the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Reason still has a place.

Posted by Jeff Id on February 27, 2009

Scientist: Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated

The voice of reason is getting stronger I just hope we haven’t crossed the political ‘real’ tipping point already. I’m not naive enough to believe that good science and reason will stop anything however.

Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.

Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.”

“The discussion surrounding global warming has become wildly extreme,” he told a packed auditorium. “You either believe it’s the end of the world unless we do something about it right now, or you’re a denier.”

Michaels criticized scientists’ widespread acceptance of the computer climate change models, saying that the models have projected higher temperatures than have actually occurred in recent years.

“[There is a] systematic failure of computer models,” he said. “What warming there is, is at or below the lower limits of computer models.”

I should title the post – spatial autocorrelation of scientists.

This phenomenon can be partially attributed to the “small inbred community” of scientists who peer review global warming research, he said.

This is the bit which made me post this article.

Current means of addressing warming may exacerbate the extent of the climate problem, Michaels said. Cap-and-trade systems and energy taxes take money out of the hands of investors and drain capital from companies that could produce innovative technologies, he said.

“I will leave you with one observation: the future belongs to the efficient,” he said. “You need capital to reach that future.”

The part I just can’t understand is how people think taxation has any chance to correct CO2 emission.  It is nothing but an additional powergrab by the government, with an excuse and no real point.  Still if you read the article there were plenty of fully indoctrinated liberal college students ready to attack.

14 Responses to “Reason still has a place.”

  1. Phillip Bratby said

    The indoctrination of a whole generation is a great worry. However, I was addressing a meeting the other evening, and about 90% of the audience were not convinced that man was causing global warming. It wasn’t a young audience though.

  2. JAE said

    “The part I just can’t understand is how people think taxation has any chance to correct CO2 emission. ”

    Hah, you must not be a Left-Leaning-Democrat, since you obviously don’t think like one. I keep looking for a Lefty that has even a basic understanding of what Capitalism is all about.

  3. Ron H. said

    Pat Michaels voice has been loud & clear on this subject for a long time. His many books make excellent reading.

  4. AEGeneral said

    The part I just can’t understand is how people think taxation has any chance to correct CO2 emission.

    Because CO2 emissions keep going up.

    If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

  5. Don Keiller said

    I like to think I do my bit by asking students I lecture to to produce posters/give talks on what I term “uncomfortable subjects”. My reasoning is that if I want to prepare my students for the real world, they should be made to analyse primary literature, draw supportable conclusions and be able to present a reasoned argument based on evidence. In short to think for themselves.

    Topics include, “rates of sea level rise are increasing”, “Polar bears are endangered by climate change” etc.

    The difference is I ask them to try and disprove these statements.

    They all do- and with remarkable ease. What is more they all express astonishment that it was so easy. Very few “alarmists” in my tutorials.

  6. peter vd berg said

    i don’t know if i posted this before so forgive me if its a repost:

    Don’t be put of be the medicine bit, it’s a very profound essay on the accuracy of studies in general. A worthwhile read.

  7. page48 said

    RE: #6

    Fantastic paper. I hope everyone interested in climate science will read it!

  8. Jeff Id said


    I nearly believe it’s basic premise too. There’s a pile of unimportant papers published every year which are basically correct that I think offsets the average back within reason but of course I haven’t done the numbers.

    It’s an odd world we live in. Climatology is the biggest collection of circular supporters I’ve ever imagined. Some of you guys have been dealing with this for years. Prior to august last year, I’d only done cursory reading. I didn’t care, optics can keep you plenty busy enough by itself. It seems like the deeper you dig the more skeletons you find.

  9. page48 said

    “The part I just can’t understand is how people think taxation has any chance to correct CO2 emission.”

    The same way climate modeling will reduce CO2 emissions – Not!

  10. peter vd berg said

    What describes for me the best current climate studies from the above mentioned paper is the phrase:

    Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias

    I guess our brains are just to limited in their ability to grasp that laws of chance rule our universe, that the tossed coin in the long run will always give a 50/50 ratio.

    Whilst our mathematical concepts describe in a circular fashion more or less accurately the current state of our universe, our limited existence just gives a glance at the momentary throw of the coin, which might be 15 heads in a row.

    So the concepts are just true for the moment but anytime sooner or later the laws of chance will force us to accept what Einstein also refused to accept ( ‘God doesn’t throw dice’ after the quantum theory was postulated)
    when a sudden ‘discovery’ puts our concept of reality to question.

    Coming back to climate, as they say in the brokerage ads, past results don’t garantee future profits. The rythms we discern are just rythms because we aren’t around long enough to see they are just random throws of the dice.

  11. TCO said

    Micheals has been speaking out against AGW forever. Running this sort of story gives no new info. It’s just rehash for the “base”. When I see this level of discernment in my side, it makes me sad.

  12. James Mayeau said

    Don’t mind TCO. He’s the self presented skeptic who has never found cause to speak a critical word about Tamino Gavin, Hansen, Mann, or Gore.

    But if you do a search it will surprize you that TCO finds plenty to criticize about Anthony Watts, Steve Mc, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, and Pat Michaels.

    And you would be surprized how easily he penitrates climate alarmist sites that are closed to every other “skeptic”.
    I can’t tell for sure but it seems, for instance at Tamino’s open mind, that moderation doesn’t apply in the case of TCO.

    Probably due to his “healthy” and loud skepticism regarding WUWT and CA.

  13. TCO said

    Yup…it’s all about sides. All about hanging with your crew. Like Republicans listening to Limbaugh. Or liberals to NPR. That’s the exact dynamic going down on all these sites.

  14. Tai said

    I wonder how opinions are changed by recent events and new data or erroneous data corrected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: