By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
One Dana Nuccitelli, a co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%, leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated, has published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian making numerous inaccurate assertions calculated to libel Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama in connection with his now-famous chart showing the ever-growing discrepancy between models’ wild predictions and the slow, harmless, unexciting rise in global temperature since 1979.
The chart, described by Nuccitelli as “simply another example of cherry picked data … presented in a multiply misleading way”, shows his comments. Each comment is then given in more detail in bold face, followed by the truth in Roman face.
1. “The data are misleadingly misaligned” to start in 1979, so as “to visually exaggerate any difference between the models and data”. Instead, Mr Nuccitelli opines that they should have been aligned to a common baseline some decades in length.
Altering the baselines does not alter the trends. Nevertheless, to test Mr Nucccitelli’s allegation that Dr Christy had “misleadingly misaligned” the data, trends on the models’ predictions (red), satellites’ observations (green) and radiosondes’ measurements (blue) were expressed as centennial-equivalent warming rates of 2.22, 1.00 and 0.86 Celsius degrees respectively. The warming rate predicted by the models is thus some 2.2–2.5 times the warming rates observed by the satellites and radiosondes. The graph, therefore, correctly reflects a real and widening discrepancy between prediction and observation. Note also that the CMIP5 predictions were made in about 2010, so that nearly all the red curve represents hindcasts: yet still the models’ trend is excessive.
2. “No uncertainty ranges are shown whatsoever”. When they are taken into account, “the observations are consistent with the range of model projections”.
Data since 1979 for the CMIP5 models were not to hand. However, in 1990 IPCC (AR1, p. xxiv), on the basis of “substantial confidence” that the models on which it relied had captured all essential features of the climate, predicted near-linear warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Celsius degrees over the 36 years 1990-2025, equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] Cº/century. The boundary between the two zones, marked with the red needle in the clock-graph below, is the IPCC’s then best prediction: warming equivalent to about 2.8 C°/century by now.
The very wide range of predictions made by the IPCC is shown as orange and red regions. The observed warming on the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, again expressed as centennial equivalents, is shown by the two green needles. The HadCRUT4 dataset, to Dr Jones’ credit, publishes its combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties, which are about 0.16 Celsius degrees either side of the central estimate. The satellite uncertainties are smaller. It is plain that there is no overlap whatsoever between the exaggerated predictions made by IPCC in 1990 and the rates of global warming since then shown by the satellites.
3. “Observational data disagreements are hidden,” because “Christy’s graph also averages together multiple different observational datasets, which aren’t in terribly close agreement.”
In the present context, disagreements between trends on the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, for instance, would only be material if either of the datasets showed a trend close to the trend on the models’ predictions: otherwise, such differences would be inconsequential when set against the far wider difference between the trend on each observational dataset and the trend on the models’ predictions.
To test whether the two satellite datasets “aren’t in terribly close agreement”, their spline-curves and trends from 1979-2015 were separately determined and plotted. Results showed that the two curves are visibly in reasonable agreement.
To verify this, copy each graph on to a PowerPoint slide, start the presentation and then use the up and down arrows in rapid succession to make a blink-comparator.
Their centennial-equivalent trends are within a tenth of a degree of one another, whereas the differences between each of the two observed trends and the model-predicted trend are each an order of magnitude greater than the difference between them.
4. “The chart isn’t peer-reviewed or easily reproducible”, in that “Christy doesn’t say which observational data sets he’s averaging together”.
Mr Nuccitelli did not email Dr Christy and simply ask for the information. On one occasion when I asked Dr Christy for some data to assist me in a paper I was writing, I received the requested data within 24 hours. My questions about the data were answered promptly, courteously, fully and helpfully. Furthermore, the chart is plainly labeled indicating that it was prepared using the online and publicly available Climate Explorer program and data maintained by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Had Mr Nuccitelli done a little homework, he would have been able to find the following widely-circulated graph that actually lists 73 of the models used by Dr Christy, and shows IPCC’s ever-increasing confidence in the “consensus” proposition that recent global warming was mostly manmade. In fact, as Mr Nuccitelli knows full well (for his own data file of 11,944 climate science papers shows it), the “consensus” is only 0.5%. But that is by the bye: the main point here is that it is the trends on the predictions compared with those on the observational data that matter, and, on all 73 models, the trends are higher than those on the real-world data.
