Reality is Absent from Michael Mann’s Activist Article on Typhoon Haiyan

UPDATE: I’ve corrected a few typos that carried over into two of the graphs and, at the end, I’ve added a model-data comparison of the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Ocean subset.

# # #

A week after typhoon Haiyan stormed through the Philippines, the website EcoWatch ran an article by Michael Mann. The blog post was titled Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action. Michael Mann began with a commendable request for Philippine Red Cross Donations. But after that, once again, we have an activist celebrity—one who masquerades as a climate scientist—using the misfortunes of others in efforts to advance a political agenda. And to make the effort even more futile on Mann’s part, much of the evidence he presented has no basis in reality.

Mann writes:

For now, super storms are still rare. However, models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world. A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.

Unfortunately, deadly tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) have existed in the past and they will exist in the future. Steve Goddard has had numerous blog posts recently at RealScience about tropical cyclones, including a few with a link to the WeatherUnderground webpage that lists the 35 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in History. Also, Paul Homewood of NotALotOf PeopleKnowThat plotted the number of tropical cyclones listed on the Wikipedia webpage here, with the same intensity as typhoon Haiyan (based on barometric pressure). See my Figure 1, which is from Paul’s post Most Intense Typhoons On The Decline.

Figure 1

Figure 1

The peer-reviewed paper linked by Mann was Emanuel (2013) Downscaling CMIP5 climate models shows increased tropical cyclone activity over the 21st century. It’s obviously a climate model-based study. Sea surface temperatures are one of the primary ingredients of the tropical cyclone recipe, and we’ve illustrated and discussed in numerous posts that climate models show no skill at being able to simulate sea surface temperatures, so there’s no reason to believe their prognostications. Additionally, using a table prepared by Australia’s BOM (Bureau of Meteorology), NOAA indicates on their Weather Impacts of ENSO webpage that the number of tropical cyclones in the northwest tropical Pacific is influenced by El Niño and La Niña events. But climate models cannot simulate the basic processes of El Niño or La Niña events (see Guilyardi et al (2009) and Bellenger et al (2013)), so the study by Kerry Emanuel has little to no merit. For those new to this discussion, let me once again quote a key sentence from Guilyardi et al (2009). Note: ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) in the following is a commonly used acronym for El Niño and La Niña:

Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).

Michael Mann may believe that “A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation”, but the IPCC (the political body that helped make him an eco-celebrity) contradicts the “number of scientists”. The IPCC states very clearly on page 7 of 165 of Chapter 2 of their 5th Assessment Report (their boldface):

Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.

Additionally, the IPCC continues on page 62:

Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010).

Moving on, Michael Mann writes:

Although exact measurements are hard to come by (there were no flights in the Western Pacific to provide direct measurements) satellite images along with readings of ocean heat seem to suggest that Haiyan was an unnaturally powerful storm. The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming.

Unnaturally? Oy vey. Mann’s link in that paragraph is to a blog post by Greg Laden Why Was Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda So Powerful, and is this a trend? In the following blog posts, we’ve addressed many of the points Greg Laden attempted to make:

Greg Laden included a graph here reported to be from Kerry Emanuel’s 2005 paper Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. I found that graph quite curious. If we look at sea surface temperature trend map of the Indian and Pacific Oceans from 1994 to 2012, Figure 2, we can see little warming in the northwest equatorial Pacific. Two decades is a reasonable amount of time. The sea surface temperature dataset, HADISST, is the same date presented in that paper. Emanuel’s graph included the much-smoothed sea surface temperature anomalies for the region bordered by the coordinates of 5N-15N, 130E-180. I’ve highlighted that region on the map. An ENSO-related spatial pattern (what some would call a Pacific Decadal Oscillation-related pattern) is visible in the map.

Figure 2

Figure 2

As shown, there is no warming illustrated in the region used by Kerry Emanuel in his 2005 paper for the period of 1994 to 2012, the last 19 years. Why start the data in 1994? If we extend the trend map into years earlier than 1994, then the trends are being influenced by the residual cooling effects of the aerosols spewed into the stratosphere by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Figure 3 illustrates the sea surface temperature anomalies for that region in the northwest tropical Pacific for the period of January 1994 to August 2013. As shown, the warming rate is a minuscule 13 one-thousandths of a deg C per decade. Or better said, the sea surface temperatures show little to no warming in that region for the past 20 years.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Let’s extend the HADISST-based sea surface temperature data out to the entire region shown in Figure 2. That is, we’ll look at the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans, from pole to pole, for the period of January 1994 to August 2013. The warming rate is even lower, at 6 one-thousandths of a deg C per decade.

