energy due to greenhouse activity, how does it bypass the 0-700m level and teleport directly to the 700-2000m range? B) the below 700m data are particularly inaccurate, have been observed for only a brief interval of time so there is no reference against which to compare it, and the warming observed is within the error bars of zero.

  71. “The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months. But go back 20 years and some warming shows up….”

    This is deeply, deeply confusing to me. I know there’s been no warming in almost 17 years because even many to most alarmists admit it…which is all one needs to know. And yet, I find myself unable to defend the lack of warming when arguing with my liberal friends. I hate that helpless feeling of not being able to explain something because I don’t fully get it myself..

    Can someone explain this in simple terms. Pretend you’re talking to an idiot, which when it comes to basic statistics, I surely am/….

  72. Margaret Hardman:

    re your ignorant, silly, and defamatory post at August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am.

    You are misinformed.

    The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
    Letters of Patent (which appoint a man to be a Lord and thus a Member of the House of Lords) are issued by the Monarch. The Letters of Patent inherited by Lord Monckton have NOT been withdrawn by the monarch who alone has the right to withdraw what the monarch has provided.
    So, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a Member of the House of Lords.
    However, Lord Monckton does not have a ‘Seat’ in the House of Lords and, therefore, he cannot participate in debates and has no voting rights in the House of Lords.

    The opinion of some flunky does not – and cannot – negate a decision of the monarch in a Constitutional Monarchy. You would have been able to work this out for yourself if you possessed as many as two brain cells to rub together.

    Richard

  73. Chris @NJSnowFan says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:14 am
    “Mann made warming is for real.”

    As succinct as can be. Perfect remark!

  74. According to Margaret, a letter from a low ranking govt lackey purporting that something has happened is the same as it being a fact. Even if that is subsequently found to be incorrect at fact or law.

    That’s great news – Australia is therefore back in budget surplus! A letter in May 2012 says so.

  75. From Martin457 on August 26, 2013 at 11:56 am:

    The gloves are off and let’s see some bloodshed.

    Bloodshed?! What, you want to see the first climate skeptic martyr?

    Although we are coming up on the tenth anniversary of the death of the great John Daly, known for his still-informative groundbreaking website Still Waiting for Greenhouse, who was very critical of Mann’s shonky work as seen in this article by Daly about the Broken Hockey Stick.

    John Daly subsequently was suddenly struck down by an apparent heart attack a few scant months after publishing that piece.

    At this time, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of reports of a bald pudgy man fleeing the scene afterwards, who had a goatee although some called it a Van Dyke. Mainly because I’ve never looked for any. But it is very unlikely this man was a Nobel Prize winner, whomever he was, if he exists.

  76. Based on my reading of the above arguments, Christopher Monckton is A) an hereditary peer who, based on the testimony of knowledgeable authorities, can legitimately claim title to Member of the House of Lords, albeit non-voting B) a pretender to title who, based on the testimony of knowledgeable authorities, has no legitimate claim to it. He is a kind of Schrodinger’s Cat, both Lord and Not-Lord simultaneously. Until the matter is properly legislated, there appear to be no grounds for alleging deception on his part.

    Now, can we get past the playground taunts and behave like adults, here?

  77. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am

    My dear Margaret, Please see my post above yours. Thank you for proving that watermelons are useless uninformed regurgitators of falsehoods.

    And My dear Eli has one no reply for One? (hopefully I framed the question in a pretentious enough way).

  78. Sedron L:

    Your post at August 26, 2013 at 11:24 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400476

    says in total

    Any study that is not replicable is not science!

    Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.
    GIven their divergence, it is not clear if either is correctly estimating LT temperatures.

    Yes! I strongly agree!
    None of the global temperature determinations has any scientific validity for the reason you state.
    Please see

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    So, which do you prefer?
    (a) Global warming has stalled for at least 16 years according to all data sets of global temperature.
    OR
    (b) There are no scientific indications that there has been any global warming.

    Richard

  79. I don’t even know how I ended up on this page, but Peter Gleick, famous for doing everything possible that is wrong and self-taught master of auto-destruction, crawled out of the muck long enough to respond to this topic at a climate hysteria site that likely would not exist if there were no WUWT to stalk. What a desperate for attention man little Peter is.

    [You have our sympathy, but that link has been posted here so many times it amounts to threadjacking. The subject of the thread is Mann. Thanks. — mod.]

  80. Nick – are we supposed to see the footprint of humanity in this trend? “Looks quite positive to me. In fact, 1.38°C/century, according to WFT.” What do you imagine that trend would be without humanity? Show your work.

  81. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am
    David L wrote:
    BTW, what is Mann going to say when the temperatures start dropping for the next 10 years?

    Do you often try to win arguments by first positing that you are right? Does that ever work?

    —————————————————
    It actually works all those times that I’m right. Like this one for example. It’s just going to take until 2023 to find out.

  82. pokerguy says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    “Can someone explain this in simple terms.”

    According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures. In the past 17 years, however, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppmv to 400 ppmv. The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.

    If a cause is hypothesized to produce an effect, and the effect fails to occur when the purported cause is stimulated, then the hypothesized relationship is in error.

  83. From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm:

    Willis Eschenbach says: August 26, 2013 at 10:14 am
    “Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.”

    Looks quite positive to me. In fact, 1.38°C/century, according to WFT.

    Nick, now you’re being very disingenuous. It was just stated on the RSS thread you commented on, as outputted from the SkS trendy calculator thing:

    For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

    Not statistically significant is the same as no trend far as we’re concerned. Also:

    If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:

    UAH since June 1993;

    So there’s that, and ALSO Willis specified (albeit possibly mistakenly) AUGUST 1994. You coughed up a link going from the start of 1994.

    Since apparently you don’t know how to do a proper call-out on WFT, which uses decimal years, here’s the proper version going from AUGUST 1994:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994.55/plot/uah/from:1994.55/trend

  84. It is no wonder that Michael Mann will not debate with Lord Monckton. he would lose, lose and lose again.

  85. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am
    If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?

    Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.

    That’s doesn’t happen unless the planet has an energy imbalance. And the only known culprit of such an imbalance is manmade GHGs.
    Q.E.D.

    —————-
    And what about the unkown culprits? Do you think science knows everything right now: All mechanisms of nature and all their interactions are currently known? And by process of elimination the only thing left is manmade GHGs?

    By the way, what mechanism transfers energy from atmospheric CO2 to the 0-700 meter range of the oceans?

  86. Margaret: “I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.”

    So you DON’T believe Michael Mann, then?

  87. Christopher Monckton always draws out the Eti Babler’s and Hargareter Madman’s for a game of whack-a-mole.
    Other than that Mrs. Warmist, how was the play?

  88. pokerguy says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    “The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months. But go back 20 years and some warming shows up….”
    Can someone explain this in simple terms. Pretend you’re talking to an idiot, which when it comes to basic statistics, I surely am/….

    Let us suppose that 20 years ago someone went up to you and said that for every 0.001 increase in anomaly each month, you get a dollar, but for every 0.001 drop in anomaly each month, you have to pay a dollar. You would find that at this time, you would be up $150 by this time based on RSS numbers. However if you analyzed your income, you would find that you were up $150 in December 1996, but you have not made a single dollar since then. Of course you would have made some money during certain months but lost money during other months, but in the end, you have no more money now than in December 1996.