5. “We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest, and not far below the elevation at which commercial aircraft generally fly. The temperature at such high elevations isn’t very relevant to humans.”
Mr Nuccitelli seems unaware that IPCC (2007), following Santer (2003), regarded the atmosphere six to eight miles up as highly relevant to humans: for that was the altitude of the model-predicted tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot”, the supposed “fingerprint” of manmade warming. The “hot spot” was supposed to warm at twice or thrice the tropical surface rate:
The models were as wrong about this as about everything else. There is no “hot spot”, as the following graph from Karl et al. (2006) shows.
If, therefore, Santer and IPCC had been correct that the “hot spot” was a fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming, the absence of the “hot spot” would have been the end of the profitable climate scam. However, the models and those who profit from their bizarre predictions were as wrong about this as they are about their other global-temperature predictions.
The truth is that the “hot spot” ought to appear if there is any significant warming of the atmosphere, and that its absence in real-world radiosonde measurements, shown in Karl’s graph, provides powerful confirmation that the satellite lower-troposphere datasets, rather than the surface tamperature datasets that Mr Nuccitelli criticizes Dr Christy (keeper of the UAH satellite dataset) for not showing on his graph, are accurate in showing little or no warming over the past two decades.
Furthermore, since the rate of warming diminishes with altitude, the effect of including the mid-troposphere with the lower troposphere in Dr Christy’s graph is actually to show a discrepancy between models’ predictions and real-world observations that is somewhat smaller than it would have been if the analysis had been confined to the lower troposphere alone.
Mr Nuccitelli also seems unaware that no small reason why John Christy’s graph shows temperature changes in the combined mid-troposphere and lower troposphere is that these are the zones in which the radiosondes take their readings.
6. “The rest of the global warming data show climate models are accurate. … For example, climate models have done an excellent job predicting how much temperatures at the Earth’s surface would warm.”
To test this remarkable assertion, the predictions of medium-term global warming made by the IPCC in 1990, 1995 and 2001 (red needles) were compared with the observed warming rates reported by three terrestrial (blue needles) and two satellite (green needles) datasets. The results showed that over each timescale – 26, 21 and 15 years respectively – the models had very greatly over-predicted the warming rate.
7. “And then there’s ocean heating. … Climate models are doing a very good job predicting the rate at which the oceans are heating up.”
Mr Nuccitelli appears unaware that in the 11 full years of ARGO bathythermograph data that are available at the time of writing, from 2004-2014, the rate of warming of the upper mile and a quarter of the ocean was equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, as the graph of ARGO data shows.
Furthermore, the temperature profile at different strata shows little or no warming at the surface and an increasing warming rate with depth, raising the possibility that, contrary to Mr Nuccitelli’s theory that the atmosphere is warming the ocean, the ocean is instead being warmed from below, perhaps by some increase in the largely unmonitored magmatic intrusions into the abyssal strata from the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and vents most of which Man has never visited or studied, particularly at the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, notably the highly active boundary in the eastern equatorial Pacific.
How good a job are the models really doing in their attempts to predict global temperatures? Here are a few more examples:
Mr Nuccitelli’s scientifically illiterate attempts to challenge Dr Christy’s graph are accordingly misconceived, inaccurate and misleading.
A report of the inaccuracies should be sent to the editor of The Guardian with a request for an explanation, for the inaccuracies, delivered in the snide, supercilious tone that is Mr Nuccitelli’s disfiguring trademark, are calculated to be unfairly damaging to Dr Christy’s reputation as a scientist.
In the event that the editor fails to take appropriate action against Mr Nuccitelli and his low brand of yellow journalism, the case should be referred to the newspaper editors’ watchdog body by way of a formal complaint, whereupon The Guardian will be compelled to correct its inaccuracies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…We don’t live on Mount Everest: the average elevation of the bulk atmosphere shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest, and not far below the elevation at which commercial aircraft generally fly. The temperature at such high elevations isn’t very relevant to humans…”
Is he that stupid or just that much of a liar?
Mt. Kilmanjaro is over 19,000 feet in elevation…where was Dana when skepticalscience was promoting the idea that 19,000 feet is relevant to humans?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm
Maybe Dana call point to peer-reviewed literature showing that 19,000 feet is relevant but 25,000 feet is not.
