“Shattered Consensus” by Patrick J. Michaels: A challenge to the global warming narrative

• In “Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming,” Patrick J. Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, challenges the prevailing narrative on global warming, questioning the evidence, methodology and motivations of those advocating for urgent action.
• Michaels targets the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), particularly the “hockey stick” graph, which suggests recent temperatures are the warmest in the past 1,000 years. He argues that the graph is based on flawed methodology and manipulated data, citing discrepancies in the archived data of the original study.
• Michaels contends that the IPCC has underestimated the impact of urbanization on temperature records, suggesting that some warming may be due to the urban heat island effect rather than solely to greenhouse gas emissions. He also emphasizes the role of natural climate variability, arguing that solar changes, rather than human activities, are the primary drivers of recent warming.
• Michaels criticizes the reliance on climate models, which he believes produce inconsistent predictions and fail to account for factors like natural variability and the role of clouds. He disputes the notion that global warming is leading to an increase in severe weather events, citing studies that show no significant trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes or other severe weather events.
• Michaels’ book serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking and open-mindedness in the climate change debate. He urges readers to question assumptions and consider a wide range of perspectives before making policy decisions, advocating for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to climate science.

In the ongoing debate over climate change, few voices have been as persistent and provocative as that of Patrick J. Michaels. In his latest work, “Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming,” Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, takes aim at what he perceives as the flawed and politically charged science underpinning the global warming consensus.

Published at a time when climate change dominates headlines and policy discussions, Michaels’ book seeks to dismantle the prevailing narrative by questioning the evidence, methodology and motivations of those who advocate for urgent action.

At the heart of Michaels’ critique is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that has been the primary authority on climate change for decades. Michaels argues that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers is riddled with inconsistencies and errors. As per Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch, the document presents an alarming view of global warming, attributing over half of the enhanced greenhouse effect to CO2 and predicting drastic temperature increases without immediate action, while overlooking significant scientific uncertainties regarding these claims.

One of Michael’s main targets is the infamous “hockey stick” graph, which suggests that recent temperatures are the warmest in the past 1,000 years. Michaels contends that this graph is based on flawed methodology and manipulated data.

He points out discrepancies between the data used in the original study, MBH98, and the data archived by the authors. For instance, the South America PC calculation listed 18 sites in the original paper but only 11 in the archived data, raising questions about the study’s reliability.

Michaels also challenges the IPCC’s handling of the urban heat island effect, where urban areas are warmer than their rural surroundings due to human activities. He argues that the IPCC has significantly underestimated the impact of urbanization on temperature records.

Studies cited by Michaels indicate that the biasing effect of land-use changes, including urbanization, is about three times larger than previously thought. This, he suggests, means that some of the warming observed in the historical record may be attributed to the urban heat island effect rather than solely to greenhouse gas emissions.

Another cornerstone of Michaels’ argument is the role of natural climate variability. He criticizes the IPCC’s claims about the increased frequency and intensity of El Niño events, arguing that these claims are not supported by historical data.

Michaels highlights the strong correlation between solar irradiance and near-surface air temperature anomalies, suggesting that the warming in the early 20th century, which is as large as the late 20th-century warming, is largely due to solar changes. This challenges the notion that human activities are the primary driver of recent climate change.

Michaels is also critical of the reliance on climate models, which he argues produce vastly different predictions and often fail to accurately simulate observed climate phenomena. He points out that these models place too much emphasis on CO2 as the primary driver of climate change, while ignoring other important factors such as natural variability and the role of clouds.

Furthermore, Michaels challenges the idea that global warming is leading to an increase in severe weather events. He cites studies showing no significant trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes or other severe weather events over the past century. Michaels accuses the media of sensationalizing weather events, leading to a perception of increased severity that is not supported by scientific evidence.

“Shattered Consensus” is a provocative and contentious addition to the climate change debate. While Michaels’ arguments are unlikely to sway those who firmly believe in the consensus view of human-caused climate change, his book serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking and open-mindedness.

Michaels urges readers to question assumptions and consider a wide range of perspectives before making policy decisions that could have far-reaching consequences. In a field as complex and multifaceted as climate science, Michaels’ call for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach is both timely and necessary.

“Shattered Consensus” is not just a critique of the current climate change narrative but a plea for a more rigorous and honest scientific discourse. Whether one agrees with Michaels or not, his book challenges readers to rethink their assumptions and engage with the complexities of climate science in a more thoughtful and informed manner.

Learn more about the book “Shattered Consensus” by watching the video below.

This video is from the BrightLearn channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

Brighteon.ai

Brighteon.com