  89. Pokerguy…1.degree. what possible diff can 1° c in 100 years make?read “the real global warming disaster” by christopher booker.no science, just the facts of how gw started. The ipcc lied, why should we believe anything they say? Whats the harm?useless windmills. Co2 tax. Why tax a company for producing energy?that is why they are or were in business. Listen to the arguments by warmists and by sceptics,it is plain that sceptics talk about facts while warmists talk alarmist bs. They want to and have scared people into believing them( myself included until i read the real story .in new england they have started to raze mountainsides to make room for windmills!it t takes 10,000 to replace one coal fired plant!

  90. As usual, since the alarmist cult does not have science to support it, they turn to unrelated ad hominem attacks. Ms Harrdman [yes, the same Margaret Hardman who asserts that she has a "wife"] piles on with the rest of the alarmist peanut gallery, who cannot produce legitimate science.

    As usual, Margaret is wrong, as can be seen by her getting slapped down by multiple commentators. And her other assertion claiming that Mann has any honesty in him is flatly contradicted by Mann’s repeated claim to be the recipient of the Nobel Prize. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    Pick your battles more intelligently, Margaret. You lost this one.

  91. Sedron if we were in balance, we would be in a whole lot of trouble, not the other way around. We have weather because of an energy imbalance. We have been out of balance for so long that there are species that have life cycles adapted to both long and short term cycles. And surely you jest about the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 being the only possible answer to changes in Earth’s energy imbalance. Oceanic and atmospheric weather pattern systems have to change to create temperature trends (since “climate change” is actually the average of weather changes). So you have to determine what amount of energy is needed to change those intrinsic parts of Earth and to keep those changes in place to create a temperature trend.

    Do you actually know how much energy is required to heat up an ocean and keep it that way? Or change a semi-permanent atmospheric pressure system oscillation to a different state and keep it that way to create a weather pattern change that leads to a temperature change? For example, think, jet stream. It is an atmospheric entity that has oscillations to it and affects weather, therefore can be implicated in “climate change”. Have you ridden in it? Or against it? A big jet plane finds it to be a monstrously strong entity. Do you seriously think a teeny tiny addition of CO2 to an incredibly large swirling atmosphere already filled with all kinds of molecules can do that?

    Just how big and powerful do you think a CO2 molecule is anyway?

  92. Homeopathy has its own peer reviewed journals, conferences, schools. We do know what the overwhelming majority of Homeopaths believe. Does it make it true? Not so much. But one thing is sure, Homeopaths are the least qualified judges in this trial.

  93. David Wells says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    In every article that I have read on this site the impression is that co2 rises in response to rising temperature….. As natural co2 responds to temperature and is vastly more than human contribution why wouldnt we expect co2 to fall?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Cherry picking the data.
    particularly

    Mauna Loa: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

    4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.

    They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it. You can see the jiggery pokery clearly illustrated
    CO2 GRAPH: original data

    CO2 GRAPH: ‘Reported’ data

    Lucy Skywalker goes into all the manipulations HERE.

  94. Respectfully to the moderator…. I don’t think I was off thread at all. I commented directly on the quote written by Monckton below:

    “Mann says the House of Lords says I am not a member when I say I am. Sigh! Mann knows no more of British constitutional practice than he does of elementary statistics. Hansard records that the House has recognized my title to succeed my late beloved father, but does not record the House as saying I am not a member. Facts wrong again, Mike, baby. Try doing science, not invective”

    Please tell me how my comment below was not directly related to what he said?
    “What I don’t understand is why someone (Monckton) who is trying to convince the world of the warmests deceptions, would hold so dear to the concept that he is a member of the House of Lords – something that is so easy for his opponents to disprove. At the very best it is a distraction, at worst it makes him such an easy target for people to accuse him of deceit in all he says, whether he is being so or not. Makes no sense. “

  95. krb981 says: August 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Poetry. Simply poetry……… Lesson Manny old fellow, don’t get into an argument with someone more verbally adept and honest than yourself

    Which as I see it is just about everyone.

  96. Nick Stokes provides a link to WFT that starts in January 1994, not August. Why is it that we always have to watch the pea with you people?

    Time to put on your big boy pants and apologize to Willis for calling him out when he’s actually correct and to the audience for throwing up a link to WFT that’s both misleading and incorrect.

  97. David Wells says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    “In every article that I have read on this site the impression is that co2 rises in response to rising temperature. If that is true now that temperature is no longer rising and maybe falling does that mean co2 will begin to fall?”

    The rate of change of CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature. And, yes, the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere has settled down in lockstep response to the lull in temperatures.

  98. “Margaret Hardman says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:12 am
    PS. Calling someone a denier is not an offence in Europe, although some may find it offensive. Monckton knows that too.”
    The use of this term by you, is most offensive. My , family (amongst many), fought fascism and helped the eventually liberation of the death camps; it is obscene that people like you,make comparison with people presenting a case (in good faith), with which you disagree, with the perpetrators of that evil.

  99. Simon:

    At August 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm you ask

    Please tell me how my comment below was not directly related to what he said?

    I answer that what you asserted is a blatant and defamatory falsehood.

    Lord Monckton IS a Member of the House of Lords. This has been explained in this thread by many rebuttals by many people providing a variety of explanations to Margaret Hardman.

    You attempted to resurrect the same defamatory and untrue point which was disproved each time Margaret Hardman repeatedly raised it. Your attempt can only be trolling.

    Richard

  100. Yes Kadaka, bloodshed. Martyrs and myths and legends, oh my. When the wizard actually gets up and says that real science is at fault, kill the wizard. When people of science say the debate is over , DUH.

  101. From Simon on August 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm:


    Please tell me how my comment below was not directly related to what he said?
    “What I don’t understand is why someone (Monckton) who is trying to convince the world of the warmests deceptions, would hold so dear to the concept that he is a member of the House of Lords – something that is so easy for his opponents to disprove. (…)”

    You are arguing for your “right” to incidentally state it’s easy to disprove, what is clearly demonstrated to be NOT easy to disprove.

    You’re fighting to be able to say what is clearly false and inflammatory speech? Saying someone is not a Member of the House of Lords who says they clearly are, those are fighting words in the UK!

  102. Did Mann ever provide a peer reviewed answer to why his decline in temperatures after the 1960s was taken to be inaccurate and everything before that period accurate.?

  103. jai mitchell says:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A retreating Alaskan glacier reveals the remains of a Medieval forest. Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge.

    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/naturescience/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf

    So are we warming or cooling? Depends on your start and end dates does it not?
    Another paper on glacial activity in Norway says:

    ABSTRACT:
    We explore the possibility of building a continuous glacier reconstruction by analyzing the integrated sedimentary response of a large (440 km2) glacierized catchment in western Norway,
    as recorded in the downstream lake Nerfloen (N61°56′, E6°52′). A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~8000-yr-long record… This signal is interpreted to reflect glacier activity in the upstream catchment, an interpretation that is independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis
    of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500,
    and ~900 cal yr BP.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411001256

    Very simply stated, most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of glacial activity (Glacier building) has been in the past 600 years.

