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.
Christopher Monckton always draws out the Eti Babler’s and Hargareter Madman’s for a game of whack-a-mole.
Other than that Mrs. Warmist, how was the play?
[The topic of this thread is Michael Mann. Thanks. — mod.]
pokerguy says:
August 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm
“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….”
Can someone explain this in simple terms. Pretend you’re talking to an idiot, which when it comes to basic statistics, I surely am/….
Let us suppose that 20 years ago someone went up to you and said that for every 0.001 increase in anomaly each month, you get a dollar, but for every 0.001 drop in anomaly each month, you have to pay a dollar. You would find that at this time, you would be up $150 by this time based on RSS numbers. However if you analyzed your income, you would find that you were up $150 in December 1996, but you have not made a single dollar since then. Of course you would have made some money during certain months but lost money during other months, but in the end, you have no more money now than in December 1996.
Pokerguy…1.degree. what possible diff can 1° c in 100 years make?read “the real global warming disaster” by christopher booker.no science, just the facts of how gw started. The ipcc lied, why should we believe anything they say? Whats the harm?useless windmills. Co2 tax. Why tax a company for producing energy?that is why they are or were in business. Listen to the arguments by warmists and by sceptics,it is plain that sceptics talk about facts while warmists talk alarmist bs. They want to and have scared people into believing them( myself included until i read the real story .in new england they have started to raze mountainsides to make room for windmills!it t takes 10,000 to replace one coal fired plant!
As usual, since the alarmist cult does not have science to support it, they turn to unrelated ad hominem attacks. Ms Harrdman [yes, the same Margaret Hardman who asserts that she has a “wife”] piles on with the rest of the alarmist peanut gallery, who cannot produce legitimate science.
As usual, Margaret is wrong, as can be seen by her getting slapped down by multiple commentators. And her other assertion claiming that Mann has any honesty in him is flatly contradicted by Mann’s repeated claim to be the recipient of the Nobel Prize. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Pick your battles more intelligently, Margaret. You lost this one.
Sedron if we were in balance, we would be in a whole lot of trouble, not the other way around. We have weather because of an energy imbalance. We have been out of balance for so long that there are species that have life cycles adapted to both long and short term cycles. And surely you jest about the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 being the only possible answer to changes in Earth’s energy imbalance. Oceanic and atmospheric weather pattern systems have to change to create temperature trends (since “climate change” is actually the average of weather changes). So you have to determine what amount of energy is needed to change those intrinsic parts of Earth and to keep those changes in place to create a temperature trend.
Do you actually know how much energy is required to heat up an ocean and keep it that way? Or change a semi-permanent atmospheric pressure system oscillation to a different state and keep it that way to create a weather pattern change that leads to a temperature change? For example, think, jet stream. It is an atmospheric entity that has oscillations to it and affects weather, therefore can be implicated in “climate change”. Have you ridden in it? Or against it? A big jet plane finds it to be a monstrously strong entity. Do you seriously think a teeny tiny addition of CO2 to an incredibly large swirling atmosphere already filled with all kinds of molecules can do that?
Just how big and powerful do you think a CO2 molecule is anyway?
Homeopathy has its own peer reviewed journals, conferences, schools. We do know what the overwhelming majority of Homeopaths believe. Does it make it true? Not so much. But one thing is sure, Homeopaths are the least qualified judges in this trial.
David Wells says:
August 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm
In every article that I have read on this site the impression is that co2 rises in response to rising temperature….. As natural co2 responds to temperature and is vastly more than human contribution why wouldnt we expect co2 to fall?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cherry picking the data.
particularly
They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it. You can see the jiggery pokery clearly illustrated
CO2 GRAPH: original data
CO2 GRAPH: ‘Reported’ data
Lucy Skywalker goes into all the manipulations HERE.
Respectfully to the moderator…. I don’t think I was off thread at all. I commented directly on the quote written by Monckton below:
“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”
Please tell me how my comment below was not directly related to what he said?
“What I don’t understand is why someone (Monckton) who is trying to convince the world of the warmests deceptions, would hold so dear to the concept that he is a member of the House of Lords – something that is so easy for his opponents to disprove. At the very best it is a distraction, at worst it makes him such an easy target for people to accuse him of deceit in all he says, whether he is being so or not. Makes no sense. “
krb981 says: August 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Poetry. Simply poetry……… Lesson Manny old fellow, don’t get into an argument with someone more verbally adept and honest than yourself
Which as I see it is just about everyone.
Nick Stokes provides a link to WFT that starts in January 1994, not August. Why is it that we always have to watch the pea with you people?