Figure 4

Figure 4

It’s tough to claim, as Michael Mann did, that “The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming,” when the data indicate the sea surface temperatures for the Indian or Pacific Oceans have not warmed in 2 decades. Maybe Michael Mann should check data before he makes claims that aren’t supported by data. That way he wouldn’t look so foolish when someone, like me, calls his bluff.

Note: Figure 4 uses the same coordinates and sea surface temperature dataset as the model-data comparison here, which was included in the post A Blog Memo to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR. According to the climate models used by the IPCC for their 4th Assessment Report, the sea surface temperatures of the Indian and Pacific Oceans should have warmed 0.31 deg C over that time period…if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. I would have liked to update that model-data comparison for this post, using the models prepared for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report. Unfortunately, there is a temporary glitch at the KNMI Climate Explorer, and the multi-model mean of the CMIP5 simulations of sea surface temperatures are presently not available. Rest assured, though, that there would not have been an improvement with the CMIP5 models. See the update at the end of the post.

Michael Mann continues on that tack with:

The unusually deep, unusually warm pool of water that provided the initial fuel is unlikely to have existed in a world without warming.

The not “unusually deep,” not “unusually warm pool of water” is a product of the trade winds that blow across the tropical Pacific. The warm water “piles up” against the land masses in the western tropical Pacific. As a result, warm water accumulates there to depths of about 300 meters. The region is known by a number of names, including the West Pacific Warm Pool and the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. See Mehta and Mehta Natural decadal-multidecadal variability of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and its impacts on global climate. That warm water, created by sunlight, is occasionally released from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific by El Niño events. There is nothing unusual about the processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events.

Additionally, to counter Michael Mann’s claims of “unusually deep, unusually warm pool of water” we have the recent 2013 paleoclimatological paper Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years by Rosenthal et al. It indicates that ocean heat in the Pacific was warmer in centuries past than it is today.

That paper made the rounds through the blogosphere. Michael Mann even commented on it in his post at EcoWatch titled Pacific Ocean Warming at Fastest Rate in 10,000 Years so he understands that there are reconstructions that counter his claims. Refer also to Steve McIntyre’s post here. To put things in perspective, Steve spliced NODC data onto the end of one of the graphs by Rosenthal et al (2013). See my Figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Steve’s caption reads:

Figure 1. Annotation of Rosenthal Figure 3B. Original caption: “Compiled IWT anomalies based on Indonesian records spanning the ~500- to 900-m water depth (for individual records, see fig. S7). The shaded band represents +-1 SD. Red- OHC Pacific 0-700m heat content converted to temperature using the 0-700m Pacific mass shown in the Rosenthal SI. The values are consistent with 0-700m temperature anomaly values at NOAA

In my annotation of their Figure 3B shown above, I’ve shown two trend lines, each of which more or less corresponds to the trends reported on lines 2 and 3 of Table S3: a trend of -0.15 deg C/century from 1100-1700 and a trend of 0.09 deg C/century from 1600-1950.

Steve also writes about that illustration:

On the far right, I’ve plotted Pacific ocean heat content, converted to deg C anomaly (red), together with its trend line. The two solid yellow lines show trend lines for 1100-1700 AD and 1600-1950 AD, two of the three periods considered in Rosenthal Table S4. It is true that the rate of change over the past 55 years is somewhat higher than the trend over 1600-1950, but it is not “15 times higher”. While I don’t think that one can safely reify the fluctuations in Rosenthal’s IWT reconstructions, on the other hand, these fluctuations appear to me to preclude any strong conclusions that the relatively modest increase is unprecedented.

But the best counter to the claims that the recent warming is the “fastest in 10,000 years” comes from one of the authors interviewed by Andy Revkin. See the NewYorkTimes blog here and the YouTube video here. Andy Revkin asks the authors if they could rule out whether there were rapid changes in the past. Co-author Brad Linsley replies in part at about the 4-minute mark.

