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.
Poetry. Simply poetry……… Lesson Manny old fellow, don’t get into an argument with someone more verbally adept and honest than yourself.
A great read, as always. Kudos to you, Sir.
Stuff like this makes me believe that, when executed wisely, nobility does have some values indeed.
In every article that I have read on this site the impression is that co2 rises in response to rising temperature. If that is true now that temperature is no longer rising and maybe falling does that mean co2 will begin to fall? Especially as human co2 according to articles read here only amounts to 4% of the 1% of the atmosphere that is Co2? As natural co2 responds to temperature and is vastly more than human contribution why wouldnt we expect co2 to fall?
Sedron L says: (quoting Louis Hooffstetter)
“‘Any study that is not replicable is not science!’ Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.”
No problem there; time will tell which of these is correct. But with regards to Michael Mann, history has spoken: ‘Real Climatologists’ are backpedalling from tree ring studies and climate models, and the IPCC has disowned his work. It’s just a matter of time before Penn State smells the coffee. He will go down in history as the world’s first and foremost climate pariah.
Recent quote about old history: When those jealous of Grant’s success and recognition tried to curb his advancement, claiming Grant had been drinking, and calling for his removal from command (vicious rumours mostly fueled by Grant’s rivals), President Lincoln flatly stated, “I cannot spare this man! He fights!”.
Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 9:59 am
“Isn’t it funny how people are pretending UAH doens’t exist?”
What’s the difference? They basically have just a constant offset from one another. If you are arguing that one shows greater least squares trend than the other, but both are statistically indistinguishable from zero, then you got nuthin’.
Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am
“Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.”
Laughable. It has been rock steady since ARGO came online. Only the 0-2000m range shows sustained increase. Two problems with that: A) if the heat is coming from retained energy due to greenhouse activity, how does it bypass the 0-700m level and teleport directly to the 700-2000m range? B) the below 700m data are particularly inaccurate, have been observed for only a brief interval of time so there is no reference against which to compare it, and the warming observed is within the error bars of zero.
“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….”
This is deeply, deeply confusing to me. I know there’s been no warming in almost 17 years because even many to most alarmists admit it…which is all one needs to know. And yet, I find myself unable to defend the lack of warming when arguing with my liberal friends. I hate that helpless feeling of not being able to explain something because I don’t fully get it myself..
Can someone explain this in simple terms. Pretend you’re talking to an idiot, which when it comes to basic statistics, I surely am/….
Margaret Hardman:
re your ignorant, silly, and defamatory post at August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am.
You are misinformed.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
Letters of Patent (which appoint a man to be a Lord and thus a Member of the House of Lords) are issued by the Monarch. The Letters of Patent inherited by Lord Monckton have NOT been withdrawn by the monarch who alone has the right to withdraw what the monarch has provided.
So, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a Member of the House of Lords.
However, Lord Monckton does not have a ‘Seat’ in the House of Lords and, therefore, he cannot participate in debates and has no voting rights in the House of Lords.
The opinion of some flunky does not – and cannot – negate a decision of the monarch in a Constitutional Monarchy. You would have been able to work this out for yourself if you possessed as many as two brain cells to rub together.
Richard
Chris @NJSnowFan says:
August 26, 2013 at 8:14 am
“Mann made warming is for real.”
As succinct as can be. Perfect remark!
According to Margaret, a letter from a low ranking govt lackey purporting that something has happened is the same as it being a fact. Even if that is subsequently found to be incorrect at fact or law.
That’s great news – Australia is therefore back in budget surplus! A letter in May 2012 says so.
From Martin457 on August 26, 2013 at 11:56 am:
Bloodshed?! What, you want to see the first climate skeptic martyr?
Although we are coming up on the tenth anniversary of the death of the great John Daly, known for his still-informative groundbreaking website Still Waiting for Greenhouse, who was very critical of Mann’s shonky work as seen in this article by Daly about the Broken Hockey Stick.
John Daly subsequently was suddenly struck down by an apparent heart attack a few scant months after publishing that piece.