I reckon it was a desperate attempt to jump that shark. Mega fail in every respect for DN.
Michael Jankowski
+1
Let’s not expend all our ammo at once.
The fun might last for years
Hey, u, don’t worry!
We have plenty of ammo.
#(:))
Nuccitelli is a hack and has attained Cookian heights of disingenuousness.
Lol, the chuckr. And those “heights” are not where reasonable people live.
What I didn’t understand about the article is that they provided, as counter evidence, a plot from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. This plot looked similar to the Christy plot they were criticizing! They both showed about a half degree discrepancy between climate model projections and measured data. Gavin’s plot showed the different data sets independently clearly demonstrating that they are quit similar and could be easily averaged as was done in the Christy plot. The Gavin plot was cited in the article as looking quite different than the Christy plot. That just isn’t so if you know how to read a plot. There were some small differences in the plots (one was yearly data and one was 5 year running mean) but nothing that contradicted that conclusions that Christy made in his congressional testimony. The article could only have its intended effect on people who do not know how to read a plot.
I.e., low information thinkers.
I agree with your criticism of Nuccitelly in this paper. In particular, your point about the ocean being warmed from below is important. It has not been much discussed but based on sulfur dioxide layers in the ice core from Summit a case can be made that volcanic warming may have played a role in terminating the last ice age. There is one more thing, however, that you unfortunately got wrong, and that is showing a rising straight line from 1979 to present for both UAH and RSS to indicate steady warming. There is no steady warming there. It starts out with an 18 year hiatus that precedes the super El Nino in the eighties and nineties. And on the right there is the present hiatus, no steady warming that. I showed all this in 2010 as Figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” In between the two hiatuses stand the super El Nino and a step warming that started in 1999. In only three years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. By a chance coincidence, your graph “It’s official: the models have failed” gets it right. Accidentally, your horizontal zero level just happens to nicely outline the hiatus on the left that includes five El Nino peaks. All you need to do make the rest of it correct is to rise the horizontal straight line by a third of a degree where it covers the twenty-first century. I am generally not surprised that alarmists don’t read my book but being neglected by climate skeptics who need the information in it annoys me.
Arno, could it possibly be that the reasons your conclusions have been widely ignored is that they are shallow, poorly reasoned, devoid of scientific underpinnings, and Brett of parallelism with well-vetted global data?
Lord Monckton, thank you for sticking up for my co-comrade-at-arms, Dr. Christy.
John Christy and Roy Spencer are good, thoughtful scientists whose consciences do not allow them to enrich themselves at the expense of others by peddling doom-laden predictions on inadequate evidence. We are very lucky to have them. Long may they flourish!
So they are. Our team is lucky to have included Dr. Christy.
I might also add that I thoroughly approve of your own top-down, simple method for projections.
I guess the unsettled part of the debate is really all about CO2 climate sensitivity. Warmist say a doubling of CO2 would lead to >3 degrees increase in temperature. (And have published papers saying so.). Skeptics say it’s more like 1 degree. (And have also published papers saying so.). The IPCC sides with the warmist so because that’s what government pays them to do. Thus far reality has sided with the skeptics. All data fiddling aside.
There are two reasons why the surface is warming more than the troposphere. One that I have mentioned before is surface albedo positive feedback, from reduction of snow and ice cover. The heat from increased absorption of solar radiation is at the surface.
Another reason is that greenhouse gases receive the most warming radiation where it is most intense – closest to the surface. So an increase of greenhouse gases would cause the most atmospheric warming where thermal radiation is most intense, and farthest below the altitudes where greenhouse gases cause cooling by emitting some of their radiation directly into outer space.
The predicted tropical upper troposphere hotspot is not theorized as being caused by greenhouse gases absorbing radiation there and causing warming. It is theorized as being caused by upward convection of increasingly warm and humid tropical air and a decrease of the lapse rate due to increased presence of water vapor. The problem there is that a positive cloud albedo feedback (which is predicted by IPCC) implies reduced relative humidity of the atmosphere. The models seem to be tuned to have feedbacks high enough to continue the rapid warming from the mid 1970s to shortly after 2000 – without consideration that some of this warming was from a natural cycle that since reversed.
You guys seem to be very good at “explaining” past behavior. I guess it’s predicting future behavior where your abilities are lacking.
re Scooter boy uses Pseudo-science.