You could say that we probably have century-scale resolution at best. It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.

Let’s put that in perspective. The NODC’s ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters only extends back in time to 1955, or a little less than 60 years, but the resolution of the Rosenthal et al is “century scale”. Thus Brad Linsley’s statement, “It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.” There’s little chance they’d even notice a warming rate that was similar to the one presented by the NODC data for 60 years.

In his post Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action, Mann gives a short spiel about global warming:

But herein lies the crux—we no longer live in a world without warming. Given that 1985 was the last year with temperatures below the 20th century average, and 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record, it has become impossible to say for certain that any given storm is free from the influence of our warmed world.

We’ve illustrated and discussed in numerous blog posts for almost 5 years that ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicate the warming of the global oceans occurred via natural processes, not from increased emissions of manmade greenhouse gases. There’s no reason to repeat that discussion again here. If this subject is new to you, see the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB).

Mann goes on to talk about sea level rise:

While contrarians may dislike it when activists or actors like George Clooney point out the linkage between climate change and extreme weather, the bottom line is this: climate change makes tropical storms more damaging. Not only through increased wind speed and rainfall, but most notably through rising sea levels. This means greater damage and loss of property and life.

As I noted in my recent book Climate Models Fail:

Sea levels have climbed 100 to 120 meters (about 330 to 390 feet) since the end of the last ice age, and they were also 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher during the Eemian (the last interglacial period) than they are today. (Refer to the press release for the 2013 paper by Dahl-Jensen, et al. “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed From a Greenland Folded Ice Core”.) Whether or not we curtail greenhouse gas emissions (assuming they significantly affect climate at all), if surface temperatures remain where they are (or even if they resume warming, or if surface temperatures were to cool a little in upcoming decades), sea levels will likely continue to rise. Refer to Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post “How Much Sea Level Rise Would be Avoided by Aggressive CO2 Reductions?” It’s very possible, before the end of the Holocene (the current interglacial), that sea levels could reach the heights seen during the Eemian. Some readers might believe it’s not a matter of if sea levels will reach that height; it’s a matter of when.

After quoting the delegate from the Philippines at this year’s United Nations Climate Talks in Poland, Michael Mann then calls for action:

Let that call echo, and be heard in response to those who would insist on waiting for the next storm to take action.

But, of course, Michael Man offers no course of action. If Michael Mann is suggesting that reductions in emissions of manmade greenhouse gases will stop cyclones like Haiyan from reoccurring and also end the rise in global sea levels, then–how can I put this nicely?–he’s delusional. If Michael Mann is suggesting the people of the Philippines create a typhoon warning system and an enforced plan that relocates residents from low-lying areas and that provides adequate shelter from the impacts of the storm, then, I believe, all would agree. Unfortunately, I believe Michael Mann has greenhouse gases in mind.

UPDATE: KNMI has fixed the bug in the Climate Explorer. (Thanks, Camiel.) Figure 6 is a model-data comparison of the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Ocean since 1994. The coordinates used are 90S-90N, 20E-80W. That region represents about 70% of the surface of the global oceans. The graph includes the multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP5-archived models, which were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. They simulated a virtual warming rate for that colossal region of 0.186 deg C/decade, or a total warming of more than 0.35 deg C since 1994. But the satellite-enhanced, HADISST-based sea surface temperatures of the real Indian and Pacific Oceans have shown little to no warming for almost 2 decades.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Maybe the climate scientists who believe manmade greenhouse gas-induced warming contribute to typhoons are looking at model outputs and not observations-based data.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

The BBC is also linking Typhoon Haiyan to AGW and, in every report, cites the tragedy as proof of the world having warmed.
Yet the facts are clear. This was a tragedy in its own right. But it is not proven to be caused by, or exacerbated by, AGW.
At this point the distortion of the truth can only be deliberate.

Political Junkie

Last paragraph typo: s/b “warning” not “warming.”


“At this point the distortion of the truth can only be deliberate.”
Meh. Most of them believe it. It’s irrational and ignorant, but there you have it. In many ways we humans are still quite primitive. Realize it wasn’t all that long ago when we were still tossing young girls into the mouths of volcanos to appease the gods.

chris y

Fantastic post, Bob!
Mann should have written this-
‘While contrarians may dislike it when activists like me or actors like George Clooney point out the linkage between climate change and extreme weather,…’
But maybe it is no longer necessary to indicate the obvious.
Remarkably, Mann continues to garner media attention, even after the ignominious ‘stripping’ of his Nobel laureation.
I’m still hoping that he sues the Stockholm gang over this egregious violation of Nobel prize regulations.

