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.
Someone commented below this argument is what the warmistas want. It sure is. Everyone is missing the bigger picture of distracting the point and putting yet one more liberal anti-energy pol in power in Richmond. Keep your eyes on the ball folks, and stop voting for free phones and free EBT cards.
And for all of you who are so outraged at Cuccinelli’s supposed fishing expedition into government owned emails of a government employee, where is your outrage over this admiration’s fishing expeditions into emails and essentially all digital transactions of uncounted numbers of perfectly innocent and perfectly private individuals? The hypocrisy makes me sick.
[snip . . ranting at moderators decisions is ineffectual . . please post your points on this topic in such a way as to advance your cause without contravening the site rules. Thanks . . mod]
There is an interesting point here – I am putting in the two posts which summarise best in order to make it:
Gail Combs says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:05 am
Margaret Hardman says: @ur momisugly August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And now we know you can not read or comprehend what you have read. Read Kadaka’s comment AGAIN.
I will even make it REAL EASY:
Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers…
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”.
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.”
Mann is attacking the man and not the science and he falls flat on his face.
The actual information about the Mereworth case:
Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)
Posted by Harriet Gore at 23:00, May 26 2011.
FOR THE RECORD: YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
by Baron Mereworth’s Counsel, Harriet Gore
Was Baron Mereworth successful on 23rd May 2011 at the trial before Mr Justice Lewison? Yes he was.
What did the court find? The court found that section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 did not repeal the Letters patent appointing and granting Baron Mereworth a successive Baron Mereworth to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament. The court also found that Baron Mereworth is entitled to the degree, title, dignity of Baron Mereworth as set out in his Letters patent. Most importantly, the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) admitted in open court that section 1 did not repeal the Letters patent. Before this admission, the Ministry of Justice contended that section 1 repealed the Letters patent.
Why is this most important? It is most important because the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) will not appeal a decision based on its own admission which it made in open court.
How important is Baron Mereworth’s success? It is very important because the rights set out in the Letters patent remain and can be enforced because the Letters patent was not repealed….
http://www.serifwebresources.com/control.php?uid=f3a5a4684dbd9bb0e7f59f4114ceeb6c55b6b557&post=406860
You and Mann owe Lord Monckton an apology.
richardscourtney says:
August 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm
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
==========
“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.”
Is clearly contradicted by the Baron Mereworth ruling – from Gail’s post – that Monckton does have a right to a seat in the House of Lords, “to have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in Parliament.”
The ’99 Act cannot stop Monckton from taking his seat and using his voice in Parliament.
It appears as a fact the only thing preventing him doing so is his voluntary agreement, his acceptance of, the Act forbidding him..
As it stands, from the Mereworth ruling, the Act is a chimera, as the C.O.D. defines it – “2. Bogy; thing of hybrid character; fanciful conception; hence chimerical”.
Monckton and all the others affected by it have every right to take their seats and places to exercise their right to have their voices heard, and pre-empting any argument on the nuance in meaning of “voice”, as this traditionally means their voices are not only heard but counted, this Act denying them a vote has no actual power to do so.
It is entirely up to Monckton himself to accept or reject it.
Myrrh:
re your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am
You misunderstand the situation.
There is no dispute that Lord Monckton is a Member of the House of Lord’s.
As I said, this is a Constitutional matter because nobody except the monarch can withdraw what the monarch has given in a Constitutional Monarchy such as the UK. No law can change this, only overthrow of the monarchy could change it..
But there is a dispute as to whether he has a Seat with voting rights in the House of Lords. This is because there is legal dispute as to what the 1999 Act actually did and could do.
Lord Monckton says he is a Member of the House of Lords. He is.
Warmunists try to pretend Lord Monckton is not a Member of the House of Lords as a method to avoid discussing his arguments. They always lose when they try to discuss his arguments.
This matter has been fully aired in this thread and your post does not assist understanding of it.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Regarding the ~17 year plateau in atmospheric temps, Mann’s strategy of denying it is unlikely to be one of his main strategies.
I think if one looks past Mann’s smoke screen on his temp plateau denial then several more important Mann manipulations of the media become visible.
First, he is characterizing the ‘settled science’ versus skeptic interactions in terms of mythological monotypes . . . he is painting a myth of the good hero, in world saving battle, against evil forces. That appears to be his main strategy for manipulating the media. The discussion of temp plateaus is a smoke screen that allows him to continue to paint his mythology in the background. He has been painting his mythology consistently for almost three years now.
There, are several more of his significant strategies masked by the smokescreen, but this comment is too wordy already. : )
John
PS- are you coming to Northern California anytime soon? Why not join the annual AGU fall meeting in San Francisco in December? I am sure there will be a large group of protagonists of alarming AGW to have very critical but polite discourse with.