    So is the earth warming or cooling? The only thing that matters is there is nothing unusual going on. The earth has been much colder and hotter with out the presence of man.

  104. Willis Eschenbach says: “Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.”

    Heck yeah! And if ~someone~ really wanted to “cherry pick” they’d be claiming that the UAH shows that we are at the SAME temperature now as we were in early 1983! It’s just another inconvenient fact for Sedron. Funny how earth’s temperature went up AND DOWN so many times, varying as much as +0.6 to -0.6 along the way, and we’re right back to the SAME temperature THIRTY years later! That has to be a painful amount of natural variability for Sedron to swallow? (suggestion – chew on it a little at a time…)

  105. Margaret said, “I hope this clears up the matter.”

    Margaret,
    Having been shown to be entirely wrong on that is there anything else you can “clear up”?

    How about on “Creating the Tension Required to Motivate People to Address Global Warming”

  106. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:August 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    “Not statistically significant is the same as no trend far as we’re concerned.”

    Who’s “we”? This thread in fact has Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996, and that’s what Willis was comparing UAH with. No mention of statistically significant.

    But if statistically significant is all that is important to you, I could ask on what assumptions you calculate it, and how. After all, if it’s so meaningful to you, surely you could explain that?

    In fcat the SkS figure that you cite, you’ll be pleased to know, is calculated using a rather advanced method of Tamino. It has merits, but the more standard method is the Quenouille AR(1) adjustment. I use that here, and the UAH trend since August 1994 is the significantly greater than 0 at 95% confidence.

    Scott Basinger says: August 26, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    “Time to put on your big boy pants and apologize to Willis for calling him out when he’s actually correct”

    Would you like to explain that one? Perhaps tell us what you think the correct (negative?) trend is? And why you think that?

  107. What does it say about the alarmists, when the only response they have to empirical evidence that contradicts their meme is to resort to ad hominem attacks, like Hardman and Sedron are doing?

    Proof again that their meme is bullshit, and their idolatrous worship of that whining, lying mollusk is what really motivates them. To hell with facts, reason, legitimate inquiry, they say.

    And I say to them, you’ve lost the argument, there is no warming worth the name or even measurable from man’s activities or carbon dioxide. Get used to it.! Swallow hard and shut up and be done with it.

    Hardman and Sedron, aren’t you embarrassed by your displays of both ignorance and mean-spiritedness?

  108. Martin457 says:
    “Yes Kadaka, bloodshed. Martyrs and myths and legends, oh my. When the wizard actually gets up and says that real science is at fault, kill the wizard. When people of science say the debate is over , DUH.”

    FYI Martin457: No one who regularly comments at this site shares your views. We don’t advocate or tolerate idiocy on either side of this debate. Anthony and the moderators have not censored your views (yet), but neither do they welcome them. If you are trying to paint skeptics here as violent crackpots, you’re failing miserably. If you have something beneficial to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, zip it.

  109. Nick Stokes says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    “… using a rather advanced method of Tamino.”

    Rather oxymoronic.

  110. Nick Stokes says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:August 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    “Not statistically significant is the same as no trend far as we’re concerned.”

    Who’s “we”?
    —-

    The “we” (among others) would include Jim Hansen, Phil Jones and the British MET, all of whom are on record and have (reluctantly) admitted this.

  111. Bart says: August 26, 2013 at 3:28 pm
    ‘Nick Stokes says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    “… using a rather advanced method of Tamino.”
    Rather oxymoronic.’

    KdK cited it, not me (tho I think it is advanced). And it’s what you have to use if you want to get UAH since Aug 1994 to be not significantly positive. OLS would give even higher significance.

  112. Looks like we got some “cleanup batters” in the last inning. :)

    To Nick Stokes–could you please provide a link that publishes (in detail) this “rather advanced method of Tamino” so we can inspect it, please?

    I don’t take any Warmista’s word for anything anymore.

    Thanks in advance.

  113. Well Louis, I have been snipped. I made a comment that after the killing of millions of buffalo here in the US, it didn’t cool the earth off.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize my opinion had to be shared by all and I am not trying to get people to be violent. What I would like to see is the some of the same tactics used by the political science czars used against them as well.

    Is that better?

  114. Nick,

    The easiest way to calculate statistical significance in R is:

    arima (uah$Globe, c(1, 0, 0), xreg=uah$date)

    or perhaps

    arima (uah$Globe, c(1, 0, 1), xreg=uah$date)

    if you want to be a little more conservative, which I believe is Tamino’s “advanced” method. In either case, the UAH Global temperature since it began (December 1978) has a linear trend of 1.4 C per century. Using the second version, which is conservative and results in a larger CI, the upper 95% CI of 1.98, which excludes the “lower-limit” 2 C/century that’s been bandied about.

    You can argue all day that there has been a statistically-significant trend since some point in time, but the main point in my mind is that the sensitivity is looking to be lower than even the leaked AR5 would admit.

    I’d also recommend an experiment to you: generate an autoregressive temperature series using whatever method you want. Something that you think looks a lot like global temperatures prior to whenever you believe the CO2 jump occurred. Generate 1,000 years of monthly data. Generate a second 1,000-year monthly series that’s 0 for 150 years, then ramps up (over what you think is a good time, say 15 years) to a higher level and remains there for the rest of the 1,000 years. Add that to your first series. Then do an analysis on the combined series that starts at the beginning and uses more and more of the series, looking for when a linear trend becomes non-significant.

    I may be mistaken, but when I tried it, the trend does not become insignificant in 1,000 years. Very illuminating.

  115. Correction

    clipe says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Christopher Monckton always draws out the (anagramitcaly correct) Eti Babler’s and Hargaretar Madmen for a game of whack-a-mole.

    Other than that Mrs. Warmist, how was the play?

  116. Wayne says: August 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    “Nick,
    The easiest way to calculate statistical significance in R is…”

    Well, my preferred method is here. But the Quenouille adjustment is pretty good. Tamino’s too. And I’m sure the ar() in R is fine.

    RockyRoad says: August 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    “To Nick Stokes–could you please provide a link that publishes (in detail) this “rather advanced method of Tamino” so we can inspect it, please?”

    SkS (KdK’s source) recommends the methods section of this paper.

  117. Christopher Monckton said,

    Mann says his discredited attempt to rewrite medieval temperatures “has not been disproved”. Well, here is what Professor Ross McKitrick, who exposed Mann’s statistical peculiarities in the learned journals, had to say about it:

    “… The conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments …”.

    - – - – - – - – -

    Yes. The sophomoric bias created by Mann in his alarmist informed work on proxy surface temperature reconstructions (hockey sticks) is sufficient verification of significant intentional bias in the IPCC processes of assessment.

    Mann is the proof that work approximating pseudo-science is the IPCC’s preferred type of work for inclusion in their reports.

    Now Mann, finding his ‘scientific’ body of work has become irrelevant to the state of the art research, has to make his way by shilling for politicians; politicians who have a certain tendency to be like Gore, the has been evangelist of climate alarmism.

    Mann is damaged goods to an honest debate.