There will be typhoons in 2014. Any money dedicated to curbing emissions instead of helping the Philippines get more resilient, will be close to murderous.
Even if one believes in CAGW, it’s like finding a person with pulmonary cancer and difficulty to breathe, only to book the person for chemiotherapy a few months laters, instead of providing oxygen right now.

One of the things we need to bear in mind is that, fortunately, very few typhoons ever hit land, or if they do are much weakened.
Out of the 35 most intense super typhoons, only four, including Yolanda, hit land at full strength or anywhere near.
13 stayed out at sea, and another 18 were much weakened by the time they made landfall.
Nine times out ten, Yolanda would have been just another storm.


“M Courtney says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:05 am”
Yep! Same here in Australia, ABC, SBS, all other “news” outlets, and, of course, ALL TV newscasts. Daily! Any “weather event” anywhere becomes headline news. It really is comical!


“Super Typhoons” to “Super El Ninos” – do i detect a Warsaw Talks pattern developing?
18 Nov: WA Today: Peter Hannam, SMH: Fiercer El Nino weather ahead
Australia will face fiercer El Nino weather patterns – causing severe drought – as a result of human-induced global warming, world-first research by Sydney scientists has shown.
***While the El Nino cycles typically trigger drought in the eastern states, so-called SUPER El Ninos – such as those in 1982 and 1997 – have been detected since the mid-1970s…
In a study published in Nature, researchers led by authors from the University of NSW found the trigger for the unusual patterns was a weakening of westward-flowing currents along the Pacific equator.
Eastward spreading El Ninos matter because the pool of heat over the western Pacific is likely to shift to the east during such events, taking rainfall with it and exacerbating drought conditions over Australia, said lead author Agus Santoso, a senior research associate at UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre…
The findings are likely to trigger further research to understand how much rainfall patterns are likely to change, Dr Santoso said…
“While more frequent eastward propagating El Ninos will be a symptom of a warming planet, further research is underway to determine the impact of such events in a climate that is going to be significantly warmer than today,” said co-author, Dr Wenju Cai, a senior scientist at CSIRO.


“A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.”
We must always remember that 2 is a number. Mr. Mann and someone else may in face think that way.


It won’t end until large parts of North America are buried under a couple thousand feet of ice.

martin brumby

Meltdown Mann:-
“A number of scientists suspect ….”
“Models suggest….”
“The science is hinting….”
And there was me imagining that scientists had both to devise a testable hypothesis and also to consider every alternative scenario that could lead to the effect they were considering.
Suspecting, suggesting (by a model, no less) and hinting just doesn’t cut it. Mann is about as much of a scientist as Al Gore or Clooney.


What Mann and the BBC do by attributing this storm to global warming is wrong and the outcome is vile as it deflects from those that should be held accountable for the large number of deaths. Either the Phiilipine does not have proper construction standards or they exist and are not being enforced and the responsibilty lies with the Phillipine Government.
I located the following tome on construction standards recommended for houses constructed in the Phillipines and this document is dated 2008, bad and good practice is shown and the good practice is well known to structural engineers throughout the world.
Extract follows:-
“Many of the existing houses in the Philippines are still not
safe enough to withstand the recurring force
s of nature
and GTZ is pleased to publish this Handbook as an aid to
assist local communities to design and build stronger
houses in safe locations. This will help them to withstand
extreme weather and geological events. It is written with
the aim of makin
g technical information simple and
understandable for those who build so many of the homes:
the homeowners themselves.”
The Code of Practice for wind speeds in the Phillipines provides a maximum speed of 250kph. Thus taking into account factors of safety the collapse of properly designed buildings should only occurr when wind speed reach 500kph for overturning and approx 390kph for material failure.


ps apologies for the typo’s

Colin Porter

Michael Mann should perhaps be a little cautious of his funding, particularly if it derives from Federal sources. The US Government have been worried about the assignment of disasters to Climate Change at the Warsaw conference, so will not be too pleased with renegade “scientists” making adverse statements.
The Guardian article says, – US officials fear that international climate change talks will become focused on payouts for damage caused by extreme weather events exacerbated by global warming, such as the category 5 Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines last week killing thousands of people and causing what is expected to be billions of pounds of damage.
An official US briefing document obtained by the Guardian reveals that the country is worried the UN negotiations, currently under way in Warsaw, will “focus increasingly on blame and liability” and poor nations will be “seeking redress for climate damages from sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and other adverse impacts”.
Perhaps not in the too distant future, government agencies might just be saying that Climate Change was 100% natural after all.

