Global warming: Manipulated models, university collusion, CO2 benefits


The Living Force
It would be hard to find someone with more credentials than Patrick Michaels. Here are some excerpts from this interview:

MICHAELS: All the climate models have been made too sensitive. This was revealed in "Science" magazine in late 2016, "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," and in it, he speaks of parameterizing--fudging--the models to give an anticipated acceptable range of results. So it's the scientist, not the science that's determining how much it's going to warm.
LEVIN: Does our EPA [fudge the data]? Does NASA do that? Who does that for us?
MICHAELS: the EPA was told by the Supreme Court in 2007 that if it found the carbon dioxide endangered human health and welfare, that it had the power to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. And so the models were fudged to endanger human health and welfare.
As a result of Roosevelt and the Manhattan Project, we created the State Science Institute. And if you remember in "Atlas Shrugged," it was the State Science Institute that destroyed the innovation of the society.
LEVIN: So I have an interesting paradox here, which is that you have an institution of government or several of them, which claim to be the final say in science by rejecting science, by attacking aspects of science presented by the climate "deniers". By shading [the facts], you actually lose knowledge, you lose science, correct?
MICHAELS: Yes, that's a problem. If you say, well, they're just studying the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect is real and it will create some warming, so all these things, all these pronouncements that we get on diet, on whether we should exploit the world's largest copper deposit in Alaska, what the government says will have a small kernel of truth in it, and then it will be built into an artifice the size of Mount Everest from that small kernel, and that's the problem.
When you buy off the academy, you can get what you paid for, and you know, when we went into the federalization of science, the academy said, "Okay, we'll apply for your money and we're going to tack on 50% for every research application that we're going to call overhead, and that money, we, the universities, will use as we choose, and so a lot of it that the engineering and science departments generate all this revenue, probably goes to keep the dramatic language of the department to flow which does not have enough student traffic."
So now, the academy roots for anything that is big government that it feels it can tie onto to maintain this relationship. The roots of political correctness, there are many, manifold and varied. But one of them certainly was the enslavement of the academy.
There are things we can do about it, but this has to be a public will, and the public is so scientifically misinformed that it becomes a very, very heavy lift, doesn't it.
MICHAELS: Well, you would think, but unfortunately, like we talked about early in the program, if we parameterize the models to produce large amounts of heat in the 21st Century, then we're going to say it's all bad and we're going to try to, if you will, de-technologize, as Ayn Rand warned:

"Instead of their old promises, that collectivism would create universal abundance and their denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty. They are now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. Instead of promising conflict, comfort and security for everyone, they are denouncing people for being comfortable and secure. The demand to restrict technology is the demand to restrict man's mind. It is nature, that is reality that makes both these goals impossible to achieve. Technology can be destroyed and the mind can be paralyzed, but neither can be restricted. Whether and whatever such restrictions are attempted, it is the mind, not the state, that withers away."

"Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States" said there's been a significant increase in hurricane power in the Atlantic Ocean from like 1970 to 2009. Why did this 2014 report stop in 2009? Because if you take the data after 2009, the increase goes away and back to where it was. Why did they start in the 1970s? because if you look at 1920 to 1950, you see an increase that is exactly the same as the one that occurred from 1970 to 2009. They just cherry-picked the data that suited the political purposes.

The data for 17 years of satellite data show the grassland, green mass, if you will, is growing at 5% per year. That's huge. Another paper, "Nature" magazine by Ziaxen Ju two years ago looked at the planetary greening and said what are the causes? He did something called a factor analysis. Seventy percent of it was a simple direct effect of putting more carbon dioxide in the air because it's plant food. The way the greenhouse changes work is they warm the coldest temperatures preferentially to warming the warmer ones, so the growing season, which ends with the first frost in autumn and begins with the last frost in the spring, the growing seasons get longer and longer and longer, the amount of agricultural productivity that is now being induced in the planet by CO2 particularly in these grassland areas is going to provide a lot of our food for our future.
LEVIN: you would think if a tiny little bit of increase in heat and it comes and goes, right? I mean, that's the way the nature works, that's how the planet functions, would be so beneficial, that we wouldn't be trying to regulate the hell out of it, we would pretty much just leave it alone.

Dr. Patrick Michaels on the truth about global warming
Last edited:
Top Bottom