Mann vs. Steyn, the Trial of the Century

[John Reece]

Mann vs. Steyn, the Trial of the Century

Going My Way

by Mark Steyn
June 8, 2014

Following our recent graph showing no global warming for 17 years and 9 months, Dublin reader Tony Allwright superimposed on it the relentless rise of CO2 during the same period. "It is the two curves in tandem that are so damning to the cause-and-effect case," writes Tony.

Herewith the latest commentary re the upcoming trial of the century. In The Washington Post, law professor Jonathan Adler returns to the case for the first time in some months with a column called "Mann v Steyn - Steyn Goes His Own Way":

[John Reece]

In the last post above, Mark Steyn posted a graph with the following caption beneath it:

Following our recent graph showing no global warming for 17 years and 9 months, Dublin reader Tony Allwright superimposed on it the relentless rise of CO2 during the same period. "It is the two curves in tandem that are so damning to the cause-and-effect case," writes Tony.

What the original graph, + Tony's additional overlay representing the rising carbon content, shows is that during the period of time during which carbon in the atmosphere was rising rapidly, over that same period of time global surface temperature maintained a steady trend line ― represented by the perfectly horizontal bright blue bar extending from the far left to the far right of the graph ― of zero significant increase in global surface temperature for 17 years 9 months and counting → .

In other words, the rapid increase in carbon concentration in the atmosphere has had a negligible, undetectable effect on the global temperature trend throughout the current "pause" in global warming that has lasted throughout the past 16 (Curry) to 17+ years.

[John Reece]

Update re Mann vs. Steyn

Mark's latest post alluding to the pending trial:

Potemkin Laureate

[John Reece]

Update re Mann vs. Steyn

Eight Thumbs Down!

[John Reece]

Update re Mann vs. Steyn

The wit and wisdom of Mark Steyn applied to Michael Mann:

Hocky Sticks over Hasakah

The following link is available in the one above, but just so you do not overlook it...

Potemkin Parliament Pajama Party

Somewhere among all the great links in all of Mark's posts is this (= related to a basic fact in the lawsuit):

Mann's claim to be a Nobel Laureate is not a small thing. It is characteristic of the lies and exaggerations and misrepresentations that have characterized his entire career - right up to his legal complaint. Judith Curry again:

Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann's science, critical of Mann's professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann's behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.

It says a lot about Mann that so many naive defenders like Professor Palmeri repeat the fraud that he is a Nobel Laureate. That speaks to his credibility, as the lawyers say, on what follows.

ETA: Not to be missed: a post from which the quote of Judith Curry above is derived.

The fountainhead of Curry's quoted comments in this post is ― do not miss it ― here.

[Juvenal]

With regard to the graph showing no global warming for 17 years 9 months ...

Dear John,

As I'd mentioned earlier, an analysis citing a trend beginning with a particular month or year is not an analysis of climate change, which is instead measured using rolling averages. As such, the graph cited above is no more coherent than an observation that having cooled down overnight, summer is not coming this year.

That said, there has been a slowdown in warming over the past decade. The mark of a scientist is the effort put in to explaining these observations. If, as I've suggested, you were to move away from these polemical and political sources in favor of more sober viewpoints, you'd find there's been a good deal of work, published away from the heavy breathing emanating from the blogosphere, to be found in pre-eminent journals, such as Nature, doing just that:

Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade

Note above that the energy is still coming in, measured as these things are, in W/m^2, that is, watts per square meter. That energy has to go somewhere, and so the search was on for the missing energy sink. Reflection from increased particulates, solar minimums, and the ocean were the clear places to look, and relatively quickly, it was possible to dismiss the first two, and by direct measurement to discover where the heat had gone. As it turned out, near surface temperatures in the ocean have been rising.

But why?

What remains is an explanation, linked to a mechanism, for the heat uptake. The PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation attracted attention:

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

A key breakthrough came last year from Shang-Ping Xie and Yu Kosaka at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The duo took a different tack, by programming a model with actual sea surface temperatures from recent decades in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and then seeing what happened to the rest of the globe8. Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.

While the full article cited above is behind a paywall, the abstract is available.

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.

This being science, all results are tentative. Critiques will come in, and others will build on the results for a fuller picture. Notably missing from this process are the conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics you've been posting. These latter are not examples of wit or wisdom. They are merely mud in the water. They are not, and never will be part of the picture because they do not contribute to the science.