Super Mann.

Eugene WR Gallun

There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked lines
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led thru the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means
Eugene WR Gallun

“Reality is Absent from Michael Mann’s Activist Article on Typhoon Haiyan”
Title too long.
“Reality is Absent from Michael Mann”
Much better.


More rent seeking tripe from Mann.
Notice the similarity to a good con-artist: No actual linkage, but instead product placement and implications of doom unless he and his pals get a lot more of our money.

Excellent post, Dr. Tisdale.
I was going to make a cynical comment about Mann’s believe in his ability to control the climate and prevent large tropical cyclones. However, when Bill Nye, the science guy, backs him, it truly must be so.
I wonder if Mann and folks like him have this rubbish prewritten so all they have to do is a few edits and be out quickly telling us we must atone for our sins.

Grant A. Brown

I thought Michael Mann was a tree-ring guy. When did he become a credentialed expert in oceanography, tropical storms, and the recent weather history of Asia? (Or is it only the “deniers” who speak outside their area of expertise we should ignore?)


Mann said “The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming,” To hint or suggest without scientific proof or naming of names is baseless science that has no credibilty .

lemiere jacques

more typhoons in the future if we don’t take climate action? ok
give us how likely and error bars…
and give us how likely and errors bars if we do take climate action….


“A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.
Zero is a number.

ferd berple

Colin Porter says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:56 am
An official US briefing document obtained by the Guardian reveals that the country is worried the UN negotiations, currently under way in Warsaw, will “focus increasingly on blame and liability”
The US and EU blocked moves to take into consideration CO2 already released. Instead they are trying to get delegates to focus on CO2 yet to be released by other countries.
This demonstrates the hypocrisy of the the developed nations. Having released the CO2 that “caused” the problem, and in doing so they got themselves out of poverty, they now want to prevent the rest of the world from doing the same. They are hoping the promise of 100 billion per year to pay off third world leaders to keep their people in poverty will be sufficient, so they can continue to live high off the hog, enjoying the benefits of CO2 while depriving the rest of the world of the same benefits.

But Mann’s comments tie into the education reforms being pushed all over the world now that prime students to believe climate and economies and cities and society itself are all “systems” that can be modelled and redesigned and experimented with until the outcomes meet the preferences of a majority of voters.
When your schoolday is full of computer graphics supposedly simulating reality with grabbing visuals you are immersed in and playing massively multiplayer online gaming constitutes accepted middle or high school activity because it is engaging, we are setting up the next generation that will believe physical reality behaves like the virtual reality that seems to fill every waking hour. Home and school.


It’s a new kind of storm chaser out there today.

Mann oh Mann.

Piltdown Mann is a ‘distinguised’ Quackademic whose hockey stick fraud was demolished and who denied the existence of the medieval warm and little ice age periods ? He is not a scientist but a another huckster-philosopher who has made a lot of money from his scam and now enjoys an exalted position – one quite different from 1998 when he just obtained his Pretty Happy Dude degree and was a mere adjunct prof at little U Mass Amherst….. He should be defunded – but alas U Penn makes too much Fed $ out of Piltdown Mann to contemplate enforcing real scientific procedures, transparency, experimentation, proof…….fraud is not science.

ferd berple

According to GHG theory, the greatest warming should occur at the poles. This decreases the efficiency of the heat engine that drives the earth’s weather, which should reduce the frequency and intensity of storms.
This is fundamental to all Carnot cycle engines, which includes the earth. If you reduce the efficiency of the engine, while maintained the same fuel supply (the sun) the engine will deliver less work (weather).
This reduction is clearly seen in Figure 1, where the time of greatest warmth is marked by the least number of intense storms. At the same time, there has been a reduction in wind speeds globally. If anything, storm intensity should increase in the future if we see a decrease in polar temperatures.

