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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
203 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David L.
August 26, 2013 9:53 am

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
August 26, 2013 9:53 am

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
August 26, 2013 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.

Pamela Gray
August 26, 2013 10:00 am

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)
August 26, 2013 10:01 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:02 am

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

Sedron L
August 26, 2013 10:02 am

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

Margaret Hardman
August 26, 2013 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.

Margaret Hardman
August 26, 2013 10:12 am

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

Theo Goodwin
August 26, 2013 10:13 am

“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.

Editor
August 26, 2013 10:14 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:17 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:23 am
tonyb
Editor
August 26, 2013 10:24 am

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)
August 26, 2013 10:25 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:28 am

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.

Editor
August 26, 2013 10:31 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:37 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:39 am

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)
August 26, 2013 10:42 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:45 am

Willis
I gave the link to the Clerk of Parliament’s letter to Monckton above but the relevant bit is this
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
This is a direct quote from a relevant case brought by another peer. It matters not what it says on Monckton’s passport, he is not a member of the House of Lords. If someone were to appoint him to that chamber then his status would change but at present he is not and has been told to stop making the claim. That he does not do so says something about the man.
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
August 26, 2013 10:50 am

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)
August 26, 2013 10:50 am

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.

August 26, 2013 10:51 am

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
August 26, 2013 10:51 am

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?