    What do we see in Mann’s behavior, since he went on sabbatical from PSU more than two years ago for a focus on climate science communication? (Ahh, is he still on sabbatical from PSU – I don’t know) I see only since then Mann’s inept attempt to create a self-agrandizing mythology of his heroism with all his many critics as evil villains; critics who he has delusions of intellectually slaying. I actually pity him.

    John

  118. jai mitchell says:
    August 26, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Good find! You found another bozo like Mikey who spins the science (lies) in the direction of increased funding.

    Your bozo uses the questionable GISS record (adjusted annually and always in the direction of increased warming), cuts it off after 2010, and picks small time spans as if that’s the same as the current 16 year span of no warming.

    Notice also the first (and only comparably long) span from 1957 to 1970-something shows no significant temperature drop. Yet scientists and much of the public KNOW there was a significant temperature drop over that period. It was so significant that there was talk of the next ice age. The GISS record does not agree with history, which is the same problem Mikey has with his hockey stick.

  119. From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm:

    This thread in fact has Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996, and that’s what Willis was comparing UAH with. No mention of statistically significant.

    Lord Monckton says in the third paragraph:

    The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months. But go back 20 years and some warming shows up. The temperature climbed from 1993-1996, then stopped.

    How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996″ in what he actually wrote?

  120. Nick Stokes says:
    August 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    It’s all just speculation. Nobody knows the actual long term correlations, so tests of statistical significance are mainly exercises in making people comfortable with the conclusion they wanted to arrive at in the first place. And, to use to snow people who aren’t experienced in statistical analysis into believing there is something there which they can’t see with their own eyes.

    The bottom line is that there hasn’t been really any change at all over a time span when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased 33% above their presumed pre-industrial levels. The AGW hypothesis is, on that level alone, in dire straits. It ain’t working, and that’s not the way you do it (“it” being science).

  121. Taphonomic says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:55 am

    “I missed that part. Where did the good Lord specifically ASK to be recognized as same? Or are you just pulling things out of your Rabett hole?”

    In his own words, Christopher Monckton wrote
    —————————–
    “The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.”
    —————————-

    a) he pushed the button which signaled to the chair that the delegation from Myanmar wished to be recognized and b) when the chair recognized Myanmar he spoke.

    Contrast this with what Monckton wrote above:
    ————————-
    “Finally, Mann says I “impersonated a delegate from Myanmar” at a UN conference. Do I look Burmese? Do I sound Burmese? Did the chairman of the conference say he thought I was Burmese? No. He said he knew I was not from Burma. Facts wrong yet again, Mickey.”
    ———————-

    Oh yes, it was a UN conference.

  122. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    “How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996? in what he actually wrote?”

    The plot he showed is headed is headed 200 months Dec 1996 to July 2013, and in big letters Trend -0.02°C/century.

  123. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996″ in what he actually wrote?

    The graph clearly says -0.02/century and WFT also gives “slope = -0.000243735 per year” so this agrees. On the other hand, for the latest 201 months, the slope is “slope = 8.63248e-05 per year”. If I calculated it correctly, the 0 point would have been reached about November 8 assuming a uniform change from November 1 to December 1. Of course this assumption could be totally off.

  124. Simon and Margaret,

    http://lordmoncktonfoundation.com/i/u/10152887/f/odonoghue-monckton-lords-opinion.pdf

    This is the link to the legal opinion concerning the Viscount. It plainly says he is a member of the house of lords without the right to sit and vote. I am disturbed that you would cherry pick a document for something like this, it is very disrespectful. Furthermore the clerk that printed that letter violated a few laws of his own when he published it. I think that the Viscount has demonstrated that he is a gentleman in the way that he has handled this whole thing and I applaud his restraint.
    As for calling people a denier (or worse putting that in writing in a public forum) in the UK and in the EU that could be construed as LIBEL! Because it is no longer a criminal statute, it is still a civil one. Granted that you would have to test it in court, however it would not be all that hard to do. Generally calling someone names is considered disrespectful. Disrespectful people do not have much credibility with the people they are disrespecting. So if your trying to convince people of the truth of which you speak, starting out with name calling and reprinting someone’s private correspondence isn’t going to be helpful.
    v/r,
    David Riser

  125. During the seventies, the PDO was in cold phase and there was increasing talk about the coming ice age.
    Then came the eighties, the PDO’s warm phase, and they have continued to talk about ‘Global Warming’ ever since.
    Except…

    Now along comes the PDO again, back in cold phase, followed by the AMO, also going into cold phase, and you can bet yer longjohns it’s gonna get cool again. (The only thing ‘holding back’ the cooling is the continuing effort to ‘adjust’ the reported temperatures to cover it up.) (I put that in parenthesis ‘cuz it’s suppose to be secret.)

    So yeah, it has stopped, and will now reverse (how embarassing!), so you better get over it quick.

  126. Martin457 says:
    “Well Louis, I have been snipped. I made a comment that after the killing of millions of buffalo here in the US, it didn’t cool the earth off.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize my opinion had to be shared by all and I am not trying to get people to be violent. What I would like to see is the some of the same tactics used by the political science czars used against them as well.

    Is that better?”

    Yes, much better. And thanks for the interesting observation about the buffalo. The same thing could be said for the megafauna extinction that occurred between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. These large methane producing herbivores died out when the earth was warming not cooling, and their extinction had no apparent impact on the climate then either.

  127. Chad Wozniak said..”Hardman and Sedron, aren’t you embarrassed by your displays of both ignorance and mean-spiritedness?

    How could they. It is a proven fact that neurotics and cult members do not have the emotion of embarrassement. Oh. And it is not ignorance. Ignorance can be taught to learn things. Stupid. Not at all.

  128. Bart says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    pokerguy says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    “Can someone explain this in simple terms.”

    According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures. In the past 17 years, however, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppmv to 400 ppmv. The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.

    If a cause is hypothesized to produce an effect, and the effect fails to occur when the purported cause is stimulated, then the hypothesized relationship is in error.

    The hypothesized relationship is not linear but log, you are the one who is in error.

  129. Sedron L,

    The oceans may or may not still be warming, but whatever they are doing, they are doing it very unevenly. Would you care to suggest a mechanism for Carbon dioxide to warm the oceans without also warming the lower troposphere? Would you care to explain how Carbon dioxide could selectively warm the Indian, North Atlantic, and Arctic oceans?

    BTW, does anyone care less than me about Mocton’s title? Just call me Gymnosperm, Esq.

  130. David L. says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:35 am

    Every time these climate experts go on and on about climate change, criticizing skeptics as “deniers”, their language is one about “belief”. That doesn’t sound concrete enough to me to be used in conjuction with accusations of denial. You can deny a fact, you can’t deny a belief.

    Actually you’ve got that backwards. A fact, by definition, is undeniable. A belief can be denied all day, until some evidence is presented to make it a fact.

  131. Eli Rabett says:
    August 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Asking to be recognized (and accepting the recognition) is NOT the same as impersonating. Impersonating implies subterfuge.

    My father in law is recognized as the family Santa on Christmas morning for the purpose of distributing Christmas gifts. That does not mean he dressed up as Santa to fool the children.

  132. From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm:

    The plot he showed is headed is headed 200 months Dec 1996 to July 2013, and in big letters Trend -0.02°C/century.