Mike Smith

The repeated and dishonest attempts to exploit human disasters to further his agenda speak volumes about Mann’s integrity. What a nasty bit of work.

ferd berple

“The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming,”
Duh, without the warming world and the prosperity of fossil fuels, PI would not have been able to support its current population. Millions would have died early due to poverty, leaving less for the Typhoon to target today.


Dear Bob
No problem and thank you.
Apologies for having to use a screen name.

ferd berple

Stacey says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:54 am
I located the following tome on construction standards recommended for houses constructed in the Phillipines and this document is dated 2008, bad and good practice is shown and the good practice is well known to structural engineers throughout the world.
Had a quick read through the book. Excellent and easy to follow. These sorts of low cost, practical solutions make a whole lot more sense than trying to stop storms by eliminating fossil fuels. There were typhoons long before fossil fuels were in use.


“Mann writes:
For now, super storms are still rare. However, models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world. ”
He has models that show that more warmth means more tropical storms? Gee, who is that guy, a genius? Bet he has a Nobel price like Obama.


Mann also said
“A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.” Who said that natural variation has a fixed amplitude and frequency of weather events . This is nonsense. Sometime the various factors come together that cause weather that is more extreme than the previous one . A good example of this is tornadoes in US. As soon as we have more tornadoes or bigger tornadoes , some misinformed climate scientists blame it on global warming . Yet no one checked the variables that cause the extra or bigger tornadoes like the1974 spring peak , this past spring and again yesterday . Whenever there is a colder spring or colder fall in the Canadian Prairie region, extra cold air rushes south to meet the warm air in the US mid west coming from the Gulf . The result is inevidable and it is not due to global warming at all. I maintain that periodic changes in natural variation that cause more extreme weather not global warming.


ferd berple says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:41 am
“This demonstrates the hypocrisy of the the developed nations. Having released the CO2 that “caused” the problem, and in doing so they got themselves out of poverty, they now want to prevent the rest of the world from doing the same. ”
Nah, it’s far simpler; CO2AGW was designed as an allround political club; lots of governments have used the club to justify this or that; now the emerging economies think, yeah, we’ll use it as well to club the broke Western nations a bit; and the Westerners can ill afford it so they try to deflect the clubbing.
Just Realpolitik. The word “hypocritical” doesn’t really apply as it is never honest or candid to begin with.
When you’re a politician and you want to achieve X to solve problem Y, policy X is usually not sold best by explaining problem Y. Something else, a pseudo problem Z, might have a much better appeal to the masses. So you tell the masses, we’ll do X because of Z.
Just like you sell iPhones and Teslas by making them black and shiny.


