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
August 26, 2013 7:40 pm

[Snip. Enough speculating. This thread is about Michael Mann. — mod.]

scarletmacaw
August 26, 2013 7:43 pm

Eli Rabett says:
August 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm

Asking to be recognized (and accepting the recognition) is NOT the same as impersonating. Impersonating implies subterfuge.
My father in law is recognized as the family Santa on Christmas morning for the purpose of distributing Christmas gifts. That does not mean he dressed up as Santa to fool the children.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 26, 2013 7:43 pm

From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm:

The plot he showed is headed is headed 200 months Dec 1996 to July 2013, and in big letters Trend -0.02°C/century.

Nick, are you really this stupid in reality or do you just pretend?
The trend was not exactly zero, which is practically impossible anyway. It was a number so small that multiplying by 100 for the per century amount barely made it appear at two decimal points. By the available significant digits, mathematically it doesn’t exist at all.
So no cooling trend was claimed in the text, in the big lettering that mattered the trend was -0.00°C/yr, aka ZERO.
At this point, mathematically speaking, you’re just lying. He dared to show how infinitesimal the amount was, which anyone even moderately mathematically savvy knows really isn’t showing anything but a zero trend, and you’re claiming he stated something he did not state.
Please decide if you’re a good mathematician who pretends to be a mathematical moron to make points, or a mathematical moron who pretends to be a good mathematician to make points. The way you switch back and forth really ain’t fooling anyone around here anymore.

August 26, 2013 7:49 pm

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.”
============
40% of nothing is still nothing.

Ox AO
August 26, 2013 7:55 pm

Sedron L says:
said, “Because the ocean is warming strongly. The 0-700 meter region has warmed 40% more in the last 15 years ”
NODC has conflicting data then removed their data shown here by Bob Tisdale here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/#comments

August 26, 2013 7:57 pm

jai mitchell says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:41 pm
beware the climate zombies!!!
=================
Will the Real Climate Zombies please stand up.

August 26, 2013 8:10 pm

[Snip. Off topic. — mod.]

August 26, 2013 8:31 pm

Chad Wozniak says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm
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?

Repeated for effect.

Martin457
August 26, 2013 8:52 pm

Your welcome Louis, history does and can teach us all quite a bit here. Not that the cult of climate doomists can realize this. If I may, history has taught us that the Vikings colonized Greenland when it was green. They had to move when it got cold again. Now, these variations in temperature that occurred in that time had absolutely nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. These things that happened in the past had nothing to do with Methane. What they did have to do with has at this time, not been explained.
I do like the theory of Sol. That thing that most of the ‘warmists’ deny. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, they won’t accept it. They can still clutch on to their confusers with teraflops of insight but, if the right numbers are pushed, they can make anything happen.
If they wish to demonize those that don’t follow their cult, maybe another cult is in the making.
Except for the fact that it can’t be disproven. 🙂

Martin457
August 26, 2013 9:06 pm

Oh, and by the way. I got snipped with that by making a derogatory remark about the Vegan Hansen.

Editor
August 26, 2013 9:37 pm

Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:21 am

Sedron, the UAH record shows no trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

False. UAH LT shows 0.24 C of warming in that time. The OLS sigma is 0.04 C, while that with autocorrelation is 0.33 C — i.e. warming, but at less than the 2-sigma level.

Thanks, Sedron. My bad. I assumed you knew that everyone was talking about statistically significant trends, so I didn’t mention that part. Also, I am using the normally referenced UAH dataset, the layer nearest the ground, which is the T2LT dataset. There is no “LT” dataset for the UAH, just “T2” and “T2LT’. Since it’s clear I didn’t make that clear, let me restate what I said:

Sedron, the UAH T2LT record shows no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT trend since August 1994, a total of 18 years 9 months.

Now you’re up to speed with everyone.

The large uncertainty simply shows that there is a lot of auto-correlation in the system, i.e. that the time period is too short to make statistically signfiicant judgements about climate.

Mmmmm … and yet there are 58 periods of 180 months (15 years) out of the total possible 237 180-month periods that have a statistically significant trend in the T2LT dataset after accounting for autocorrelation. Go figure.
w.

Chad Wozniak
August 26, 2013 9:39 pm

@dbstealy –
Thank you.

Chad Wozniak
August 26, 2013 9:44 pm

@Justthinkin –
Actually, you’re quite right – embarrassment, like remorse or empathy, is an emotion foreign to sociopaths. But I felt obliged to call them on it, out of principle.

Editor
August 26, 2013 10:04 pm

Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:22 am

PS: The same claim applies to RSS warming in Monckton’s time interval. Why didn’t you jump on that one, Willis?

‘Cause I didn’t notice it, Sedron. I have a lot on my plate, I don’t catch every nuance, or care about every nuance that I catch for that matter.
So sue me …
w.

Editor
August 26, 2013 10:14 pm

Sedron L says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:24 am

Any study that is not replicable is not science!

Then RSS data is not science, since UAH finds a much different trend.

