CMD superman logo.jpg SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy,

depends on donations from people like you!

Click here to make a tax-deductable contribution.

Talk:Patrick J. Michaels

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This article needs to be re-written. Currently it is seriously biased and childish in style. I.e. pure propaganda.

Regards,

 /Johan

Poor Sourcing, Poorly Written

This needs a source:

"Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact)."

It's full of such problems.

Additionally, it isn't clear why cutting off the data after 1996 would invalidate an otherwise supportable conclusion about global warming, since most temperature records show significant warming in the period prior to that time. It might not be great science to neglect part of the data set, but it also might not be a fatal flaw.
:Additionally, nobody has the guts to discuss or consider the   five thousand or so aircraft that are crisscrossing the USA every minute of the day spewing  2 thousand degree fumes of all descriptions into the atmosphere and nobody seems to care. They had rather persecute my 1 cylinder lawnmower.Nobody wants to talk about it,no news stations , no news reporters ,no experts. I guess its all non polluting.?????   

Edit note

I have removed the unreferenced par below from the article page.--Bob Burton 17:09, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher latitudes, where global warming has the most impact).

Links