When good news, meets strange logic

Here's the climate equivalent of “Why Isn't the Press Publishing the Good News from Iraq?”

Pat Michaels used to be one of the more lucid, logical and persuasive skeptics. But poor Pat appears to be seriously losing his marbles. Michaels analyzes 92 climate-oriented research papers published in two preeminent science magazines, Science and Nature.

Because only 9 articles cited climate developments which might be less severe than expected and 83 cited conditions which will be worse than previously anticipated, Michaels concludes the world's most prestigious scientific journals are inherently biased in favor of bad news.


Michaels said: “The chance that, say, the forecast for Friday’s high temperature will be raised or lowered is equal, unless something was initially wrong with the forecast model itself.” The models used by weather forecasters in the US may have equal chances of being high or low on daily highs in summer but not daily lows in winter in the northern states and Rocky Mountains. Observed lows come in higher much of the time. The weather models have water vapor built in but the models don’t factor in increasing levels with time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any guesses as to why US meteorologist haven’t done much work, if any, on factoring CO2 into weather models?

I love the unintentional post-modernist critique inherent in the second part of Michaels’ commentary–science is mostly a social construct. This seems to be the latest tactic of several denialist comments I have read. Stated another way, If you cannot construct a credible model to come up with a reftuation of AGW, or find empirical evidence (a large set of exapnading tropical glaciers, anyone?), attack the process! The rules are satcked against us! The umpires are crooked! As for the first part, I am left with one comment–huh?

parakeratosis bontebuck serrate septipartite hyperexcitability pseudocollegiate subnarcotic watchcase
Development Services Group http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html

DeSmog's profile of me is all true, as far as it goes.

I am a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist. My field is the logic of science, especially climate science, and I understand the debate far better than any climate scientist.

I do basic research on the logic of complex issues and reasoning, but I do not publish in academic journals because I use my tools in my consulting work. See my http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science

As for pay, I sought out my electric power industry clients to do my studies and would like to do more. But I do not have my opinions because they pay me, quite the opposite. DeSmog has it's innuendo backwards, as usual for greens.

They also missed my two important studies for the American Petroleum Institute. I wrote about 1000 articles for Electricity Daily.

My heroes are the coal burners.

I have been fighting the green wave since 1970, and I am finally winning. Our civilization is still based on fire and that is not going to change any time soon. The greens have overreached themselves at last. Enjoy the show. David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

David, In your reply to how much influence you may have had on the U.S. Climate Change Strategic Plan which came out in 2003, you said: … “That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for uncertainty.” (see comment to “Exxon lobby group named “year's most influential” in global climate change 13 Dec 06”, at this blog).

On 14 Dec 2006, regarding The Weather Channel's 2006 Hot List, I said: “Wojick (not CEI) had most influence to the US government on making up uncertainties about global warming. See preceding comments.

The influence Wojick had Dec 2002-2003 on US government policy in NOAA carried over to more recent years - including 2006.” … On 3 Jan 2004 you said …”That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for uncertainty.” Thinking back some more, at this time can you add anything to that?