Until you specify which part of the data (stratosphere? troposphere?) and the time period of the trends you are discussing, I fear that’s just mudslinging.
As an example, here’s my calculations from last year. The ordinary least squares trend in the lowest temperature (which is RSS “LT” and UAH “T2LT” data) from January 1979 to May 2012 is as follows:
RSS: + 0.133°C per decade
UAH: + 0.135°C per decade.
Your move …
w.

RockyRoad
August 26, 2013 10:19 pm

Martin457 says:
August 26, 2013 at 8:52 pm


I do like the theory of Sol. That thing that most of the ‘warmists’ deny. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, they won’t accept it. They can still clutch on to their confusers with teraflops of insight but, if the right numbers are pushed, they can make anything happen.

It’s like the cook telling us the temperature of his roast in the oven is controlled by the salt he added, and has nothing to do with the oven itself.
Such a detachment in logic simply boggles the mind.

ba
August 26, 2013 10:19 pm

The Piltdown Mann exceeds his progenitor.

Nick Stokes
August 26, 2013 10:31 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: August 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“I assumed you knew that everyone was talking about statistically significant trends, so I didn’t mention that part.”

Lord M doesn’t say anything about statistical significance. He just shows the RSS trend for 200 months as actually (just) below zero. That’s what Sedron was comparing with.
“Mmmmm … and yet there are 58 periods of 180 months (15 years) out of the total possible 237 180-month periods that have a statistically significant trend in the T2LT dataset after accounting for autocorrelation. Go figure.”
Well, I’m trying to. It seems to just say that there are 169 out of 237 possible 15 year periods that don’t have significant trend. Does seem to be short.
But the UAH trend since August 1994 was (WFT) 1.37°C/century. That’s quite large, and if it’s insignificant that just means, like Sedron says, that even that period is short.

August 26, 2013 11:28 pm

(For those who have seen this already, forgive the repeat)
Stopping by Yamal on a Snowy Evening
by Mikey Mouse
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 26, 2013 11:36 pm

From Willis Eschenbach on August 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm:


As an example, here’s my calculations from last year. The ordinary least squares trend in the lowest temperature (which is RSS “LT” and UAH “T2LT” data) from January 1979 to May 2012 is as follows:
RSS: + 0.133°C per decade
UAH: + 0.135°C per decade.

UAH is now up to Ver 5.6. I went to WFT for data but they’re only up to 5.5. So I went to the 5.6 ver of the file WFT uses.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt
Per LibreOffice spreadsheet, Jan 1979 to May 2012 inclusive is now +0.137°C/decade.
WFT says they’re using RSS v 3.3 (per file name). I’m not familiar with RSS so don’t know if that’s current version. RSS trend is 0.132°C/decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1978.99/to:2012.34/plot/rss/from:1978.99/to:2012.34/trend/
===
From Nick Stokes on August 26, 2013 at 10:31 pm:

But the UAH trend since August 1994 was (WFT) 1.37°C/century.

WFT is using UAH ver 5.5, which they’re still producing for a little while due to a contract with NOAA. But you should be using the “current” version, 5.6.
When possible, check your data sources to make sure you’re current.

August 27, 2013 12:31 am

Hansen getting his butt kicked a bit more by John Happs … let’s all line up and give Hansen a good kicking that he deserves: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies

Hansen argues, without empirical evidence, that “positive feedbacks” and “climate forcings” will multiply any current mild warming we might experience until a climate “tipping point” is reached. He claims this will lead to a dramatic rise in global temperature and the destruction of life on Earth. He freely invokes the emotive scenario of what his grandchildren will have to face in a future warming world. In doing so he ignores that the Earth is not warming even mildly, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide. He also ignores evidence which suggests that a warmer Earth would likely be more hospitable to both flora and fauna.

Bob Layson
August 27, 2013 12:51 am

Please note that a liar is one who bears false witness. A liar may or may not, in fact, tell an untruth. A liar may attempt to lead others astray but fail by, as it happens, telling it like – unbeknownst to the would-be liar – it actually is. Yet a liar can always affirm to be the case what they believe not to be the case, or they can deny to be the case what they believe to be the case.

richardscourtney
August 27, 2013 1:50 am

Phil.:
As usual with your posts, your post at August 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400752
your contribution adds fog to clarity and smears truth with falsehood.
In a silly attempt to demean an excellent explanation by Bart you say in total

The hypothesized relationship is not linear but log, you are the one who is in error.

But no mention of the form of the “hypothesized relationship” was mentioned until you raised it. And it is not relevant to Bart’s conclusion; i.e.

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.

As Bart explained that is important because

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.

Phil, the only “error” is yours. It is egregious and is typical of your errors.
Richard

David L.
August 27, 2013 2:32 am

Jeff Alberts on August 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm
David L. says:
August 26, 2013 at 8:35 am

————–
Thanks! That’s actually what I was trying to say.

Dr Burns
August 27, 2013 3:25 am

“Mann says there is “evidence that humans are warming the planet””
What does he claim the evidence is … or is he like most alarmists who claim “there’s lots of evidence” but can never find any when asked ?