Is there any recorded instant of dana using actual science?
I’ve been following climate-change denialism for quite some time now, but there’s one lovely line in this article which I can’t let pass without pointing out how far-fetched its denial of the obvious and well-documented, well-vetted, and rigorously investigated science of global climate change has to go to hang on with the tiny fingernails of denial on the massive cliff of scientific truth.
Here it is:
“The ocean is instead being warmed from below, perhaps by some increase in the largely unmonitored magmatic intrusions into the abyssal strata from the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and vents most of which Man has never visited or studied, particularly at the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, notably the highly active boundary in the eastern equatorial Pacific.”
Oh, and I have also read that jujubes cause autism, and that lizard beings have infiltrated the Illuminati.
One skeptic/troll at last! (I was wandering where all the good trolls went, perhaps I still am.)
Please post your chart of OHC from volcanism with estimates of the residence time of energy from volcanoes, thus the total energy content currently within the oceans by ocean basin, and the flux of said input since 1950.
Dr Christy speaks for himself:
Any criticism that Cristy’s graph failed to show uncertainty ranges for the model runs and the observations, respectively, reinforces my belief that climate alarmists aren’t scientists so much as just professors playing on their computers. Uncertainty ranges on observations are real. They result from imprecision in instrumentation, or biases, or some other real physical phenomenon or system. Uncertainty ranges on climate model simulations do not represent measurement error, or any physical process at all. They represent no more than the manner in which a computer was programmed. To suggest that a graph – comparing an uncertainty range in observational data with some virtual uncertainty range in a computer simulation – would give you any useful information is a textbook example of the stupidity that results from living in the ivory towers of academia – a magical world where common sense is slowly sucked out of you because you never have to, well, actually demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about.
I agree that it would be pretty pointless to clutter a comparative chart like that with error ranges but don’t agree that you cannot provide sensible error estimates on model outputs. Why is it not sensible to apply the known accuracy ranges to model input parameters to generate an expected output accuracy range? I do that all the time.
You’re assuming that the model is already known to accurately simulate the behavior of the modeled system. Ultimately, the only relevant uncertainty in a predictive model’s output is how closely the output turns out to match reality. If you look at the first graph in this post, you will see that the only thing accomplished by adding the error ranges is to muddy the waters in evaluating how good the model is in accurately forecasting temperatures. Again, adding the uncertainty bars gives you no useful information on the threshold question of the accuracy of the model. They are just being used to excuse the fact that the models do not accurately simulate temperatures.
Second, I don’t think there is a “known accuracy range” for a climate model’s input parameters. The input parameters are based on “scenarios” of what the modeler thinks CO2 emissions, volcanic eruptions, solar activity etc. will be in the future. Even acknowledging that past values of these actual inputs were likely measured with uncertain values, this measurement uncertainty would be dwarfed by the ranges of the different future scenarios, and would also be made moot by the uncertainty as to whether the model accurately simulates the behavior of the climate. In other words, the output uncertainty bars were pre-programmed into the computer.
Finally, my understanding of the “uncertainty” ranges of the IPCC models is that it marks the boundary of the 95% range of all the model runs. I don;t think that the “uncertainty” bars reflects input imprecision since the modelers just assume scenarios in the first place.
Uncertainty also rises from the fact that we aren’t measuring the entire surface of the planet. We are only measuring points on the planet. The fewer the number of points being measured with respect to the total surface area and the greater the uncertainty, even if the actual sensors were perfectly accurate (which they aren’t).
Not religious but I’m being converted by The Lord Monckton ,I must admit I used to believe the warming hype but to be fair (the evidence is in ) (the truth is undeniable) was catchy and when prime ministers and presidents and politicians of all persuasions spruiked it over and over I turned to the dark side .
I must have heard the lord one day on Andrew Bolt and had a revelation ,this time I checked some facts ,checked hottest day on record and biggest storm ever claims and bugger me “they lied” and still do .
After finding this site and checking some more I’m converted if for no other reason than “proof”
As I’m finding out to my horror there is no evidence there is no proof and no smoking barrel, just a badly flawed prediction .
There is more rejoicing in heaven . . . . etc.
