Has the Met Office committed fraud?

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The truth is out. No amount of hand-wringing or numerical prestidigitation on the part of the usual suspects can any longer conceal from the world the fact that global warming has been statistically indistinguishable from zero for at least 18 years. The wretched models did not predict that.

When I told the December 2012 UN climate summit in Doha that there had been no warming for at least 16 years, the furious delegates howled me down.

The UN later edited the videotape to remove the howling. The delegates were furious not because I was speaking out of turn (they did not know that at the time) but because the truth was inconvenient.

The Guardian carried a sneer-story about my intervention. When a reader sent in a politely-worded comment to the effect that, objectively speaking, it was true that over the relevant period the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley/CRU global surface temperature data was as near flat as makes no statistical difference, within two minutes The Guardian deleted the comment from its misleadingly-titled “Comment Is Free” website.

The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds, and – what is more – the stub indicating that he had commented disappeared as well. Just 28 years after George Orwell’s 1984, the hard Left are still dumping the inconvenient truth down the memory-hole.

The Met Office, as WattsUpWithThat revealed recently, has noticeably downshifted its lurid warming prediction for the rest of this decade.

When it predicted a “barbecue summer” (wrong: that summer was exceptionally cold and wet), and then a record warm winter (wrong: that was the second-coldest December in central England since records began in 1659); and then, this spring, a record dry summer for the UK (wrong again: 2012 proved to be the second-wettest on record: not for nothing is it now known as the “Wet Office”), it trumpeted its predictions of impending global-warming-driven climate disaster from the rooftops.

And the scientifically-illiterate politicians threw money at it.

If the Met Office’s new prediction is right, by 2017 the global warming rate will have been statistically indistinguishable from zero for two full decades.

So, did the bureaucrats call a giant press conference to announce the good news? Er, no. They put up their new prediction on an obscure corner of their website, on Christmas Day, and hoped that everyone would be too full of Christmas cheer to notice.

That raises – again – a question that Britain can no longer afford to ignore. Has the Wet Office committed serious fraud against taxpayers?

Let us examine just one disfiguring episode. When David Rose of the Mail on Sunday wrote two pieces last year, several months apart, saying there had been no global warming for 15 years, the Met Office responded to each article with Met Office in the Media blog postings that, between them, made the following assertions:

1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”

2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.

3. “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade …”.

4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”

5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

Each of the assertions enumerated above was calculated to deceive. Each assertion is a lie. It is a lie told for financial advantage. M’lud, let me take each assertion in turn and briefly outline the evidence.

1. The assertion that Mr Rose was “entirely misleading” to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that “it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming” is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent. The Met Office justified it by noting that each of the last n decades was warmer than the decade that preceded it. A simple heuristic will demonstrate the dishonesty of this argument. Take a two-decade period. In each of years 1-2, the world warms by 0.05 Cº. In each of years 3-20, the world does not warm at all. Sure, the second decade will be warmer than the first. But global warming will still have stopped for 18 years. By making comparisons on timescales longer than the 18 years without warming, what we are seeing is long-past warming, not a continuing “trend of warming”.

3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not “in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño”: they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions. Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two.

4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is dataset-dependent. On most datasets, 1998 was the warmest year on the global instrumental record (which only began 160-odd years ago). Therefore, on these datasets, it cannot have been possible for each of the last ten years to be among the warmest on record.

5. Finally, the Met Office shoots itself in the foot by implicitly admitting that there has been a 15-year period without warming, saying that such a period is “not unexpected”. Yet that period was not “expected” by any of the dozens of lavishly-funded computer models that have been enriching their operators – including the Met Office, whose new computer cost gazillions and has the carbon footprint of a small town every time it is switched on. The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

In short, the Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist who had uttered the inconvenient truth that there had been no global warming for at least 15 years.

The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

So I reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office, which has a specific remit to deal with frauds that involve large sums (here, tens of billions) and organized crime (here, that appreciable fraction of the academic and scientific community that has been telling similar porkies.

Of course, there is one law for us (do the crime, do the time) and quite another for Them (do the crime, make a mint, have a Nobel Peace Prize). The Serious Fraud Office is not interested in investigating Serious Fraud – not if it might involve a publicly-funded body making up stuff to please the corrupt politicians who pay not only its own salaries but also those of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Met Office’s fraud will not be investigated. “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.

So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?

Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
348 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 14, 2013 12:07 pm

Well done, milord.
Related discussion over at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/shift-in-british-climate-analysis-blunts-governments-short-term-warming-forecast/
Kurt in Switzerland

Mark Nutley
January 14, 2013 12:10 pm

Chris, two things, we know this get the MSM to print it. Second, such big words, I mean really? Focus on the general public, you know the ones, they can just about spell dole

Auto
January 14, 2013 12:15 pm

Another good one by our peerless peer!
Will the Houses of Parliament pick up on this: –
“Of course, there is one law for us (do the crime, do the time) and quite another for Them (do the crime, make a mint, have a Nobel Peace Prize). The Serious Fraud Office is not interested in investigating Serious Fraud – not if it might involve a publicly-funded body making up stuff to please the corrupt politicians who pay not only its own salaries but also those of the Serious Fraud Office.”
They make the law – equal for all [Magna Carta 1215 [AD not pm] and all that].

Joe Public
January 14, 2013 12:17 pm

And will (past & present) MPs admit to being so gullible as to be taken-in by an organisation which is plainly not-fit-for-purpose?

January 14, 2013 12:18 pm

The cagw crowd and the met are taking a huge gamble that temperatures finally start going up soon. By not being [straight] forward and admitting problems they are setting themselves up for more and more criticism, bigger and bigger charges of fraud as the trend continues or temperatures turn down. They’ve now realized that lowering their predictions and hoping that real temperatures exceed them might give them some relief from the bashing but what if temperatures don’t cooperate and they continue to be above the trend? The clamor will simply grow and they will be more guilty. That may not seem like satisfaction to us that know already that they have lied but I believe that we must continue to push for full transparency and not let them get away with the slightest subterfuge and let them escape eventual justice for academic dishonesty, censure, laughingstock.

Billy Liar
January 14, 2013 12:18 pm

We know that politicians do not lie.
It would appear that sub-contracting the lie is equally blameless.
/sarc

crosspatch
January 14, 2013 12:22 pm

It is more than fraud, it is theft. How many hundreds of billions of the people’s money have been picked from their pockets in countries around the world to “fight global warming”? This money simply lands in the pockets of political supporters. Every penny spent to “fight global warming” lands in someone’s pocket. This is one of the largest robberies in the history of the human race (The US Obama administration holding the record for the largest robbery of all time with “stimulus”, “green energy”, and automotive “bailout” cash being dumped into the pockets of political supporters).
I should like to see many of these politicians and members of NGOs who consult with these politicians landed in prison.

Mark Bofill
January 14, 2013 12:22 pm

Fraud? Absolutely. Trouble is, we (well, at least I) have become desensitized. Heck, I ~expect~ government run taxpayer funded agencies to lie to me. Don’t rightly know how I’d react if they spoke the simple truth. My head might explode…

January 14, 2013 12:27 pm

No you are not! A fraud is a fraud, no matter who is behind the wheel. I really think that a worldwide NGO could be formed, based on the web, financed by individuals all over the world, chaired by trustworthy people like you, Donna, JoeNova just to name a few. And with a scientific body that could match IPCC.
We have an enormous army but it is scattered.
Just thinking out loud after a nice shoot of Kentucky Straight Bourbon

Richard Evans
January 14, 2013 12:30 pm

Not even the BBC use the Met Office predictions any more. That says all we need to know.

Colin Gartner
January 14, 2013 12:32 pm

If it looks like a duck………

michael hart
January 14, 2013 12:33 pm

If they had, I wouldn’t be surprised.

January 14, 2013 12:35 pm

Can the journalist perhaps ask for compensation for damage to reputation?

January 14, 2013 12:36 pm

What has not been generally noted is that the original forecast was based on Smith et al, Science, August 2007. Half of this report goes into great detail as to why hindcasting data produces a model that can be used for forecasting. This method is at the very heart of the debate as to whether climate models have been validated.
Now the Mert. Office has specificly stated that the forecast by Smith et al is wrong. This means that the model they used was never validated by the hindcasting methodology. I can see absolutley no reason whatsoever to believe that their new model has been validated either, so that there is no reason to suppose that the new forecast is any better that the old one. And there is every indication that climate models have never been validated at all.

January 14, 2013 12:36 pm

While we are speaking of frauds… CFC harming the ozone layer has now been officially debunked. The cause… wait for it, wait for it… IODINE FROM THE OCEANS.
New study reveals gas that triggers ozone destruction
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoy-nsr_1011113.php
Scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds have made a significant discovery about the cause of the destruction of ozone over oceans.
They have established that the majority of ozone-depleting iodine oxide observed over the remote ocean comes from a previously unknown marine source. The research team found that the principal source of iodine oxide can be explained by emissions of hypoiodous acid (HOI) – a gas not yet considered as being released from the ocean – along with a contribution from molecular iodine (I2).
Since the 1970s when methyl iodide (CH3I) was discovered as ubiquitous in the ocean, the presence of iodine in the atmosphere has been understood to arise mainly from emissions of organic compounds from phytoplankton — microscopic marine plants.
This new research, which is published in Nature Geoscience, builds on an earlier study which showed that reactive iodine, along with bromine, in the atmosphere is responsible for the destruction of vast amounts of ozone – around 50 per cent more than predicted by the world’s most advanced climate models – in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

Imagine that, the world’s most advanced climate models failed to accurately predict the effects of iodine on the ozone layer. Would that be the same climate models that fail to accurately predict the effects of water vapor and clouds? So can we have our R-22 back and stop taxing it at greater and greater levels?

George Tetley
January 14, 2013 12:37 pm

Not being informed on British law but I would think that a good lawyer would have grounds to sue for a New York telephone number amount if a class action was filed, ( say 1,000 wattsupwiththat readers as a starter ) as nearly everyone on the globe has been affected it could bankrupt the British government, if nothing else the British Sunday press would have fun

Patrick B
January 14, 2013 12:37 pm

Thank you for your efforts – but please post links for all assertions. One of the joys of the internet is the ability to immediately point to proof of an assertion as opposed to tracking down a footnoted article.

Editor
January 14, 2013 12:38 pm

Mark Nutley says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm

… Second, such big words, I mean really? Focus on the general public, you know the ones, they can just about spell dole

You mean the general public, the good folk that mean well but somehow can’t remember to put a period at the end of a sentence?
Oh, no, wait, that was you …
In fact, the Gunning Fog Index for Christopher’s post above is 11.9, meaning it is aimed at about the level of a high school senior … however, you seem to think it is overly full of “big words”.
So let me review the bidding. You can’t remember to put a period at the end of a sentence, and you think prose written at the level of a high school senior contains too many “big words” …
Anything else you want to reveal about yourself before we ignore you and move on?
Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …
w.

January 14, 2013 12:39 pm

At our current rate, the earth will be a cinder in 100 years with an average temperature of 15 degrees Celsius.

George Tetley
January 14, 2013 12:41 pm

as a starter could not a writ be put on that trillion GB computer ?

Dave
January 14, 2013 12:42 pm

“prestidigitation”… I had to look that one up.
But as to the question… fraud indeed!

January 14, 2013 12:46 pm

Maybe what it needs is a turn around in government and the new (sic?) government to then call for a royal commission into the fraud, or some examination. It’s disgusting that “Serious Fraud” does not cover serious fraud. Who’s in charge there? Would multiple complaints to the top kick their a$$es into gear??? Just askin’.

dmacleo
January 14, 2013 12:48 pm

Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist
************************************************
is “to do down” an idiom I have not heard of?
can you clarify that for me please?
thanks.
as far as the rest of it, I love reading your stuff 🙂
It would sound to me like there is a real case of fraud but thats with NO working knowledge of the law over there.

Tez
January 14, 2013 12:49 pm

Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …
w.
Well said Willis. I am sure the Met Office would love to employ someone with the Lords writing skills in their turd polishing department.

theduke
January 14, 2013 12:50 pm

Mark Nutley @ 12:10: “Big words?” What? “Prestidigitation?” “Heuristic?”
Cmon. If the half-wits who believe in global warming need to go to a dictionary once in a while, which is probably unlikely in this case since they will dismiss this report before even reading it, what’s the problem?
Most excellent piece, Lord Monckton.

JJ
January 14, 2013 12:52 pm

4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is …
An intentional conflation of “warm” with “warming”. If the temps dont change at all for the next 90 years, they will be able to say that each of the last 100 years has been in the top 100.
They are using a metric indicative of “no change” to claim that it is warming.
That’s yer fraud, right there.

grumpyoldmanuk
January 14, 2013 12:53 pm

George Tetley says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:37
The British government is already bankrupt. Tony Blair did to us from 1997 what POTUS is going to do for you until 2016.

S. Meyer
January 14, 2013 12:53 pm

@willis
“Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …”.
Agree!
Consider a segment of a sinusoid curve. The segment starts at the bottom part of the curve and stops just slightly after the top. I think this describes current global temperatures over time (years) quite well. I find it astounding in how many misleading ways one can describe this same curve: “Temperatures have been rising relentlessly in the past 30 years”, “current temperatures are the highest they have ever been”, “the warming is linear”, “the rate of warming has increased”… Is it really this hard to see a sinusoid? 

joeldshore
January 14, 2013 12:54 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:

The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

The trends are also statistically-indistinguishable from the long-term trends (i.e., the trends calculated from ~1975 onwards, whether you stop at, say, 1997 or include all the data from 1975 onwards). This is just a statement that trends over such time periods still have quite a large uncertainty in them.
This graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend makes it clear that the long term trend in HadCRUt4 since 1975 is essentially no different than the long term trend that one would have calculated 18 years ago (i.e., in 1997): As you can see, the slope of the linear trend from 1975 to 1997 is virtually identical to the trend from 1975 to the present. (In the case shown, where one stops in mid 1997, the trend using all the data is actually slightly steeper, although that detail is dependent on exactly when one chooses to stop in 1997.)

The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Here is that report so that readers can see the full context: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf The relevant page is p. S23. Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO as described in the 2008 paper by Thompson.
Furthermore, the statement that “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” means exactly that: The simulations show that the 95% confidence cone for the climate model simulations does not include a trend of zero. However, the trend over the time periods that you note has not been zero; It is true that it is not statistically-significant from zero at the 95% confidence level, but that just means that its 95% confidence cone includes zero. It does not mean the trend is zero. People who understand statistics will understand that the statement that the 95% confidence cone includes the possibility of zero trend is very different than saying that the measured trend is actually zero.
So, for both of these reasons, your statement about what the NOAA report says is wrong.

RobW
January 14, 2013 12:55 pm

So warm=cold=no change. Can I get a grant now?

Dan
January 14, 2013 12:57 pm

What about a straight out libel case?

Jim G
January 14, 2013 12:59 pm

“The Guardian carried a sneer-story about my intervention. When a reader sent in a politely-worded comment to the effect that, objectively speaking, it was true that over the relevant period the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley/CRU global surface temperature data was as near flat as makes no statistical difference, within two minutes The Guardian deleted the comment from its misleadingly-titled “Comment Is Free” website. ”
Though i am not so well versed in what goes on in the media in GB, here in the US the greatest threat to freedom, science, politics or truth is the domination of the media, printed and electronic, by the left. So the beat goes on.

January 14, 2013 1:00 pm

A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.
If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.

January 14, 2013 1:06 pm

What we have here is a case of “Serious Spin Infraction” — and of course it was all done with the most noble of intentions.
After all, the Met Office denizens are quite confident that the “earth’s energy balance continues to be thrown further and further out of dynamic equilibrium by that one species so intent on destroying Gaia” — so even if said excess energy doesn’t manifest itself NOW as increased global mean atmospheric surface temperatures, it most certainly WILL eventually.
So, armed with the knowledge (of said impending warming), the Met Office has acted in the best interests of the lesser (unenlightened) representatives of that cancerous species, homo sapiens (2nd ref. to knowledge optional here).
Rather than having Lord Monckton sue for the Wet Office for Serious Fraud, one could have much more fun with “Serious Spinning” even setting up a crowdsourced “Serious Spin Office” (opening a Pandora’s Box of Parody) — I can even see a Josh cartoon and a Delingpole article on the near horizon…
Kurt in Switzerland

January 14, 2013 1:07 pm

I wouldn’t be happy seeing this go to court. The whole alarmist warming thing is waning anyway and the damage done to others who might speak their minds on other important topics for fear of being accused of fraud and dragged to court wouldn’t be worth it to me.
Call them on their false statements loud and clear and long, but don’t take them to court.

Mycroft
January 14, 2013 1:09 pm

Lord M. I hope you are bending the suitable ears with your connections,the BBc and the Government should be making statements..yes i know the BBC will not shift ..yet, but the government should be questioning some of its energy policy advisors and questions asked about the METO record and its output and cost to the taxpayer.Good piece as ever

DaveG
January 14, 2013 1:13 pm

What do you expect of the Met Office the so called worlds leading Climate group – – more of the same. They are the same group involved with the University of East Anglia Climategate crowd!!!!
I wonder how the BBC green pension investment fund are doing thanks in large part to the influence and predictions of the Met Office – Last time I checked it 2.5 Billion pounds in the hole — LOL Suckers!

Jimbo
January 14, 2013 1:13 pm

I gave up on commenting on the Guardian after I had been banned at least 8 times. All I did was point them to peer reviewed contrary papers OR poured scorn (politely) using heavy sarcasm and wit. 😉

January 14, 2013 1:18 pm

“The Guardian deleted the comment from its misleadingly-titled “Comment Is Free” website.(Posted on January 14, 2013 by Anthony Watts,Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley)”
When something online is free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.“(Jonathan Zittrain http://futureoftheinternet.org/meme-patrol-when-something-online-is-free-youre-not-the-customer-youre-the-product)

davidmhoffer
January 14, 2013 1:19 pm

The Met Office, as WattsUpWithThat revealed recently, has noticeably downshifted its lurid warming prediction for the rest of this decade.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given their track record of recent times, I am now concerned that they have it wrong yet again and we’re in for another bought of warming.