As ever, Jesse

[John Reece]

Jesse,

In another thread some time ago you denied that there had been any pause or hiatus in global warming in recent years; now you quote from an article in Nature that deals with the current pause/hiatus in global warming that says nothing essentially different (with regard to the question of whether or not there has been a pause/hiatus in recent years) than what I have already posted in other threads ― as though you are now presenting pure science in radical distinction from what has already been posted by me.

The thread in which you have posted above is related to the lawsuit Michael Mann filed against Mark Steyn for Steyn's having published criticism of Mann's hockey stick etc. The mud in the water originated with Mann and his behavior toward critics, as well as his quite questionable "science".

Steyn has indeed responded to Michael Mann's legal assault with considerable wit and wisdom.

I find it difficult to believe that you have read all that I have posted; otherwise, you could not knowledgeably and honestly dismiss it all as "conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics" ― except on the basis of sheer prejudice.

I have presented quite a lot of the writings of ― among others ― Judith Curry and Daniel B. Botkin, as well as a video lecture by Richard Lindzen, none of which can credibly be dismissed as "conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics".

[Jedidiah]

John, you can not argue with a true believer.

[John Reece]

John, you can not argue with a true believer.

I know; however, sometimes false assertions and unwarranted insinuations just need to be challenged.

In this instance, it is not so much myself I am defending as it is, rather, the integrity of the wonderful scientists (as well as bloggers) I have quoted.

[Epoetker]

This being science, all results are tentative. Critiques will come in, and others will build on the results for a fuller picture.

On the contrary, as long as I'm alive, I will most certainly see to it that funding shall be cut, and public careers shall be ended, and fields of study shall lie fallow for as long as is deemed necessary to purge the fanatics, liars, and entrepreneurial sociopaths from the climatology field.

Notably missing from this process are the conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics you've been posting. These latter are not examples of wit or wisdom. They are merely mud in the water. They are not, and never will be part of the picture because they do not contribute to the science.

So, critiques "do not contribute to the science" unless they say what the scientific authority wishes them to say?

How about this: until such time as those in the global warming business publicly disavow all government funding due to the obviously rampant misrepresentation of their work by their government sponsors, they shall be imprisoned for gross fraud, treason, and conspiracy against the American public?

Consider one mainstream proposal of today, endorsed by President Obama and many other world leaders: reducing carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels, by 2050.

Presumably a proposal like this corresponds to said "trillions of dollars" - a completely empty soundbite, of course, but something an innocent person might read as "a few trillion dollars." Say, perhaps, "7.5 trillion dollars." I'm just guessing here, of course.

Knowing as we now do what goes into the sausage, we feel perfectly entitled to sneer at whatever study, process or press-release could possibly have produced whatever ridiculous non-number lies behind the ridiculous non-number "trillions of dollars." First, this entire information pipeline is clearly sweating it to produce the smallest possible number in the reader's mind. Second, it implies a capacity for predictive macroeconomic modeling which does not exist. Third, what on earth will a dollar buy you in 2050, anyway?

In reality, to consider an action of this impact through the lens of antiseptic monetary exponents, churned out by some irreproducible spreadsheet, is to avoid considering it at all. Since the planned carbon action is a significant event on a significant historical scale, it must be considered as history. It must be analyzed with the tools of the narrative historian.

Now, I have an easy way to picture 2050: my daughter, Sibyl, will be 42 in 2050. As a student of history, I also have an easy way to picture an 80% reduction in fossil-fuel use: Germany and Japan in, say, 1944. The little Nips, for instance, had a very active alternative-energy program. I believe turpentine from pine trees was a key component. The primary sources display little fondness for this weird fuel.

An 80% energy cutoff goes beyond any mere economic calculation. It is a punitive measure of military proportions - to which one might subject a defeated enemy nation - for the purpose of collective penal subjugation.

I don't care one bit about your excuses, as the fact of the matter is that you've been aiding and comforting insane measures against your host nation, and would do the same for other nations that took your beliefs seriously. Partisans of the global warming movement are a danger to America right now, not at some undefined point in the future.