    Nick, are you really this stupid in reality or do you just pretend?

    The trend was not exactly zero, which is practically impossible anyway. It was a number so small that multiplying by 100 for the per century amount barely made it appear at two decimal points. By the available significant digits, mathematically it doesn’t exist at all.

    So no cooling trend was claimed in the text, in the big lettering that mattered the trend was -0.00°C/yr, aka ZERO.

    At this point, mathematically speaking, you’re just lying. He dared to show how infinitesimal the amount was, which anyone even moderately mathematically savvy knows really isn’t showing anything but a zero trend, and you’re claiming he stated something he did not state.

    Please decide if you’re a good mathematician who pretends to be a mathematical moron to make points, or a mathematical moron who pretends to be a good mathematician to make points. The way you switch back and forth really ain’t fooling anyone around here anymore.

  133. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am
    “Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.”
    ============
    40% of nothing is still nothing.

  134. Chad Wozniak says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    What does it say about the alarmists, when the only response they have to empirical evidence that contradicts their meme is to resort to ad hominem attacks, like Hardman and Sedron are doing?

    Proof again that their meme is bullshit, and their idolatrous worship of that whining, lying mollusk is what really motivates them. To hell with facts, reason, legitimate inquiry, they say.

    And I say to them, you’ve lost the argument, there is no warming worth the name or even measurable from man’s activities or carbon dioxide. Get used to it.! Swallow hard and shut up and be done with it.

    Hardman and Sedron, aren’t you embarrassed by your displays of both ignorance and mean-spiritedness?

    Repeated for effect.

  135. Your welcome Louis, history does and can teach us all quite a bit here. Not that the cult of climate doomists can realize this. If I may, history has taught us that the Vikings colonized Greenland when it was green. They had to move when it got cold again. Now, these variations in temperature that occurred in that time had absolutely nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. These things that happened in the past had nothing to do with Methane. What they did have to do with has at this time, not been explained.

    I do like the theory of Sol. That thing that most of the ‘warmists’ deny. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, they won’t accept it. They can still clutch on to their confusers with teraflops of insight but, if the right numbers are pushed, they can make anything happen.

    If they wish to demonize those that don’t follow their cult, maybe another cult is in the making.

    Except for the fact that it can’t be disproven. :-)

  136. Oh, and by the way. I got snipped with that by making a derogatory remark about the Vegan Hansen.

  137. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

    False. UAH LT shows 0.24 C of warming in that time. The OLS sigma is 0.04 C, while that with autocorrelation is 0.33 C — i.e. warming, but at less than the 2-sigma level.

    Thanks, Sedron. My bad. I assumed you knew that everyone was talking about statistically significant trends, so I didn’t mention that part. Also, I am using the normally referenced UAH dataset, the layer nearest the ground, which is the T2LT dataset. There is no “LT” dataset for the UAH, just “T2″ and “T2LT’. Since it’s clear I didn’t make that clear, let me restate what I said:

    Sedron, the UAH T2LT record shows no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

    Now you’re up to speed with everyone.

    The large uncertainty simply shows that there is a lot of auto-correlation in the system, i.e. that the time period is too short to make statistically signfiicant judgements about climate.

    Mmmmm … and yet there are 58 periods of 180 months (15 years) out of the total possible 237 180-month periods that have a statistically significant trend in the T2LT dataset after accounting for autocorrelation. Go figure.

    w.

  138. @Justthinkin -
    Actually, you’re quite right – embarrassment, like remorse or empathy, is an emotion foreign to sociopaths. But I felt obliged to call them on it, out of principle.

  139. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:22 am

    PS: The same claim applies to RSS warming in Monckton’s time interval. Why didn’t you jump on that one, Willis?

    ‘Cause I didn’t notice it, Sedron. I have a lot on my plate, I don’t catch every nuance, or care about every nuance that I catch for that matter.

    So sue me …

    w.

  140. Sedron L says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Any study that is not replicable is not science!

    Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.

    Until you specify which part of the data (stratosphere? troposphere?) and the time period of the trends you are discussing, I fear that’s just mudslinging.

    As an example, here’s my calculations from last year. The ordinary least squares trend in the lowest temperature (which is RSS “LT” and UAH “T2LT” data) from January 1979 to May 2012 is as follows:

    RSS: + 0.133°C per decade
    UAH: + 0.135°C per decade.

    Your move …

    w.

  141. Martin457 says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:52 pm


    I do like the theory of Sol. That thing that most of the ‘warmists’ deny. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, they won’t accept it. They can still clutch on to their confusers with teraflops of insight but, if the right numbers are pushed, they can make anything happen.

    It’s like the cook telling us the temperature of his roast in the oven is controlled by the salt he added, and has nothing to do with the oven itself.

    Such a detachment in logic simply boggles the mind.

  142. Willis Eschenbach says: August 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    “I assumed you knew that everyone was talking about statistically significant trends, so I didn’t mention that part.”

    Lord M doesn’t say anything about statistical significance. He just shows the RSS trend for 200 months as actually (just) below zero. That’s what Sedron was comparing with.

    “Mmmmm … and yet there are 58 periods of 180 months (15 years) out of the total possible 237 180-month periods that have a statistically significant trend in the T2LT dataset after accounting for autocorrelation. Go figure.”

    Well, I’m trying to. It seems to just say that there are 169 out of 237 possible 15 year periods that don’t have significant trend. Does seem to be short.

    But the UAH trend since August 1994 was (WFT) 1.37°C/century. That’s quite large, and if it’s insignificant that just means, like Sedron says, that even that period is short.

  143. (For those who have seen this already, forgive the repeat)

    Stopping by Yamal on a Snowy Evening
    by Mikey Mouse

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take
    To make that stick reappear.

    There were some corings from a lake.
    And other data I could bake.
    I’ll tweek my model more until
    Another hockey stick I’ll make!

    I changed a line into a hill!
    I can’t say how I was thrilled!
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  144. From Willis Eschenbach on August 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm:


    As an example, here’s my calculations from last year. The ordinary least squares trend in the lowest temperature (which is RSS “LT” and UAH “T2LT” data) from January 1979 to May 2012 is as follows:

    RSS: + 0.133°C per decade
    UAH: + 0.135°C per decade.

    UAH is now up to Ver 5.6. I went to WFT for data but they’re only up to 5.5. So I went to the 5.6 ver of the file WFT uses.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt

    Per LibreOffice spreadsheet, Jan 1979 to May 2012 inclusive is now +0.137°C/decade.

    WFT says they’re using RSS v 3.3 (per file name). I’m not familiar with RSS so don’t know if that’s current version. RSS trend is 0.132°C/decade.

    http://woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1978.99/to:2012.34/plot/rss/from:1978.99/to:2012.34/trend/

    ===

    From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 10:31 pm:

    But the UAH trend since August 1994 was (WFT) 1.37°C/century.

    WFT is using UAH ver 5.5, which they’re still producing for a little while due to a contract with NOAA. But you should be using the “current” version, 5.6.

    When possible, check your data sources to make sure you’re current.