– – – – – – – –
Myrrh & Richard,
I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.
The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.
I hope his dialog continues and thrives.
John
Nick Stokes,
This whole thing sounds like a sword fight on a sinking ship. Every possible regression technique that I can think of, when applied to UAH Global surface temps since 1978 has a trend that is statistically significantly less than 2 degrees C per century. In fact the central value is less than 1.5. We’re talking more than 34 years — no need to argue over 15 versus 17 years or anything trivial like that.
So let’s all agree to disagree about the sword fight. Monckton’s point is arguable. On the other hand, when we look at more than a third of a century of satellite records, we see a number that’s significantly lower than the Consensus’ low end, as illustrated by the SkS graph (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg).
The U.S.S. Consensus is foundering, and you’re knee-deep in water and still you insist on this sword fight?
Eli Rabett says:
August 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm
“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.”
So where did he ASK to be recognized? “Ask” was your word. I don’t see him ASKing to be recognized. He pushed a button. Where is the verbal request ASKing to recognized?
(Snip. This is a different moderator. I do not know the identity of the moderator you are complaining about. But your personal vendetta against Lord Monckton is not on topic. There are plenty of other blogs you can carry on your ad hominem attacks against that gentleman. But not here. Discuss Michael Mann here, if you wish. Your expertise may be in physics, or not. But it is not in UK Parliamentary law. This applies to other commentators’ ad hominem attacks and opinions against Lord Monckton as well. ~mod.)
Slightly OT – I just watched Steven Sackur’s “Hardtalk” on BBC world service, 30 minutes of pure polemic for alarmist global warming. The first part was total “soft-talk”. He was talking to a Washington climate scientist who was predicting an ice free Arctic in the next decade or two. Hardtalk is meant to confront the interviewee with hostile questions, but all Sackur served up was a sycophantic yes-man echo-chamber / answering chorus. Not one single skeptical argument or inconvenient fact (such as that Alaska is currently cooling, not warming) was mentioned.
Sackur then went on to interview the governor of Alaska, interrupting her about 4-5 seconds into every SINGLE statement, basically barking orders in his charmingly English way at her to stop oil drilling. (Interrupting is a horrible English affliction, I am English myself and it drives my (Russian) wife mad.) Then Sackur tried the same thing on an Alaskan oil executive. It reminds me of the Guardian newspaper’s attempt to plant people in Iowa about 2 elections ago to try to sway the state toward voting Democrat, regarded by some as a pivotal factor in handing the state and the election to George W Bush. Looks like Steve Sackur and the BBC are trying again to roll back time to pre-1776, good luck with that Steve.
Margaret Hardman says:
August 26, 2013 at 10:45 am
Thanks, Margaret, I read that claim of the Clerk some months ago. In response to your renewing it, I gave you the analysis of Moncton’s lawyers.
If you think you can pronounce who is right from this distance, you’re barking mad. It revolves on subtle points very obscure English law, and I doubt greatly if you are an expert.
This is why it is very slimy of you to claim that Christopher is a “liar” as you’ve done. He obviously believes his legal advice, and his lawyers have told him that the Clerk of Parliament is in error.
As you say, Monckton and his lawyers may be wrong … but he also may be right, and in either case, for you to call him a liar is a blot on your escutcheon, not his …
w.
John Whitman says:
August 27, 2013 at 8:11 am
richardscourtney on August 27, 2013 at 7:02 am said,
Myrrh:
re your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am
[. . .]
This matter has been fully aired in this thread and your post does not assist understanding of it.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
Myrrh & Richard,
I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.
The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.
I hope his dialog continues and thrives.
There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.
Re references here to 15, 17 years, 200 months, etc. – actually, overall temperatures are much lower now than in the 1930s. That’s *80* years of declining temps against 30 percent increase in CO2, not 15 or 17 years against 15 percent increase. (However, if the Russian scientists are correct about the approach of a long-term solar minimum, we could be looking at a total of 30 years’ cooling with a 25 percent increase in CO2 – or possibly even a 250-year cooling period with doubling of CO2.
Not to mention about *700* years of declining temps since the Medieval Warming Period, vs. a 45 percent increase in CO2.
richardscourtney says:
August 27, 2013 at 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 explicitly assumed a linear relationship (below) as an illustration of the ‘AGW hypothesis’ whereas the AGW hypothesis is in fact a log dependence on CO2 it is relevant to Bart’s statement.
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.
The error is the assumption of a linear relationship: (400 – 360) / (400 – 280),
the error is Bart’s (and yours).