[Juvenal]

Jesse,

Dear John,

In another thread some time ago you denied that there had been any pause or hiatus in global warming in recent years;

Perhaps you are confusing the satirical questions I posed in response to claims of "no global warming since let's-cherry-pick this date" with a denial of a decrease in the rate of temperature increases, popularly termed a "pause."

The point of my earlier response was that picking any one month or year for comment cannot lead to anything but contradictory claims, which is why climate science references rolling averages, preferably on a 50-year scale, with greater margins of error on a 15-year scale, and, with a good deal of trepidation, on the scale of individual decades.

The climate signal across a hundred years can be swamped by year-to-year, and even more so by month-to-month variations, in the same way that the temperature signature of an entire season can be swamped by excursions in temperature from day-to-day, or even more so, by excursions within a single day. As illustration, I concluded with a reductio, pointing out how trends in temperature in any one 24-hour period cannot be used to signify the season.

Feel free to go look.

Conversely, by looking at three month averages it is relatively simple to identify a season in the same way that is relatively simple to pick out a climate change signal by expanding the time-frame for averaging. The relevant statistics are not subject to dispute: increasing a sample size always decreases the standard deviation, and hence, the directly related margin of error at any particular confidence level.

.. now you quote from an article in Nature that deals with the current pause/hiatus in global warming that says nothing essentially different (with regard to the question of whether or not there has been a pause/hiatus in recent years) than what I have already posted in other threads ― as though you are now presenting pure science in radical distinction from what has already been posted by me.

There is a difference between observations of a pause in the rolling averages and claims that there has been no warming since September 1996. The former is coherent, and accessible to further investigation, which, as I've cited, has been done; the latter, well, not. I consider coherency essential, and its abrogation, radical. The blogs of the polemicists you've been citing are rife with these errors.

Scientists writing for scientists don't make these amateurish mistakes.

The thread in which you have posted above is related to the lawsuit Michael Mann filed against Mark Steyn for Steyn's having published criticism of Mann's hockey stick etc. The mud in the water originated with Mann and his behavior toward critics, as well as his quite questionable "science".

Steyn has indeed responded to Michael Mann's legal assault with considerable wit and wisdom.

Citing Simberg's description of Mann as the "Sandusky of Climate Science" could be considered criticism. It's not a type of criticism I'd care to be associated with myself, and certainly not the kind of criticism I would defend or recommend for your defense. Over and above its pyrotechnic nature, it is not meaningful.

Once again, meaningful criticism comes in W/m^2.

I find it difficult to believe that you have read all that I have posted; otherwise, you could not knowledgeably and honestly dismiss it all as "conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics" ― except on the basis of sheer prejudice.

Having dismissed the positions of every national academy on the planet, including our own, the findings of the pre-eminent organization investigating global warming, and more than ninety percent of the scientific literature, I don't believe you are presently in a good position to speak of "knowledgeable and honest" dismissal of evidence.

I have presented quite a lot of the writings of ― among others ― Judith Curry and Daniel B. Botkin, as well as a video lecture by Richard Lindzen, none of which can credibly be dismissed as "conspiracy claims and pyrotechnics".

On the contrary, and I recommend this to you, after hearing of these criticisms, I undertook the minimal effort required to look for answers to those criticisms. The credibility of dismissing Judith Curry as a conspiracy theorist can not be judged without it.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral

Schmidt, here, is Gavin Schmidt, and you can find the detailed take-down of Curry's misstatements and misrepresentations in Schmidt's in-post response to the linked comment from the Real Climate blog.

I commend as well Schmidt's caution directed to Curry to a wider audience:

Noise in the blogosphere does not correlate to seriousness in climate science. As your comments make abundantly clear, you have very little knowledge on this issue and have done no independent investigation of the wild claims being made. Yet the more smoke there is, the more you appear to want to blame MBH for the fire. A 'certain amount of spin'? Seeing conspiracies everywhere you look is not 'spin', it is paranoia.

As ever, Jesse

[John Reece]

Perhaps you are confusing the satirical questions I posed in response to claims of "no global warming since let's-cherry-pick this date" with a denial of a decrease in the rate of temperature increases, popularly termed a "pause."

The point of my earlier response was that picking any one month or year for comment cannot lead to anything but contradictory claims, which is why climate science references rolling averages, preferably on a 50-year scale, with greater margins of error on a 15-year scale, and, with a good deal of trepidation, on the scale of individual decades.

