Sunday, November 25, 2018

What Government Scientists Are Doing to Make Their Insane Extreme Climate Forecasts

The below clip is the best I have seen as far as a discussion of government climate models.

In the clip, Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, discusses the parameterization of the models, the cherry-picking that goes on and the skewed incentives.

And then, for good measure, he explains the additional cherry-picking going on to justify the claim that storms such as hurricanes are getting more intense.



  1. Great video.

    The rest of the video is here along with a summary of the discussion:

    He discussed the motivation of the climate scientists and journalists and how government is involved.

  2. The bad news here is I have to suffer that asshat Levin to hear this fellow.

  3. I think the easiest way to reorient people's thinking on this is to talk about margins of error. What is the margin of error on the "global average temperature" measured today with modern satellites and lasers? What is the margin of error for that same measurement from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Whats the margin of error for the change? Is it bigger than the change itself? These are standard freshman STEM midterm questions, but no one asks them.

    1. Good point. I would also like to see someone in the mainstream press point out that the cost of preventing AGW -- in money and in lives lost -- (whether you believe in it or not) would be so much worse than just dealing with the consequences.

    2. The real point is that there is no such thing as an "average temperature."
      Consider differences in air pressure and humidity, water and ground temperature.

      If the warm alarmists were the least bit honest, they would use the same proxies for temperature now that they use for the past.