Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels RIP: Michaels battled climate hysteria & tortured data – He will be sorely missed

Michaels: ‘Do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of Congress when asked do we need more research? They would say no, it’s really a non-problem? They’d get thrown out of their jobs if they did that.’

‘Surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of a degree Celsius…It’s not a lot. There are two periods of warning, one in the early 20th Century that could not have been caused by human beings because we hadn’t put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th Century that either slows down or ends depending upon whose data you use somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with the big El Nino that covered the news the last couple of years.’

‘So the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. It is nowhere near as warm as it’s supposed to be.’

‘There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming.’

‘In “Science” magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper that was published by a French climate modeler called “The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning,” and in it, he speaks of parameterizing — we could say fudging — the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results.’

‘The models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. So when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. I didn’t say seven-tenths of a degree, I said seven times more warming than is being observed.’

‘It’s a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather the lower atmospheric temperatures and what’s being observed, that’s sufficient to kill the endangerment finding.’

Fracking, that’s right. And so we’re substituting natural gas which is cheaper for coal for electrical generation, and that produces about half as much CO2 per unit electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down,

Michaels: “Biden’s appears to be thriving in a fact-free world. … The number of tornadoes is increasing, but that’s because of improved detection technology.”

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘There has been a profound suspension of the normal rules of science in the climate arena.’

The fairest thing we can say is there is no apparent relationship between integrated global tropical cyclone energy and global surface temperature….The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, a consortium of all the 13 federal entities that consume your money in the name of climate science and propagandistic graphics)…Just for the heck of it, I colored in red the same area that the USGCRP’s artists did.

First, the reason the USGCRP data ended in 2009 (they could have ended in 2013 for their 2014 report) was that the years 2011-2013 wrecked their red-line narrative of an unusual increase in intensity.

Dr. Pat Michaels: The NA4 (fourth “National Assessment) and the accompanying Climate Science Special Report repeatedly state that models show anthropogenic emissions are responsible for almost all 20th-century warming. 

This is claimed despite the fact that of the two twentieth-century warmings; the first one, approximately from 1910 to 1945, could hardly have been a result of carbon dioxide emissions. The 1910-1945 warming is statistically similar in slope to the 1976-1997 warming.

Going back to 2000, there have been persistent problems throughout the entire assessment process, underscoring the need for major administrative change. For these and other reasons, draft NA4 should be shelved and reset, so that time and resources can be devoted to a new Assessment that corrects and addresses the first three Assessments and the draft NA4.

NA4 suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw in assuming that models making large bulk errors are representative of a range of future warming. Ubiquitous tuning of the models to the 20th-century history hardly increases their reliability

‘Our government homogenizes weather data so that all nearby weather stations are all singing the same tune.’

‘At the end of November, representatives from the nations that signed the U.N.’s 1992 climate treaty will meet — for the 21st time — to implement the treaty’s stated goal of “prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” There’s no need to meet. Nature and capitalism have already conspired to accomplish this…the total warming to 2100 works out to a cool 2.0 degrees Celsius, or precisely the goal of the 1992 treaty.’

‘The decades-long climate kerfuffle is therefore over. The U.N. should cancel its Paris meeting.’

Michaels: ‘Much of it reads like the disproven doomsday predictions that have been churned out since the early days of the environmental movement…He asks Catholics to pray for the nations of the world to agree to a new climate treaty in Paris next December. Since there will be no agreement without the Green Climate Fund shakedown, we’ll be paying an energy tithe. I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of votive candles lit for this.’