It was not a matter of picking a month or year; rather, it was a matter of a particular month happening to correspond with the onset of an extended period during which there has been a temperature trend indicating no increase in global temperature during that period of time.

The article you cited in Nature spoke of a global warming slowdown throughout a decade; surely there is an approximate beginning and ending of this decade that was referenced in the article; to cite a month at the beginning of that decade would not be cherry picking a date; it would simply be noting the beginning of the decade referenced in the article.

The climate signal across a hundred years can be swamped by year-to-year, and even more so by month-to-month variations, in the same way that the temperature signature of an entire season can be swamped by excursions in temperature from day-to-day, or even more so, by excursions within a single day. As illustration, I concluded with a reductio, pointing out how trends in temperature in any one 24-hour period cannot be used to signify the season.

That reminds me of Botkin's critique:

: (continued in the NOTES section at the bottom of this post)

[snip]

Here are are other quotes from Botkin's critique of the IPCC 2014 report:

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve.

12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven.

Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real world temperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.)

Figure 1

ETA: By the way, I just noticed the following title in Box 9.2 Evaluation of Climate Models in a report dated 2013: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years. Quite interesting.

[Jedidiah]

So, critiques "do not contribute to the science" unless they say what the scientific authority wishes them to say?

That seems to be the position of the believers.

How about this: until such time as those in the global warming business publicly disavow all government funding due to the obviously rampant misrepresentation of their work by their government sponsors, they shall be imprisoned for [URL="http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-historys-message.html"]gross fraud, treason, and conspiracy against the American public?

. . . snip . . .

Partisans of the global warming movement are a danger to America right now, not at some undefined point in the future.

Those in the global warming business should certainly be in prison for gross fraud.

[John Reece]

On the contrary, and I recommend this to you, after hearing of these criticisms, I undertook the minimal effort required to look for answers to those criticisms. The credibility of dismissing Judith Curry as a conspiracy theorist can not be judged without it.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral

Schmidt, here, is Gavin Schmidt, and you can find the detailed take-down of Curry's misstatements and misrepresentations in Schmidt's in-post response to the linked comment from the Real Climate blog.

I commend as well Schmidt's caution directed to Curry to a wider audience:

Noise in the blogosphere does not correlate to seriousness in climate science. As your comments make abundantly clear, you have very little knowledge on this issue and have done no independent investigation of the wild claims being made. Yet the more smoke there is, the more you appear to want to blame MBH for the fire. A 'certain amount of spin'? Seeing conspiracies everywhere you look is not 'spin', it is paranoia.

My impression is that the "take down" of Curry by Schmidt was with regard to the science related to Michael Mann's hockey stick. I cannot understand Schmidt's arguments, so I am not in a position to judge just how valid his disparagement of Curry may be in terms of science; however, I do not see Schmidt's disparagement of her as a warrant for "dismissing Judith Curry as a conspiracy theorist".

This is just the right thread in which to pursue the matter of Mann's science further, because Mann is not only the scientist who originated the hockey stick icon as a means of selling the public on the theory of AGW, he is also a litigious bully who threatens his critics with potentially ruinous lawsuits ― which is not a matter of science and which is something we non-scientists can readily understand just as well as any scientist can.

I think that Mann's integrity as a scientist may be accurately ascertained by examination of his integrity as a human being, as the one cannot be separated from the other.

So, the game of "no-one-can-challenge-us-scientists-because-you-rubes-are-too-ignorant-to-understand-the-science" may be transcended by means of a trial in which Mann's character is revealed in a public nonscientific arena in which he by his own actions has placed himself.

[John Reece]

Two Lawsuits

There are actually two lawsuits working their way through the District of Columbia court system related to Mark Steyn: the one Michael Mann filed against him, and the one he filed as a response.

Judith Curry comments on both lawsuits (the comments are rather long but quite interesting and well worth reading):

Mann versus Steyn

Posted on January 26, 2014

by Judith Curry

Some interesting developments and rhetoric in the Mann versus Steyn lawsuit.

Steyn et al. versus Mann

Posted on February 22, 2014

by Judith Curry

Some significant developments in various lawsuits involving Michael Mann

ETA: The title of the second of the two articles above should be Steyn vs. Mann, rather than Steyn et al versus Mann, because there is no "et al" involved in Steyn's countersue.