Nigel S
January 14, 2013 1:21 pm

Dave says: January 14, 2013 at 12:42 pm “prestidigitation”…
Yes, hence prestigious which has completely changed its meaning from negative to positive. Quite appropriate for this discussion. Origin: mid 16th century (in the sense ‘practising conjuring tricks’): from late Latin praestigiosus, from praestigiae ‘conjuring tricks’. The current sense dates from the early 20th century
To Lord Monckton, what about ‘Misconduct in Public Office’? The penalties are quite severe I think up to life imprisonment. ‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’

Joe Grappa
January 14, 2013 1:23 pm

[snip. Take your ad-hominem comments elsewhere. They are not welcome here. — mod.]

fretslider
January 14, 2013 1:26 pm

Now that the news is out the hard left are absolutely foaming at the mouth – see Delingpole’s blogs….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/
I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to Lord Monckton and those like him who stand up to the eco-fascism that has overtaken the western world and relegated science to a voodoo activity.

Andrew
January 14, 2013 1:26 pm

The geyser wot rote this uses his tongue purdier than a $20 whorean full stops an pumtuation are, like, a free choice innit
[Gunning Fog Index “UNDEFINED”]
Seriously, this is a magnificent blog submission. Are there any UK lawyers or ‘silk’ on here? I was wondering if a civil damages claim might fly, with a suitable fighting fund, a modest contribution to which I would make.
[Gunning Fog Index 11.35]

BLACK PEARL
January 14, 2013 1:36 pm

As the Fraud Office is not interested…. how about the Consumer Dept
They took the Banks to court for miss-selling Payment Protection Insurance
So get them to pursue miss selling / implimentation of CO2 based taxation VED Road tax would be a good test case.

David L
January 14, 2013 1:36 pm

Unfortunately it’s not only fraud, but it’s a huge “racket” that makes the classic organized crime mobs (e.g. Al Capone) look like rank amateurs.

spen
January 14, 2013 1:36 pm

Let’s not forget the Met Office chief scientist Slingo who claimed that the ‘record 2012’ rain fall in England was due to increased ocean temperatures and melting Arctic ice but did not explain why the rain fall in adjacent Scotland was well below average.
(Last week the Met Office produced the 2012 rain fall statistics which show that rain fall in 2000 was slightly higher than the much hyped pre=Christmas MET report that 2012 rain fall was the highest for a hundred years!)

fretslider
January 14, 2013 1:38 pm

One thing I forgot to mention, in England we refer to the Guardian’s comments section as ‘Komment Macht Frei’

Silver Ralph
January 14, 2013 1:39 pm

.
Sir. Could you not take the case to the House of Lords? Surely, the House of Lords has seniority over and above the Serious Fraud Office.
.

Phil Ford
January 14, 2013 1:39 pm

Thank you once again, Christopher, for your informative and interesting observations on the recent shenanigans of the UK Met Office. They really are becoming a bit of a national embarrassment – but I fear they are now so far down the rabbit hole (you know, the one with the big, comical ‘CAGW Funding Here’ signpost above it) that what little still remains of their once excellent reputation for good, honest science is now on life support, gasping for credibility.
Anyway, keep it up (they don’t like it up ’em) and I look forward to your next YouTube video with enthusiasm.

January 14, 2013 1:39 pm

“Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?”
“Modernity has replaced ethics with legalese, and the law can be gamed with a good lawyer. [¶] so I will expose the transfer of fragility, or rather the theft of antifragility, by people “arbitraging” the system. These people will be named by name. Poets and painters are free, liberi poetae et pictores, and there are severe moral imperatives that come with such freedom. First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud. [¶] Just as being nice to the arrogant is no better than being arrogant towards the nice, being accommodating toward anyone committing a nefarious action condones it.(Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, Prologue, ‘If You See Something’: p.15)

Stevo
January 14, 2013 1:41 pm

Australia’s ABC does not wish to report correctly either.Thank heavens “The Australian” nespaper is trying to do something.
For the latest on climate change, turn to your local real estate agent
by: Graham Lloyd, Environment writer
From:The Australian
January 15, 201312:00AM
THE ABC’s flagship news programs have favoured advice from a non climate scientist based on speculation from a Byron Bay real estate agent over less alarming research from one of the world’s leading scientific organisations.
In the first of a week-long climate change special to coincide with a meeting of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists in Hobart, the ABC did not mention the fact that Britain’s Met Office had reduced its forecasts for average global temperatures up to 2017. The ABC has not reported the issue despite widespread debate internationally.
Instead, the ABC, which is running the series on its main radio and television news programs, yesterday focused on the threat to coastal living from possible sea level rises without discussing the great uncertainties that exist in future sea level projections. Australia’s pre-eminent sea level expert, John Church, highlighted concerns about the melting Greenland ice sheet. And the report did mention a Climate Commission report that a 1m sea-level rise could potentially expose 250,000 homes to inundation.
But the ABC did not mention recent scientific findings that there was no firm link to sea-level rises and climate change in the 20th century.
A key ABC source was Alan Stokes from the National Sea Change Taskforce, a body set up in 2004 to highlight the stresses on regional infrastructure from increased migration of coastal centres. Mr Stokes told The Australian he had based his sea level rise forecast of 80cm to 1.1m on differing advice to local governments from the commonwealth and state governments. The IPCC’s 2007 report forecast sea level rises of between 18cm to 59cm by 2100. The CSIRO has since published a medium scenario of 80cm and a “high-end scenario” of 1.1m by 2100.
The current rate of global sea level increase is 3mm a year.
Mr Stokes said climate change was already having an impact on coastal property. “I’ve heard cases of people wanting to sell up and even trying to sell up, but finding that you know the market suddenly isn’t working with them, that the values of their property have dropped,” he told the AM program. After the broadcast, Mr Stokes told The Australian he was referring to a report about Byron Bay property in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Erosion problems at Belongil Beach have been blamed on engineering works further along the coast that had stopped the natural flow of sand.
The ABC declined to answer questions specifically about its lack of reporting on the Met Office report, released on Christmas Eve, or sea-level rises.

Hot under the collar
January 14, 2013 1:45 pm

Here in the UK rather than rely on the predictions of the gazillion pound Met Office computer, it would have been more accurate, and less costly, if the Met Office had just looked out of the window in the morning.

davidmhoffer
January 14, 2013 1:45 pm

The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can’t be bothered with the warmist sites anymore, but for those of you with the energy and determination, here’s a quick strategy to mess with their heads. Post something like this:
I don’t know how anyone in this day and age can be stupid enough not to see that the world is warming, and dangerously so, all it takes is the briefest perusal of the data to see the obvious
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/trend/offset:-.25

Not only will the comment stay up for much longer, you’ll get a lot of people clicking on the link and then scratching their heads in abject confusion.

John R. Walker
January 14, 2013 1:48 pm

THEY are talking about prosecuting bank employees for manipulating the LIBOR interest rate – why is manipulating the temperature record, and the predictions upon which public policy is made, any different?

jmorpuss
January 14, 2013 1:50 pm

The thing that gets me is the MET can’t tell us what the weather is going to do tomorrow yet they had no trouble forcasting sandy to take that left hand turn days in advance If the met and the weather modification people don’t communicate with each other then most if not all predictions made by the met are just a guess(look out the window and see) were has Autum and Spring gone? You know those mounths that were mild were we didn’t need air con’s or heaters turned on We apear to jump from winter to summer with no inbetween.This is great for the power supply industry but not so good for our pockets To me the polar jet stream seem to be working back to front to me it should expand in the summer and shrink in the winter I think this is responsible for the jet stream change to drive more money into the pockets of the bigest CO2 polluter the electrical supply industry. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf I suggest everyone read this before comming to any conclussions regarding climate change.

January 14, 2013 1:51 pm

Here’s some more detail on the fraud and general spin around this October reply to Rose on the Met Office blog. It is a cut and paste of a comment I made at the time so please skip past if you recognise it. I made it at the time so that I could present the most detailed and balanced overview possible (IMHO) of the claims and counter claims both by Rose and the Met. Rose comes in for some criticism (after all, it is the Daily Mail, guys and gals) but as Lord Monckton says, Rose was completely correct in his main arguments. I would say the Met gets 90% of my criticism, Rose, 10%. The comment was as follows:
Thanks to Mr Bliss’s link to the Met Office reply on their blog I have now pieced together the claims and counter claims by toggling to and fro between article and blog as well as links given by the Met Office blog post.
I’ve laid out my findings below. It wouldn’t be facetious to liken their claims and counter claims to a hackneyed Hollywood sword fight in a banqueting hall where, instead of a straight duel, they upend tables, grab candelabras and slash down curtains to thwart and deflect the thrusts of the other party. Except in this case it is very far from being chivalric.
That said, the main thrust of the Mail article is correct. This is despite the mealy mouthed wording, stretching of the truth, no source cited for the graph and “smoke billowing” from cooling towers in the picture. It’s a shame that despite being on the high ground, David Rose resorts to these measures.
Firstly, the first paragraph of Rose’s article implies right off the bat that there was a written report by the Met Office which stated that global warming stopped 16 years ago:
‘ Global warming stopped 16 years ago reveals Met Office report…’
This is a typical ploy, putting what looks like a quote at the beginning of a sentence, followed by the word ‘reveals’ (not ‘says’). BTW the quote marks above are my quotes of Rose’s article. Therefore Rose is the one making the claim. Although this is correct, he is trying to imply that the Met Office are admitting to it and doing so by making it the central point in a special written report. Furthermore, he implies that this is embarrassing because it was “quietly released”.
The Met Office blog post reply says there is no such report and that Rose must be referring to the HADcrut 4 update. This is probably the case. They say that they had reported that they were working on it six months before and that they had published it on their website. This was in order to counter the claim that it was not quietly revealed. However, Rose says later in his article “…with no media fanfare…”. That, along with the ‘quietly revealed’ earlier on clearly should be taken together and can only mean that it was not trumpeted to the media as it would be if the new data had shown a rise. Therefore, the Met Office were answering the bare bones of the first charge and not the full accusation in the round.
The Met Office go on to say:
“Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.”
However Rose did ask, during their email exchange:
“Q.2 Second, tell me what this [new data] says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century.”
This question is really a two part question: firstly, what does the new data say about their models? Secondly, albeit implicitly, what does it therefore have to say about their decadal climate predictions. The Met Office chose to answer the first of the two in its email reply but not the second. The implicit nature of the second is hardly obscure and
still less so for the Met Office because they are quick to link us to an earlier blog post “on the same theme” (their words) in Jan 2012, publishing an email exchange with Rose on the exact same subject of decadal projections where they answer at length, a question from Rose about the projections. In this earlier post they go onto complain that they were misrepresented because their rambling reply to Rose , citing projections as probabilistic and conflating temperature values with temperature trends, was cut for Rose’s (January) article.
Returning to the October article, Rose says (of the Met Office email exchange spokesman)
“Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009- that three of the the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record- he made no comment.”
There is no specific reference to this in the email exchange which is cited as being reproduced in full by the Met Office blog post writer. Neither does it appear in the January exchange. That ‘3 out of 5’ so-called prediction was almost certainly a ‘probabalistic projection’ and not a prediction. Nevertheless it may have constituted part of the decadal projections which the Met Office knew were being implicitly referred to. This is the only piece of speculation in my comment. I would like to know if this is the case. Still, David Rose could have made it a bit clearer instead of implying that he had asked a direct question and got no answer.
In summary, there was no specific report, the Met Office didn’t declare that global warming had stopped. They didn’t bury anything. They did release new HadCRUT data that now ‘reveals’ that there has been either no warming or statistically insignificant warming in the last 16 years. They did not trumpet this as they have done for warming trends. They implied that they hadn’t been asked about decadal projections which they technically had but chose to ignore that technicality. Rose implied that his questions were direct and clear whereas they were implicit and thereby included a technical get-out if that implication was ignored. If this was a deliberate trap, the Met Office fell into it. However, it is impossible to know if it was deliberate but Rose definitely capitalised on their failure to acknowledge the obvious question of projections needing to be rethought, based on well-trodden ground in previous email exchanges.
Scute

Fred Jensen
January 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Dan King says:
January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.
If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.

Except for the part about the where they lie over and over again to convince you their ‘scheme’ is viable.

Robert M
January 14, 2013 1:54 pm

Yes, beyond doubt. Furthermore it is clear that those responsible for the fraud plan to continue. The real problem is what to do about it. That is the big ugly elephant in the room… The government is not planning on policing the government, and our hapless citizens are circling the drain created by the unimaginable cost of this fraud.

January 14, 2013 1:56 pm

Do numbers count? What if everybody reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office?

Dr T G Watkins
January 14, 2013 1:57 pm

Clear, lucid presentation as always. What a team you and Willis make.
It certainly seems like fraud to me. The Met Off responses are designed to mislead and confuse people who do not have a strong scientific background.
Mark Lynas in the Sun. Times yesterday (changing his position with regard to GM farming) exposed the level of understanding exhibited by the environmental movement. Not only the M.O. but all the scare mongers could be accused of fraud costing us so much via the renewable energy scams.
George Tetley (12.37) has a good suggestion. I would happily contribute but I suspect the chance of success would be slim.

Andrew
January 14, 2013 1:57 pm

This just in from the UK Met Office:
Forecast for UK – Tuesday 15 January 2013
“Bright early, becoming dark later”.

Robert M
January 14, 2013 1:58 pm

Item. Christopher Monckton has stepped up to the plate and publicly used the word fraud. If I am not mistaken, by doing this he is taking things to the next level. Go. Fight! Win!!!

bw
January 14, 2013 1:58 pm

The Had/CRU surface temp record can not be verified. If the basic facts are in dispute, then anyone who claims historical warming is simply barking noise. The US temp data seem to have been corrupted by ongoing and unjustified “homogenization” and those stations were never maintained with any intention of scientific integrity. Why else would an entirely new and expensive “Climate Reference Network” be created if the old data were any good? Examination of a sampling of rural stations seems to produce temps with no significant warming, quite a few show cooling. Well maintained science stations (Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, Halley and Davis) spread around Antarctica all seem to show zero warming since 1957.
Why would Antarctica be immune from Global Warming for over 50 years? Why do Antarctic ice cap photos show decades of slow expansion? Northern ice cap melting can be explained by soot and dust settling on the surface. The satellite record seems to show no substantial trends if known oceanic patterns are subtracted.
It’s hard to see how computer models were ever given any credibility by anyone who is not a politician or media hack selling magazines.
The answer to the AGW issue is a simple three step process.
1 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
2 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
3 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
Once the IPCC disappears, the AGW story disappears.
Might as well delete the United Nations at the same time. The only downside to that is the paper shufflers will end up getting into mischief elsewhere.

CheshireRed
January 14, 2013 2:00 pm

Lord Monckton is entirely correct about the misrepresentation by the Met Office – but of course that’s typical of what has allowed AGW theory to be so influential for so long; the ‘evidence’ is politically motivated, not scientific.
He’s also entirely correct about the Guardian’s policies on ‘Comment is Free’. A week or so ago Suzanne Goldenberg had an article with a screaming headline about how 2012 was the ‘Hottest Year Ever in the US’.
I obligingly posted the WUWT article on NOAS NCDC possibly having 2 sets of data and how Anthony had stumbled across a discrepancy between the raw data (cooler) and the public-facing data (hotter, obviously!)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/
Firstly it provoked a small storm of sneering protests, then it was deleted altogether. How about that, deleted for posting the truth that La Goldenberg had conveniently omitted to include in her piece.
One more thing: perhaps Lord Monckton could have some fun asking various warmist organisations how great the news is, that global warming has stopped and Mankind is saved! There could be some interesting mileage in that one.

richardscourtney
January 14, 2013 2:01 pm

Silver Ralph:
At January 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm you assert

Surely, the House of Lords has seniority over and above the Serious Fraud Office.

No, it does not.
The House has no power to prosecute except in the case of misdemeanor in the House or by a Lord.
Richard

John Blake
January 14, 2013 2:02 pm

As amply compensated head of the Met Office, Mde. Julia Slingo has not only taken a standard public-servant’s (sic) Oath of Office, but functioned in a fiduciary capacity that precludes corrupt, self-serving actions to the detriment of her office’s constituents.
Extenuate, excuse herself, prevaricate at length and in detail as she may, Mde. Slingo is prima facie guilty of willfully misrepresenting material facts for her explicit personal benefit. Call this what you will, official cheats and liars betraying public trust are far more serious than any mere embezzlement. One way to deal with this is to enjoin Slingo et al. from propagating any further counter-factual hypotheses, meaning any maliciously fictitious CAGW factoids whatsoever, on pain of barrel-head prosecution for due cause.
Next up: Briffa, Jones, Hansen, Mann, Trenberth among others– the entire Green Gang of peculating Goodfellas dipping into public tills for nigh-on a quarter century. Faugh.

john robertson
January 14, 2013 2:02 pm

I have the name for the class action, Equal justice for Bernie Madoff.
Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison.
Great Post Christopher M.
Perhaps the real crime is in the failure of our institutions to prevent this cycle of promoting public hysteria for money.
Awful expensive watchdogs that don’t watch.Won’t act. Why should I keep feeding them?
Like the Just-us department, Environmental Protection, Major Crimes act…

MarkW
January 14, 2013 2:02 pm

Dan King says:
January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm

While it may be true that the nitwits at the Met actually do believe the twaddle they propagateregarding global warming, Lord Monckton gives a list of claims made by the Met that are quite clearly counter factual. Either they are frauds, or they are incompetant at their current positions.

john robertson
January 14, 2013 2:06 pm

@bw totally agree, defund UN and they won’t cause us further aggro, if we send them somewhere they have been telling us is warming like never before.
The high Arctic where they can hug polar bears to sooth their scamming hearts.

Interested
January 14, 2013 2:07 pm

I very much agree with Ingvar Engelbrecht (see above), who said this:
“I really think that a worldwide NGO could be formed, based on the web, financed by individuals all over the world, chaired by trustworthy people like you, Donna, JoeNova just to name a few. And with a scientific body that could match IPCC.
We have an enormous army but it is scattered.”
We are BIG!
We could even establish our own newspaper or T.V. station, since the MSM are all controlled by the Leftist/Warmistas.
We just need better organisation and I think we could be very effective in getting the truth out there.
(Great piece by Lord Monckton, as usual.)

Resourceguy
January 14, 2013 2:12 pm

This helps to understand global warming organizations as just another set of social programs competing for budget space. All such special interests, especially the less stable funding lines will employ alarmist tactics to stay in the budget fray and not get lost in the stampede of programs. This is true for growth money as well as absolute funding levels. It is a little more uncommon for such budget interests to try to distort program statistics to this extreme. It takes incredibly stupid or incredibly distracted public officials to get it this wrong on a serial basis relative to the program metrics. Distracted is code for money and power.