It is very good news that Robert has allowed the evidence to speak for itself and has followed where it leads. That is how science is done. I was also once prepared to accept that the profiteers of doom might be right: but, when I was given the opportunity to check the facts, I too found – ten years ago now – that all was not as it seemed. I changed my mind.
John Maynard Keynes used to say: “If the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?” Robert and I have changed our opinion as the predictions have failed and the facts have changed. While there are people like Robert who are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, their intellectual honesty will preserve true science against its many racketeering enemies.
Anyone who has read Einstein’s “Relativity Explained” cannot but be impressed with how single-mindedly he followed the evidence, even though his conclusions initially sounded mad. In any other branch of science but climastrology, predictive failure on the scale indicated in the head posting would have lead to much soul-searching among the modelers. As it is, they profit by predicting doom and are not prepared to put true science before fat profit.
Robert says
“I must have heard the lord one day on Andrew Bolt and had a revelation ,this time I checked some facts ,checked hottest day on record and biggest storm ever claims and bugger me “they lied” and still do .”
Good observation ….they must aim to appeal to people with a very short attention span.
Check the facts and you will end up becoming a very determined climate alarm sceptic.
Yes, same goes here. I, like most everyone, never had time to get to grips with this large and complex topic and so always just assumed that all of those guys must be right. It was only because of the slow drip of water on stone that comes from the dedicated realists that encouraged me – when I had a small hiatus in work – to delve into it and have a look. What I slowly but inescapably came to see was just horrific and I at once felt an overwhelming sense of relief and laughter combined with absolute fury. The first person I came across delivering the sober reality was Prof. Judith Curry who has my undying gratitude for both honest appraisal with scientific integrity and extreme courage under withering fire.
Good old Dana is part of the Sks pseudo science team.
Should we expect any different
Mark,
Dana is within the circle at Cook’s SkS blog which is also affectionately known in the objective science community as Cook’s PsS** blog.
** PsS = Pseudo-Science
John
Nicely done Sir 😉
If you can “adjust” the data decades after the measurements were made then why not retrospectively adjust the predictions of the IPCC? Then everything will be accurate.
They have been doing this by lowering projections. The 1.5c 100 year projection is just that. To give their report an air of validity so they can say “we told you so”
They also have papers for Australia, Queensland for more drought when there was drought there, and less drought, when Queensland had the floods.
If you go look you can find claim and counter claim by the same field so they can say they have predicted any outcome.
Maybe one can write an equation and call it “The climatological constant of hedging bets” or CCHB
You must never trust consensus guidelines they are anti science. “Science is not about consensus. It’s about disproof, disbelief and skepticism. It’s not about consensus. When you’ve got consensus, you’ve got trouble”
“One Dana Nuccitelli, a co-author of the 2013 paper that found 0.5% consensus to the effect that recent global warming was mostly manmade and reported it as 97.1%”
If Nuccitelli has libelled Christy, then you have libelled Nuccitelli. You have claimed he misrepresented a 0.5% consensus as 97.1% There is no way that the results could reasonable be interpreted as a 0.5% consensus.
To make it clear, the authors claim “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
See if you can convert that to 0.5%. Put your numbers up here and I will show you where you have gone wrong if you don’t already know.
Seaice1: Allow me to help you. Try reading Chris’s post from 2013. I think you will find it educational.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/20/join-my-crowd-sourced-complaint-about-97-1-consensus/
The post you link to is one of the worst I have ever seen. It is full of errors and absurdities. Remember, we are trying to support the 0.5% figure. Bear in mind that the papers were not written with this survey in mind, and thus the vast majority would not be expected to make a specific claim on this question. Similarly it would not be expected that biology papers would specifically state they believed in evolution or physics papers to specifically state that the authors accepted relativity.
Monckton says. “Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.” From this series of admissions, it is evident that the authors of the Cook paper are now claiming 87% (not 97.1%) “scientific consensus”.
No – it is really quite simple. They are counting categories 1-3 as supporting the theory, 4 as not agreeing nor disagreeing, and 5-7 as not agreeing. They are then making a separate comment about how many were in category 1 and 7 – similar to “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” in surveys. Of these few that specifically say Yay or Nay, 87% say Yay. It is not possible to get 0.5% from this.
Monckton cannot have it both ways. Either you discard all papers that do not specifically say yay or nay and you get 87%, or you include all the categories and you get 97%. You cannot get 0.5% by any reasonable method.
