“The record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding.”
Update: bad faith. Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.
The plaintiff and his lawyers knowingly mislead the court with erroneous information, and “Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.”
“Setting aside questions of credibility or even perjury …” ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., is SANCTIONED for bad-faith trial misconduct relating to his use of Exhibit 517A, Exhibit 116, and Exhibit 117, and his counsel’s misrepresentations concerning the same
That had a 996 (83*12) tropical year cycle (graphic here).
We find that Jupiter-Earth-Mercury also has a tropical year cycle, this time it’s 1079 TY (83*13) as shown in the graphic (right).
Since all three of the two-planet conjunctions occur a multiple of 19 times in the full period, as per the graphic, a Jupiter-Earth-Mercury alignment with the Sun should occur every 1079/19 tropical years (almost 56.79 TY).
The solar simulator by Carsten Arnholm (link here) shows this. In its 3000-year window (0-2999) there are 53 J-E-Me alignment possibilities, meaning 52 periods of 1079/19 TY. The first one occurs in year 0, and the last one that can be viewed is in year 2953.
Some alignments are exact, some nearly so, and some less so but not by much (a few days). The eccentricity of the orbits, especially that of Mercury (over 12 times that of Earth), probably has an effect there.
Examples of very good alignments include those of years 0, 1079 and 2158 (= 1079*2).
Analysis shows that of the 53 alignments available on the simulator (which has a 3000 year window), about 1/3 are near-perfect, 1/3 very good and 1/3 moderately good. The ‘best’ ones fall roughly between November and February, and the least exact ones roughly between May and August, the rest mainly in the other months.
It’s not clear why that is, but might be related to Mercury’s large eccentricity (see graphic at top of post). Earth’s perihelion is in early January so its orbit speed is at maximum around then, with a minimum in July.
In any case the triple conjunction dates don’t ‘slip’ against the 1079 tropical year cycle, even after two millennia or more.
Here’s another repeating 1079 year cycle example.
The dates of any J-E-Merc triple conjunctions can be calculated by adding or subtracting multiples of nearly 56 years 10 months (56.79~ TY) from the dates of examples published here (via Arnholm’s SIM2 software).
This confirms that the solar simulator recognises Earth is operating in a rotating reference frame (as noted in the introduction to an earlier post, here).
50.54503 -3.49492 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1910
In reviewing Huntsham, I referred to Met Office “Factsheets” regarding the South West of England climate and how Teignmouth was significantly warmer. On further inspection I found a separate “Factsheet” relating to Micro-Climates that specifically featured Teignmouth. This informative guide demonstrated just how appallingly unfit for its purpose the Met Office actually is.
Firstly to review this location, at the risk of becoming boring, this site is terrible. Surrounded by tarmac footpaths leading to the pier (incredibly busy with holidaymakers in high summer) there is no possible way of describing this as a natural environment. Ground cover in every direction (including a bowling green) parked cars, rubbish bins, park benches etc. bears no similarity to normal coastal areas. This is Class 5 at its worst, very definitely a unique micro-climate and should (but isn’t) be classed as “Unsatisfactory” even by the Met Office’s own loose descriptor. There really is no more to say about this site. I doubt it was acceptable, even on its original installation 115 years ago. It is, and always has been, a manually reporting site…..occasionally.
So referring to that “Factsheet” a comparison is made to demonstrate Micro- climates as below
This is all straightforward explanatory stuff though perhaps the variable nature of the individual site’s exact locations is conveniently overlooked. Below is that explanatory table:
Reading all of the article nothing at all seems contentious, the figures appear “reasonable” and it is the Met Office as the source after all so where could there possibly be any problem? Well probably because the figures for Teignmouth are cross between complete invention and only partial years averaging. They are, in fact, junk that is even worse than the atrocious site of the station.
I recently re-posted some excellent analysis of data by Stephen Connolly whom I strongly recommend following if you are an X (formerly Twitter) user. His report certainly made me review “data” and its statistical presentation in a different light. It also highlighted the spectacular diligence of meteorologists of Met Éireann at Valentia station who managed to make 20 manual observations per day for a staggering 68 years with only 2 missing readings. If only their UK counterparts could have got remotely close to that standard, their data would have some relevance. Unfortunately reading some manual stations (even only on a daily basis) in the UK seems to be an optional exercise.
Evaluating each of the above comparison stations, Plymouth:Mountbatten is a World meteorological Organisation (WMO) site and was supplying automated readings going back to the very earliest days of the 1960s. From the point of view of readings frequency, its data is very reliable. Princetown is better known as Dartmoor High Security Prison. The site stopped archiving readings in 2000, however, prior to that its records were immaculately well kept in probably being a non-optional function of prison life for certain inmates as part of their rehabilitation process. Its data is equally reliable. In contrast, whilst the table above shows the period 1971 to 2000 of annual average readings …….Teignmouth produced no figures whatsoever for 1980 and none for the entire period of 1983 to 1993 inclusive. This can be checked out here.
If the above is not adequate condemnation of the averaging, by digging deeper and examining each year’s actual readings it becomes evident that actually visiting the site and recording them was very much a part time occupation in more ways than one. Below is a typical example of one of the better year’s readings in 2000. Presumably including December figures might have messed up the averaging.
Some of the years when reading were actually taken, less than 50% of the readings occurred. Despite this ridiculous level of infrequency, the Met Office still somehow managed to derive an annual “average” – presumably Ju-Ju sticks, OuiJa boards or some other form of magic were employed. One would hope this sort of lax situation would no longer apply, however, from data I received under Freedom of Information request, the recent year levels of observations have not improved at all.
2022 saw an improvement with a mere 41 missing days.
However, in 2023 recidivism took over.
All this demonstrates, yet again, the imperative the Met Office feels it has to produce an annual “average” temperature presumably to fill the box despite the basic fact that the alleged “average” is a completely meaningless figure – unmitigated nonsense. An annual average requires a consistent 365/6 days readings and nothing less is acceptable.
As I highlighted way back in my (still unanswered ) letter to Peter Kyle MP Secretary of State for DSIT , inaccurate numbers (“data” would be an inappropriate description) are subsequently being analysed by both the Met Office and other institutions to reach unsubstantiated and often quite ridiculous claims on which important decisions are being made. Whilst the “Factsheet” may seem innocuous in itself, it gives an undeserved level of credence to the Met Office often spurious data which it does not deserve.
I quote: ““Every part per million and every fraction of a degree temperature increase has a real impact on our lives and our planet.” – Prof. Celeste Saulo, WMO Secretary-General
If the Met Office simply makes up annual averages in the way they clearly do from a junk site like Teignmouth, what credence can be given to them?
