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.
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”
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.
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.
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!
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?
Using the term denier is not illegal in Europe. It is illegal to deny the Holocaust.
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?
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.
PS. Calling someone a denier is not an offence in Europe, although some may find it offensive. Monckton knows that too.
“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.
Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 9:59 am
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.
I think Michael Mann and his behavior is possibly explained by a little rhyme:
Can’t you see?
It’s all about me.
In case no one here has seen it, read this http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
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
I am so sick of the bunch of liars that get awards for fraud….King Obama, Fat Boy Gore and the Court Jester Mann.
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.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am
Lord Monkton’s position:
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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/
From Margaret Hardman on August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am:
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:
What was that you said?
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.
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
Fred says:
August 26, 2013 at 9:08 am
Signature “hymn” for Mann’s “hidey hole” (just like he hides everything else):
Heh. Didn’t seem to take so long to write it, yet Maggie and Willis both got comments in the meanwhile. Oh well.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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?