Dr T G Watkins
January 14, 2013 2:13 pm

Clear and concise as always. What a great team willis and Chris. make.
I love George Tetley’s suggestion but I would have no faith in our supreme court in Strasbourg!
The M.O. statements certainly seem to be designed to mislead and confuse politicians with the consequence of them following economically suicidal energy policies.
May not be legally ‘fraud’ but a more pertinent word escapes me.

Frank
January 14, 2013 2:13 pm

David Rose’s newspaper certainly has the ability publicize the Met Office’s distortions. David Rose can ask the Met Office to issue a retraction and/or threaten Met Office for libel. (That would at least force the Met Office to run future statements by a lawyer before issuing them.) If none of these things happens, the Met Office will continue to distort with impunity.

Joe Grappa
January 14, 2013 2:14 pm

[snip. Nice try. However, any further such replies will be deleted without comment. — mod.]

Peter Miller
January 14, 2013 2:14 pm

Fraud is probably a little bit too strong, “overly cavalier with the facts” might be a bit better.
Just as the Cold War ended, so will belief in CAGW alarmism. The top Met Office guys are not stupid – they may be greedy, but that is something totally different. They are preparing for the post-CAGW world, when unfounded alarmism will be as rare as a Marxist enthusiast today.
This is a transition process, so sneaking in these new forecasts may have been aimed at deceiving alarmists rather than sceptics.
It could be the start of a Brave New World, only time will tell.

mpainter
January 14, 2013 2:15 pm

The real problem is the stupidity of those who have faith in the cause. Against all evidence, they believe in the product of the climate models, i.e., projected warming. When you point to the temperature record of the last sixteen-eighteen years, they say “cherry picking”.
When you say observations refute the models, they point to the models and say “the models say that cannot be”. When you point out that that the models simply elaborate AGW theory, they say the models prove AGW. They commit fraud because they have a need to sustain their beliefs.

Burch
January 14, 2013 2:16 pm

do down
vb (tr, adverb)
1. to belittle or humiliate
2. to deceive or cheat

tango
January 14, 2013 2:17 pm
Scarface
January 14, 2013 2:17 pm

4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”
What do they expect in an, although inflated, uptrend (and which has now stalled). It is such a simplistic statement. Nobody disputes warming since the 70’s so what’s their point anyway? Well, as long as they can say ‘warmest’ in a sentence it is for the sake of The Cause! Also when we will get in a downtrend, the first decade of that downtrend will still be in the region of warmest years. They have a big reservoir of warmest years ahead! Warming or cooling. They think they can not lose!
So, dear Lord Monckton, PLEASE sue them for fraud, since it is the case, because the public needs to be informed about the real problem with their acts, predictions and presentations.
CAGW will be fought and overturned in court. It will be a long and dirty road but we will prevail.
Your relentless efforts to achieve that goal will long be remembered.

Skiphil
January 14, 2013 2:21 pm

Dscott,
Re: CFCs and ozone, Susan Solomon (of later IPCC notoriety) made her name in that issue in the mid-80s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon
If that science is re-assessed she will be most distressed. She was one who gave Steve McIntyre a very hard time in the IPCC review process for AR4, when he had the temerity to ask to examine data and codes. Solomon somehow ‘knew’ this was unnecessary, and came down hard on the side of Hockey Team obstructionists.
Btw, what is that about her Wikipedia entry listing her as a winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?? Surely Wikipedia could not be so inaccurate (/sarcasm).

alex the skeptic
January 14, 2013 2:25 pm

@joeldshore says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO….
——————
Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?

William Astley
January 14, 2013 2:25 pm

The comments by the MET appear to be disingenuous, deliberately misleading. (i.e. The person making the comment, appears to know that the current temperature observations supports the assertion planetary warming has stalled, stopped and appears to be attempting to hid that fact.) I would assume the person making the comments is also aware that there are multiple published papers supporting the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) rather than to amplify (positive) feedback, which means the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be around 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes, as opposed to the IPCC predicted 3C and greater warming which requires amplification of the CO2 warming.
P.S. I support Willis Eschenbach’s comment concerning Christopher Monckton of Brenchley’s clear presentation of the issues of dispute and enjoy reading Moncton and Willis’s comments and analysis.
Sensitivity and Its Implications
The extreme AGW movement has a significant logical problem and a media message problem. Unaltered data and unbiased analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. Lindzen and others have unequivocally shown that the planet resists warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off in to space, which is called negative feedback. If there is negative feedback as opposed to amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 1C warming. The IPCC have stated that there goal is to limit the planet’s warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 2C. Mission accomplished. A doubling of at atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 1C warming, with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.

January 14, 2013 2:28 pm

Another great article from Lord Monckton. There is no even a question that Britain can no longer afford the present BOM Even a child or Blind Freddy could see that the BOM has committed and continues to commit daily fraud against taxpayers. In Australia the parallel organization and the one in NZ are running neck and neck with the British BOM by increasing forecast high temperatures each day 3 or more degrees over what transpires and what they had known to be true. It’s all about the headlines for the masses.

Joe Grappa
January 14, 2013 2:33 pm

I feel like I am dealing with a moderator who is 16 years old. Does Anthony Watts know how disgracefully you are carrying out your responsibilities as a moderator? I plan to tell him if he does not know.
REPLY: I know, and if my moderator said you were making an ad hom that needed a snip, I’ll tend to believe him.
For now, I’m going to put you in permanent moderation, because you are using a fake email ( grappa@xoxy.net) which checks out as bad here: http://verify-email.org/ Site rules require a real email address. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony

james griffin
January 14, 2013 2:35 pm

The MET Office appears to have committed fraud…the BBC has broken its charter to be even handed and balanced. The Guardian and the Independent have disgraced themselves.
We the British taxpayers have been cheated out of billions and all because of a bunch of sanctimonious, over educated middle class pompous arrogant morons don’t know the difference between the planet’s favourite fertiliser and a pollutant.
Not only that, they have never heard of Ice Ages and Holocenes…and appear blissfully unaware that the past has been considerably warmer than the present.
Oh…..and that we are cooling and have been for 10,000 years.
Go for it Lord Monckton.

January 14, 2013 2:44 pm

as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

Jimbo
January 14, 2013 2:53 pm

How valuable is the Met Office?
‘Met Office — The Public Weather Service’s contribution to the UK economy’ is a comprehensive report on just how much we benefit the UK economy as a whole.
We help save lives.
We benefit the Government, in monetary terms, by much more than we cost…………….
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/what/pws/value

Oh really!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/the-uk-met-office-winter-forecast-fail-or-faux/

Joe Grappa
January 14, 2013 2:57 pm

“REPLY: I know, and if my moderator said you were making an ad hom that needed a snip, I’ll tend to believe him. ”
You better think about that. He is sticking a knife into your credibility.
“For now, I’m going to put you in permanent moderation, because you are using a fake email ( grappa@xoxy.net) which checks out as bad here: http://verify-email.org/ Site rules require a real email address. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony”
I sent you an email via the contact form. I am not upset, just disappointed.

Jimbo
January 14, 2013 2:57 pm

Steven Mosher says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm
as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

When did the Met Office release the ‘good’ news? What is the Met Office budget? How expensive is their latest super compurter? How many people died when they predicted milder winters in the past few years? This is fraud, pure and simple. And it comes at a terrible price.

January 14, 2013 3:06 pm

Sorry for this non-contributory response, but…the big words are FABULOUS – keep ’em coming please. Perhaps we could publish “The Little Book of Monckton’s Big Words” when this whole mess is over.

January 14, 2013 3:12 pm

Has the Met Office committed fraud?
Of course not, the latest global temperature forecast from the MetOffice is exceptionally unambiguous
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MetOff-Fcast.htm
🙂

Jimbo
January 14, 2013 3:14 pm

Dan King says:
January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.

You are naive. Why the heck did they release their graph on Xmas eve, or was it Xmas day? They are milking the public purse. Fraud is too mild a word.

mpainter
January 14, 2013 3:15 pm

alex the skeptic says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
@joeldshore says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO….
——————
Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?
===================================
Joel Shore is one of those who thinks that data should be altered to fit the theory.
He also maintains that the product of the GCM’s (projected warming) prove AGW.
If you show him the temperature trend of the last eighteen years, he calls that “cherry picking”
You get the picture, I’m sure.

John Whitman
January 14, 2013 3:17 pm

Christopher Monckton asks two questions:
Q#1
So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?
Q#2
Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

– – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Response to Q#1 – Here is just one of my many possible criminal theories. In one scenario I think the MET Office committed fraud but only secondarily as an accessory after-the-fact. The initial fraud rests with the scientists who intentionally manipulated areas of scientific research to meet the mandated ideological ‘a priori’ belief of the IPCC’s charter. The IPCC charter was not to find out the basis for climate behavior in the industrial era, the IPCC’s charter was to find support of the mandated ‘a priori’ belief that there is alarming AGW by CO2 from from burning fossil fuels in the industrial era. I lay the initial fraud at the feet of a non-selfcorrecting climate science group that formed an isolated, self-reviewing, non-transparent and closed community. A community who sought to and did accomplish the favorable corruption of the funding processes and the journal review process. Scientists committed the primary fraud and the MET Office took subsequent advantage knowing full well about scientists initial fraud. SO, I look forward to discussion of the merits and flaws in my one- of-many possible crime theories. Call it scenario #1 of ‘n’, where ‘n’ is not a small number.
Response to Q#2 – you do not seem to me to be exaggerating in calling it a likely case of fraud.
John

January 14, 2013 3:19 pm

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.
The climate models do not model internal climate variability. The models have incorporated into them an amount of (psuedo) randomness that approximates to what the climate modellers think is the amount of natural variability in the climate.
Therefore, if the models (simulations) show no warming for a decade, a century, or a millenia, this is evidence of absolutely nothing, except that the modellers have increased the amount of randomness in their model.
It is thoroughly deceitful to pretend that any period of no warming in the model simulations actually means anything.

Latitude
January 14, 2013 3:30 pm

of course it’s fraud….but it’s government fraud and that makes it ok
Just look at all the new tax money that they made. < put that little dot there for Willis

Editor
January 14, 2013 3:36 pm

Steven Mosher says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm

as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

While (gasp!) i generally agree with you here, mosh, we tried “mail fraud” with Gleick. But just as with the UK officials, the US officials declined to prosecute …
And the UK folks couldn’t prosecute the fraud revealed by Climategate because of the statute of limitations …
So while as I said I agree with you that this case seems to not rise to the level of fraud, reserving the word fraud for better cases than this hasn’t worked all that well either. And since it hasn’t, we are reduced to taking other actions against the fraudulent actions. I, for example, write open letters to Dr. Gundersen and discuss Gleick’s fraud, since it seems he won’t face any official censure for his actions.
What I (and you, I assume) don’t like is the cheapening of what is in fact a serious offense, that of fraud. And for that, I would fault Christopher Monckton if I though he were making a serious charge. Having only a passing acquaintance with Lord Chris and his actions, however, I would tend to look at it as a bit of stage management, a way to indirectly highlight the poor outcomes of the Met folks.
I think it was stage management because, for example, while Heartland (and I) expected that criminal charges had a good chance of being laid for wire fraud against Gleick, do you really think Lord Chris expected the UK authorities to bring criminal charges against the UK Meteorological Office? Sammy Jimmy the Greek is not giving good odds on that ever happening, it has what our UK cousins call “Buckley’s chance” of occurring, and Christopher knows that.
That’s why I think he saw this as a way to highlight just how abysmally poor the performance of the Met Office has been. I see it as street theatre, in much the same way as his actions in Doha were street theatre.
All the best, glad to see we agree on things at times,
w.

Berényi Péter
January 14, 2013 3:38 pm

To their credit it is definitely not money they are stealing, just numbers on bank accounts, created out of thin air by commercial banks, by lending more than the amount of deposits they have, licensed to do so by corrupt political bodies, utterly failing the general electorate that was tricked to authorize them to set up the largest Ponzi scheme of history.
The climate fraud is only a minor part of this dirty business, designed to let it go just for another while, as the bitter end is inevitable eventually anyway.

Bob
January 14, 2013 3:40 pm

Mosher says, ” as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this. No amount of evidence will be adequate for him to critizie his fellow warmers. Have we all had enough of the the “obsequious” one.

Latitude
January 14, 2013 3:41 pm

Steven Mosher says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm
as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.
==================
or just take them to court in Italy

Bob
January 14, 2013 3:44 pm

Willis, old sage one, I’ve heard of Jimmy, but not Sammy the Greek. Where is Sammy located?
[… hits himself on forehead … “Jimmy! Of course! Sammy is his cousin, he was working out of Athens until the market collapsed … fixed. w.]

Greg House
January 14, 2013 3:48 pm

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: “The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).”
=============================================================
Although I am absolutely not an expert on the Fraud Act 2006, I doubt very seriously that grant funding can be considered to be a gain and unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges can be considered to be a loss.
My guess is that loss or gain should be direct to qualify. Grant funding is not a gain actually, it is a payment for a work/scientific research. If some scientific research has been conducted and salaries paid, then it would hardly qualify for “gain”.
Anyway, before writing such articles one should better consult a competent lawyer.

Doug Proctor
January 14, 2013 3:50 pm

In Canada, by itself the Met Office would have committed a “fraud” under your terms, been part of a “conspiracy” if it involved others within its jurisdiction, i.e. throughout Britain, and a “racket” if it involved crossing jurisdictions as to organizing with NASA/NOAA/the Australian BOM etc.
A fraud, a conspiracy and a racket are each separate, criminal actions, with increasing severity.
The Mafia understand this well.

January 14, 2013 3:54 pm

Dear Lord Moncton:
Yes, this is clearly fraud on the public – and there is something you can do.
If you can crash a climate conference, you can crash the House of Lords – after all, thepeerage still exists and law excluding you is not that clear. Since the house still has a post-judicial function: making your appeal there could force the judiciary to take note – and the government to support you. Underline “could”, of course.
Good luck!
Murph

Editor
January 14, 2013 3:57 pm

steven mosher, one last comment. Christopher is aware of your concern that this may not rise to the level of fraud, he closes by saying:

So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?
Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

Me, I don’t know the answer. I do know that the Met Office telling porkies to name and shame an opponent is a Very Bad Thing™, and it is clear that they knew (or should have known) that their attack on David Rose for having the infernal gall to discuss the ongoing hiatus in warming of 15+ years was scientific BS. The warming has indeed paused, for a while.
Is that “fraud” or some other crime? I don’t know enough about the UK law to tell you. It definitely is a huge over-reach for a government institution. Lord Chris makes a good case that it might be, but we’ll never know without an official investigation. Me, I generally put down to ignorance what ignorance is sufficient to explain. Bad computer models and poor seasonal forecasts come under that heading.
However, as Lord Chris points out, when there is big money (billions) at stake, it behooves us to lift the blanket and see just what the good old boys are up to. At that point, being ignorant is perhaps more deliberate than not. That is the point where they start to swing their weight against private citizens who make inconvenient claims.
At that point, the next question to ask is, who is making the Met Office decisions, and where is their money coming from? If they or their friends were getting windmill money, for example, or if their fortune is invested in carbon futures, that would not reflect well. Be clear that that is illustrative and that I have no information that the Met folks are anything but honestly deluded when they make such scientifically laughable statements.
However, with that much big bucks at stake, and with that level of denial of scientific reality, it would be interesting reading to know where their money comes from.
Best regards to you, my friend,
w.

Bill Illis
January 14, 2013 4:13 pm

How much of society’s resources have been wasted on a hunch and a personal belief system?
It wll be up to $ 1 trillion soon since the burn rate is up to $100 billion per year now.
Somebody has to pay for causing that amount of waste/loss at some point.

Goldie
January 14, 2013 4:16 pm

It took my wife to point this out – that in fact what the Met Office has done is merely to extend the window of opportunity. As I understand it they are now saying that variability can mean pauses of 20 years between warming episodes and then after 20 years it will re-commence warming. How convenient, since this will not now be measurable for a few more years.

January 14, 2013 4:17 pm

I have put the non believing approach to journalism students and used whatsupwiththat in the process, but it takes grit determination: http://ro.uow.edu.au/apme/vol1/iss20/20/

mpainter
January 14, 2013 4:20 pm

A foul odor emanates from the Met. Whether it be fraud or stupidity, someone needs to take the cover off and poke around. We have something more definite going on with the EPA , thanks to Chris Horner. I myself have no doubt that Horner is on the trail of crooks, i.e. favors bought and sold. Wonderful thing to be able to save humanity and make hay while doing so.
Somebody needs to be poking a stick at the Met, like Chris Horner pokes the EPA.

John Anderson
January 14, 2013 4:21 pm

I have a touching faith in the English legal system – the courts that is, not the police.
After all, it was an English judge who declared that there were multiple falsities in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth – and who caused the UK Department of Education to require teachers to put some balancing information alongside any showing of the film to schoolchildren. Yes, the UK school curriculum is still full of AGW bilge, but at least that judge took his decision on the FACTS of the case put before him.
And 30 years ago Tom Denning, a superb top judge said “You may be high and mighty in the land, but the law of England is above you” – when slapping down a Secretary of State for Trade He was upholding the Magna Carta idea that we should all be equal before the law.
So I have hope that little by little, the AGW case will be challenged before courts of law. Only the judges are capable of stepping aside from the groupthink that has seized the bulk of the UK political class and most of the UK media for decades now. Especially the BBC, which has an overarching impact on public debate in the UK, and which marches in lockstep with the Guardian on most issues.
Lord Monkton is correct to say that the Met Office has been defrauding us. Just as some of the ClimateGate enquiries in the UK were largely fraudulent – taking public money but blatantly failing to conduct proper enquiries. .But it won’t be a large and dramatic action for fraud that does the damage, because the Serious Fraud Office is traditionally supine. Private individuals and private bodies cannot bring a fraqud action. It is more likely that the AGW juggernaut can be slowed by smaller actions involving other aspects of the law, such as before the Freedom of Information Commissioner, or – as suggested by some commentators earlier in this thread – possible actions for libel by sceptical journalists traduced by the Met Office or other AGW zealots.
In particular, some of the recent statements by Slingo and the Met Office have been personally aimed at individual journalists, and have been so misleading and aggressive that at the very least a couple of stiff letters from lawyers for the journalists or their newspapers ought to be shot across the bows of Sling and the Met Office.
……………………
As regards the House of Lords, it has very limited powers. But Their Lordships also have more room for independent thought than the lobby-fodder politicians in the House of Commons. Lord Lawson and latterly Lord Donoughue are now asking more pertinant Parliamentary Questions than any we have seen in the Commons. Lawson was formerly a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Donoghue was chief policy advisor to two Labour Prime Ministers. I am sure they will be weighing in with further questions about the Met Office.

