Climate Change Models Wrong, Except Russia

Apr 2013
35,870
24,360
Left coast
#2
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.Wikipedia
 
Likes: Clara007
Feb 2007
5,086
2,774
USA
#4
Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
July 10, 2013 9:57 AM EDT SHAUNA THEEL

A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Patrick Michaels' Losing Bets
On Temperature Trends

Michaels "Bet" In 1999 There Would Be A "Statistically Significant Cooling Trend" From 1998 To 2008. In a Cato post that was later published as a Washington Times op-ed, according to Nexis, Patrick J. Michaels wrote that he would place a "bet" that "the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite":

I'm willing to wager two things. First, I'll bet that anyone who said global warming is an overblown bunch of hooey had a terrible time at this year's holiday cocktail parties. Second, I'll take even money that the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite.
[...]
Last year was so warm that it induces a statistically significant warming trend in the satellite data. Thus the second bet: Starting with 1998, there will almost certainly be a statistically significant cooling trend in the decade ending in 2007. [Cato, 1/18/99]​

Satellite Records For That Decade Showed No Statistically Significant Trend. From 1998 to 2008, the University of Alabama in Huntsville satellite record shows a warming trend that is not statistically significant at the 95 percent level (a warming of 0.074°C per decade plus or minus 0.439°C). The Remote Sensing Systems satellite record shows a cooling trend that is not statistically significant at the 95 percent level (a change in temperature of -0.053°C per decade plus or minus 0.425 °C). The three surface temperature records showed a "warming trend" for that time period according to a Skeptical Science report on a 2008 paper by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. [Calculated using Skeptical Science's Temperature trend calculator, 7/1/13] [Skeptical Science, 1/10/13]

Michaels' New Bet: "We Are Going To Go Nearly A Quarter Of A Century Without Warming." In a Washington Times op-ed in January 2013, Michaels stated "it's a pretty good bet that we are going to go nearly a quarter of a century without warming." [The Washington Times, 1/17/13]


Michaels Makes An "Easy Prediction" That By 2000 The "Vogue Environmental Calamity Will Be An Ice Age." Michaels wrote in a 1992 Washington Times op-ed:

About 15 years ago it was all the rage in the climate business to proclaim the coming ice age.
[...]
Here's an easy prediction: By the year 2000, plus or minus a few, the vogue environmental calamity will be an ice age. And this nouvelle apocalypse, revised version, will predict that global warming will cause sea level to fall, exposing Bangladesh to wrenching cultural changes, and therefore we should give more money to the Third World. [The Washington Times, 2/11/92, via Nexis]​

Michaels' Failed Prediction Based On Misrepresentation Of Scientific History. There has been a persistent increase in temperatures and continuing warnings about the impacts of climate change from scientists and advocates, contrary to Michaels' prediction.



[World Meteorological Association, 2013, via The Washington Post]

Furthermore, as a review published by the American Meteorological Society concluded, there was no consensus about a "coming ice age" in the scientific literature in the 1970s:

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
[...]
When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage.
[...]
Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists. For example, these are titles from two New York Times articles: "Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead" (Sullivan 1975a) and "Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due" (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975).However, the news coverage of the time does reflect what New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin calls "the tyranny of the news peg," based on the idea that reporters need a "peg" on which to hang a story. [Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2/8/08]​


...

Continued here:

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800
:rolleyes:


Also...

Education

Michaels completed a bachelors degree in biological sciences degree in 1971 and a Masters degree in Biology in 1975 at the University of Chicago. He completed a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979 on the topic of "Atmospheric Anomalies and Crop Yields in North America".[4]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_J._Michaels
So then, I'm curious, what exactly makes Michaels a supposed "real expert on climate?"

:rolleyes:
 
Likes: Clara007
Nov 2012
39,884
11,562
Lebanon, TN
#5
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.Wikipedia
And Michael Mann is a Fraud that has sold out real science for Government Grants who have sold out to Big Corporations to sell the 10 Trillion dollar Lie so corporations can sell a hoax and sack away 10 trillion dollars of US Dollars from consumers, and create a faux Crisis so government can get you to give up liberty willingly
 
Likes: webguy4
Feb 2007
5,086
2,774
USA
#6
And Michael Mann is a Fraud that has sold out real science for Government Grants who have sold out to Big Corporations to sell the 10 Trillion dollar Lie so corporations can sell a hoax and sack away 10 trillion dollars of US Dollars from consumers, and create a faux Crisis so government can get you to give up liberty willingly
Isn't it nice to have mere beliefs? :)
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2015
14,552
13,447
Arizona
#8
Mark Levin. Did you know that during the past two election cycles the Koch Bros have funneled millions of dollars into not only the Mark Levin show but into ads denying climate change??
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.
Why, you ask?
Koch owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Molex, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, KochMinerals, Matador Cattle Company, and Guardian Industries.
The Koch Bros are deeply imbedded in the fossil fuel industry. They have launched campaign after campaign against anything that remotely resembles attacks on fossil fuel. That includes: electric, solar, water, wind, nuclear, bioenergy, geothermal, hydrogen...any sustainable energy.

So naturally, the idea of a warming climate due to greenhouse gases and human/carbon footprints won't fly....can't be tolerated. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY, people.
AND....follow the money right back to Mark Levin. Levin is just one more fat-cat, wealthy, white Republican hypocrite.
 
Feb 2007
5,086
2,774
USA
#9
For those here who are interested, here is the transcript of the cited interview.:

Dr. Patrick Michaels on the truth about global warming

And, of course, in order for anyone to believe what Michael's has claimed in said interview to be 100% truthful, one must take him merely at his word on these matters, particularly regarding climate models, since he doesn't provide reference material in which the audience can research on their own to determine if such claims are 100% truthful.
:rolleyes:
 
Likes: Clara007
Apr 2013
35,870
24,360
Left coast
#10
Mark Levin. Did you know that during the past two election cycles the Koch Bros have funneled millions of dollars into not only the Mark Levin show but into ads denying climate change??
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.
Why, you ask?
Koch owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Molex, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, KochMinerals, Matador Cattle Company, and Guardian Industries.
The Koch Bros are deeply imbedded in the fossil fuel industry. They have launched campaign after campaign against anything that remotely resembles attacks on fossil fuel. That includes: electric, solar, water, wind, nuclear, bioenergy, geothermal, hydrogen...any sustainable energy.

So naturally, the idea of a warming climate due to greenhouse gases and human/carbon footprints won't fly....can't be tolerated. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY, people.
AND....follow the money right back to Mark Levin. Levin is just one more fat-cat, wealthy, white Republican hypocrite.
The Kochs and Exxon were big supporters ($$$$) of Wattsupwiththat and the one other site that was leading the charge a while ago. They have both sort of fallen out of the public's eye, thank goodness.

Up until about 6 years ago you could find lists of contributors to sites like that but they aren't published anymore. Was the regulatory environment changed?
 
Likes: Clara007

Similar Discussions