  145. Hansen getting his butt kicked a bit more by John Happs … let’s all line up and give Hansen a good kicking that he deserves: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies

    Hansen argues, without empirical evidence, that “positive feedbacks” and “climate forcings” will multiply any current mild warming we might experience until a climate “tipping point” is reached. He claims this will lead to a dramatic rise in global temperature and the destruction of life on Earth. He freely invokes the emotive scenario of what his grandchildren will have to face in a future warming world. In doing so he ignores that the Earth is not warming even mildly, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide. He also ignores evidence which suggests that a warmer Earth would likely be more hospitable to both flora and fauna.

  146. Please note that a liar is one who bears false witness. A liar may or may not, in fact, tell an untruth. A liar may attempt to lead others astray but fail by, as it happens, telling it like – unbeknownst to the would-be liar – it actually is. Yet a liar can always affirm to be the case what they believe not to be the case, or they can deny to be the case what they believe to be the case.

  147. Phil.:

    As usual with your posts, your post at August 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400752

    your contribution adds fog to clarity and smears truth with falsehood.

    In a silly attempt to demean an excellent explanation by Bart you say in total

    The hypothesized relationship is not linear but log, you are the one who is in error.

    But no mention of the form of the “hypothesized relationship” was mentioned until you raised it. And it is not relevant to Bart’s conclusion; i.e.

    If a cause is hypothesized to produce an effect, and the effect fails to occur when the purported cause is stimulated, then the hypothesized relationship is in error.

    As Bart explained that is important because

    According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures. In the past 17 years, however, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppmv to 400 ppmv. The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.

    Phil, the only “error” is yours. It is egregious and is typical of your errors.

    Richard

  148. Jeff Alberts on August 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    David L. says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:35 am

    ————–
    Thanks! That’s actually what I was trying to say.

  149. “Mann says there is “evidence that humans are warming the planet””
    What does he claim the evidence is … or is he like most alarmists who claim “there’s lots of evidence” but can never find any when asked ?

  150. Someone commented below this argument is what the warmistas want. It sure is. Everyone is missing the bigger picture of distracting the point and putting yet one more liberal anti-energy pol in power in Richmond. Keep your eyes on the ball folks, and stop voting for free phones and free EBT cards.

  151. And for all of you who are so outraged at Cuccinelli’s supposed fishing expedition into government owned emails of a government employee, where is your outrage over this admiration’s fishing expeditions into emails and essentially all digital transactions of uncounted numbers of perfectly innocent and perfectly private individuals? The hypocrisy makes me sick.

  152. [snip . . ranting at moderators decisions is ineffectual . . please post your points on this topic in such a way as to advance your cause without contravening the site rules. Thanks . . mod]

  153. There is an interesting point here – I am putting in the two posts which summarise best in order to make it:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 26, 2013 at 11:05 am
    Margaret Hardman says: @ August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am

    I trust both Monckton and Mann can read and I know who is telling the truth on this one. It is Michael Mann. I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.

    Margaret
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And now we know you can not read or comprehend what you have read. Read Kadaka’s comment AGAIN.

    I will even make it REAL EASY:

    Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers…

    His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”

    O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question.

    He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”.

    We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent.

    Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

    Mann is attacking the man and not the science and he falls flat on his face.

    The actual information about the Mereworth case:

    Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)
    Posted by Harriet Gore at 23:00, May 26 2011.

    FOR THE RECORD: YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
    by Baron Mereworth’s Counsel, Harriet Gore

    Was Baron Mereworth successful on 23rd May 2011 at the trial before Mr Justice Lewison? Yes he was.

    What did the court find? The court found that section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 did not repeal the Letters patent appointing and granting Baron Mereworth a successive Baron Mereworth to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament. The court also found that Baron Mereworth is entitled to the degree, title, dignity of Baron Mereworth as set out in his Letters patent. Most importantly, the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) admitted in open court that section 1 did not repeal the Letters patent. Before this admission, the Ministry of Justice contended that section 1 repealed the Letters patent.

    Why is this most important? It is most important because the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) will not appeal a decision based on its own admission which it made in open court.

    How important is Baron Mereworth’s success? It is very important because the rights set out in the Letters patent remain and can be enforced because the Letters patent was not repealed….

    http://www.serifwebresources.com/control.php?uid=f3a5a4684dbd9bb0e7f59f4114ceeb6c55b6b557&post=406860

    You and Mann owe Lord Monckton an apology.

    richardscourtney says:
    August 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    Margaret Hardman:

    re your ignorant, silly, and defamatory post at August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am.

    You are misinformed.

    The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
    Letters of Patent (which appoint a man to be a Lord and thus a Member of the House of Lords) are issued by the Monarch. The Letters of Patent inherited by Lord Monckton have NOT been withdrawn by the monarch who alone has the right to withdraw what the monarch has provided.
    So, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a Member of the House of Lords.
    However, Lord Monckton does not have a ‘Seat’ in the House of Lords and, therefore, he cannot participate in debates and has no voting rights in the House of Lords.

    The opinion of some flunky does not – and cannot – negate a decision of the monarch in a Constitutional Monarchy. You would have been able to work this out for yourself if you possessed as many as two brain cells to rub together.

    Richard

    ==========

    “So, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a Member of the House of Lords.
    However, Lord Monckton does not have a ‘Seat’ in the House of Lords and, therefore, he cannot participate in debates and has no voting rights in the House of Lords.”

    Is clearly contradicted by the Baron Mereworth ruling – from Gail’s post – that Monckton does have a right to a seat in the House of Lords, “to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament.”

    The ’99 Act cannot stop Monckton from taking his seat and using his voice in Parliament.

    It appears as a fact the only thing preventing him doing so is his voluntary agreement, his acceptance of, the Act forbidding him..

    As it stands, from the Mereworth ruling, the Act is a chimera, as the C.O.D. defines it – “2. Bogy; thing of hybrid character; fanciful conception; hence chimerical”.

    Monckton and all the others affected by it have every right to take their seats and places to exercise their right to have their voices heard, and pre-empting any argument on the nuance in meaning of “voice”, as this traditionally means their voices are not only heard but counted, this Act denying them a vote has no actual power to do so.

    It is entirely up to Monckton himself to accept or reject it.

  154. Myrrh:

    re your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am

    You misunderstand the situation.

    There is no dispute that Lord Monckton is a Member of the House of Lord’s.
    As I said, this is a Constitutional matter because nobody except the monarch can withdraw what the monarch has given in a Constitutional Monarchy such as the UK. No law can change this, only overthrow of the monarchy could change it..

    But there is a dispute as to whether he has a Seat with voting rights in the House of Lords. This is because there is legal dispute as to what the 1999 Act actually did and could do.

    Lord Monckton says he is a Member of the House of Lords. He is.

    Warmunists try to pretend Lord Monckton is not a Member of the House of Lords as a method to avoid discussing his arguments. They always lose when they try to discuss his arguments.

    This matter has been fully aired in this thread and your post does not assist understanding of it.

    Richard

  155. Christopher Monckton said,

    He [PSU Professor Michael E. Mann] tries to deny the embarrassing near-17-year pause in global warming because “NASA found the warming continues unabated, with the past decade the warmest on record”.