There have been many complaints about the BBC’s coverage of this event. As the BBC makes it difficult to make a formal complaint against them, I have gathered all the relevant information here should you wish to pursue the matter with them directly.
BBC Broadcasting House
Tel: +44 370 010 0222
Tel: 020 7743 8000
Tel: 08700 100 222 if you want to complain about a programme
If you want to email them direct, then it is usually
Lord Patten
Diane Coyle
Vice Chairman
Sonita Alleyne
Richard Ayre
Anthony Fry
Alison Hastings
Trustee for England
David Liddiment
Bill Matthews
Trustee for Scotland
Aideen McGinley
Trustee for Northern Ireland
Elan Closs Stephens
Trustee for Wales
Suzanna Taverne
Lord Williams
The Director-General of the BBC
The Director-General is the Chief Executive Officer and the Editor-in-Chief of the BBC. He is the editorial, operational and creative leader of the organisation, with responsibility for the Corporation’s global workforce and all of the BBC’s services across television, radio and online.
The Director-General chairs the BBC Executive Board, which consists of six other executive directors, and four non-executive directors. The Executive Board manages the BBC. It is responsible for operational management and for the delivery of BBC services according to the plans that have been agreed with the BBC Trust.
Tony Hall, Director-General
Helen Boaden, Director, Radio
Danny Cohen, Director, Television
James Harding, Director of News and Current Affairs
Lucy Adams, Director, HR
Anne Bulford, Managing Director, Operations and Finance
James Purnell, Director, Strategy & Digital
Simon Burke
Sally Davis
Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE
Brian McBride
Complaints page
Complain online
The Feedback program (quite a useless program, really)
03700 100 222*
03700 100 212* (textphone)
*24 hours, charged as 01/02 geographic numbers
By Mail
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
How the BBC handles complaints
To help us report and handle complaints efficiently, we ask you to contact us using our central website, phone number or postal address. If you do not, we cannot guarantee your complaint is seen by the right people or that you will receive a reply. If you need access assistance please contact us.
If you have a complaint about a BBC item which was broadcast or published, either online or in a BBC owned magazine, you should normally complain within 30 working days of the transmission or publication (there are some exceptions to this time limit so please read the full procedures). Please make one complaint rather than multiple issues which may complicate any investigation and delay our reply. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website ( You can also complain to Ofcom – details at Where to complain (
If you complain online, we ask you to complete a webform instead of contacting an email address. This is because we need to capture all the information to classify, report and handle each complaint as efficiently as possible.
What happens next
We will investigate possible breaches of standards, but in order to use your licence fee proportionately will not reply in detail to other points such as comments, further questions or matters of opinion. For consistency and to minimise costs, if we receive other complaints about the same issue we will send the same reply to everyone and may publish a response on our website or in Corrections and clarifications ( We email or post over 90% of replies within 2 weeks (10 working days) but cannot always guarantee this. It will also depend on what your complaint is about, how many others we have and practical issues such as whether a production team is on location or otherwise away.
If you are dissatisfied with our reply you should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days explaining why. You may be able to take the issue further to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or relevant senior management. We publish the findings of complaints upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit and those considered at stage 3 on appeal by the BBC Trust in Complaints reports (
In order to use your licence fee proportionately we do not investigate minor, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious complaints which have not suggested evidence of a breach of standards, or are gratuitously abusive or offensive. When handling your complaint we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not, and in some cases we may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
More details :
The BBC Trust upholds standards and represents the interests of licence payers and full details of the complaints procedures are available on the BBC Trust website ( Please scroll down for further information and answers about the handling of complaints. (
Further information about the complaints service
What does the BBC do with my complaint?
We analyse all complaints overnight and also take into account other reaction, audience research and BBC Editorial Guidelines. People have different views or expectations about programmes which can differ from our editorial standards or the public service obligations we must meet. So our reply to a complaint may not always be what someone might wish. But if we get something wrong we will apologise and, if necessary, take steps to avoid it happening again.
How does the BBC act on complaints?
The BBC’s Complaints Management Board meets monthly to review issues arising from complaints, BBC Trust or Ofcom findings and other broadcasting developments. Chaired by the Chief Complaints Editor it is made up of senior executives and ensures lessons are learned and fed into BBC Editorial Guidelines and compliance processes. It reports to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Board. The BBC Trust is the BBC’s governing body which holds the Executive to account and represents the interests of licence payers. It monitors editorial standards, compliance and complaints handling. It reports on these in its Annual Report ( to licence payers and on the BBC Trust website (
What if I remain dissatisfied with the BBC’s reply?
You should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days quoting any case number and explaining why. You may be able to take the issue to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or higher management. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website.
Do the numbers of complaints make a difference?
No. We are always concerned about high numbers, but what matters is whether the complaint is justified and the BBC acted wrongly. If so we will apologise. If we do not believe we breached our public service obligations or Editorial Guidelines we will explain why. We sometimes come under pressure from organised lobbies or the press but defend our editorial independence and standards as necessary.
How does the BBC define a complaint?
It isn’t possible to define the difference between a comment and complaint. If you say it is a complaint we count it as one. We generally consider a complaint to be a criticism which expects a reply and would ideally like things changed, even if we are unable to respond as the complainant might wish.
What does the BBC publish about complaints?
We publish public responses to issues of wide audience concern if they cause significant numbers of complaints or raise a significant issue. We do not publish public responses to every single complaint. Our responses are available in Complaints reports ( for up to six months and include any explanation, apology or action taken as a result. In Complaints reports ( we also publish:
1. monthly summaries of the main editorial complaints received at stage 1
2. findings of editorial complaints later upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit (stage 2)
3. findings of subsequent appeals to the BBC Trust (stage 3) including non-editorial complaints
What if I have not had a reply?
Please call us or contact us through our website.
What happens if I opt not to ask for a reply?
Your complaint is normally still circulated to BBC staff to read in our overnight report of reaction.
This petition should be sent to every member of the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the Non-executives :
“Dear [BBC],
We, the taxpaying public, have had enough of the lying propaganda you publish and broadcast on a daily basis about “global warming,” or “climate change,” or whatever you are calling it this month.
One of the most persistent lies you disseminate is that of the so-called “98% consensus” of climate scientists who agree with the assertion that changes in the Earth’s climate are largely driven by man-made carbon dioxide, or “carbon emissions” as you prefer to call it.
This lie is repeated by every broadcaster you employ, including your so-called “Environment Analyst” Roger Harrabin, and no effort is spared in spreading the misinformation via selected guests on your various programs, such as Radio 4’s Saturday Review on Saturday September 14th.
In view of the information attached, which proves conclusively the lie about the “98% consensus” we demand you either stop deliberately disseminating this deception to your audiences and readers or provide a comprehensive explanation to the public as to why you refuse to do so.”

