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.
Martin457 says:
“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.”
FYI Martin457: No one who regularly comments at this site shares your views. We don’t advocate or tolerate idiocy on either side of this debate. Anthony and the moderators have not censored your views (yet), but neither do they welcome them. If you are trying to paint skeptics here as violent crackpots, you’re failing miserably. If you have something beneficial to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, zip it.
Nick Stokes says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
“… using a rather advanced method of Tamino.”
Rather oxymoronic.
Nick Stokes says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
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”?
—-
The “we” (among others) would include Jim Hansen, Phil Jones and the British MET, all of whom are on record and have (reluctantly) admitted this.
Bart says: August 26, 2013 at 3:28 pm
‘Nick Stokes says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
“… using a rather advanced method of Tamino.”
Rather oxymoronic.’
KdK cited it, not me (tho I think it is advanced). And it’s what you have to use if you want to get UAH since Aug 1994 to be not significantly positive. OLS would give even higher significance.
Looks like we got some “cleanup batters” in the last inning. 🙂
To Nick Stokes–could you please provide a link that publishes (in detail) this “rather advanced method of Tamino” so we can inspect it, please?
I don’t take any Warmista’s word for anything anymore.
Thanks in advance.
Well Louis, I have been snipped. I made a comment that after the killing of millions of buffalo here in the US, it didn’t cool the earth off.
Sorry, I didn’t realize my opinion had to be shared by all and I am not trying to get people to be violent. What I would like to see is the some of the same tactics used by the political science czars used against them as well.
Is that better?
Nick,
The easiest way to calculate statistical significance in R is:
arima (uah$Globe, c(1, 0, 0), xreg=uah$date)
or perhaps
arima (uah$Globe, c(1, 0, 1), xreg=uah$date)
if you want to be a little more conservative, which I believe is Tamino’s “advanced” method. In either case, the UAH Global temperature since it began (December 1978) has a linear trend of 1.4 C per century. Using the second version, which is conservative and results in a larger CI, the upper 95% CI of 1.98, which excludes the “lower-limit” 2 C/century that’s been bandied about.
You can argue all day that there has been a statistically-significant trend since some point in time, but the main point in my mind is that the sensitivity is looking to be lower than even the leaked AR5 would admit.
I’d also recommend an experiment to you: generate an autoregressive temperature series using whatever method you want. Something that you think looks a lot like global temperatures prior to whenever you believe the CO2 jump occurred. Generate 1,000 years of monthly data. Generate a second 1,000-year monthly series that’s 0 for 150 years, then ramps up (over what you think is a good time, say 15 years) to a higher level and remains there for the rest of the 1,000 years. Add that to your first series. Then do an analysis on the combined series that starts at the beginning and uses more and more of the series, looking for when a linear trend becomes non-significant.
I may be mistaken, but when I tried it, the trend does not become insignificant in 1,000 years. Very illuminating.
Correction
clipe says:
August 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Christopher Monckton always draws out the (anagramitcaly correct) Eti Babler’s and Hargaretar Madmen for a game of whack-a-mole.
Other than that Mrs. Warmist, how was the play?
Wayne says: August 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“Nick,
The easiest way to calculate statistical significance in R is…”
Well, my preferred method is here. But the Quenouille adjustment is pretty good. Tamino’s too. And I’m sure the ar() in R is fine.
RockyRoad says: August 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“To Nick Stokes–could you please provide a link that publishes (in detail) this “rather advanced method of Tamino” so we can inspect it, please?”
SkS (KdK’s source) recommends the methods section of this paper.
– – – – – – – – –
Yes. The sophomoric bias created by Mann in his alarmist informed work on proxy surface temperature reconstructions (hockey sticks) is sufficient verification of significant intentional bias in the IPCC processes of assessment.
Mann is the proof that work approximating pseudo-science is the IPCC’s preferred type of work for inclusion in their reports.
Now Mann, finding his ‘scientific’ body of work has become irrelevant to the state of the art research, has to make his way by shilling for politicians; politicians who have a certain tendency to be like Gore, the has been evangelist of climate alarmism.
Mann is damaged goods to an honest debate.
What do we see in Mann’s behavior, since he went on sabbatical from PSU more than two years ago for a focus on climate science communication? (Ahh, is he still on sabbatical from PSU – I don’t know) I see only since then Mann’s inept attempt to create a self-agrandizing mythology of his heroism with all his many critics as evil villains; critics who he has delusions of intellectually slaying. I actually pity him.
John
Good find! You found another bozo like Mikey who spins the science (lies) in the direction of increased funding.
Your bozo uses the questionable GISS record (adjusted annually and always in the direction of increased warming), cuts it off after 2010, and picks small time spans as if that’s the same as the current 16 year span of no warming.
Notice also the first (and only comparably long) span from 1957 to 1970-something shows no significant temperature drop. Yet scientists and much of the public KNOW there was a significant temperature drop over that period. It was so significant that there was talk of the next ice age. The GISS record does not agree with history, which is the same problem Mikey has with his hockey stick.