January 14, 2013 4:21 pm

Monckton has earned a role as a folk hero, having simplified his arguments without dumbing them down, and he’s got war in him, properly.

Sean
January 14, 2013 4:23 pm

Monckton, I agree and suggest that you get a writ of mandamus to compel the crown to lay charges.

John Whitman
January 14, 2013 4:25 pm

Willis Eschenbach on January 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …
w.

{above bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – –
Willis,
I understand and tend to agree with the thrust of your whole comment. But one part, quoted above, I would like to discuss further with you as I think I may not agree with it.
If the context that you intend in your statement about ‘my side’ is strictly a scientific one, then I differ that ‘sides’ exist in the broad scope of the rigorous scientific process and its professional ethics. I think in science, per se, there are no ‘sides’.
If you are talking about a non-scientific context then would you please specify what other context?
Thanks. I find these kinds of discussions worthwhile.
John

Rick K
January 14, 2013 4:28 pm

leftturnandre says:
“Do numbers count? What if everybody reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office?”
——————
I’d be willing to do my part! If an organized response by a group can impress the [self-snip] at the Serious Fraud Office, I say let’s do it.
Side note: As time goes on I appreciate Monty Python’s portrayal of British bureaucracy ever more…
Lord Monckton, we support you sir!

greg connolly
January 14, 2013 4:29 pm
Phil
January 14, 2013 4:30 pm

Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

I would rate it at about seven “Pinochios” on a scale of 1 to 10.

johanna
January 14, 2013 4:38 pm

There are two kinds of fraud.
Criminal fraud is where someone deliberately misleads or deceives for personal gain, and is prosecuted by the government. It is very hard to demonstrate that a public servant who gives wrong advice did it for personal gain, unless it involves something like trying to swing a government contract to them or their associates. In the case of an organisation, if it has deliberately lied to the government to obtain public funding, that is usually dealt with through a parliamentary process in the first instance, such as a parliamentary or Ministerial inquiry. Pinning responsibility on individuals is extremely difficult in such cases.
Civil fraud is a different matter. That is where an individual sues an individual or entity because they can personally demonstrate loss or damage as a result of deception or misrepresentation. The standard of proof is lower. This type of action includes defamation suits.
I agree that Monckton’s question is largely rhetorical, but the journalist could investigate the possibility of a defamation suit. Cases where people have tried to sue because they were damaged by a government policy which turned out to be wrong almost never succeed, because as long as the parliament approved the policy, it is allowed to be wrong. (This is a very generalised explanation of how it works under a Westminster system, but you get the idea.)
Criminal fraud? Highly unlikely, unless you can prove that people lied or took kickbacks knowing that the information they were providing was wrong.

Editor
January 14, 2013 4:40 pm

John Whitman says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm

… If the context that you intend in your statement about ‘my side’ is strictly a scientific one, then I differ that ‘sides’ exist in the broad scope of the rigorous scientific process and its professional ethics. I think in science, per se, there are no ‘sides’.

Heck, there are “sides” wherever there are disputes in science. Sometimes they even have names. For example, in biology there are “lumpers” and “splitters”, those that tend to lump a variety of animals into one species or other unit, and “splitters” who tend to split a variety of animals into different species or other unit. For years, there were sides in the discussion of plate tectonics, those who did and didn’t believe in it.
Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters. They are as much scientific “sides” as are the lumpers and the splitters in biology, although the dividing line is far less clear.
Me, I’m neither a skeptic nor an AGW supporter. I’m a heretic. I think that the planet has a variety of homeostatic mechanisms that maintain the temperature within tight bounds, such as the ± 1/3°C of variability over the entire 20th century. I wish there were more folks on my side, but that’s my challenge.
w.

Ian
January 14, 2013 4:48 pm

My layman’s interpretation of things is that the Met Office is part of a government department which is mostly funded by government (at the expense of the taxpayer, obviously), so even if there is fraud, the police and CPS will not act unless a charge is to be brought at the behest of government (which would have to be against individuals in the Met Office, not the Met Office as an institution). However, it might be possible for a company or individual to make a case if monies were paid for services from the Met Office which were sold on terms that were deliberately misleading. In this regard, it is clearly not the case that the reply given to David Rose — even if it is misleading — could be said to have been material to the decision of anyone to buy services from the Met Office at this point: it could only be considered as such if it formed the basis for future sales by the Met Office, which seems highly unlikely.
Moreover the field of “climate science” is so contested that it would obviously be possible for staff of the Met Office to argue that legitimate scientific considerations — rather than malfeasance — gave rise to any potentially misleading statements, and that consequently they were not deliberately misleading. There is a great deal of leg-room in respect of the interpretation of the various points they have made in their reply to David Rose.
Whilst Lord Monckton of Brenchley has done far more than me to combat this silly climate change nonsense, nevertheless I wonder why he comes out with this sort of stuff. It’s one thing to argue that the staff of the Met Office have behaved in a deceptive manner (hardly unusual for government offices), but quite another to try to interest the police in such a trumped up charge. One may as well ask them to arrest the Secretary of State for Energy. Oh wait… what was that thing about the £17bn for wind farms?

herkimer
January 14, 2013 4:57 pm

So what do the other climate prophets say where the global climate is heading after 5 years ?
This is from the various articles that they have posted . The figures are either eyeballed or calculated from their data.
Forecasts of global temperature anomaly [hadcrut3] at the end of 2017 [after next 5 years]
JAMES HANSEN 1.4 C for A, 1.2 C for B and 0.6 C for C
IPCC 0 .750 C [A2, A1B, B1]
CLIVE BEST 0. 55 to 0 .7 C BASED ON AIB and B1 SCENARIOS]
N.SCAFETTA 0.450 C HARMONIC MODEL [RANGE 0.3 C to 0.55 C]
MET OFFICE 0.430 C [ RANGE 0.28 C to 0.59 C] WAS 0.76 C last month
G.ORSSENGO 0.226 C[ Calculated from GMTA statistical model]
D. EASTERBROOK -0.1C, 0 C and 0.4 C [made three predictions based on 1790-1820, 1880-1915, 1945-1977 past trends]
LAST 12 MONTH TREND OF HADCRUT3 EXTENDED TO THE END OF 2017 0.350 C

Australis
January 14, 2013 5:03 pm

Joeldshor at 12.54pm offers a reasoned explanation of the NOAA’s State of the Climate Report 2008, as well as a link to that report. He explains the statement that “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” as saying nothing about non-zero trends – and says the actual trend has not been zero.
I take this to mean that there has been no statistically significant trend since 1997 and therefore there has not been a zero trend.
However, the NOAA report goes on to add: “an observed absence of warming of this duration [15 years] is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
That seems to be quite unequivocal: if there is no observed warming for 15 years, then the “expected .. warming rate” must be wrong. How else can it be interpreted?

jbird
January 14, 2013 5:06 pm

I suppose that some will get away with this fraud by simply arguing, “It wasn’t me that lied; it was my computer model. All I did was report what the model told me. I am, after all, obligated to report these things, since I have been paid all of this public money to do this research. The public has a right to know what it shows.”
If it was my tail caught in this ringer, that’s what I would say. They’ve got a pretty good gig going.

Roger Knights
January 14, 2013 5:07 pm

Joe Public says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm
And will (past & present) MPs admit to being so gullible as to be taken-in by an organisation which is plainly not-fit-for-purpose?

Let’s call the House of Commons the House of Lards from now on!

Graham W
January 14, 2013 5:07 pm

joeldshore:
The point with my graphs was to show that, in 30 years time, I may be able to make exactly the same point as you have made about the trend starting from 1975, as with any of the three alternate trends I plotted (i.e. for trends beginning in 1994, 1997, or 2002). The point may also still be valid for the trend beginning in 1975, of course.
The fact is that no-one knows what the future will bring. Being as how science is attempting to predict future outcomes of a chaotic system, and since what we do know about such a system is always likely to be outweighed by what we don’t to an infinite degree, I would not be at all surprised if the extrapolation of any of these four trends came to closely resemble the future 30 years of climate change or stability…or none of them at all.
With this point in mind, I think it more constructive to evaluate the data which does exist rather than the data which doesn’t yet. In so doing you will note that the rate of global warming appears to have decelerated in recent years.

Athelstan.
January 14, 2013 5:12 pm

crosspatch,
Has it – by way of a withering exactitude:

It is more than fraud, it is theft.

Well said crosspatch, entirely you’ve encapsulated my thoughts.

mpainter
January 14, 2013 5:12 pm

Scute says: January 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I would say the Met gets 90% of my criticism, Rose, 10%.
========================================
Rose deserves no criticism whatsoever. In fact he deserves plaudits for forcing the Met into a public posture of defending their “frauds”. This was an important contribution and we owe unreserved thanks to David Rose.

John Whitman
January 14, 2013 5:14 pm

Willis Eschenbach on January 14, 2013 at 4:40 pm
[ . . . ]
Heck, there are “sides” wherever there are disputes in science. [ . . . ]
[ . . . ]

– – – – – – – –
Willis,
Thanks for corresponding.
With respect to things that are man-made (not the primary of preexisting nature) like governments, economic structures and moral systems then I can see ‘sides’.
On the other hand, if hard reality (nature) is the test of a scientist’s physical science position (theory and prediction) then I do not see that scientists who differ are on ‘sides’. They all, in a nature focused scientific process, want to find the necessary identity of nature and the principles of behavior of the identity. The think the inherent benefit of multiple totally independent scientists researching in parallel on nature is the multiplying of the wealth and corroborating input / review; not taking ‘sides’. I can only see scientists striving to take a side; taking reality’s ‘side’ not its ‘sides’.
John

pete50
January 14, 2013 5:19 pm

The Wet Office seems to be trying to soften up the world community to a new element of the CAGW doctrine – Weather of Mass Destruction. WMD has got its own poison gasses viz CO2 & CH4. Ordinary people can’t see them, but Govt. experts know they are there – hidden in the atmosphere and burried beneath the permafrost. Its worse than the experts thought – WMD.

joeldshore
January 14, 2013 5:24 pm

alex the skeptic says:

Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?

The reason to do this is because you have a climatic “signal” and weather “noise”. If you can reduce the noise, you can more clearly see the signal. That means that you will get a more accurate estimate of the underlying trend.
And no, your analogy is not a good one. Note that the method of correcting for ENSO does not significantly change the trend when applied to a large enough time series of temperature. But, for a short series, it can correct the trend for the bias due to the fact that you started your measurement during an El Nino and stopped during it during a La Nina or vice versa. It can also produce a less noisy data set and thus allow you to obtained statistically-significant measurements over shorter periods than you could otherwise (or, in other words, less uncertainty in the trend).
At any rate, whether or not you think it is useful to do this, the point is that the statement made by the NOAA climate report assumed that the data was handled in this way. You can’t just take their statement about 15 years and apply it to data that is handled in a different way.

herkimer
January 14, 2013 5:26 pm

5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”
The Met Office used to say
“We found about one in every eight decades has near or negative global temperature trends.”
It would appear that they adjust their possible period “without warming” as the errors of their model get exposed more and more. This period of “without warming” will eventually become another embarrassment as the actual or observed period extends into decades as it did in the past.These past periods of no net rise in tempertaures lasted 3-4 decades[see 1880-1930 and again 1940-1940

Sunspot
January 14, 2013 5:31 pm

Looks like our federal government has instructed the ABC and the CSIRO to ramp up publicity on man made climate change to gain support for their new carbon tax and of course the elections in October. Plenty of propaganda going on via ABC news in the last couple of days featuring IPCC reports.

joeldshore
January 14, 2013 5:35 pm

mpainter says:

Joel Shore is one of those who thinks that data should be altered to fit the theory.

Please don’t put words into my mouth. What I believe is that it is sometimes useful to reduce the noise in a data set if you can easily do so and if tests of the method show that it does indeed reduce the noise without producing a series bias.
And furthermore, I believe that if someone says, “If you do process X to a data set and observe Y then Z is true,” then it is not logically correct to conclude that Z is true if you observe Y in a data set without having done process X on it. I am surprised that anybody, let alone someone like Monckton who prides himself on logic, would contest this point.

He also maintains that the product of the GCM’s (projected warming) prove AGW.

Again, please don’t put words in my mouth. You are doing a very poor job of it. I don’t even believe it is possible to prove anything in science, since science is inductive. Just because you don’t understand how science operates, don’t foist on us your incorrect interpretations of what people who do are saying.

TBear
January 14, 2013 5:37 pm

Hmmmm …
A fun read but, and even on Mockton’s own characterization of the MET office’s statements in response to Rose, the MET is guilty of spin rather than lies.
The MET is perfectly entitled to say, `this is our opinion expressed in the context we see as relevant, blah, blah, blah and a lot more of the blah’, until everyone gets too bored to argue back or almost loses the will to live.
It’s called `public relations.’
On this occasion, the Bear thinks the good Mockton has over-egged his pudding, drawn too long his bow, jumped his shark and, generally, veered off his reservation.
Still, the MET office is full of #%*&, as we all well know …

thelastdemocrat
January 14, 2013 5:50 pm

How is the employee retirement fund for the Met Office set up? Have they signed the priniciples of responsible investing? If so, they have a vested interest in people believing in the global warming idea to the point that the population generally does not gt upset about the govt devoting lots of money to green and combat-global warming activities. These data should not be that difficult to find.

John M
January 14, 2013 5:52 pm

It’s worth noting that no one was talking about “correcting for ENSO effects” when there were a boatload of El Ninos in the 80s in 90s.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
In fact, back then, we were being told that AGW was causing more and stronger El Ninos.

January 14, 2013 5:53 pm

mpainter,
joelshore says:
“Just because you don’t understand how science operates, don’t foist on us your incorrect interpretations of what people who do are saying.”
See, you just don’t understand science, so you had better listen to someone who does. [/sarc]
The problem with joelshore’s arrogant attitude is the fact that the planet is not agreeing with his beliefs.
I’m a ‘show me’ kinda guy. If the Met Office and joelshore argue one way, but the planet shows us they’re wrong, then the planet gets my vote. And because the planet clearly does not agree with the alarmist crowd, I know which one to believe: Planet Earth, and my lyin’ eyes.

DR
January 14, 2013 6:10 pm

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/met-office-forecasting-produces-another-epic-failure/

It’s always helpful to connect the dots. The Chairman of the Met Office is Robert Napier. Not only is he a Non-Executive Director of Anglian Water, which has a drought order in place, he is also the former Chief Executive of WWF-UK, the UK arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature. That is the same WWF exposed as being engaged in systematic fraud in the developing world and which supplies the International Panel on Climate Change with material to prop up the climate change industry.

January 14, 2013 6:13 pm

Dan King says:
January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.
=============
So, the difference between fraud and bad business is belief? How can one ever be sure what the other person actually believes versus what they say they believe? For example, does Gore believe in global warming, or does he just see it as an easy way to make money? If he takes money without checking the facts it is OK, but if he checks the facts and takes the money anyways he had committed fraud? So, on this basis it is better to never check the facts and take the money, because ignorance is not fraud, it is bliss. Only someone that knows what they are talking about can commit fraud, because only they can separate fact from fiction.

Gail Combs
January 14, 2013 6:14 pm

john robertson says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm
I have the name for the class action, Equal justice for Bernie Madoff.
Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh what a great bumper sticker/bulletin board that would make.
Equal justice for Bernie Madoff, Convict the CAGW fraudsters!
Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison

Add one of the Al Gore cartoons for the bulletin board. (No names)

January 14, 2013 6:14 pm

The threat of legal action is a great tool to shut people up. If he was still alive you could ask Jimmy Saville. You definitely could ask Lance Armstrong.
So if you don’t want a robust discussion of global warming, then threaten your opponents with legal action.

herkimer
January 14, 2013 6:20 pm

Scute
Good analysis. I personally also think that the Met Office should have released their latest decadal update in the Met Office News category because the information was significant and deviated from their previous constant claim of warming only. It just makes good PR sense and they badly need better PR.. This decadal update was long over due as their projections and the observed data were so different that their credibilty in the eyes of the public was clearly erroding even more with such a wrong decadal projection.

audience
January 14, 2013 6:23 pm

All the world’s a stage, as the Shaking Speare team declared.
We simply watch the actors and the fake events, and chatter nervously.

In this video you can see another prominent fake, a Greenberg acting the part of warmist agitator “Max Keiser”. And of course the rest of the crew would be mere actors as well. “Nothing is real” as Theodor Adorno’s lyrics inform us.

Gail Combs
January 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Athelstan. says:
January 14, 2013 at 5:12 pm
crosspatch,
Has it – by way of a withering exactitude:
It is more than fraud, it is theft.
Well said crosspatch, entirely you’ve encapsulated my thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I consider it murder…

Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates
The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.
Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.…..

jorgekafkazar
January 14, 2013 6:40 pm

There is another Met Office matter that has received relativey little attention. It is my understanding that the Met Office has been selling forecasts to private parties. For those forecasts to have value, they should obviously contain better information. For this to be so, the Met Office would have to withhold knowledge that they posess from the public, who paid for it. Is this not a conflict of interests?

Gary Pearse
January 14, 2013 6:46 pm

Lord Monckton
Note that the ocean (SST) has faithfully not warmed since 1997 either and this is a Norwegian graph. Ignore the 37 month running average.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

mpainter
January 14, 2013 7:05 pm

If anyone is interested in evaluating Joel Shore, I refer them to this thread: “Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It’s Government Climate Science” posted by Dr. Tim Ball on Jan. 8.
On that thread I engaged Joel Shore in an attempt to show that the GCM’s are simply an elaboration of AGW theory. Now, this might seem obvious to most of those who read this, but not to Joel Shore. First he denied that there was any such thing as AGW theory:
January 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm Joel Shore says:
“There is no special “AGW theory” to incorporate into the climate models.”
Then, he contradicts this statement at 8:37 am: “I did not say that there is no theory of AGW… but that this theory is formulated / supported on… evidence from climate models.
I tried to point out that climate models elaborated AGW theory and hence to refer to GCM’s as confirmation (or proof) of AGW theory was simply circular.
Joel Shore would have none of that. He finally went back to denying that GCM’s incorporate AGW theory. Thus Joel Shore.
And yes, Joel Shore would remove the effect of ENSO because he does not understand that to do so is to adjust data. Thus Joel Shore.
And, yes, Joel Shore has characterized references to the temperature record of the last sixteen years as “cherry-picking”.
And yes, Joel Shore, refers to the models as confirmation of AGW, and ignores observations which refute the models.
In addition, Joel Shore made claims that the GCM’s were in agreement on “climate sensitivity”, except for clouds, showing his unfamiliarity with the discrepancies of the GCM’s.
And yes, the GCM’s project indefinite warming because they are devised to, and in fact, can project nothing else. But Joel Shore would dispute this, too.