Frank K.

Such drivel coming from Mr. Mann and his followers is to be expected. I’m just wondering how long “mainstream” climate scientists will put up with this nonsense before even they get totally turned off. I suppose it’s like asking how long the left wing MSM and Hollywood elites will put up with Alec Baldwin before they finally “throw him under the bus”…

Eustace Cranch

If any of these propaganda-slingers thinks (as they seem to) that CO2 is the “control knob” for hurricanes, typhoons, and tornados, PROVE IT.


I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
The check’s in the mail.
Models suggest.

Richard Sharpe

From an item by Benny Peiser:

David Cameron provoked a row by saying there was growing evidence that man-made climate change was responsible for disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan, which killed more than 3,500 people in the Philippines last week.

Is there an official death toll yet?
I have seen it suggested that 8 million people were in the path of that Typhoon, so it would be useful to compare it with the one I experienced.

Richard M

Yeah, yeah, but this is so last week. Most of the propagandists have already moved on the Illinois tornadoes as their next “proof”.

Strong words for Mann. beware of lawsuits as he has a thin skin.
But even though the words are strong, they are accurate.

Peter Miller

The wind speed of Typhoon Haiyan, when it hit land, was high but nothing special according to the Philippines Meteorological Office – but nobody listens to them because they use real observations and those are not scary nor sensational enough.
The supposedly ultra high wind figures was an offshore reading interpreted from a satellite. Hurricanes and typhoons always have higher winds when they are offshore.
Unfortunately, the incredible amount of alarmist nonsense written about the non-hurricane Sandy (when it made landfall) is being repeated with Typhoon Haiyan. And all the usual suspects are there peddling their BS.
There was a good reason the Japanese refer to typhoons as “Supreme Wind” or “Divine Wind” – being saved from a Mongol Invasion by a super typhoon probably helped this viewpoint.

Steve Oregon

It doesn’t take a climate science title or science degree tofigure out what Mann is doing.
The average Joe with curiosity and a BS detector can easily understand and the debate and know what is going on.
Here’s my latest layman’s psychoanalysis.
A mutual (to many) friend Gordon asked in a message board discussion with an academic:
“Where is the correlation with CO2?”
Why Gordon the answer could not be more clear.
The correlation is wherever and whatever it needs to be in order to perpetuate the notion.
It can be imagined, fabricated, supposed, presumed or even hiding but magically known to be.
The notion of AGW must not die.
For if it were to die the worst kind of mass extinction would quickly follow.
The extinction of the corrupt climate calamity peddlers and charlatan pushers of government policy elixirs.
These purposefully mendacious meddlers view the bulk of humanity and society as inferior and in perpetual ailment that demands their limitless intervention and control.
So absolute and overwhelming is their instinct to dominate, that they cannot foresee any scenario of net detriment regardless of how horrifically wrong they are on anything.
Being wrong just does not matter at all, period.
When THAT resides in one’s core, evidence is always subordinate to desire.

Bruce Cobb

Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:47 am
Piltdown Mann is a ‘distinguised’ Quackademic…
Love that word, “quackademic”. Perfect description of him. Reminds me of a recently-coined here hilarity (don’t remember by whom); “he ducks like a quack”.