Time to put on your big boy pants and apologize to Willis for calling him out when he’s actually correct and to the audience for throwing up a link to WFT that’s both misleading and incorrect.
David Wells says:
August 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“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?”
The rate of change of CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature. And, yes, the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere has settled down in lockstep response to the lull in temperatures.
Note to Mann:
Fame is 15 minutes.
Infamy is forever.
Werner B.
Beautiful. Thank you. That’s just the kind of thing I was looking for.
“Margaret Hardman says:
August 26, 2013 at 10:12 am
PS. Calling someone a denier is not an offence in Europe, although some may find it offensive. Monckton knows that too.”
The use of this term by you, is most offensive. My , family (amongst many), fought fascism and helped the eventually liberation of the death camps; it is obscene that people like you,make comparison with people presenting a case (in good faith), with which you disagree, with the perpetrators of that evil.
Simon:
At August 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm you ask
I answer that what you asserted is a blatant and defamatory falsehood.
Lord Monckton IS a Member of the House of Lords. This has been explained in this thread by many rebuttals by many people providing a variety of explanations to Margaret Hardman.
You attempted to resurrect the same defamatory and untrue point which was disproved each time Margaret Hardman repeatedly raised it. Your attempt can only be trolling.
Richard
Yes Kadaka, bloodshed. Martyrs and myths and legends, oh my. When the wizard actually gets up and says that real science is at fault, kill the wizard. When people of science say the debate is over , DUH.
From Simon on August 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm:
You are arguing for your “right” to incidentally state it’s easy to disprove, what is clearly demonstrated to be NOT easy to disprove.
You’re fighting to be able to say what is clearly false and inflammatory speech? Saying someone is not a Member of the House of Lords who says they clearly are, those are fighting words in the UK!
beware the climate zombies!!!
Did Mann ever provide a peer reviewed answer to why his decline in temperatures after the 1960s was taken to be inaccurate and everything before that period accurate.?
jai mitchell says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A retreating Alaskan glacier reveals the remains of a Medieval forest. Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge.
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/naturescience/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
So are we warming or cooling? Depends on your start and end dates does it not?
Another paper on glacial activity in Norway says:
Very simply stated, most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of glacial activity (Glacier building) has been in the past 600 years.
So is the earth warming or cooling? The only thing that matters is there is nothing unusual going on. The earth has been much colder and hotter with out the presence of man.
Willis Eschenbach says: “Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.”
Heck yeah! And if ~someone~ really wanted to “cherry pick” they’d be claiming that the UAH shows that we are at the SAME temperature now as we were in early 1983! It’s just another inconvenient fact for Sedron. Funny how earth’s temperature went up AND DOWN so many times, varying as much as +0.6 to -0.6 along the way, and we’re right back to the SAME temperature THIRTY years later! That has to be a painful amount of natural variability for Sedron to swallow? (suggestion – chew on it a little at a time…)
Margaret said, “I hope this clears up the matter.”
Margaret,
Having been shown to be entirely wrong on that is there anything else you can “clear up”?
How about on “Creating the Tension Required to Motivate People to Address Global Warming”
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:August 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“Not statistically significant is the same as no trend far as we’re concerned.”
Who’s “we”? This thread in fact has Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996, and that’s what Willis was comparing UAH with. No mention of statistically significant.
But if statistically significant is all that is important to you, I could ask on what assumptions you calculate it, and how. After all, if it’s so meaningful to you, surely you could explain that?
In fcat the SkS figure that you cite, you’ll be pleased to know, is calculated using a rather advanced method of Tamino. It has merits, but the more standard method is the Quenouille AR(1) adjustment. I use that here, and the UAH trend since August 1994 is the significantly greater than 0 at 95% confidence.
Scott Basinger says: August 26, 2013 at 2:00 pm
“Time to put on your big boy pants and apologize to Willis for calling him out when he’s actually correct”
Would you like to explain that one? Perhaps tell us what you think the correct (negative?) trend is? And why you think that?
What does it say about the alarmists, when the only response they have to empirical evidence that contradicts their meme is to resort to ad hominem attacks, like Hardman and Sedron are doing?
Proof again that their meme is bullshit, and their idolatrous worship of that whining, lying mollusk is what really motivates them. To hell with facts, reason, legitimate inquiry, they say.
And I say to them, you’ve lost the argument, there is no warming worth the name or even measurable from man’s activities or carbon dioxide. Get used to it.! Swallow hard and shut up and be done with it.
Hardman and Sedron, aren’t you embarrassed by your displays of both ignorance and mean-spiritedness?