D Böehm Stealey
January 14, 2013 7:15 pm

John Brookes says:
“So if you don’t want a robust discussion of global warming…”
Who are you trying to fool? The fact is that the alarmist crowd runs and hides out from any real debate. So much for your “robust discussion.”
Any time Michael Mann wants to debate, he will get plenty of skeptics competing for the opportunity.

davidmhoffer
January 14, 2013 7:16 pm

Willis Eschenbach;
Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.
>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm, in my humble opinion, no. When I call myself a skeptic I mean I am skeptical of CAGW. As soon as you take the “C” out of the acronym, I don’t know what I’d call me. (Lot’s of people call me lot’s of things but let’s restrict this to climate, shall we?). I think the first order effects of CO2 increases are positive in regard to surface temps. I think magnitude is unknown. I think sign and magnitude of feed backs is unknown. I think there is no evidence of “C”.

January 14, 2013 7:24 pm

I don’t understand how anyone thinks this is not fraud. In fact, it is fraud AND theft (as Crosspatch said) AND murder (as Gail Combs said). Anyone can make a mistake, but over and over and over, and ALWAYS in the same direction – warmer – I’m sorry, but that’s deliberate intent to mislead and to harm the public. This has been going on for years now, so they know exactly what the consequences have been and continue to be – taxes, fuel poverty, and death. Has that stopped them? No. Has it made them think? No. They keep right on at it, and yes, money does change hands, of course it does. They’re rewarded for giving the government what the government asks for – there’s huge money in this scam for everyone involved in it. These people are not mistaken or deluded, they are criminals. All of them.

mfo
January 14, 2013 7:27 pm

Between April 08 and March 09, 1,325 cases of fraud and theft were identified within UK Government bodies amounting to £4,219,500.
The types of fraud were such things as theft of physical assets, including cash; frauds that involve falsely creating or diverting payments; theft of incoming cash or cheques; fraudulent claims for payment of expenses or the creation of false payroll records; using the assets of the organisation for other than official purposes and/or supplying information to outsiders for personal gain; fraud involving contractors, sub-contractors, crown servants or any combination of these.
One particular incident involved a member of staff in a Government department creating false records and authorising fraudulent repayment claims totaling £357,100.
The Home Office has an executive agency called the National Fraud Authority which sits “at the heart of government with access to key decision-makers and ministers across a range of key departments.” The City of London Police was recognised as the National lead force for fraud under the Fraud Review in April 2008. The UK’s national fraud reporting centre is Action Fraud which is run by the NFA.
In the EU, €67.9 million was recovered as a result of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s (OLAF) cases. €351.2 million was also recovered in respect of financial follow-up cases. National courts sentenced fraudsters to a cumulative 125 years’ imprisonment during 2010 and imposed financial penalties amounting to nearly € 1.47 billion as a result of the Anti-Fraud Office’s cases.
However I think Monckton of Brenchley was simply using fraud as a way of drawing attention to the Met Office’s perverse climate prediction activities. No complaint against the Met Office will be followed up by the authorities unless it was for specific fraudulent actions such as those mentioned above by known individuals.
I would echo Willis’s comment that I believe the post by the Viscount is ‘stage management’ and can delight in how it eloquently draws attention to the way taxpayers money has been swallowed up in pursuit of a gargantuan red herring.

Graham W
January 14, 2013 7:27 pm

A little off topic perhaps but I wanted to follow one point in my previous post (where I mentioned infinity) to its logical conclusion.
There exists an infinite number of fractions between zero and one. Taken in this context, zero and one can never be said to truly exist. Integers and decimal places are thus a human invention for our convenience and sanity. This is the basis of all mathematics and science, and the concept of infinity the basis of (and that which necessitates) “God”.
This is also the reason for the existence of everything. Since infinity exists, “zero” and “one” cannot exist. Since “zero” and “one”cannot exist, infinity must exist in their place. The human brain cannot conceive of infinity, for to do so it would need to be of infinite size itself. So we’ll never understand it.
Therefore we are what we are, and where we are, and why we are.

January 14, 2013 7:42 pm

Jimbo
“When did the Met Office release the ‘good’ news? What is the Met Office budget? How expensive is their latest super compurter? How many people died when they predicted milder winters in the past few years? This is fraud, pure and simple. And it comes at a terrible price.”
##############
saying it is so doesnt make it so.

January 14, 2013 7:49 pm

Bob says:
January 14, 2013 at 3:40 pm (Edit)
Mosher says, ” as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this. No amount of evidence will be adequate for him to critizie his fellow warmers. Have we all had enough of the the “obsequious” one.
###############################
Actually I criticize anyone I choose to. It is very simple. Let is suppose that their model output predicted .1C per decade of warming and we had a email from one fellow to another saying..
“.1C is not high enough, just double it, no body will catch it ” Simple evidence, easy case.
Saying something that you know to be false. Personally I like to reseverve the word fraud for cases like that, where you have clear evidence ( not un scientific mind reading) that the person knew what they were writing was false and they wrote it to mislead.
You see, the mistake you made when you tried to read my mind. ( i know the print is small)

SAMURAI
January 14, 2013 7:51 pm

The MET has certainly committed fraud.
MET’s numerous false and misleading statements clearly meet the legal criteria of both mens rea (intent) and actus reus (criminal acts: malfeasance of taxpayer money based on the deception).
If Lord Monckton’s lawsuit was allowed to be shown in the light of justice, the MET would clearly lose the case.
The CAGW scoundrels are now at a very interesting juncture in their fraud. Since the strong solar forcing (which caused almost all the 20th century warming) ended in 1996 (when the strongest 73-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended), the warming trend has stopped dead in its tracks. Now we’re in the weakest solar cycle since 1906 and the next solar cycle starting 2020 will be the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum. If you also pile on: a rare double-dip La Nina just starting, the 30-yr PDO cooling phase starting in 2008, the growing Antarctic Ice Extent, The AMO entering its 30-yr cooling cycle around 2020 (same year the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum starts) and tie it all up with a beautiful ribbon that annual CO2 emissions have increased 60% since January 1997, the fraudsters have painted themselves into a very tight corner with nowhere to escape.
If the fraudsters continue unabated in light of the above, then, most certainly, they will lose their jobs and perhaps be brought up on criminal charges. If the fraudsters are honest (heaven forbid) most will still eventually lose their jobs (no more taxpayer funding), but can avoid criminal charges. Right now, the charlatans have basically selected a third option, which lies somewhere in the middle, i.e. they still claim CAGW is still a valid theory, BUT perhaps not quite as scary as once believed and “perhaps” solar forces are stronger than once believed….
At some point of singularity, it’ll dawn on a number of scientists that the best way to secure one’s tenure is to become a whistleblower on the CAGW scam and then the whole house of cards will come crashing down.
Time, people, time…. Just be patient, empirical evidence and the truth eventually prevail… usually, anyway… usually….

Crispin in Waterloo
January 14, 2013 7:54 pm

“prestidigitation”… I had to look that one up.
My grandfather was a prestidigitator from Tonbridge so I was at an advantage!

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 7:58 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Willis Eschenbach;
Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.

Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.

January 14, 2013 8:02 pm

dscott says: (January 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm) “While we are speaking of frauds… CFC harming the ozone layer has now been officially debunked. …”
Thank you, dscott. I believe to debunk The Ozone Hole hysteria is as important as blowing the C02 mania, and you have taken us one more small step forward in this vital imperative.

Gary Pearse
January 14, 2013 8:07 pm

…..and then you would have to sue 98% of the world’s Universities, and then “climate change” government departments, and then scientific societies and journals and newspapers, and the UN, the Nobel Committee… I think we are going to have to wait until hell freezes over in the next few decades or the diehards retire and/or die. That’s what must have happened to the flat earthers and the like. At least the record according to the Mets is no longer a hockey stick – it’s more like a crank handle.

mem
January 14, 2013 8:13 pm

As a strategic planner and marketer I would counsel against going into headfirst battle with the MET.Far better to pick a smaller target where you know you will get support from business and the general public. Engage a strategic manager to plan your approach including an overall plan, PR support, legal and financial advice and professional /scientific evidence..Cover every loophole and plan to win.My suggestion is to take on a seaside local government where real estate values have dropped due to the supposed sea level rises.If you win it will make a huge ripple as it will impact on all local governments. If you lose you will learn and getter better at it and can strike again. Scientists, in my experience,are not good at representing themselves or their work.If you need help I am more than happy to donate my professional time.Cheers and keep fighting.

davidmhoffer
January 14, 2013 8:19 pm

Climate Ace;
Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we should start the running for the WUWT Troll of the Year starting the first of this year and to be awarded this time next year. We could even have categories. Here’s how I would score it thus far:
Most determined to remain ignorant: Pat Ravasio for jumping into one thread after another and asking the exact same question, “what’s wrong with cleaning up the environment?”
Most irrelevant: whatsis name van Etten for posting the video of the pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with CO2
Most ignorant: Joe (?) who proposed reducing the world’s population by releasing a virus that would render most people sterile.
Sorry Climate Ace, you aren’t leading in any category, but I will suggest that you are running a close second in all three.

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 8:34 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Climate Ace;
Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we should start the running for the WUWT Troll of the Year starting the first of this year and to be awarded this time next year. We could even have categories. Here’s how I would score it thus far:
Most determined to remain ignorant: Pat Ravasio for jumping into one thread after another and asking the exact same question, “what’s wrong with cleaning up the environment?”
Most irrelevant: whatsis name van Etten for posting the video of the pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with CO2
Most ignorant: Joe (?) who proposed reducing the world’s population by releasing a virus that would render most people sterile.
Sorry Climate Ace, you aren’t leading in any category, but I will suggest that you are running a close second in all three.

I am skeptical of your ability to make this sort of judgement in a balanced way.

January 14, 2013 8:38 pm

I would like to point out to those who still rely upon the myth of “democratic institutions,” a.k.a the “rule of law,” that Lord Monckton’s very instructive exercise in civil obedience clearly shows how all those wonderful things — laws, institutions, justice, accountability — simply do not exist any more for us mere mortals.
Call it whatever you want — oligarchy, dictatorship, plutocracy — but elimination of so called “democracy” (a.k.a the “rule of law”) from our language and from our thoughts is long overdue. These words don’t mean anything any more. The very idea of democracy has failed tremendously — culturally, socially and economically — and if you pretend that it still continues and works, you merely support the myth exploited by our unconscionable rulers.

john robertson
January 14, 2013 9:08 pm

@Climate Ace,
you still wasting space here from your govt desk?
Don’t choke on your nosebag ,oh troll and thread-jacker.
When are you going to post a coherent comment?
Do you have anything you wish to contribute to this discussion?
Or will it be more Climate Zero bleating until you get snipped?

Bob
January 14, 2013 9:13 pm

Mosher says “You see, the mistake you made when you tried to read my mind. ( i know the print is small)”. Nah, Steve, I don’t try to read your mind – I read what you write. As months and years pass, evidence for CAGW wanes, yet you seem to wax eloquently for it. Could be wrong, but probably not. So you don’t distrust published scientists, eh Mosher. Not even Mann. Wow.

Keith
January 14, 2013 9:16 pm

Lord Monckton says: “Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two”.
Actually, from May until December 2012 we have been in either el niño or transitional conditions. OK so a mild and short-lived el niño, but even more strongly showing that the Wet Office is telling porkies with their statement “coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña”

john robertson
January 14, 2013 9:17 pm

@ Alexander Feht 8:38
Sadly sir you are correct.
Every institution is corrupted, rule of law is blatantly selective and deceit from our staff is the norm.
On the bright side, competent people do not need the regulatory class,common law is still salvageable and as the economies crash, we can’t carry the weight of our current helpers much longer.
It is worth reminding ourselves that our government authorities have all the power we grant them.
Our cooperation is necessary.
And authority abused is soon lost.

RoHa
January 14, 2013 9:19 pm

“The Met Office’s fraud will not be investigated. “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.”
Private prosecution, maybe?

davidmhoffer
January 14, 2013 9:28 pm

Alexander Feht;
The very idea of democracy has failed tremendously — culturally, socially and economically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutely, could not agree more. For example, if you make a list of the top 25 countries in the world by per capita income….OK, bad example. But look at disparity between rich and poor….OK, another bad example. But take middle class wealth, if you ranked countries by that….OK, never mind that, it isn’t about money it is about quality of life….darn, bad example again. Education levels….no, something else….I know, human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, on measures like that the top 25 countries in the world would mostly be…. OK, let’s talk longevity, who lives the longest, that list of countries would be….
GOT IT! If you list the top 25 countries in the world based on over weight problems, they are almost ALL democracies! There, that proves it. Democracy is a failure.

January 14, 2013 9:37 pm

Lord Monckton:
The Met Office is guilty of something but it is not what you think it is. The Met Office is guilty of misrepresenting an illogical pseudoscience as a science and covering up the offense by the fallacy of drawing improper inferences from equivocations.

January 14, 2013 10:01 pm

The banter about so-many-years-without warming is now expanding from
16 or 17 to 18?
Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
I would say based on that 11 years – 2012 was negligibly warmer than 2001.
Have a look at UAH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
I would say, based on that, 11-12 years.
If you want to include the late-1977-&-1998 century-class El Nino spike
for cherrypicking, then from that NH winter to now is 15 years.
18 years ago was early 1995. 13-month-averaged UAH had its 1995
peak at about +.02 degree C/K. That peak was a peak big enough to
take 2 years to exceed. The most recent *dip* of that so low was in
early 2008, at about -.01 degree C/K.
My conclusion: Even according to UAH, with smoothing as little as
13 months, the world warmed over the past 18 years.
Furthermore, 13-month-averaged UAH did not peak in 1998, but in
2010. More severe smoothing (even a decade) says that global
temperature by any index had its recent peak in 2005.
===================
Not that I disagree that global warming slowed since 1998, or that the
“warmingist camp” has “camped onto” twice to 2.5x as much warming by
CO2-increase as reality is/will-be. However, statement of 18 years with
no warming appears to me to be an opposite extreme, similarly
vulnerable to being discredited.

January 14, 2013 10:07 pm

Look at the longer term to assess climate change.
Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.
So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.
A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind and natural life worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a worming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.
But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.
The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.
It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.
It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.
See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Werner Brozek
January 14, 2013 10:32 pm

joeldshore says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
It does not mean the trend is zero. People who understand statistics will understand that the statement that the 95% confidence cone includes the possibility of zero trend is very different than saying that the measured trend is actually zero.
However the average of the satellite data does in fact show that the trend is 0 over 15 years. WFT does not enable us to just combine UAH and RSS, so I did things differently. See the result that the average slope is 0 since December 1997:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

January 14, 2013 11:22 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

January 15, 2013 12:17 am

davidmhoffer,
I understand your irritation, the more so because the evidence of failure in question is all around you. Yes, there is always Zimbabwe, if you want to feel good about your special backyard. Please note that I was talking about democracy, not about a Republic where the right to vote must be earned.
Per capita income? Excellent example: it stopped growing among working people a generation ago. Middle class wealth? Depends on what you call “middle class” but in any case most of it goes to taxes, which are wasted in so many ways, and in such amounts, that Robert Mugabe won’t dream about it in his happiest hour… Quality of life? Darn, what an excellent example again! I’ve seen people in rural Turkmenistan enjoying a quality of life American suburbanites have no clue about. Education levels??? You must be kidding. There ain’t no such thing as education any more, while something they call “higher education” is so expensive, while useless, that it indentures people for life. Human rights? Ignored whenever the ruling elite needs to ignore them. Freedom of religion? As long as you believe in some BS that makes you a safe mooing milking cow, yeah, sure, go ahead and build your mosque. Freedom of speech? Only for retired professors, as Milton Fridman gracefully remarked. OK, let’s talk longevity, who lives the longest? Georgians, Bolivians, and Lebanese.
Enough?

January 15, 2013 12:18 am

Prestidigitation = quick or ready fingering, a valuable asset in sleight of hand acts.

January 15, 2013 12:24 am

P.S. Obesity is a sign of poverty (poor quality of food leads to overeating). People born in rich families are usually lean. Many obese people (including me) are obese not because they eat to much but because their metabolism was disrupted by hunger and terrible food in their childhood.

January 15, 2013 12:55 am

The UK taxpayer has paid 30 million UK pounds for the computer and goodness knows how much CO2 to keep it running for forecasts as useful as these. Note the north of England is almost always colder than the rest of England probably because it is in the north and when the cold blasts from Europe come they hit the east of the country first.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/?tab=regionalForecast
UK Outlook for Monday 28 Jan 2013 to Monday 11 Feb 2013:
There is greater than average uncertainty through this period, with no strong signal for any one weather type to dominate. However, on balance colder conditions are more favoured rather than the milder weather experienced so far this winter.
Issued at: 0400 on Mon 14 Jan 2013″
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/wm/wm_forecast_weather_noscript.html
UK Outlook for Tuesday 29 Jan 2013 to Tuesday 12 Feb 2013:
Colder than average conditions are favoured across many parts of the UK, especially in the north and east. Whilst there is no strong signal for rainfall patterns through this period, drier than average conditions are more likely in the north, whereas the south may have near or even slightly above average rainfall. The frequency of snow events through this period may be more than experienced so far this winter.
Updated: 1139 on Mon 14 Jan 2013

January 15, 2013 1:21 am

The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).
=================
The Fraud Act 2000 has been replaced by the 2006 Act. The offence you are looking for is Section 2, Fraud by misrepresentation

AlecM
January 15, 2013 1:36 am

I feel sorry for the many decent people in the Met. Office who came under the control of IPCC co-founder Sir John Houghton, more recently the WWF carbon traders.
Houghton’s treatise has three key mistakes. The main one is to claim the 1906 Schuster-Schwarzchild two-stream approximation applies at atmospheric boundaries. It only works in the bulk where the phenomena are scalars. To apply it at boundaries fails to take into account that temperature radiation fields interact by forming their vector sum and only net IR can do thermodynamic work.
So the models assume wrongly the Earth’s surface radiates real energy as if an isolated black body in a vacuum. They justify this by assuming the temperature signal of a single pyrometer looking UP at the lower atmosphere is the energy flux they call ‘back radiation’. This is a 50 year old mistake from Meteorology; it’s NOT an energy flow.
The side effect of applying standard radiative thermal equilibrium physics is there is virtually no net surface IR emission in the main GHG bands, e.g. CO2 15 micron.
At TOA they make a similar error, to assume a flux equivalent to OLR radiates downwards to make 360° emission. They argue this is needed because Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation applies at TOA, forgetting this only applies at radiative thermal equilibrium. The switch from mainly convective heat transfer to radiative, just above the lower cloud level, is not equilibrium. There can be no direct IR thermalisation, standard IR physics.
The third mistake is to assume the atmosphere radiates as a grey body. This is wrong; the atmospheric window is a very powerful part of the Earth’s real GHE. There are other errors but not from Houghton.
It’ll take some time to convince the climate science establishment they have been part of the biggest mass scientific delusion in history and ‘positive feedback’ is because they create a perpetual motion machine!

