Sticking it to the Mann

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

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

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

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

clip_image002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
stan stendera

I bow to no man as my Lord, yet I bow to Lord Monckton.

Chris @NJSnowFan

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

mpainter

Michael Mann has no credibility left, not as a scientist nor as an advocate.

Kevin Lohse

I love the smell of logical argument in the late afternoon.

C.M. Carmichael

Dr. Mann should fear the good Lord Monckton the way Mr. Putin fears fracking!

leon0112

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

He is a shaman now, whose “gut feelings” we should revere, whether or not they hark from bad chili.

As a former debater, and if this were a debate round, here is where I would attack –
““Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
really says it all I believe

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton,
No one knows whether temperatures will resume warming or turn to cooling, unless one has a religious conviction.

DaveF

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

David L.

Mike says in the article “We are simply trying to make sure the public understands what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe is happening” in response to Monckton’s criticism of the term “deniers”
Every time these climate experts go on and on about climate change, criticizing skeptics as “deniers”, their language is one about “belief”. That doesn’t sound concrete enough to me to be used in conjuction with accusations of denial. You can deny a fact, you can’t deny a belief.
So it’s always about belief with these guys? They don’t “know” climate change is happening? I don’t believe in gravity. I know it exists. I don’t believe that if I mix vinegar with baking soda that bubbles of CO2 will be produced…I know it.

viejecita

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

Alan the Brit

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

Fred

Mikey probably hid the Medieval Warm Period where he hid the decline.
And there ain’t no sunshine in that hidey hole.

Peter Stroud

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

RACookPE1978

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

Richard D

Thanks Lord Monckton!
Mike Mann has sued National Review and Mark Steyn, as many here are aware. Readers in a pugnacious mood can concretely “stick it to the Mann” by contributing to the defense, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335221/we-need-your-help-jack-fowler

oeman50

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

Bruce Cobb

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

Eli Rabett

Certainly Lord Monckton does not look Burmese. And no one, not even Eli, believes that Lord Monckton sounds Burmese. Even the chairman of the conference was not foolish enough to say he thought Lord Monckton was Myanmarese. Well at least not when someone pointed this out after Lord Monckton talked having been recognized as a speaker from Myanmar
Why Eli even read about that at Watts Up With That, and the happy bunny even saw that Chris wrote that he took the seat of the representative of Myanmar and Chris asked to be recognized as same
———————–
The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.
———————-
REPLY: Why not? You believe you are a bunny and speak in tongues. At least people listened to Monckton that day, even though they didn’t like what they heard. – Anthony

Roy UK

Yeah But….
Just wait for the Watermelons to come out in force saying anything against Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Not a lord, Not a scientist, Not a climate scientist, Not published, does not understand the finer points, is a d*n**r and therefore is not credible, is in the pay of Big Oil, Big Gas or Big something.
Or maybe they will try the old trick of discrediting the actual evidence of what he said. My guess is anything but the last one.

Roy UK

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

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

Mary

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

Chad Wozniak

Lord Monckton again demonstrates nobility of character, as well as of bloodline. A great job of putting this whining, lying blatherskite in his place.
Now, if only der Fuehrer would read Lord Monckton’s piece. Fat chance of that, unfortunately.
@Peter Stroud –
I’d say that the CAGW crusade is a bigger threat than international terrorism – if, in fact, it isn’t a form thereof, with similar objectives of destroying society, liberty and the world economy.

David L.

Can someone produce the hockeystick graph that Mann is talking about? The one I remember has a blade that shoots up dramatically. I don’t remember the version that Mann is obviously refering to that shoots up a little then levels off for 17 years. Even in Al Gore’s fictional movie “Inconvenient Truth” his little platform kept going up and up. I don’t remember it going up and stopping for the rest of the movie.
BTW, what is Mann going to say when the temperatures start dropping for the next 10 years? I’ll tell you what he’ll say in 2023: “Global warming is still happening, most scientists believe this to be true. The late 20th century was the warmest period of the past millenium with 1998 being the all time record. Lord Monckton is not a Lord. Anyone who disagrees with me is a denier”

Jimbo

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

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

Sedron L

Chris Monckton wrote:
The monthly near-surface temperature record from the RSS satellites (above) shows no warming trend for 16 years 8 months.
Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?
It’s precisely this kind of cherry picking that keeps some people from being taken seriously.