    - – - – - – - -

    Christopher Monckton,

    Regarding the ~17 year plateau in atmospheric temps, Mann’s strategy of denying it is unlikely to be one of his main strategies.

    I think if one looks past Mann’s smoke screen on his temp plateau denial then several more important Mann manipulations of the media become visible.

    First, he is characterizing the ‘settled science’ versus skeptic interactions in terms of mythological monotypes . . . he is painting a myth of the good hero, in world saving battle, against evil forces. That appears to be his main strategy for manipulating the media. The discussion of temp plateaus is a smoke screen that allows him to continue to paint his mythology in the background. He has been painting his mythology consistently for almost three years now.

    There, are several more of his significant strategies masked by the smokescreen, but this comment is too wordy already. : )

    John

    PS- are you coming to Northern California anytime soon? Why not join the annual AGU fall meeting in San Francisco in December? I am sure there will be a large group of protagonists of alarming AGW to have very critical but polite discourse with.

  156. richardscourtney on August 27, 2013 at 7:02 am said,

    Myrrh:

    re your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am

    [. . .]

    This matter has been fully aired in this thread and your post does not assist understanding of it.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    Myrrh & Richard,

    I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.

    The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.

    I hope his dialog continues and thrives.

    John

  157. Nick Stokes,

    This whole thing sounds like a sword fight on a sinking ship. Every possible regression technique that I can think of, when applied to UAH Global surface temps since 1978 has a trend that is statistically significantly less than 2 degrees C per century. In fact the central value is less than 1.5. We’re talking more than 34 years — no need to argue over 15 versus 17 years or anything trivial like that.

    So let’s all agree to disagree about the sword fight. Monckton’s point is arguable. On the other hand, when we look at more than a third of a century of satellite records, we see a number that’s significantly lower than the Consensus’ low end, as illustrated by the SkS graph (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg).

    The U.S.S. Consensus is foundering, and you’re knee-deep in water and still you insist on this sword fight?

  158. Eli Rabett says:
    August 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    “a) he pushed the button which signaled to the chair that the delegation from Myanmar wished to be recognized and b) when the chair recognized Myanmar he spoke.”

    So where did he ASK to be recognized? “Ask” was your word. I don’t see him ASKing to be recognized. He pushed a button. Where is the verbal request ASKing to recognized?

  159. (Snip. This is a different moderator. I do not know the identity of the moderator you are complaining about. But your personal vendetta against Lord Monckton is not on topic. There are plenty of other blogs you can carry on your ad hominem attacks against that gentleman. But not here. Discuss Michael Mann here, if you wish. Your expertise may be in physics, or not. But it is not in UK Parliamentary law. This applies to other commentators’ ad hominem attacks and opinions against Lord Monckton as well. ~mod.)

  160. Slightly OT – I just watched Steven Sackur’s “Hardtalk” on BBC world service, 30 minutes of pure polemic for alarmist global warming. The first part was total “soft-talk”. He was talking to a Washington climate scientist who was predicting an ice free Arctic in the next decade or two. Hardtalk is meant to confront the interviewee with hostile questions, but all Sackur served up was a sycophantic yes-man echo-chamber / answering chorus. Not one single skeptical argument or inconvenient fact (such as that Alaska is currently cooling, not warming) was mentioned.

    Sackur then went on to interview the governor of Alaska, interrupting her about 4-5 seconds into every SINGLE statement, basically barking orders in his charmingly English way at her to stop oil drilling. (Interrupting is a horrible English affliction, I am English myself and it drives my (Russian) wife mad.) Then Sackur tried the same thing on an Alaskan oil executive. It reminds me of the Guardian newspaper’s attempt to plant people in Iowa about 2 elections ago to try to sway the state toward voting Democrat, regarded by some as a pivotal factor in handing the state and the election to George W Bush. Looks like Steve Sackur and the BBC are trying again to roll back time to pre-1776, good luck with that Steve.

  161. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Willis

    I gave the link to the Clerk of Parliament’s letter to Monckton above but the relevant bit is this

    “In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”

    This is a direct quote from a relevant case brought by another peer. It matters not what it says on Monckton’s passport, he is not a member of the House of Lords. If someone were to appoint him to that chamber then his status would change but at present he is not and has been told to stop making the claim. That he does not do so says something about the man.

    Thanks, Margaret, I read that claim of the Clerk some months ago. In response to your renewing it, I gave you the analysis of Moncton’s lawyers.

    If you think you can pronounce who is right from this distance, you’re barking mad. It revolves on subtle points very obscure English law, and I doubt greatly if you are an expert.

    This is why it is very slimy of you to claim that Christopher is a “liar” as you’ve done. He obviously believes his legal advice, and his lawyers have told him that the Clerk of Parliament is in error.

    As you say, Monckton and his lawyers may be wrong … but he also may be right, and in either case, for you to call him a liar is a blot on your escutcheon, not his …

    w.

  162. John Whitman says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:11 am
    richardscourtney on August 27, 2013 at 7:02 am said,

    Myrrh:

    re your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am

    [. . .]

    This matter has been fully aired in this thread and your post does not assist understanding of it.

    Richard

    - – – – – – – -

    Myrrh & Richard,

    I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.

    The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.

    I hope his dialog continues and thrives.

    There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.

  163. Re references here to 15, 17 years, 200 months, etc. – actually, overall temperatures are much lower now than in the 1930s. That’s *80* years of declining temps against 30 percent increase in CO2, not 15 or 17 years against 15 percent increase. (However, if the Russian scientists are correct about the approach of a long-term solar minimum, we could be looking at a total of 30 years’ cooling with a 25 percent increase in CO2 – or possibly even a 250-year cooling period with doubling of CO2.

    Not to mention about *700* years of declining temps since the Medieval Warming Period, vs. a 45 percent increase in CO2.

  164. richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:50 am
    Phil.:

    As usual with your posts, your post at August 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400752

    your contribution adds fog to clarity and smears truth with falsehood.

    In a silly attempt to demean an excellent explanation by Bart you say in total

    “The hypothesized relationship is not linear but log, you are the one who is in error.”

    But no mention of the form of the “hypothesized relationship” was mentioned until you raised it. And it is not relevant to Bart’s conclusion; i.e.

    “If a cause is hypothesized to produce an effect, and the effect fails to occur when the purported cause is stimulated, then the hypothesized relationship is in error.”

    As Bart explicitly assumed a linear relationship (below) as an illustration of the ‘AGW hypothesis’ whereas the AGW hypothesis is in fact a log dependence on CO2 it is relevant to Bart’s statement.

    As Bart explained that is important because

    According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures. In the past 17 years, however, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppmv to 400 ppmv. The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.

    Phil, the only “error” is yours. It is egregious and is typical of your errors.

    The error is the assumption of a linear relationship: (400 – 360) / (400 – 280),
    the error is Bart’s (and yours).

  165. Phil. says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am


    There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.

    Then please explain your comment immediately above. (Yes, it only addresses Richard and not Monckton, but still requires a response–or feel free to rebutt Monckton.)

  166. Phil. says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Aye yie yie. I made no assumption such as you suggest, and your argument is meritless (quelle surprise). Apparently, you don’t even know how to calculate a percentage. Very sad.

