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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I bow to no man as my Lord, yet I bow to Lord Monckton.
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.
Michael Mann has no credibility left, not as a scientist nor as an advocate.
I love the smell of logical argument in the late afternoon.
Dr. Mann should fear the good Lord Monckton the way Mr. Putin fears fracking!
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
Mikey probably hid the Medieval Warm Period where he hid the decline.
And there ain’t no sunshine in that hidey hole.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.