Roy
January 15, 2013 2:15 am

Gary Pearse says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm
Note that the ocean (SST) has faithfully not warmed since 1997 either and this is a Norwegian graph. Ignore the 37 month running average.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

I think you exaggerate slightly. The graph shows that the sea continued to warm after 1997 but has not done so since about 2002.

January 15, 2013 2:20 am

People working for the BBC weather and the Met Office are not all blind to what is going on, but they have to follow the official mantra of the ‘global warming’. Occasionally there is a fair science only based appraisal, as I show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSW2012-13.htm
No mention of the GHG or AGW.

January 15, 2013 2:57 am

When I plot the SST figures from HadSST2 for 1998 to 2012, the linear trendlines give:
NH SST y = 0.0044x + 0.3421
SH SST y = -0.005x + 0.3299
Global SST y = -0.0003x + 0.3359

MikeB
January 15, 2013 3:18 am

joeldshore says: January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Joel,
This is a very interesting graph that you present. The trend line from 1975 to present does indeed show a greater rate of warming than the trend line from 1975 to 1997. However, this should be a warning not to use straight line fits unless the underlying trend is known to be a straight line. The clue is that the end point of the 1975-2013 trend ends up way above any of the temperatures at the end of the series. This is a sort of statistical ‘trick’ isn’t it? Nevertheless it does illustrate an important statistical danger.
Rather more interesting trend lines are obtained if adjust your graph to separate the warming at the end of the 20th century from the cooling that has occurred in the 21st century. Here is your graph modified to show this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend:2013
Yep. It shows absolutely that rather than warming just having just stopped, temperatures have actually fallen steadily throughout this century…. And that isn’t a statistical trick!
If you want to see what happens to temperatures over the last few years then , of course, you look at the temperatures for those years. There is no point at looking at temperatures outside those years, because they are not relevant. No one denies that temperatures rose by a fraction of a degree at the end of the 20th century. The important fact today is that temperatures are now falling (as the plot from Hadcrut4 clearly shows).
This is a serious problem for any theory that deems CO2 to be the main driver of climate. Remember that James Hansen testified to the senate that temperatures would rise between 2 and 4 degrees during the first decade of this century. Instead they have fallen.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/paintimage834.jpg

Vince Causey
January 15, 2013 3:30 am

Graham W,
Infinity does NOT exist. Not in any physical reality. Infinity is a mathematical construct. It is so unreal, that when infinities start appearing in equations governing physics, it sets alarm bells ringing.
Solutions to general relativity, for example, give rise to black holes having infinite gravity at their centres. Although the black holes are plausible enough, nobody believes that gravity becomes infinite at the singularity, and for that reason simply say “Einsteins equations break down at the singularity.” Some conjectures propose ring like structures instead of a singularity, but unfortunately we can’t observe whats inside the event horizon.
Infinity is not real.

AlecM
January 15, 2013 3:54 am

Au contraire Vince, infinity does exist.
It is the capability, unchecked, of a demagogic politician like Gore, Obama or Blair to tax the population to create the change to society they know will convert their Earthly Reputation to that of a God on Earth.
The IPCC climate fraud is their excuse………………..

johanna
January 15, 2013 4:07 am

david m hoffer, thanks for putting alex straight on the ‘death of democracy’ meme. His subsequent post, about how he is obese because of things out of his control when he was a child, kinda says it all.
We are all aware of the shortcomings of democracy, in its various forms, and they are discussed here and elsewhere every day. But, the sirens who promise us Nirvana if only we would give up our individual rights are truly to be feared.

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 4:11 am

joeldshore:
re your post at January 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm.
When addressing the issue of how long there has been no discernible change (at 95% confidence) in global temperature one starts from now and assesses past periods of time until one discerns a statistically significant difference from zero trend.
All data sets show more than 15 years of recent no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature.
But you claim one has to remove the 1998 ENSO peak from the data to compare the result to climate model ‘projections’. Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong because I explained the matter to you on a previous WUWT thread.
I repeat the explanation now for the sake of others who may not know you are repeating what you know to be a falsehood.
Firstly, the models do not emulate ENSO which is an emergent property of the climate system. Therefore, if ENSO is a significant climatic effect then the failure of the models to emulate it demonstrates the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth. In other words, the models are useless for ‘projecting’ the climate of the real Earth.
Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).
You are spouting disinformation, and you know your are spouting disinformation.
Richard

Joe Grappa
January 15, 2013 4:19 am

In case you did not get the information I sent via the contact form, here it is again.
one of your moderators plays fast and loose with the messages he moderates, mis-representing what the sender tried to post.
I tried to post in the ‘has the met office committed fraud’ thread.
My first try said, close to verbatim:
Maybe Lord Monckton should make a speech in the House of Lords on the rascality of the Met office.
This was blocked by your moderator with the comment:
[snip. Take your ad-hominem comments elsewhere. They are not welcome here. — mod.]
I tried again with:
All I did was suggest that Lord Monckton should make a speech in the House of Lords.
Blocked again with the comment:
[snip. Nice try. However, any further such replies will be deleted without comment. — mod.]
Your moderator, who sounds like he is about 16 years old, is acting disgracefully and scarring an otherwise sensible site.
[Reply: Your original comment – which was not as portrayed above – was clearly an ad hominem attack against LM regarding his standing in the House of Lords. It was snipped based on that. The decision has been made, and any further discussion of the matter will be deleted. — mod.]

Editor
January 15, 2013 4:29 am

Lord Monckton,
There is an interesting law in the USA. It is the RICO statute. It says that acting as a “corrupt organization” brings special penalties and has somewhat looser standards for evidence of some types of crimes. One only needs to show things like “corrupt influence”. (It is “RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act”) As we are clearly seeing corrupted organizations, and there’s no doubt about the racket… looks like an easy fit.
Originally drafted for Mafia and Drug gangs, the law was so loosely worded that all manner of things have been shoved through it. (In one case, a private jet airplane was found guilty of a crime, impounded etc. even though the owners and no other person were found guilty…)
http://www.thirdamendment.com/rico.html
Has an interesting story in it. But more interesting is what the Supreme Court said:

West Hartford ultimately lost its case, but on January 24 the the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, by the letter of the RICO law, anti-abortion protests may qualify as “racketeer influenced and corrupt.” Whether such protests are protected by the First Amendment will be decided in another case later this term. Given the Court’s close attention to this issue, one must wonder what is at stake in this conflict.

If expressing ones opinion in a protest can come under RICO, surely a coordinated action by folks across many national bounds to extract $Billions (Or pounds / Billions) via false pretenses can also qualify? Heck, if finding a bit of marijuana on an airplane can get the airplane arrested, well, surely the standard of evidence is low..
So, if I might suggest, while the UK courts are entertaining to watch, the US laws have lots of teeth, and use them with indiscriminant abandon… Perhaps our rather over ambitious and ill controlled pit-bull law would be more, um, “useful”… I do believe some US Funds ended up at the various NGO Funding Fests… and there’s clearly email showing collusion with folks at NASA and NCDC…

January 15, 2013 4:39 am

“which checks out as bad here: http://verify-email.org/ ” – Cool! Thanks for the link. Not bad, come for an education on Climate and get some tech tips to boot!

dmacleo
January 15, 2013 4:39 am

Burch says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm
do down
vb (tr, adverb)
1. to belittle or humiliate
2. to deceive or cheat
******************
Thank you, had never heard that before and only did a quick search due to time limitations.

Editor
January 15, 2013 5:26 am

As Monckton says, the Met claimed that August 2012 (which David Rose based his article on) was the “tail end of a double dip La Nina”.
I challenged them on this as in their 3-month outlook in October stated
In recent weeks El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific have weakened further and predictions are now equally balanced between neutral and El Niño over the next three months
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/uk-met-office-caught-lying/
Between the end of La Nina in February, and August, UAH shows a rise of 0.33C, which clearly shows that El Nino conditions had taken over.
When I pointed this inconvenient fact out to them, the Met replied
Please also note also that there are many factors which impact global temperature, in addition to the state of the ENSO cycle. The natural climate variability dominates any changes in global temperature values over timescales of a few months or years.”
Bear in mind that HADCRUT shows an increase in temperature of 0.31C since 1980!

Graham W
January 15, 2013 5:34 am

Vince Causey: Thanks for your reply. You are correct in so far as science must not accept the existence of infinity, as demonstrated by the fact “zero” and “one” cannot exist so long as infinity does. So as I implied, for the basis of mathematics and science, we must assume that “zero” and “one” does exist, and that infinity doesn’t, to make any sort of attempt to understand our world for ourselves. With that in mind, I would like to revise part of the comment I made at January 14, 2013 at 5:07 pm to read as follows: “Being as how science is attempting to predict future outcomes of a chaotic system, and since what we do know about such a system is likely to be outweighed by what we don’t to a very large extent, I would not be at all surprised if the extrapolation of any of these four trends came to closely resemble the future 30 years of climate change or stability…or none of them at all.”
From a philosophical perspective however, you are on shakier ground. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of infinity since our brains are not infinite in size to enable us to even conceive of the idea, let alone follow through the implications of it’s existence or non-existence.
Regardless, my post of January 14, 2013 at 5:07pm still stands (now revised). My last post was more just something that was on my mind and I felt the need to get it out there.

Editor
January 15, 2013 5:35 am

In another, not entirely unconnected issue, Lord Deben (ex John Gummer) has been discovered to be a Council Member of the shadowy, extremist organisation, the World Future Council.
(You may recall this was one of Parncutt’s favourite organisations!)
WFC policies clearly conflict with his role as Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, as well as other business in the House of Lords. And yet he has NOT declared his membership of the WFC (which is a policy making position) in his Register of Interests at the House of Lords.
At my request, the Commissioner for Standards at the House of Lords has initiated an investigation.
Full details on the WFC here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/

Editor
January 15, 2013 5:54 am

I would be very interested to know, that in view of the cherry picked data to “prove” that AGW was occurring, whether in fact the global temperature had actually remained the same or had in fact fallen. The premise of AGW is wrong at the percentages of CO2 we have at present but so is the data, making the Met Office’s predictions doubly fraudulent. The Met Offices forecasts are so wrong that something very basic must be causing these errors; my guess would be their baseline temperatures, which are too high.

Reply to  andrewmharding
January 15, 2013 7:26 am

andrewmharding:
Contrary to your understanding, the Met Office does not make forecasts of the values of climatic variables.. It makes “projections” of them ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/future/projections ). While forecasts are susceptible to validation testing, the same is not true of projections. As the Met Office is deprived of information about its errors, it is natural for the organization to make lots of them.

AlecM
January 15, 2013 6:24 am

andrewharding: my post above explains why the Met. office modelling is wrong. They exaggerate IR absorption by a lower bound of 6.8 times and offset this extra warming by double real low level cloud optical depth in hind casting. This is what creates the imaginary positive feedback needed to prove that the GHE is the same as lapse rate warming. It’s a real mess and they have to go through mental hoops to get it to sound plausible. Go deeply into the physics and it is implausible.
These models have the predictive capability of spilling the entrails of cattle and seeing how it displays on the ground. This is not to criticise the GCMs but they need about a million times more cells to be useful. This gets the 100 km UK lateral features down to 100 m when they can model stuff like wind shear and tornadoes, the latter being the equivalent in the atmosphere of a Dyson vortex, sucking global warming to the stratosphere!

Reply to  AlecM
January 15, 2013 7:39 am

AlecM:
Contrary to your understanding, modern climatic GCMs do not predict. They “project” ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/future/projections )
Often, “predictions” are conflated with “projections” but the two words have differing meanings. A prediction is an extrapolation from an observed state of a system to an unobserved but observable state of the same system. The latter state is the outcome of an event in a statistical population. For global warming climatology there is no such population and thus there is not the possibility of making predictions.

Silver Ralph
January 15, 2013 6:51 am

richardscourtney says: January 14, 2013 at 2:01 pm
The House has no power to prosecute except in the case of misdemeanor in the House or by a Lord.
______________________________
the House of Lords and the Law Lords were the highest authority until 2009, so what has replaced it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_United_Kingdom_House_of_Lords_cases
.

Steve Richards
January 15, 2013 7:43 am

In the UK we have these other options:
Misconduct in public office:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
and a judicial review:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 8:14 am

Silver Ralph:
re the question to me in your post at January 15, 2013 at 6:51 am.
If you had bothered to read the link you provided in your post then you would have seen that it begins saying

This page lists legal decisions of the House of Lords. Until 30 September 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appellate court for the United Kingdom. Cases were determined not by the House of Lords itself, but by its Judicial Committee, consisting of up to nine legally qualified peers, generally referred to as “Law Lords”. On 1 October 2009 its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

i.e. the answer to your question is
“On 1 October 2009 its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”
We really do need a higher standard of troll on WUWT. (Sigh)
Richard

January 15, 2013 8:37 am

Of course they have committed fraud. The real problem is like Saville …. the establishment just don’t see what is wrong with their behaviour.
However I notice the post above refers to the charge which I think is more apt “misconduct in a public office”. I don’t think you’d have any problem getting any jury in the land to convict … but there’s no chance at all the establishment can allow the public to hold them to account in this manner.
As you said – the law only applies to us not them.

January 15, 2013 9:04 am

Let’s do a simple calculation. It was about 20 years ago that the first numerical models for forecasting started being used. There have been about 1000 weekly forecasts.
Because the long term weather/climate uses THE SAME physical laws only applied at a DIFFERENT SCALE, we would expect the learning curve for the long term forecast to take teh save time to reach the same level of skill.
So, from what we know, how long will it take to produce a century forecast as good as the current weekly forecast?
100years x 1000 trial runs = 100,000 years
OK, perhaps that sounds harsh? So let’s say we want a forecast as good as their current seasonal forecast? 20 years x 4 = 80 trials. So, it will only take 8000 years to get a century forecast as good as the current seasonal forecast!
This isn’t rocket science … all this is saying is that if you are dealing with similar systems and applying very similar models and all that is different is the scale of the events you are dealing with (not the underlying laws) … then it ought to take roughly the same number of runs through the prediction-measurement-evaluation cycle to improve the model for any time period.

Reply to  Mike Haseler
January 15, 2013 10:04 am

Mike Haseler:
In other words, in 100,000 years climatologists will have 1000 statistically independent observed events of 100 years duration each. At this point in time, if they are lucky climatologists will be in a position to build and validate a predictive model with a forecasting horizon of 100 years. Such a model would provide policy makers on CO2 emissions with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions.
Currently, the temperature time series since the year 1850 provides climatologists with only 1 such event but at least 150 events are required for one to build and validate a predictive model. From this and other evidence it can be concluded that modern climatological models provide policy makers with no information about the outcomes from their policy makers. All of the information that gullible policy makers think they have was fabricated by equivocating climatologists.

Billy Liar
January 15, 2013 9:32 am

Terry Oldberg says:
January 15, 2013 at 7:39 am
Contrary to your understanding, modern climatic GCMs do not predict. They “project” ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/future/projections )
You might want to tell the Met Office – I tried; they responded with the IPCC definitions.
Lo and behold, the video where Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, talks about the UK Climate Projections 2009 is still up and still confuses projections and predictions (At 3:39 into the video she starts talking about predictions; this is repeated in the titling at 4:03 and the subsequent titling).

Reply to  Billy Liar
January 15, 2013 1:03 pm

Billy Liar:
Dr. Pope is employing the climatologist’s trick of drawing an improper inference from an equivocation. Logicians call this trick the “equivocation fallacy.”
An “equivocation” is an argument in which a polysemic term (term with multiple meanings) changes meanings in the middle of the argument. That a term changes meaning renders an inference that is drawn from the associated equivocation improper.
In the literature of climatology, the word pair prediction/projection is a polysemic term provided that the terms in it are used as synonyms. Climatologists use this and other polysemic terms with a high degree of success in gulling the public.

Werner Brozek
January 15, 2013 9:33 am

Donald L. Klipstein says:
January 14, 2013 at 10:01 pm
The banter about so-many-years-without warming is now expanding from 16 or 17 to 18?
In this post we are often talking about two different things and it is too easy to get confused between the two. I will use RSS as an example. There has been no warming for 16 years and a month. However there has been no 95% statistically significant warming for 23 years. That is because there is a greater than 5% chance that there has been no warming for 23 years. To see an illustration of the above points, see the following:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

rogerknights
January 15, 2013 12:17 pm

dmacleo says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:39 am
Burch says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm
do down
vb (tr, adverb)
1. to belittle or humiliate
2. to deceive or cheat
******************
Thank you, had never heard that before and only did a quick search due to time limitations.

It’s a Britishism. It’s never used in America, except maybe archly.

Sunspot
January 15, 2013 12:17 pm

Terry Oldberg says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:04 am
Correct!!!!
It’s all about money. Your government just wants an excuse to raise taxes and happy to fund anyone that supports “man made global warming”. They don’t care if it’s true or not. On the other hand, if the government came out and said “we would like to improve the air quaility in larger cities” there would be little argument from the voters.

joeldshore
January 15, 2013 12:26 pm

richardscourtney says:

But you claim one has to remove the 1998 ENSO peak from the data to compare the result to climate model ‘projections’. Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong because I explained the matter to you on a previous WUWT thread.
I repeat the explanation now for the sake of others who may not know you are repeating what you know to be a falsehood.
….