  167. Phil.:

    I see that at August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1401323

    you yet again add fog to clarity and smear truth with falsehood.

    Bart said concerning CO2 rise

    The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.

    That is a simple calculation to determine a percentage increase.
    It is correct, and – as I said – it does not assume any form of the rise (i.e. linear, or logarithmic, or exponential, or etc.).

    But you have repeated your daft assertion saying

    The error is the assumption of a linear relationship: (400 – 360) / (400 – 280),
    the error is Bart’s (and yours).

    All that does is to yet again demonstrate that you are innumerate and don’t know how to calculate a percentage and you don’t know what a percentage is.

    And you provide another daft assertion when you write at August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1401221

    There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.

    Really? “Rebuttal of” [my] “posts is not allowed here”?
    If you are not allowed to rebut what I say why have I had to answer your subsequent presentation of a repeated falsehood as I have in this post?
    And most posts I make on WUWT address disputes of what I have said.

    Phil, you are delusional.

    Richard

  168. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 26, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm:

    The plot he showed is headed is headed 200 months Dec 1996 to July 2013, and in big letters Trend -0.02°C/century.

    Nick, are you really this stupid in reality or do you just pretend?

    The trend was not exactly zero, which is practically impossible anyway. It was a number so small that multiplying by 100 for the per century amount barely made it appear at two decimal points. By the available significant digits, mathematically it doesn’t exist at all.

    So no cooling trend was claimed in the text, in the big lettering that mattered the trend was -0.00°C/yr, aka ZERO.

    Not only that but the r^2 that was quoted was 0.000, I find that very hard to accept!.

  169. richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:42 pmReally? “Rebuttal of” [my] “posts is not allowed here”?

    Read the context of that statement.

    This is what I was responding to:
    I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.

    The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.
    I hope his dialog continues and thrives.

    I have been told by the moderators that I will not be allowed to respond on this subject and my responses on the matter have been deleted, it’s difficult to have a dialog when one side of it is restricted. Hence my comment:
    “There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.”

    My response this post of yours wasn’t allowed for example:
    richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 7:02 am

    Referring to the statement by the Lord President of the Council is apparently classed as an ad hominem attack on Monckton or an ‘opinion against him’!

    On this subject the site policy is apparently:
    “(my and) other commentators’…… opinions against Lord Monckton” are not allowed.

    RockyRoad says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    Phil. says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am

    There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.
    Then please explain your comment immediately above. (Yes, it only addresses Richard and not Monckton, but still requires a response–or feel free to rebutt Monckton.)

    There’s no point, my post will be deleted, just as the previous ones have been.

  170. Bart says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    Phil. says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Aye yie yie. I made no assumption such as you suggest, and your argument is meritless (quelle surprise). Apparently, you don’t even know how to calculate a percentage. Very sad.

    You assert that “According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures”, however the form it takes is log(CO2). So when you refer to ’cause and effect’ and assign a percentage increase to the cause it should properly be the percentage increase in log(CO2). That is implicitly treating it as a linear dependence, that you don’t understand that is indeed very sad.

  171. Not even close, Phil., Bart merely asserted a large change in driver has resulted in no change in output. Pretty easy to understand even without a degree in… what, propaganda?

    Mark

  172. From Phil. on August 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm:

    Not only that but the r^2 that was quoted was 0.000, I find that very hard to accept!.

    Let’s see, grab the data from WoodForTrees:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2013.51/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2013.51/trend

    Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000243735 per year

    Throw into LibreOffice spreadsheet. R^2 is 0.0000467. Looks like 0.000 to me.

    You know, LibreOffice (the “successor” to OpenOffice) is free to download and use, although I’d recommend a high speed connection. Good for Windoze, Mac OS X, and Linux. You can do the work yourself on your own machine. Well, assuming you have your own computing device you can install programs on, and are not just using a free library computer, or your cellphone, etc.

  173. Ha! Phil., the astronomer cum know-it-all climatologist that has to reference Mann for statistical help (there is a reason these guys do not reference statisticians) questioning a statistical result… and getting it wrong. Go back to high school science books, dude. At least those critics aren’t capable of making a fool out of you.

    Mark

  174. Nice one, again, Christopher. The real climate deniers are the warmists. They do not believe in observations, and thus are in Complete denial. This Mann character has been and remains to be a mockery in the face of true science. Temp should have warmed 1-2 deg C in this period, according to him and James Hansen, Al Gore and the rest of the tax frauders. Where is Eliot Ness when he’s needed, after all he got another ‘Al’ put away for a lesser offence.

  175. Myrhh’s post at 4:35 Aug 27 (not too far upthread), at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400971, quoted the finding of the court in the Baron Mereworth case. Thus, it is not just the opinion of CM’s lawyer that he is “a member of the House of Lords.” Here’s the relevant bit:

    FOR THE RECORD: YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
    by Baron Mereworth’s Counsel, Harriet Gore

    Was Baron Mereworth successful on 23rd May 2011 at the trial before Mr Justice Lewison? Yes he was.

    What did the court find? The court found that section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 did not repeal the Letters patent appointing and granting Baron Mereworth a successive Baron Mereworth to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament. The court also found that Baron Mereworth is entitled to the degree, title, dignity of Baron Mereworth as set out in his Letters patent. Most importantly, the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) admitted in open court that section 1 did not repeal the Letters patent. Before this admission, the Ministry of Justice contended that section 1 repealed the Letters patent.

    Why is this most important? It is most important because the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) will not appeal a decision based on its own admission which it made in open court.

    How important is Baron Mereworth’s success? It is very important because the rights set out in the Letters patent remain and can be enforced because the Letters patent was not repealed….

    http://www.serifwebresources.com/control.php?uid=f3a5a4684dbd9bb0e7f59f4114ceeb6c55b6b557&post=406860

  176. The glaring but neglected fact remains that if temp charts were graduated in whole degrees (something we might actually feel), they would show a virtually straight line:

  177. All the caterwauling about Lord Monckton’s status in the UK — most of it done by clueless Americans ignorant of the legal ramifications — have one thing in common:

    They are making their ad-hom attacks in order to distract from the substance of the article: “Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm as predicted.”

    Richard Courtney says:

    “Lord Monckton says he is a Member of the House of Lords. He is. Warmunists try to pretend Lord Monckton is not a Member of the House of Lords as a method to avoid discussing his arguments. They always lose when they try to discuss his arguments.”

    Certainly Richard is more knowledgeable than Phil.

    And then there is the “carbon” scare. The alarmist cult cannot produce any valid scientific evidence to support that scare. Thus, they revert to the tired old tactic of: “Look! A kitten!” — thereby hoping to distract from their abject scientific failure. In this case, the ‘kitten’ is Lord Monckton’s status.

    Finally, every alarmist prediction has failed. Every last one of them. But rather than follow the Scientific Method and try to understand why they were so totally wrong on the science, they attack an unrelated bystander over an obscure point of heraldic law. That indicates how little credibility they possess.

    The alarmist crowd has lost whatever remnants of credibility they ever possessed. They are thoroughly dishonest, as this sorry episode proves. All they can argue about are things that do not matter. Pathetic, no?

    Yes.

Comments are closed.