From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm:
Lord Monckton says in the third paragraph:
How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996” in what he actually wrote?
Nick Stokes says:
August 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm
It’s all just speculation. Nobody knows the actual long term correlations, so tests of statistical significance are mainly exercises in making people comfortable with the conclusion they wanted to arrive at in the first place. And, to use to snow people who aren’t experienced in statistical analysis into believing there is something there which they can’t see with their own eyes.
The bottom line is that there hasn’t been really any change at all over a time span when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased 33% above their presumed pre-industrial levels. The AGW hypothesis is, on that level alone, in dire straits. It ain’t working, and that’s not the way you do it (“it” being science).
Taphonomic says:
August 26, 2013 at 10:55 am
“I missed that part. Where did the good Lord specifically ASK to be recognized as same? Or are you just pulling things out of your Rabett hole?”
In his own words, Christopher Monckton wrote
—————————–
“The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.”
—————————-
a) he pushed the button which signaled to the chair that the delegation from Myanmar wished to be recognized and b) when the chair recognized Myanmar he spoke.
Contrast this with what Monckton wrote above:
————————-
“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.”
———————-
Oh yes, it was a UN conference.
Eli Rabett says:
August 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Oh, give it a rest. Who the fruck cares?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996? in what he actually wrote?”
The plot he showed is headed is headed 200 months Dec 1996 to July 2013, and in big letters Trend -0.02°C/century.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm
How do you find “Monckton claiming an actual negative trend of RSS from Dec 1996″ in what he actually wrote?
The graph clearly says -0.02/century and WFT also gives “slope = -0.000243735 per year” so this agrees. On the other hand, for the latest 201 months, the slope is “slope = 8.63248e-05 per year”. If I calculated it correctly, the 0 point would have been reached about November 8 assuming a uniform change from November 1 to December 1. Of course this assumption could be totally off.
Is it too late to support your bid for the throne Lord Monckton?
You’d make a better king than eco-fanatic Prince Charles…
Simon and Margaret,
http://lordmoncktonfoundation.com/i/u/10152887/f/odonoghue-monckton-lords-opinion.pdf
This is the link to the legal opinion concerning the Viscount. It plainly says he is a member of the house of lords without the right to sit and vote. I am disturbed that you would cherry pick a document for something like this, it is very disrespectful. Furthermore the clerk that printed that letter violated a few laws of his own when he published it. I think that the Viscount has demonstrated that he is a gentleman in the way that he has handled this whole thing and I applaud his restraint.
As for calling people a denier (or worse putting that in writing in a public forum) in the UK and in the EU that could be construed as LIBEL! Because it is no longer a criminal statute, it is still a civil one. Granted that you would have to test it in court, however it would not be all that hard to do. Generally calling someone names is considered disrespectful. Disrespectful people do not have much credibility with the people they are disrespecting. So if your trying to convince people of the truth of which you speak, starting out with name calling and reprinting someone’s private correspondence isn’t going to be helpful.
v/r,
David Riser
During the seventies, the PDO was in cold phase and there was increasing talk about the coming ice age.
Then came the eighties, the PDO’s warm phase, and they have continued to talk about ‘Global Warming’ ever since.
Except…
Now along comes the PDO again, back in cold phase, followed by the AMO, also going into cold phase, and you can bet yer longjohns it’s gonna get cool again. (The only thing ‘holding back’ the cooling is the continuing effort to ‘adjust’ the reported temperatures to cover it up.) (I put that in parenthesis ‘cuz it’s suppose to be secret.)
So yeah, it has stopped, and will now reverse (how embarassing!), so you better get over it quick.
Martin457 says:
“Well Louis, I have been snipped. I made a comment that after the killing of millions of buffalo here in the US, it didn’t cool the earth off.
Sorry, I didn’t realize my opinion had to be shared by all and I am not trying to get people to be violent. What I would like to see is the some of the same tactics used by the political science czars used against them as well.
Is that better?”
Yes, much better. And thanks for the interesting observation about the buffalo. The same thing could be said for the megafauna extinction that occurred between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. These large methane producing herbivores died out when the earth was warming not cooling, and their extinction had no apparent impact on the climate then either.
Chad Wozniak said..”Hardman and Sedron, aren’t you embarrassed by your displays of both ignorance and mean-spiritedness?
How could they. It is a proven fact that neurotics and cult members do not have the emotion of embarrassement. Oh. And it is not ignorance. Ignorance can be taught to learn things. Stupid. Not at all.
Bart says:
August 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm
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.
The hypothesized relationship is not linear but log, you are the one who is in error.
Sedron L,
The oceans may or may not still be warming, but whatever they are doing, they are doing it very unevenly. Would you care to suggest a mechanism for Carbon dioxide to warm the oceans without also warming the lower troposphere? Would you care to explain how Carbon dioxide could selectively warm the Indian, North Atlantic, and Arctic oceans?
BTW, does anyone care less than me about Mocton’s title? Just call me Gymnosperm, Esq.
Actually you’ve got that backwards. A fact, by definition, is undeniable. A belief can be denied all day, until some evidence is presented to make it a fact.