Your argument here is wrong for several reasons:
(1) The reason that ENSO is removed from both the data and the model runs is so that one can increase the signal-to-noise ratio and hence get a better estimate of the trend, which means it takes fewer years to detect whether or not the observed trend differs from the range of trends that the models as possible. Hence, by skipping this step, you are ensuring that it will take more years to determine whether or not there is a discrepancy. It is as simple as that.
(2) The authors of that NOAA report did not report how many years of a trend that is not different than zero with 95% statistically-significance are necessary for there to be a discrepancy. They reported how many years for which the trend would have to actually be ZERO when you measure it one needs so that the trend lies outside the 95% confidence cone for trends as predicted by the models. Saying a measured trend is actually zero and saying that the uncertainty in the measured trend does not exclude zero with 95% confidence are two different things.
Either of these points mean that you (and Monckton) are misapplying the NOAA falsification criterion. You can’t just take someone’s criterion and change it because you don’t like it and then use the changed criterion to justify the conclusion that you want to reach.

bw
January 15, 2013 12:43 pm

Read the AlecM post again regarding Houghton. He and Hansen are at the root of “IPCC science” Their version of physics is then used by the modelers, becoming embeded with each iteration.
Atmospheric IR thermodynamics described by AlecM is basic training. Simple IR thermo as taught in engineering has a long history of successful application. Engineers from the 1930s knew the IR properties of CO2 and water vapor from boiler combustion gas.
There are more huge lies, such as the claim that CO2 “accumulates” in the atmosphere for “centuries”
That bizarre claim is so outrageous it defies a sanity check. Ask anyone with any understanding of the global carbon cycle. Real atmospheric CO2 flux rates are at least 20 percent annually. That means ALL CO2 in the atmosphere recycles within a few years to the oceans and surface biology. If you stopped all biological respiration, atmospheric CO2 would vanish rapidly and be gone entirely within 10 years. (Excepting the abiotic exchange with the ocean). But by then all photosynthesis would be totally dead.
Except for Argon, the entire atmosphere is entirely of biological origin.

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 1:12 pm

joeldshore:
I take severe objection to your offensive and untrue post at January 15, 2013 at 12:26 pm.
My post January 15, 2013 at 4:11 am explained that you had knowingly presented disinformation. Your response (that I am answering) does not address either of my two explanations but iterates your disinformation then says to me

Either of these points mean that you (and Monckton) are misapplying the NOAA falsification criterion. You can’t just take someone’s criterion and change it because you don’t like it and then use the changed criterion to justify the conclusion that you want to reach.

NO! I DID NOT!
If you can find fault with either of my explanations then say where I am wrong: I like to learn. But do NOT iterate your disinformation then accuse me of doing something I did not.
Richard

Editor
January 15, 2013 1:19 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:58 p

Willis Eschenbach;

Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.

Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.

Well, if I chance to see a self-deluding BAU boosting arrogant, I’ll be sure to let him know you feel that way …
Seriously, my friend, is that your best shot? You’re approaching incoherence. This is a thread about the Met Office and fraud.
Y’know, Ace, this thing of you popping up on various threads where I have commented, just to make yet another ridiculous attempt to bust my chops regardless of the subject of the thread, that all would be just kind of boring if it were not for the creepy stalker aspect of it.
Seriously, bro’, you’re losing it, this thing of following me around just to attack me is turning into an obsession on your part. You should turn your mind to something productive. Endless carping and nit-picking and destructive behavior aren’t good for a man’s spirit.
w.

peter luthy
January 15, 2013 1:27 pm

“In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
WIRGO

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 1:31 pm

Willis Eschenbach:
re your post at January 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm.
You have no need to be personally upset at the troll posting as ‘Climate Ace’. It may seem to you that he/she/it is stalking you but that is probably an impression gained from taking most interest in threads which you have headed. However, ‘Climate Ace’ has also been snowing several other WUWT threads with his/her/its drivel.
I hope that helps.
Richard

Gunga Din
January 15, 2013 1:46 pm

johanna says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:07 am
david m hoffer, thanks for putting alex straight on the ‘death of democracy’ meme. His subsequent post, about how he is obese because of things out of his control when he was a child, kinda says it all.
We are all aware of the shortcomings of democracy, in its various forms, and they are discussed here and elsewhere every day. But, the sirens who promise us Nirvana if only we would give up our individual rights are truly to be feared.
================================================================
People rightly want the freedom to choose. They will gladly accept that freedom. What they don’t want is the personal responsibilty and consequences of an errant choice.
Those who appear to promise freedom with no consequences are true threats to any democratic government.

joeldshore
January 15, 2013 1:59 pm

Werner Brozek says:

However the average of the satellite data does in fact show that the trend is 0 over 15 years. WFT does not enable us to just combine UAH and RSS, so I did things differently. See the result that the average slope is 0 since December 1997:

In the satellite data, the effect of ENSO is even more pronounced than it is at the surface. So, the statement about having to remove the effects of ENSO is even more important for them. And, in fact, if you look at your plot, it is clear that your trend is being strongly influenced by starting right at the beginning of the big El Nino.
It is also important to note that if you cherrypick exact intervals, which temperature data set you use, etc. enough then it is not too surprising that you can come up with something that falls outside the 95% confidence range. After all, if I do an experiment, say, 20 times, then it is more likely than not that at least one of the values that I get for that experiment will fall outside the 95% confidence range. This is why statistics can get so slippery, particularly when people try to mine the data to get a particular result.
MikeB says:

The clue is that the end point of the 1975-2013 trend ends up way above any of the temperatures at the end of the series. This is a sort of statistical ‘trick’ isn’t it?

(1) The departure is one that could easily be due to weather fluctuations, such as those from La Nina (having two significant La Ninas and no strong El Nino in the last few years) and/or the solar mininum.
(2) Yes, it is a “statistical trick”. It is a trick called fitting over a large enough interval that you are not fitting to noise or, in other words, so that the uncertainty in your trend estimate is not too large.

Here is your graph modified to show this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend:2013
Yep. It shows absolutely that rather than warming just having just stopped, temperatures have actually fallen steadily throughout this century…. And that isn’t a statistical trick!

What it is is simply fitting to noise. The error bars on your trend estimate, if you bothered to compute them, would be so large as to be compatible with a large range of trends. So, in fact you cannot conclude what you claim. This graph illustrates the point nicely: http://climateandrisk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/skeptics-view-of-global-warming.jpg Global warming has now stopped several times since the current trend started in the mid-1970s according to your sort of fitting technique, except that each other time before it has turned out that it hasn’t.

joeldshore
January 15, 2013 2:00 pm

mpainter says:

If anyone is interested in evaluating Joel Shore, I refer them to this thread: “Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It’s Government Climate Science” posted by Dr. Tim Ball on Jan. 8.

In fact, let’s give them links into the discussion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/#comment-1196353
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/#comment-1197195
Then they can read what I actually said rather than how you simplistically summarize what I said.

joeldshore
January 15, 2013 2:15 pm

richardscourtney says:

If you can find fault with either of my explanations then say where I am wrong: I like to learn.

I thought I explained it to you pretty clearly http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#comment-1199226 but let’s try a direct response to your two points.
You said:

Firstly, the models do not emulate ENSO which is an emergent property of the climate system. Therefore, if ENSO is a significant climatic effect then the failure of the models to emulate it demonstrates the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth. In other words, the models are useless for ‘projecting’ the climate of the real Earth.

If by “emulate ENSO”, you mean that the models can’t, say, predict the specific pattern of ENSO, e.g., like the fact that there was a large El Nino in 1998, that is because that is something that is very sensitive to initial conditions. And, your statement, “the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth” is a classic all-or-nothing fallacy. In science, our models / theories are never perfect but that doesn’t mean we can never use models / theories to predict things. There is always some finite probability that the model / prediction will be wrong in a prediction…but that is a necessary consequence of the fact that science is inductive.
If by “emulate ENSO”, you just mean that the models have ENSO-like fluctuations, then the problem is not that the models don’t have these (to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity) but rather that they can’t predict the exact time evolution of ENSO because of the sensitivity to initial conditions.

Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).

This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.

D Böehm Stealey
January 15, 2013 2:31 pm

Planet Earth is contradicting joelshore. If he doesn’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that we can do to help him.

Gail Combs
January 15, 2013 3:01 pm

D Böehm Stealey says:
January 15, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Planet Earth is contradicting joelshore. If he doesn’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that we can do to help him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He doesn’t want help he wants to advance The Cause. ‘Science’ is to be manipulated to support the Cause and that is exactly what he is doing.
You are working from the point of view of an objective reality. I suggest you read Economic Theory: The Philosophy Of Karl Marx to understand the point of view of these ‘scientists’ who do not believe there is an objective reality.
The essay explains all the twisting and turning that we find so bewildering.

mpainter
January 15, 2013 3:03 pm

Everything contradicts Joel Shore; he contradicts himself:
January 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm Joel Shore says:
“There is no special “AGW theory” to incorporate into the climate models.”
Then, he contradicts this statement at 8:37 am: “I did not say that there is no theory of AGW… but that this theory is formulated / supported on… evidence from climate models.

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 3:21 pm

joeldshore:
I am replying to your post at January 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm.
I pointed out that climate models fail to emulate the emergent property of ENSO and, therefore, they don’t emulate the climate system of the real Earth. You have replied

If by “emulate ENSO”, you mean that the models can’t, say, predict the specific pattern of ENSO, e.g., like the fact that there was a large El Nino in 1998, that is because that is something that is very sensitive to initial conditions. And, your statement, “the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth” is a classic all-or-nothing fallacy. In science, our models / theories are never perfect but that doesn’t mean we can never use models / theories to predict things. There is always some finite probability that the model / prediction will be wrong in a prediction…but that is a necessary consequence of the fact that science is inductive.
If by “emulate ENSO”, you just mean that the models have ENSO-like fluctuations, then the problem is not that the models don’t have these (to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity) but rather that they can’t predict the exact time evolution of ENSO because of the sensitivity to initial conditions.

NO!
ENSO is a variation to Pacific Ocean surface water temperature distributions which seem to be induced by winds. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS REPORTED TO EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOUR. So, as I said, the models do NOT emulate ENSO.
Importantly, as I said, ENSO is an emergent property of the global climate system. If a model of a system exhibits emergent properties of the system then there is reason to suppose the model may predict system behaviour. If it fails to emulate an important emergent property then there is no a priori reason to suppose the model will emulate other system behaviour.
Think of it this way.
Someone models the central nervous system of a gazelle from first principles (n.b. the central nervous system of a gazelle has similar – probably less – complexity to that of the Earth’s climate system). Gazelles leap away when lions approach. This leaping at the sight of approaching lions is an emergent property of a gazelle’s central nervous system. This behaviour is not learned: evolution has built-in this response of the gazelle’s central nervous system. But the model does not exhibit this behaviour of a gazelle. Clearly, the model is inadequate for predicting behaviour of the gazelle’s central nervous system.
Nobody would claim that model has useful predictive capability because it is not emulating an important emergent property of the modelled system.
Similarly, the failure of climate models to emulate the important emergent property of ENSO indicates they are not emulating the modelled system sufficiently for it to be assumed the models have any useful predictive ability.
I wrote

Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).

You have replied saying

This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.

You “help” me!? Don’t be an idiot!
You are plain wrong. The NOAA 2008 Report on ‘State of the Climate’ said

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak.
Richard

wayne
January 15, 2013 3:50 pm

“Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?”
Not so sir.
You are not going far enough to instead call the fraud a grand larceny of tax monies in all of the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA if other countries should not also be included in that list. This is a global grand larceny without a doubt.

January 15, 2013 4:13 pm

joeldshore (Jan. 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM):
In saying “…that doesn’t mean that we can never use models/theories to predict things” and “There is always some finite probability that the model/prediction will be wrong in a prediction” you imply that the models make predictions. I am under the impression that while the climate models of AR4 project, they do not predict. A prediction differs from a projection in the respect that an independent event in a statistical population underlies a prediction but not a projection. That the events are missing for the AR4 models has a number of important consequences. One is that the claims of these models are insusceptible to validation thus lying outside science. Please comment.

Werner Brozek
January 15, 2013 4:35 pm

joeldshore says:
January 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm
In the satellite data, the effect of ENSO is even more pronounced than it is at the surface. So, the statement about having to remove the effects of ENSO is even more important for them.
You have a point, but the following La Ninas nullified the effect of the 1998 El Nino. So if we make a plot that follows both the El Nino and La Ninas, we get a 0 slope since December 2000. So even this shows there has been no warming for 12 years. However this not long enough for NOAA. But if I do go long enough for NOAA, I could be accused of cherry picking. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/uah/from:1996/plot/rss/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2000.9/trend

Graham W
January 15, 2013 5:02 pm

@joeldshore:
“This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.”
So what you’re saying is, really, that your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement is that they proposed a period of time over which it is actually impossible to show statistically that there was no trend (due to the noise in the data). By saying 15 years, a time period over which the 95% confidence cone of an observed trend would more than likely include a positive, negative and zero trend due to the noise in the data over that time, they were knowingly making a statement that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to refute. Seems like a strange and somewhat dishonest thing for them to do.

Joel Shore
January 15, 2013 7:26 pm

richardscourtney says:

NO!
ENSO is a variation to Pacific Ocean surface water temperature distributions which seem to be induced by winds. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS REPORTED TO EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOUR. So, as I said, the models do NOT emulate ENSO.

Well, this is not an area that I have studied in any detail but a 1 minute google search turned up this paper from 2006 that thought the coupled models were doing a reasonably good job with ENSO: ftp://cola.gmu.edu/pub/ctr/ctr_210.pdf I imagine things have improved since then.
At any rate, this is totally irrelevant to the question of whether you can simply apply NOAA’s criterion to the data without doing what they say you MUST do to the data before applying the criterion. Making excuses about whether you think the models are doing a good enough job simulating ENSO is just throwing up hay to hide the fact that you are falsely claiming to be applying their criterion when you are in fact not doing it the way they say you have to.
As for your continuing confusion on what the NOAA report said, they said:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

I can understand how if they had instead written “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level) for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” then one could make the argument that they meant it in the way that you are interpreting it (although it would actually be pretty ambiguous). However, the way they have written it makes it clear that “(at the 95% level)” modifies “rules out” not “zero trends”.
Graham W says:

By saying 15 years, a time period over which the 95% confidence cone of an observed trend would more than likely include a positive, negative and zero trend due to the noise in the data over that time, they were knowingly making a statement that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to refute. Seems like a strange and somewhat dishonest thing for them to do.

I don’t follow your logic at all. (You may not even be understanding what I am trying to say.) In fact, thinking about what is a reasonable statement makes it quite clear that my interpretation is the more reasonable one: If they really meant to say that a 15-year period in which the 95% confidence cone of the observed trend includes zero meant there is inconsistency between the model and data, then that would imply that such an inconsistency would occur even if the best-fit trend over that time period were almost as large as the average trend that the models predict: After all, over a 15-year period, the uncertainty in the trend is somewhere around 0.14 C per decade by one estimate! ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php ) Worse yet, since the calculation of uncertainties for correlated data is not an exact science, they would really need to specify more detail about how one should calculate this 95% confidence interval.
My interpretation (the one that follows from actually reading what they wrote and assuming they wrote it in the way that they meant it) is that you compute the trend over 15 years (after correcting for ENSO), take that value (without regard to what its uncertainty is) and if that value is zero or less, then that trend lies outside the 95% confidence interval for what the models predict. I don’t see anything at all that is statistically impossible to refute. And, the other thing that makes my interpretation more reasonable is that it doesn’t rely on ill-defined discussions of how one calculates the 95% confidence interval for the trend in the empirical data. You take data for a 15-year period, remove ENSO from the data in the way documented in the paper that they reference, fit a linear trend line by standard regression methods and you get something unambiguous that you can check: Is that trend greater than 0 or less than 0? If it is less than 0 then, you can conclude that there is a statistically-significant deviation from the model predictions with 95% confidence.

joeldshore
January 15, 2013 7:43 pm

I said:

I can understand how if they had instead written “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level) for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” then one could make the argument that they meant it in the way that you are interpreting it (although it would actually be pretty ambiguous).

Actually, a little further thought while I was in the shower (always the best time to get your thinking straight) made me realize that even this wording would not really support the interpretation of Richard and Monckton because it still talks about the simulations ruling out zero trends at the 95% confidence level. It doesn’t talk about data not ruling out zero trends at the 95% confidence level.
There is really no support for Monckton and Richard’s interpretation even if we assume that the authors put the parenthetical expression at the wrong point in that phrase. Simply put, your interpretation cannot be justified from what was written in the NOAA report.

Editor
January 15, 2013 7:53 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 15, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Willis Eschenbach:
re your post at January 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm.
You have no need to be personally upset at the troll posting as ‘Climate Ace’.
… [good stuff snipped] …

Richard, thank you for your kind thoughts.
However, let me assure you that I’m not upset by Ace. I find him and his fellows kind of humorous in their own bizarre manner, in part because they tend to be so predictable.
I don’t have the time or the interest to get “personally upset” with voices on the internet, so please set your mind at ease in that regard. Oh, I may write at times with an upset tone, or an angry tone, or any one of a host of tones, dramatic, sad, reflective, instructive, dispassionate, happy, the list is long … but I do so deliberately and with forethought.
It’s hard to explain. It’s not fake, my emotions about the world I live in are real, I’m a passionate man. But I don’t let my passions and my emotions run me. Instead, I use them when required, I release them as needed, I parse them to fit the situation, I conjure them up with my words. I’m not caught in my reaction to Ace. I picked that tone from a selection of possibilities, for reasons which are never entirely clear to me, but which seem to work somehow. Or at least folks are kind enough to say so.
My best to you, and thanks for your thoughts and contributions,
w.

January 15, 2013 10:59 pm

Joel,
Noise is signal we don’t comprehend, or wish to deny. The atmosphere recieves most of its energy from the oceans. The oceans recieve massive amounts of energy from UV, particularly in the crystal clear “dead zones” and their efforts to expunge this energy are frustrated by that superheated skin.
To continue the heart analogy begun earlier, ENSO is a palpitation, a fibrillation, a resonance of Rossby and Kelvin waves. But it is not noise, it is signal that indicates how the system works. Enso always overshoots the trend, but the 1997 El Nino was not exceptional, it was just a hinge.

January 15, 2013 11:19 pm

” You take data for a 15-year period, remove ENSO from the data”
This suggests ENSO is not a function included in the models. Why not include it?
If you tell me that the reason is because ENSO can’t be accurately predicted…… Well what does that say about the rest of the model? I believe an agent of Chaos is at work here confounding the predictors. (H/T Maxwell Smart and Edward Lorenz).

January 15, 2013 11:23 pm

OTOH if ENSO is in the models why do you need to remove it from the data?

David Cage
January 16, 2013 12:24 am

The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds,
Would [not] make a habit of doing that as they will ban you from the site as they did to me. Comment is only free if you are a leftists state sector worker with communist leanings as I discovered. To AGW disbelievers the site is a no go area.