Phil. says:
August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am
Then please explain your comment immediately above. (Yes, it only addresses Richard and not Monckton, but still requires a response–or feel free to rebutt Monckton.)
Phil. says:
August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Aye yie yie. I made no assumption such as you suggest, and your argument is meritless (quelle surprise). Apparently, you don’t even know how to calculate a percentage. Very sad.
Phil.:
I see that at August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1401323
you yet again add fog to clarity and smear truth with falsehood.
Bart said concerning CO2 rise
That is a simple calculation to determine a percentage increase.
It is correct, and – as I said – it does not assume any form of the rise (i.e. linear, or logarithmic, or exponential, or etc.).
But you have repeated your daft assertion saying
All that does is to yet again demonstrate that you are innumerate and don’t know how to calculate a percentage and you don’t know what a percentage is.
And you provide another daft assertion when you write at August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1401221
Really? “Rebuttal of” [my] “posts is not allowed here”?
If you are not allowed to rebut what I say why have I had to answer your subsequent presentation of a repeated falsehood as I have in this post?
And most posts I make on WUWT address disputes of what I have said.
Phil, you are delusional.
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 26, 2013 at 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.
Not only that but the r^2 that was quoted was 0.000, I find that very hard to accept!.
richardscourtney says:
August 27, 2013 at 1:42 pmReally? “Rebuttal of” [my] “posts is not allowed here”?
Read the context of that statement.
This is what I was responding to:
I find both of your expansions educational. I certainly hope there is much more expansion on the nature of Christopher Monckton’s relationship with his government because as an American this is a fascinating insight into the British culture.
The protagonist and antagonist positions on the subject here at WUWT are a wonderful opportunity to get balanced insight. I value all pros and all cons.
I hope his dialog continues and thrives.
I have been told by the moderators that I will not be allowed to respond on this subject and my responses on the matter have been deleted, it’s difficult to have a dialog when one side of it is restricted. Hence my comment:
“There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.”
My response this post of yours wasn’t allowed for example:
richardscourtney says:
August 27, 2013 at 7:02 am
Referring to the statement by the Lord President of the Council is apparently classed as an ad hominem attack on Monckton or an ‘opinion against him’!
On this subject the site policy is apparently:
“(my and) other commentators’…… opinions against Lord Monckton” are not allowed.
RockyRoad says:
August 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Phil. says:
August 27, 2013 at 10:07 am
…
There is no dialog as rebuttal of Monckton and Richard’s posts is not allowed here.
Then please explain your comment immediately above. (Yes, it only addresses Richard and not Monckton, but still requires a response–or feel free to rebutt Monckton.)
There’s no point, my post will be deleted, just as the previous ones have been.
Bart says:
August 27, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Phil. says:
August 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Aye yie yie. I made no assumption such as you suggest, and your argument is meritless (quelle surprise). Apparently, you don’t even know how to calculate a percentage. Very sad.
You assert that “According to the AGW hypothesis, CO2 is the main driver of increasing temperatures”, however the form it takes is log(CO2). So when you refer to ’cause and effect’ and assign a percentage increase to the cause it should properly be the percentage increase in log(CO2). That is implicitly treating it as a linear dependence, that you don’t understand that is indeed very sad.
Not even close, Phil., Bart merely asserted a large change in driver has resulted in no change in output. Pretty easy to understand even without a degree in… what, propaganda?
Mark
From Phil. on August 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm:
Let’s see, grab the data from WoodForTrees:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2013.51/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2013.51/trend
Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000243735 per year
Throw into LibreOffice spreadsheet. R^2 is 0.0000467. Looks like 0.000 to me.
You know, LibreOffice (the “successor” to OpenOffice) is free to download and use, although I’d recommend a high speed connection. Good for Windoze, Mac OS X, and Linux. You can do the work yourself on your own machine. Well, assuming you have your own computing device you can install programs on, and are not just using a free library computer, or your cellphone, etc.
Ha! Phil., the astronomer cum know-it-all climatologist that has to reference Mann for statistical help (there is a reason these guys do not reference statisticians) questioning a statistical result… and getting it wrong. Go back to high school science books, dude. At least those critics aren’t capable of making a fool out of you.
Mark
Nice one, again, Christopher. The real climate deniers are the warmists. They do not believe in observations, and thus are in Complete denial. This Mann character has been and remains to be a mockery in the face of true science. Temp should have warmed 1-2 deg C in this period, according to him and James Hansen, Al Gore and the rest of the tax frauders. Where is Eliot Ness when he’s needed, after all he got another ‘Al’ put away for a lesser offence.