Pamela Gray

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Step 1: Decide to be a real scientist.
Step 2: Choose climate for your specialty.
Step 3: Examine the evidence, compare to accepted claims and theories.
Step 4: Choose one:
A. Choose another specialty.
B. Establish alternate income as you can’t get work in your field if you say the truth, establish legal defense fund for when you get sued for telling the truth, and give up all hope of ever being regarded as anything but a crackpot denier by the “climate science establishment”.
For 4B, be prepared for when your kids come home from public school and want to know why you want to overheat the Earth with toxic carbon pollution and kill all the poley bear cubs. How can you be so evil?

MikeN

Using the term denier is not illegal in Europe. It is illegal to deny the Holocaust.

Sedron L

David L wrote:
BTW, what is Mann going to say when the temperatures start dropping for the next 10 years?
Do you often try to win arguments by first positing that you are right? Does that ever work?

Margaret Hardman

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

Margaret Hardman

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

Theo Goodwin

“Mann says there is “evidence that humans are warming the planet”. There can’t be. For 200 months there has been no warming at all. Get over it. Get a life.”
I really like the tone of this remark. This is where all skeptics and other critics of the IPCC and its fellow travelers should be now.

Willis Eschenbach

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

Chris Monckton wrote:

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

Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?
It’s precisely this kind of cherry picking that keeps some people from being taken seriously.

Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.
We could use that UAH “cherry” if you prefer, but the difference between the two is not statistically significant …
w.

Tom J

I think Michael Mann and his behavior is possibly explained by a little rhyme:
Can’t you see?
It’s all about me.

Margaret Hardman
climatereason

DavidL
happy to oblige with the Hockey stick
Here it is graphed with REAL temperatures (CET) and shown against glacier movements. (closed blue line at top is glacier retreat/warmth, at bottom glacier advance (cold)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
The sticks constancy is remarkable as still being able to cause glaciers to advance and retreat. The string downturn at the end is real world CET which has been plunging for a dozen years.
tonyb

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)

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

Merrick

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

Willis Eschenbach

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

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

Lord Monkton’s position:

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

Margaret, what are your specific objections to Lord Monckton’s position? Please quote the sentence(s) you think are incorrect, and tell us why he’s wrong.
Note that I take no position on this, as I am woefully unlettered in the rules of the House of Lords … Moncton’s position, as I understand it, is that he does not have a vote but he is a member, because only a specific law can remove the membership.
As I said, I don’t have a clue … but you seem to object heartily to that position. SPECIFIC reasons why you object would be appreciated.
Finally, Moncton has clearly researched his claims, cites relevant statutes, and believes his position is true. He may indeed be wrong … but he thinks his claims are upheld by British Law in the exact same way that you think that your claims are upheld by British Law.
For you to call a man like that a liar as you did above, without a scrap of proof that he doesn’t believe his claims, is a slimy accusation which only damages your own reputation, not his …
Regards,
w.

Leonard Weinstein

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

Richard D

@ Margaret Hardman
you should read up on Mike Mann’s fraudulent claim to be a Nobel price recipient: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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

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

The correct title is Clerk of the Parliaments. That letter is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
But this was hashed out before:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/
Since you apparently have problems with looking up facts, I’ll copy choice portions here for your ease of reading:

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

Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers, overlooking the River Thames just a mile downstream from the Houses of Parliament. His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”
O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question. He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”. The conclusion of his 11-page opinion (see PDF at bottom of this article) , reviewing 1000 years of Peerage law, is clear on the issue:

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

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

What was that you said?

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

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

Margaret Hardman

Willis
I gave the link to the Clerk of Parliament’s letter to Monckton above but the relevant bit is this
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
This is a direct quote from a relevant case brought by another peer. It matters not what it says on Monckton’s passport, he is not a member of the House of Lords. If someone were to appoint him to that chamber then his status would change but at present he is not and has been told to stop making the claim. That he does not do so says something about the man.
I hope this clears up the matter. Michael Mann on this matter of fact is outright correct. Hansard is the daily record of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament and without looking them up I don’t know what they say but as for Mann knowing nothing of the constitution of the United Kingdom, I trust both Monckton and Mann can read and I know who is telling the truth on this one. It is Michael Mann. I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.
Margaret

RockyRoad

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

Mikey probably hid the Medieval Warm Period where he hid the decline.
And there ain’t no sunshine in that hidey hole.

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Heh. Didn’t seem to take so long to write it, yet Maggie and Willis both got comments in the meanwhile. Oh well.
@ Leonard Weinstein on August 26, 2013 at 10:37 am:
He didn’t claim to be a Member of the House of Lords, he stated the truth that he is. And yet Maggie is still wrong. Hopefully you see that now.

Gary Pearse

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

Chris Schoneveld

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