Wednesday, March 4, 2015

California Heat: How Patrick J Michaels can't read a simple chart

Sou | 8:37 AM Go to the first of 17 comments. Add a comment

Can you spot the difference? (Temperature is in degree Celsius, converted from NOAA/NCDC here.)

Patrick J Michaels can't. He wrote:
What’s different here? Nothing. 

How about we help him out:

I'll not be able to check how many dumb deniers he managed to fool till later today. Gotta go out. If someone wants to do a count, here's the WUWT archive to date.

Addendum - Just for Patrick J.

Just in case Patrick still can't figure out where he's gone wrong, here's the same data presented slightly differently.

A tip for those who have trouble reading charts - the right hand side is the recent temperatures - they are almost all above the 1951-1980 average, whereas the earlier years (to the left) are much colder.

Finally, in case young Patrick J. is still a bit puzzled, here's a decadal chart:


  1. I could just hear some of my committee members responses if I tried to pull crap like this.

    1. Whereas Pat Michael's employers tell him just what a clever little lad he is, fooling all the idiots at WUWT.

      One of the WUWT-ers put up a side by side chart of US vs global temperatures and tried to say the global was a "homogenised" version of the US temps.

      The collective IQ over there has surely hit rock bottom - or it would have if Nick Stokes didn't comment.

    2. Some detailed extracts from "Climate: Change* The Facts 2014" landed on my desk this morning, and as this was my first time reading extended pieces I was gobsmacked at the nonsense that the IPA squeezed into one book. It is simply not fit for any non-fiction shelf, and I'd even hesitate to line a puppy's litter box with it.

      Some of the employers of contributors to this little bit of pulp would no doubt tell their authors what clever little lads and lassies they are, but there's one respectable institution tainted by association where I know more than a few other employees are aghast at seeing their institutional name dragged through the mud - I had one distressed person on the 'phone this afternoon...

      Michael's name is one of the few from the denialist crowd not squeezed into this nonsense volume (Curry was another stand-out absentee) but on reading the above I wonder if even the IPA has standards. Although Delingpole, Watts and Bolt amongst others are given space, so the notion doesn't actually bear up to scrutiny...

      One day all of these people will be some of the most hated in history.

      (*This is how the title should parse...)

    3. Only extracts, Bernard? That's a shame. I wanted to know who was silly enough to cough up $400 and game enough to allow their name on the back cover. Do you have a copy you can check?


    4. I don't currently have a complete copy and I won't fork out to get one, but I can source it...

      Stay tuned.

  2. I've added a couple of charts in the article, to help out Patrick J. Michaels and anyone else who is having trouble working out just where the poor thing went wrong.

  3. “For God’s sake, I can’t be lumped in with that crowd,” said Patrick J. Michaels, attempting to distance himself from those who make scientifically ludicrous claims such as denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, rejecting the idea that humans are responsible for its increase in the atmosphere, or that Earth is actually warming.

    My question is, "Given the crowd he hangs out with, why not?"

    1. Indeed, he's given talks at the Heartland Institute. If he didn't want to be lumped in with "that" crowd, he should avoid any association with the Heartland.

    2. Yeah, why write dumb articles for WUWT if he didn't want to be lumped in with that crowd.

      Good article, BTW. Thanks rubiginosa.

    3. To be fair (through gritted teeth) Michaels's talks at Heartland have included advice not to deny the greenhouse effect or other well-established physics because that's literally ridiculous; he also advised against nailing oneself to The Pause since it was bound to end sooner rather than later. The Cato Institute regards itself as a cut above the loony fringe. More Singer than Monckton, so to speak.

    4. True, Cugel. I now remember seeing that clip of him mentioning something sensible (although there was an "oops" in there that some folks thought meant he accidentally spoke the truth. I can't remember any details now though.

    5. Patrick Michaels strikes me as a professional lobbyist, fully aware of what the science is but (mis)representing it for his clients interests. And not self-deluded enough to believe the wide range of ridiculous and contradictory pseudo-skeptic theories.

    6. I fully agree, KR. Obfuscate, misdirect, manufacture doubt, but keep it plausible. A genuine - and successful - professional.

  4. Long, long ago, Pat Michaels taught part of my introductory climatology course my first year in grad school. He is many things, "dumb" not being among them. He knows *exactly* what he is doing, KR's characterization of him as a professional lobbyist is accurate. For Michaels, its all about the politics. He is Singer's protege.

  5. I'd agree Pat Michaels knows what he is doing. Whether he is doing it well is a moot point.

    Anyway, that's why, when he presents the opportunity to poke fun at him I take it. Like the above - which is just a show he put on for dumb deniers. (It shows he thinks deniers at WUWT are very stupid, that he'd even write that article. As it turns out, he was right.)

    And when he said in the vein of "let them eat cake" - heat waves won't be a problem because everyone can buy an airconditioner.


    I think he knows he's failing quite dismally. I mean writing a comment with Anthony Watts? WTF! (That was the air conditioning article - which was a farce.)

    He'll keep collecting a pay check as long as there are people and companies that will prop up the CATO Inst.

    1. And as long as he keeps delivering the deliverables.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.