Then there is this “There were 41 abstracts explicitly endorsing the IPCC’s version of consensus. But there were not only 9 in level 7 but also 54 in level 5 and 15 in level 6. Total sample size was thus only 119 out of 11,944 papers, or just 1% of an already smallish sample of the entire literature.”
Why does he want to include categories 5 and 6 but not 2 and 3? This does not make sense. If you are going to count the 54 and 15 in levels 5 and 6, you must also count the 922 and 2910 in level 2 and 3. The fact is that 97% of those that were judged to have expressed an opinion said yay.
Now, people have argued with the assessments – this that are said to expressed an opinion may not have. This is not what Monckton did in that post. However, for those that take that approach the self assessments also arrive at the same figure and are strong supporting evidence. Please how me how you can get 0.5% from the self assessed reports?
No, it is unsupportable by any reasonable method that one could conclude 0.5%
seaice1:
You say
You are right because – as is explained in the excellent essay which you excoriate – the correct figure is 0.3% (i.e. 41 papers out of a total of 11, 944 papers).
Richard
Let me help a little more, Seaice1: You quoted Monckton and said he should have claimed 87%. What he went on to say was:
Furthermore, Seaice1: Category 3 should not count ‘for’ AGW as it defines ‘implicitly endorsement’. “Implicit” is a subjective measure. It should not appear in science.
Richard. “You are right because – as is explained in the excellent essay which you excoriate – the correct figure is 0.3%”
The headline says 0.5%, so you are arguing it is even less supportable than I claimed.
Harry Passfield. “No scientific survey or opinion poll with a sample size of less than 1000 would normally be regarded as statistically significant.”
Even if this were correct, the conclusion could never be 0.5%. If you were correct the conclusion would be 87%, but sample size too small to be significant.
Mark: “When you cut out over 50% of papers, you cannot have anything more than the % left as agreeing.” Do you know how these surveys work? You don’t count papers that are in the original trawl but do not have anything to say about the subject. You want to count them as not agreeing, which is senseless.
seaice1 has tried to uphold the fatuous “97%” conclusion from Cook et al., but it is in reality indefensible, which is why Queensland Police told a leading citizen of Brisbane that a “deception” had been perpetrated.
The facts are very simple and are undeniable. The usual definition of the proposition to which the “consensus” is said to adhere is that most of the small global warming in the few decades since 1950 was manmade. Cook et al. stated in the introduction to their paper that that was the definition they were using. Their data file listed only 64 papers, or 0.5% of the sample, as actually stating that recent warming was mostly manmade. Legates et al., 2013, read all 64 papers and found that only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts Cook et al. said they had read, had in fact stated their support for the “consensus” proposition as Cook et al. had defined it.
Yet their paper reported the “consensus” among the abstracts reviewed as 97.1%, and later stated on multiple occasions, including peer-reviewed papers and university press releases, that their survey had shown that 97% of the abstracts they had read had stated that recent warming was mostly manmade.
The matter will soon be going before the criminal courts, so I cannot say any more than this. But I can say this much because it is already a matter of public record. We obtained and have carefully kept a copy of the datafile made by Cook et al. and listing not only all 11,944 papers but also Cook’s assignment of them to the seven “levels of endorsement” of the consensus proposition that they had defined. It was only no. 1 that covered explicit statements in the peer-reviewed papers to the effect that recent warming was mostly manmade. Cook et al. had themselves marked only 64 papers as falling within level 1.
They misrepresented their results, even after they had been given clear warnings that they should desist. They will in due course be answerable for their defalcations.
When you cut out over 50% of papers, you cannot have anything more than the % left as agreeing.
In other worse, Cook cut out over 50% of papers as having no opinion ergo less than 50% of remaining papers can agree, so max consensus would be 40+% So right there your argument falls to pieces.
Secondly, activists rated papers like TV reports, and even disagreed with the scientists who authored the papers in oh so many papers and they changed the classifications after seeing the numbers.
This is how a study should not be done.
Then the claim 97% of scientists agree was 100% a false claim, Cook at best could claim a % of 45?% of paper abstracts reviewed agreed, nothing more.
It was a psy op. A trick. Known all too well that the paper actually did not matter, all that mattered was the slogan “97% agree” because people latch onto rubbish like that, especially if it is in nice propagandist art form.