At this time, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of reports of a bald pudgy man fleeing the scene afterwards, who had a goatee although some called it a Van Dyke. Mainly because I’ve never looked for any. But it is very unlikely this man was a Nobel Prize winner, whomever he was, if he exists.
Based on my reading of the above arguments, Christopher Monckton is A) an hereditary peer who, based on the testimony of knowledgeable authorities, can legitimately claim title to Member of the House of Lords, albeit non-voting B) a pretender to title who, based on the testimony of knowledgeable authorities, has no legitimate claim to it. He is a kind of Schrodinger’s Cat, both Lord and Not-Lord simultaneously. Until the matter is properly legislated, there appear to be no grounds for alleging deception on his part.
Now, can we get past the playground taunts and behave like adults, here?
Willis Eschenbach says: August 26, 2013 at 10:14 am
“Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.”
Looks quite positive to me. In fact, 1.38°C/century, according to WFT.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 26, 2013 at 10:02 am
My dear Margaret, Please see my post above yours. Thank you for proving that watermelons are useless uninformed regurgitators of falsehoods.
And My dear Eli has one no reply for One? (hopefully I framed the question in a pretentious enough way).
Sedron L:
Your post at August 26, 2013 at 11:24 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400476
says in total
Yes! I strongly agree!
None of the global temperature determinations has any scientific validity for the reason you state.
Please see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
So, which do you prefer?
(a) Global warming has stalled for at least 16 years according to all data sets of global temperature.
OR
(b) There are no scientific indications that there has been any global warming.
Richard
I don’t even know how I ended up on this page, but Peter Gleick, famous for doing everything possible that is wrong and self-taught master of auto-destruction, crawled out of the muck long enough to respond to this topic at a climate hysteria site that likely would not exist if there were no WUWT to stalk. What a desperate for attention man little Peter is.
[You have our sympathy, but that link has been posted here so many times it amounts to threadjacking. The subject of the thread is Mann. Thanks. — mod.]
[The topic of this thread is Michael Mann. Please stay on-topic. Thanks. — mod.]
Nick – are we supposed to see the footprint of humanity in this trend? “Looks quite positive to me. In fact, 1.38°C/century, according to WFT.” What do you imagine that trend would be without humanity? Show your work.
Let us sing!
Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 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?
—————————————————
It actually works all those times that I’m right. Like this one for example. It’s just going to take until 2023 to find out.
pokerguy says:
August 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm
“Can someone explain this in simple terms.”
According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures. In the past 17 years, however, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppmv to 400 ppmv. The pre-industrial level is assumed to have been about 280 ppmv so, in that interval, the change has been (400 – 360) / (400 – 280) X 100% = 33% of the total, yet global temperatures have not increased.
If a cause is hypothesized to produce an effect, and the effect fails to occur when the purported cause is stimulated, then the hypothesized relationship is in error.
From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm:
Nick, now you’re being very disingenuous. It was just stated on the RSS thread you commented on, as outputted from the SkS trendy calculator thing:
Not statistically significant is the same as no trend far as we’re concerned. Also:
So there’s that, and ALSO Willis specified (albeit possibly mistakenly) AUGUST 1994. You coughed up a link going from the start of 1994.
Since apparently you don’t know how to do a proper call-out on WFT, which uses decimal years, here’s the proper version going from AUGUST 1994:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994.55/plot/uah/from:1994.55/trend
It is no wonder that Michael Mann will not debate with Lord Monckton. he would lose, lose and lose again.
Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:11 am
If you believe Michael Mann, I must ask for what reason?
Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years than in the 15 years before that.
That’s doesn’t happen unless the planet has an energy imbalance. And the only known culprit of such an imbalance is manmade GHGs.
Q.E.D.
—————-
And what about the unkown culprits? Do you think science knows everything right now: All mechanisms of nature and all their interactions are currently known? And by process of elimination the only thing left is manmade GHGs?
By the way, what mechanism transfers energy from atmospheric CO2 to the 0-700 meter range of the oceans?
Margaret: “I believe that someone who tells a falsehood knowing it to be false is a liar.”
So you DON’T believe Michael Mann, then?