David Cage
January 16, 2013 12:25 am

Don’t know how but Would not somehow mutated to Would to. Sorry folks.

Graham W
January 16, 2013 12:52 am

Joeldshore: I did understand what you were saying. Your response to me indicates that you did not comprehend the point I was making. You make the point that by your calculation the noise in the data is 0.14C over the 15 years. So I ask again, why would they make the statement that the models rule out zero trends for 15 years when over such a period of time it will not be possible to easy abolish whether or not there has been a zero trend due to the noise in the data?

Graham W
January 16, 2013 12:56 am

0.14C over ten years and “establish” not “easy abolish” (stupid predictive text on my iPhone).

richardscourtney
January 16, 2013 3:17 am

Joel Shore:
I am replying to your posts addressed to me at January 15, 2013 at 7:26 pm and January 15, 2013 at 7:43 pm.
Please read the responses to those posts from M Simon and Graham W. They provide complete answers to your nonsense.
Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule. I choose not to do that unless, of course, you invite me to.
Richard

Chris Wright
January 16, 2013 4:59 am

Fraud or simply bad science? There is obviously a difference between fraud and an honest mistake.
There’s a good example from 1998: Mann’s original hockey stick paper, MBH98.
He used an auto calibration period in the 20th century. The weighting of each proxy was determined by how well it matched the thermometer record. A good match could give a proxy hundreds of times more weighting than for poor matches.
On the face of it, this seems perfectly acceptable. But it has a fatal flaw. Suppose you feed in red noise (the drunkard’s walk). The method will pick out any drunkard’s walks that randomly happen to match the calibration. In other words, it will pick out drunkard’s walks that have a hockey blade. But, because the data is random, the earlier parts will average out to zero trend. Now you have a complete hockey stick: a flat blade and a sharp upwards blade. And yet the data is completely random. Mann’s method was certain to produce hockey sticks, whatever the data.
At this point it could be an honest mistake: the method seems to make sense.
However, it seems clear that Mann knew about this and he hid the results in a directory named Censored. In the following years many people, including Steve McIntyre, demonstrated that Mann’s method would indeed generate perfect hockey sticks from red noise. In a ClimateGate 2 email, a climate scientist relates how he too showed that Mann’s method generated hockey sticks from red noise.
And yet Mann insists there is nothing wrong with his method.
Yes, scientists often make mistakes. But if the mistake can be proven and the scientist simply ignores that, then he is a fraud.
Mann repeated this in 2008 with the Tiljander data. His method converted a cooling trend to a warming trend (upside-down Mann, as McIntyre described it). Mann is well aware of this, but again he refuses to do anything about it.
The sad, sad thing is that the people who should be protecting science against fraud have been steadfastly looking the other way.
No climate scientists or institutions such as the Met Office can claim they haven’t been warned about fraudulent behaviour. So, in my opinion, they are all a part of the fraud. And we are forced to pay for this fraud every time we receive an energy bill. This fraud will cost the world trillions of dollars. It is a crime against humanity.
Chris

January 16, 2013 5:28 am

Joel Shore is a secular saint!

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 5:35 am

Graham W says:

So I ask again, why would they make the statement that the models rule out zero trends for 15 years when over such a period of time it will not be possible to easy [establish] whether or not there has been a zero trend due to the noise in the data?

I am not sure why you are addressing this question to me since your argument, when you follow it through, provides support for my interpretation and shows how wrong Richard’s and Monckton’s is. Here’s the answer: It is not hard at all to establish what the trend has been by my interpretation of what they have written. You [after removing ENSO in the way described in the paper that they reference] just compute the trend by linear regression and that is the trend.
Now, you would say: “But, wait, because of noise the ‘real’ underlying trend could be greater or less than this.” And, my answer would be, “Yes. That is why a trend of 0 in the data is still compatible with the idea that warming is continuing.” But, you don’t have to worry about this: They have already taken it into account by running the climate models many times with perturbed initial conditions and looking at the distributions of trends that they get over 15 year periods [after removing the effect of ENSO] and they have apparently found that 95% of the time, the models give trends greater than 0 over such a 15 year period.
Now, let’s take a critical look at what Monckton and Richard are telling us to do: They want us to measure the trend, compute the uncertainty (at 95% confidence level) in that trend and if the 95% confidence cone includes zero, they want to conclude that there is a statistically-significant deviation with the model predictions. Let’s give an example that illustrates how perverse that is: Let’s say we measured a trend of 0.12 +/- 0.14 C per decade. Then by Richard and Monckton’s prescription, we would conclude that since we can’t rule out a zero trend with 95% confidence, then there is a statistically-significant deviation with the model predictions. Yet, the top of our 95% confidence boundary is a trend of 0.26 C per decade, which is easily above the average trend in the models (which is a bit less than 0.2 C per decade, basically between 0.15 and 0.2 C). Does it make any sense that a trend that is compatible with an underlying trend as high as 0.26 C per decade at the 95% confidence level would be so low that it shows a statistically-significant deviation from the models?!?! [In reality, the +/- 0.14 C per decade of uncertainty over 15 years may be a little high for data with ENSO removed since that removal process will reduce the uncertainty in the trend somewhat, but since Richard and Monckton insist on doing this exercise without removing ENSO then it is reasonable to use this estimate.]

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 5:46 am

M Simon says:

This suggests ENSO is not a function included in the models. Why not include it?

No…You remove the ENSO signal from both the models and the data. So, the models do have an ENSO signal in them. The reason to remove it is to reduce noise because the actual pattern of El Ninos and La Ninas that you get is very sensitive to the initial conditions.
If you tell me that the reason is because ENSO can’t be accurately predicted…… Well what does that say about the rest of the model? I believe an agent of Chaos is at work here confounding the predictors. (H/T Maxwell Smart and Edward Lorenz).
Chaos does not say that NOTHING can be predicted about the future. It says that things that are very sensitive to the initial conditions cannot be predicted. Certain things involving average behavior can be predicted. And, the extent to which you can or can’t predict things is best determined by experimenting with the models (and how it is done for both modern numerical weather prediction and for climate prediction): If you run the models with perturbed initial conditions, then you will find that some things are very sensitive to initial conditions and others are not.
For example, if you run one of the weather models to predict the weather in Rochester on July 4th of this year, you will get a fine weather map…but if you perturb the initial conditions even a tiny bit, you will get a completely different weather map.
However, if you run the model to predict the average temperature in the month of July as compared to the month of January in Rochester, you will find a temperature some 20 C warmer in July than January. And, if you perturb the initial conditions and run the model again, you will get this same result (within some variability, say, 20%).
Similarly, if you run a climate model 100 years in the future under some scenario of increasing greenhouse gases, then you will get a certain prediction of how the global temperature changes…and, if you then perturb the initial conditions and run it again, you will get a prediction for the global temperature change that is similar to the one that you got before. The particular ups-and-downs from year to year (due to ENSO and other things) will be different, but the basic trend will be the same.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 5:52 am

gymnosperm says:

Noise is signal we don’t comprehend, or wish to deny. The atmosphere recieves most of its energy from the oceans. The oceans recieve massive amounts of energy from UV, particularly in the crystal clear “dead zones” and their efforts to expunge this energy are frustrated by that superheated skin.

Even if you subscribe to some notion about a long-term effects due to El Nino and La Ninas, the process by which the ENSO signal is removed from the data does not affect the long-term trends, i.e., it removes only the short-term effects of ENSO. So, it should not be a problem.
However, even if you object to this whole process of removing ENSO, the solution is not to takes someone’s criterion that involves putting the data through this process, not go through the process, and then still apply their criterion based on data that has been put through this process. What you would have to do in this case is simply say, “Oh well…I don’t like what they say you have to do to the data so I can’t use their criterion.” To use their criterion on data that has not been analyzed in the way they say it has to be to reduce the noise sufficiently is simply misusing it.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 5:54 am

richardscourtney says:

Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule.

I have now clearly answered the points made by M Simon and Graham W, which were both based on very basic misunderstandings, the former of what chaos theory says and the latter (presumably) of what I was saying.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 6:46 am

Whoops…I made an HTML coding error: In this comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#comment-1200226 , the paragraph beginning “If you tell me that the reason is because ENSO can’t be accurately predicted…” are not my words but M Simon’s.

richardscourtney
January 16, 2013 7:13 am

joeldshore:
Your entire post at January 16, 2013 at 5:54 am says

richardscourtney says:

Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule.

I have now clearly answered the points made by M Simon and Graham W, which were both based on very basic misunderstandings, the former of what chaos theory says and the latter (presumably) of what I was saying.

Clearly answered!? Clearly? Answered?
Joel, surely even you can see your claim is risible.
You have obviously evaded – not answered – their points.
Please note that at January 16, 2013 at 5:28 am John Brookes applauds you!
Think how wrong you have to be to get acclaim from John Brookes: your responses are that bad.
Let us review the issues.
Do the models emulate ENSO? No, but you claim they do.
Can the models project the future including ENSO? No, and you admit they don’t.
In 2008 did NOAA say of climate model simulations?

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

YES! But you don’t like it and assert they should have said something else. And you then pretend that ‘something else’ is what they did say when you write this lie.

But, you don’t have to worry about this: They have already taken it into account by running the climate models many times with perturbed initial conditions and looking at the distributions of trends that they get over 15 year periods [after removing the effect of ENSO] and they have apparently found that 95% of the time, the models give trends greater than 0 over such a 15 year period.

NO! They did NOT do that.
NOAA said “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”.
The “95% confidence” applies to whether a trend differs from zero: it does NOT apply to the proportion of model runs.
If the models showed such 15 year periods for 5% of the model runs then they would not “rule out” such 15 year periods. The simulations would indicate that 1 in 20 runs provided such periods. Even you should be able to understand that if you try.
Try saying this to yourself 100 times, “RULE OUT, RULE OUT, RULE OUT”, and then reality may manage to penetrate your skull.
And we have had a zero trend (at 95% confidence) for more than 15 years whether or not you include the 1998 ENSO peak. This shows the models are wrong.
Also, you have confused chaos with emergent properties, but since you say you are incapable of understanding what “rule out” means I will not attempt to explain chaos theory to you (such an attempt would require much more ambition than I possess).
Richard

mpainter
January 16, 2013 7:32 am

Joel Shore:
The temperature record of the last sixteen years refutes the projections of the GCM’s.
In fact, the last ten years have shown a cooling trend and it appears that this will continue indefinitely.From the first AGW theory has been shown to be faulty, and now the climate record provides observations which refute AGW theory, your convoluted arguments to justify data tampering notwithstanding.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 8:06 am

Chris Wright: Your post is sort of a hijack from the original discussion, but since you repeat several untrue statements that you may have heard from others, I would like to correct the record.

In a ClimateGate 2 email, a climate scientist relates how he too showed that Mann’s method generated hockey sticks from red noise.
And yet Mann insists there is nothing wrong with his method.

If you read Mann’s book, you will find that there are two reasons why Mann says this is not relevant:
(1) They used a particular type of red noise that he says is not realistic.
(2) They did not use the correct statistical methods to check that the reconstructions they got passed statistical verification tests. If they had, they would have seen their reconstructions did not pass these verification tests.
And, the National Academy of Sciences report on temperature reconstructions weighed in on this general issue and said the following ( http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=113 ):

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press).

You say:

However, it seems clear that Mann knew about this and he hid the results in a directory named Censored.

No…The “Censored” directory contains tests of the sensitivity of the result to leaving out various proxies (“censoring” certain proxies). And, what those tests show is that getting a reconstruction back to 1000 AD that passes verification tests does depend strongly on the proxy that is produced using tree ring data from the Western U.S. Did Mann hide this fact? Not unless you consider publishing this fact in Geophysical Research Letters to be hiding it: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf (The relevant discussion is in the lefthand column on p. 761.)
The only real point of dispute as I understand it is that McIntyre claims that this sensitivity was already present for the reconstruction back to 1400, whereas Mann claims it is only an issue for reconstructions back to 1000. This whole argument rests on which verification statistic to compute and other such things, but it is basically irrelevant since you need the reconstruction back to 1000 to see the Medieval Warm Period.
You say:

Mann repeated this in 2008 with the Tiljander data. His method converted a cooling trend to a warming trend (upside-down Mann, as McIntyre described it). Mann is well aware of this, but again he refuses to do anything about it.

This is also false. Because Tiljander noted that they believed their proxies to be corrupted in the 20th century, in the supplementary materials of the paper, Mann noted this potential issue with the proxies and repeated the analysis leaving out these proxies.
Your post indicates that you have just uncritically bought into claims you have read that are half-truths at best and complete falsehoods at worst.

January 16, 2013 9:17 am

Regarding the notion that the ENSO can be removed, an ability to remove it is a consequence from the non-existence of the statistical population that underlies modern climatological models. In divorcing themselves from this population, climatologists have divorced themselves from logic and the scientific method of inquiry.

Graham W
January 16, 2013 9:18 am

Joeldshore: I have understood perfectly well everything you have said all along. What you would do well to consider is that if someone disagrees with you, it does not necessarily mean that they don’t understand what you are saying. You make the arrogant assumption that since I am in diagreement with you, it’s just because I’ve got your argument wrong – it can’t possibly be (to your mind) that I have understood everything you have said and still disagree with it. You’re so deeply convinced that your own way of thinking is correct, you are not even open to the possibility of considering other points of view or following them to their logical conclusions (in fact what you did was take part of my argument and twist it around to fit in with your own point of view, then conclude that not only does your twisted representation of my argument represent my argument, you claim that it was your argument all along!)
Not only this, but you have even so far implied that you know what I’m thinking, that you know what I’m going to say to you next, and that you (and you alone, in this particular argument) know exactly what the NOAA means by its statement. You assume your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement MUST be correct, since you have said it. You are essentially arguing from your own authority! Lol.
At least you admit that it is only an interpretation. To clarify, here is what I think is wrong with your interpretation:
1) It is extremely unlikely that you will “just compute the trend by linear regression” and get a result of exactly zero. Trends are always far more likely to be slightly positive or slightly negative. We are dealing with very small trends generally, i.e. relatively close to zero…start to see the problem? So in an earlier comment you allow that the trend could be negative as well as zero. So kind of you. So a negative observed trend is “allowed” to prove the existence of a zero trend. You’re really too kind.
2) More to the point, what exactly is anyone supposed to do with this “exactly zero” or negative trend? What should be said to the NOAA? “We’ve found this exact zero trend, but ignore the whole 95% confidence thing – that’s not important according to Sir Joel D Shore’s interpretation of your statement…yeah, yeah I know that it’s standard scientific practice to include it, but don’t…because Joel said so”. Of course they are going to laugh you out of town. What you are proposing is just absurd; it’s not scientifically acceptable, or even practical, for their own purposes, let alone anything else.
Both of these points lead me neatly on to my original question, the one you’re so keen on ignoring. I’m not going to repeat it, this time I’m going to suggest some answers to it, since you refuse to:
a) It could simply be that they were too arrogant, like yourself; too convinced that the warming signal would always be greater than the noise, so there was no way anyone would ever be able to say the trend was statistically indistinguishable from zero even over a 15 year period. They were short-sighted.
b) If a) seems too implausible, perhaps they simply made a statement that they knew would be impossible to validate or falsify. They intentionally misled.
c) If a) and b) are still both unacceptable to you, and you still prefer your interpretation, then you’ll need to counter 1) and 2) above. Thanks.

richardscourtney
January 16, 2013 9:31 am

Chris Wright:
If you read the post by joeldshore at January 16, 2013 at 8:06 am then you will see he explains that Michael Mann’s book explains ‘black is white’ and ‘white is black’.
sarc on/ Clearly, that is all the evidence you need for you to understand you should not have read the climategate emails? /sarc off
Richard

mpainter
January 16, 2013 9:37 am

joel shore says @ 8:06am
This is also false. Because Tiljander noted that they believed their proxies to be corrupted in the 20th century, in the supplementary materials of the paper, Mann noted this potential issue with the proxies and repeated the analysis leaving out these proxies.
=============================
Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.
Joel Shore, James Hansen needs you. He’s starting to backslide.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 11:23 am

Graham W: Most of your comment is simply a tirade. (E.g., you are unhappy because I try to anticipate objections that you might have and address them proactively.)
I’ll try to comment on what little substance I can find.

You assume your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement MUST be correct, since you have said it. You are essentially arguing from your own authority! Lol.

No…I have explained why I think it is correct. I have also explained how there is no possible way to interpret the words that they wrote to mean what Richard Courtney and Monckton are interpreting them to mean. I have also noted that interpreting them in this way leads to a ridiculous conclusion regarding empirical trends that would be in contradiction to the models.

1) It is extremely unlikely that you will “just compute the trend by linear regression” and get a result of exactly zero.

I think it is pretty obvious that if a trend of zero lies outside the 95% confidence window for the models then a negative trend does too. Perhaps they could have said “trends of zero or less” instead of “zero trends” to be most clear but I think this is really picking nits.

“We’ve found this exact zero trend, but ignore the whole 95% confidence thing – that’s not important according to Sir Joel D Shore’s interpretation of your statement…yeah, yeah I know that it’s standard scientific practice to include it, but don’t…because Joel said so”.

They tell you to look at one number: the trend. They don’t talk about the uncertainty in the trend. You are not justified in replacing the one number you get when you calculate a trend with the value zero just because the trend observed does not rule out an underlying trend of zero (plus weather noise) with 95% confidence. There are lots of underlying trends that are not ruled out with 95% confidence. I could say the trend is 0.15 C per decade because that is not ruled out with 95% confidence either, but that would not be correct. The least squares trend is what you compute it to be…and the uncertainty in the trend is a different issue.
Let me explain to you the reason why they chose to define their criterion in this way: Getting the uncertainty in the trend line for the actual temperature data is not trivial. You have to assume some model for the correlations in the data and will get different uncertainties with different models. There is still some argument about what is the best model. However, getting the uncertainty (or even the whole distribution of trends) that the models produce is easy: You just run the model many times with slightly different initial conditions and you see the distribution of different trends that you get over a 15-year period. That is why they chose to compare the actual trend one gets from the empirical data to the distribution of trends one gets from the models: If 19 out of 20 of the model runs get a trend over 15-years that is greater than zero, then an observed empirical trend of zero or less falls outside of the 95% confidence range of the models.
And, of course, as they explain, all of this (both the empirical trend and the trend in the models) is measured AFTER one corrects for ENSO in the way discussed in the paper referenced.

joeldshore
January 16, 2013 11:25 am

mpainter says:

Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.

He did what one does when there is controversy over a particular piece of data: He showed the results both ways, including and excluding that piece of data.