I saw The Guardian yesterday, and chuckled as I saw that their global warming dogma still doesn’t prevent them from printing a whole separate travel section, encouraging their readers to jet off to various exotic locations around the world. Hypocrisy on stilts.
The cutbacks they announced recently probably won’t affect Dana as he is clearly very cheap.
Hypocrisy is in their DNA. Funded by the sale of ‘Autotrader’ via ‘tax efficient’ offshore transactions. All of which would produce a torrent of abuse from the readers in any other circumstances. Mostly read by BBC, civil servants and low grade academics.
We have been force fed an agenda on Climate Change. They will do everything to make sure we buy in.
Sunday, February 21, 2016, 6:50 AM – Cyclone Winston, the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, slammed into the Pacific island nation of Fiji this weekend. The Hottest , Coldest ,Most Snow ever , Most Rain and on and on. All Day All Night the sky is falling.
At least five killed by the most powerful storm on Earth. The warm waters around Fiji, at around 30oC, helped the storm intensify, and it boasted Category 5 winds of 287 km/h, gusting to more than 350 km/h, shortly before landfall on Fiji’s main island of Vitu Levu, whipping up wave heights around 12 m in some areas. I want the movie rights.
Russell may care to read the paper “Deterministic non-periodic flow”, published in a climate journal by the formidable climatological analyst Edward N. Lorenz, the father of numerical weather forecasting, and published in 1963. That was the paper that founded what is now known as chaos theory, though Lorenz did not use that term in his paper.
In an object that behaves chaotically, such as the climate, records will frequently be broken. Cricket and, no doubt, rounders (which they call “baseball” in the U.S.) exhibits the same phenomenon. For this and other reasons, citing record-breaking weather events as evidence of a baneful anthropogenic influence on the climate is improper. Even the IPCC, in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) and in its Fifth ASSessment Report (2013) gives explicit warnings against ascribing extreme-weather events to manmade global warming.
Since the satellites show no global warming at all for getting on for two decades in the lower troposphere, where tropical cyclones chiefly reside, and since the ARGO bathythermographs show virtually no surface warming over the entire available 11-year record (such little warming as is occurring is at depth, where it cannot affect storminess), the one thing we know for certain is that global warming did not cause or intensify Cyclone Winston (or Pam, or Sandy, or Haiyan), for the good and sufficient reason that there has not been any.
Furthermore, the global record of tropical cyclones (including hurricanes and typhoons) shows no trend throughout the era of observation, which dates back to the 1970s.
@ur momisugly jorgekafkazar
February 20, 2016 at 9:51 pm
The Grauniad has never been suitable for anything other than lining budgie cages.
Not much use for that as it unfortunately it come pre packed with sh..
Christopher Monckton,
Can you explain further the situation involving “leading Queensland police to inform a Brisbane citizen who had complained to them that a “deception” had been perpetrated”.
I am intrigued.
John
Watch this space.
OK
John
All very well, m’lud, but I am sure you know as well as I do, that the Guardian is ALWAYS right. The same goes for the BBC. So good luck in puncturing their tiny little bubble of self-righteousness. The Guardian of course, is the English newspaper that is based in a tax haven, yet spends huge amounts of energy campaigning against companies based in tax havens. In other words, a bunch of total cnuts.
Tidbits :In October, U.S. Steel Corp., the second-biggest steelmaker in the U.S., said a Canadian court approved an agreement to separate the operations of the Pittsburgh-based company from its Canadian unit. ERP Compliant is run by Tom Clarke, a Virginia hospital executive and Climate Change Activist. In addition to bidding on U.S. Steel Canada’s operations, Clarke has been scooping up mines from bankrupt coal producers Patriot Coal Corp. and Walter Energy Inc., betting he can help revive the struggling Appalachian region by selling coal bundled with carbon credits accrued by planting trees — something he thinks will appeal to utilities struggling to meet new environmental standards. This right out of the Bizarro World.
Bravo Christopher. I attach here two related posts of mine that readers may find relevant: https://cei.org/blog/dr-christy-rebuts-alarmist-spin-satellite-data; https://cei.org/blog/manufacturing-alarm-dana-nuccitellis-critique-john-christys-climate-science-testimony
I see someone has started a blog about the Guardian censoring comments
commentnotfree.wordpress.com