Pat Michaels: I doubt Irene will even “cough up eight bodies”

August 27, 2011

If you watched Ben Santer “beat the crap” out of Pat Michaels in congressional hearings last year, (above) you probably won’t be surprised at Michael’s latest ill-considered blurt.

Yahoo and Here:

“A day later, the smart money is still riding a very Gloria-like track, but with a cyclone that will be weaker than projected. It is doubtful that Irene will even cough up eight bodies (the number killed by Gloria), though power outages east of where the center makes landfall (probably on Long Island) may be extensive.”

The original piece was published at Forbes, (recently a Mecca for anti-science blathering) -where apparently someone thought the better of it and has changed the passage to:

A day later, the smart money is still riding a very Gloria-like track, but with a cyclone that will be weaker than projected (and hopefully kill fewer than the eight people who died in Gloria) though power outages east of where the center makes landfall (probably on Long Island) may be extensive.

See more of Michaels in his surprisingly candid presentation to the Heartland conference a few years ago. (hint: it really has not been “cooling since 1998”)

Advertisement

13 Responses to “Pat Michaels: I doubt Irene will even “cough up eight bodies””

  1. witsendnj Says:

    How revealing of the stone-cold heartlessness and cynicism harbored by the fetid professional deniers. And by the way, Irene is approaching 8 already and is still in North Carolina.

    • David Oertel Says:

      That deniers can risk the entire biosphere for the sake of short-term profits shows that for them compassion and social consciousness are not big parts of their lives.

  2. David Oertel Says:

    This is cynical and deceptive. Pat Michaels has to know that individual weather events are not important when making statements about climate change. It is really the statistical trends with many events which constitute real climate change. Whether Irene is strong or weak does not in itself tell us much.


  3. […] Pat Michaels: I doubt Irene will even “cough up eight bodies” « Climate Denial Crock of the Wee…. Share and Enjoy:Written by: Jerrald Hayes on August 27, 2011. […]


  4. […] all’università della Virginia e ora climatologo del Cato e del Marshall Institute,  ha calcolato l’impatto dell’uragano, neanche “otto […]

  5. daveburton Says:

    There’s nothing heartless about Pat Michaels. The sad fact is that people die in hurricanes, and a death toll of only 8 would have been very good news indeed.

    Sadly, although Pat seemed prescient about the size and strength of the hurricane, he was wrong about the death toll. Even though Irene was just a category 1 when it hit NC, and a mere tropical storm when it hit NY, the death toll now stands at 21. (However, when surfers go out in hurricanes and drown, should we really blame the storms?)

    I wonder if Phil Jones will call it “cheering news” that Prof. Michaels was wrong about the death toll? Perhaps he will, but my guess is that he’s learned his lesson and won’t be foolish enough to put such sentiments into an email again:
    http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt

    There’s nothing anti-science about Professor Michaels, either. He’s one of the best climatologists in the business.

    The good news is that the alarmist predictions of larger and more frequent hurricanes have not, so far, been correct. This was the first hurricane to come ashore in the USA in 35 months, which is nearly a record, and it was a mere category 1.

    It is a bit early to call that fact a vindication for climate realists like Prof. Michaels, but it obviously doesn’t do anything for the reputations of alarmists like Jones.

    Not that it would make much difference, in Jones’ case, after what was revealed by his Climategate emails, e.g.:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
    http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/0942777075.txt
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

    After that, Jones will never again be trusted by anyone impartial.

    Most revealing, to me, about the deep rottenness in the climate alarmist community was the “To” and “Cc” lists on Jones’ damning email: Mann, Briffa, Osborn, Bradley, Hughes — none (apparently) of whom blew the whistle on Jones’ fraud.

    (Well, probably none… after all, we still don’t know who the secret whistleblower was that leaked them climategate files.)

    • daveburton Says:

      In the next paragraph, of his article, immediately following the snippet quoted here, Prof. Michael makes his point clear. He’s worried about the danger of over-hyping weak hurricanes like Irene. It’s a “boy who cried wolf” lesson:

      “A day later, the smart money is still riding a very Gloria-like track, but with a cyclone that will be weaker than projected. It is doubtful that Irene will even cough up eight bodies (the number killed by Gloria), though power outages east of where the center makes landfall (probably on Long Island) may be extensive.

      “As I complete this, there’s another tropical depression out in the Atlantic, and a couple more on the way in the very near future. Suppose one of these takes a similar pathl except that it improbably threads the needle of the Mid-Atlantic Bight and makes landfall immediately to the west of New York City as a Category 3 storm. How many people will the hyping of Irene have killed?

      “That’s how Hurricane Hype followed by Hurricane Insanity leads to hurricane death.”

      It is obvious that quoting the first of those three paragraphs without quoting the other two is a classic example of taking someone’s words out of context to deceive the reader — in this case, to make it appear that Prof. Michaels didn’t care about hurricane victims, when the truth is just the opposite.

      Now, all you folks who have been bad-mouthing Prof. Michaels, how about demonstrating your fair mindedness with some apologies, please?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      holy crap.

      If you’re still tooting the “hide the decline” horn, (“the American Thinker”? ….wow…)
      it’s clear that you do not know, follow, or care about the discussion that is going on here, but merely engage in random trolling behavior.
      Please pay attention.

      • daveburton Says:

        Peter, I was responding to the truly vicious and completely false accusations that Professor Patrick Michaels is a “stone-cold heartless” “fetid” “anti-science” “denier.”

        I’m not the guy who brought up the issue of heartlessness!

        The false accusations against Dr. Michaels were prompted by an out-of-context quote selected to make it appear that he doesn’t care about hurricane victims, when it is obvious from the full quote that the truth is exactly the opposite.

        That false accusation of heartlessness is particularly outrageous considering the chilling heartlessness exhibited by Phil Jones, when he was “cheered” by the news of climate realist John Daly’s death.

        Why hasn’t anyone here pointed to that perfectly-in-context quote as “revealing of the stone-cold heartlessness and cynicism harbored by the fetid professional” alarmists?

        The false accusation that Prof. Michaels, of all people, is “anti-science” is especially outrageous considering the flagrant corruption of science demonstrated by leaked (why do you persist in calling them “stolen?”) Climategate emails and computer code, and most clearly declared in that damning email from Phil Jones to Mann, Briffa, Osborn, Bradley & Hughes about duplicating “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline.”

        That “fetid” stench that witsendnj smells isn’t coming from honest, diligent scientsts like Pat Michaels, it is coming from the rotten carcass of alarmist credibility.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          anyone still flogging the “hide the decline” meme has absolutely zero cred in complaining about “out of context” quotes.

    • daveburton Says:

      As I noted last night (in a post that is still “awaiting moderation”) the death toll is now thought to be at least 21, sadly.

      (As is usually the case with these storms, a few of them are questionable attributions: A couple of them were surfers — I’d say they were killed as much by their own foolishness as by the storm. Another was a guy who had a heart attack while nailing plywood over his windows — they’re blaming Irene for his death, though that’s at least arguable.)


  6. This whole ‘realists’ vs. ‘alarmists’ thing…is this just another trick to hide the decline in the number of former climate deniers waking up to reality? Sounds a bit dodgy to me, as in dodging the REAL working theories and reams of data supporting anthropogenic climate change and promoting ‘unsettled’ science.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: