"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post Reply
Fact-Man
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Fact-Man » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:23 am

Fact-Man wrote:
Deep Sea Isopod wrote:OK, thanks. I've been provided with plenty of reading matter via PM too, enough to maybe plant a seed of doubt against GW skeptisism. We'll see. :ele:
It dawned on me that you or me or anyone who engages in this debate should know what they're going up against.

It is often true that newcomers to the issue don't have a good idea of its wider landscape, but those who start out in an anti-AGW stance should realize that AGW science has the stamp of approval from the United States National Academy of Science, the national science academies of all Western nations, and almost 50 professional scientific societies and organizations, and hence when one chooses to stand against the science they are taking on these bodies and their considered conclusions.

That means any skeptic or denialist is taking on several thousand scientists from all scientific disciplines. It doesn't say they can't take them on it just measures what they're taking on, beyond the climatologist's themselves.
A crime was committed against us all.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9058
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by macdoc » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:45 am

Came across this about acidification...



http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... d_test.php

I've not watched due to bandwidth restrictions while I'm away from home but it comes recommended.

There is another post up beside it worth considering as well

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9058
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by macdoc » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:48 am

February 22, 2010 |

Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment noted that the IPCC usually errs on the conservative side. Steve Mirsky reports

Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC’s track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego:

“If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate.

Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently.”

—Steve Mirsky
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... d-10-02-22
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

Fact-Man
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Fact-Man » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:44 pm

macdoc wrote:Came across this about acidification...

(youtube video snipped)

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... d_test.php

I've not watched due to bandwidth restrictions while I'm away from home but it comes recommended.

There is another post up beside it worth considering as well

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php
Great stuff!

And timely because the ocean acidification problem has not gotten enough attention and yet it represents a pretty serious issue, a very serious issue really.

Thanks for sharing, MacDoc.
A crime was committed against us all.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Mysturji » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 pm

Fact-Man wrote:How could you feel "more at home here"? There weren't any GW or CC threads here until MacDoc and I showed up. :ask:
I just meant that I've been at Rationalia for a year and I feel more comfy here than I did at RDF - especially after the first schism.
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturji wrote:
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturji wrote:
and thought I would be more likely to get a word in, because over there (it seemed to me the last time I tried to post in a CC thread) that anyone who doesn't completely toe the AGW Party line (even just a "yes, but...") is immediately shouted down by a pack of rabid wolves and dissed as completely ignorant of all science in all it's forms. The peanut gallery then chips in with a flurry of ad-homs, they pat each other on the back, then the wannabe Cali's step in with links to 23,971 peer-reviewed papers and say "See: Proof! Go away and don't come back until you're read it!". Because unlike the original version, they can't "Blind them with science" or construct a valid argument, so they BURY the poor fucker in cut&paste science for DARING to say "Yes, but...".
Well, you're exaggerating here.
Yes, I do that. It's part of my posting style. I figure even when you're making a serious point, you can still have fun and/or raise a chuckle. That's why my exaggerations are so ludicrously over-the-top that they couldn't possibly be mistaken for a serious comment.

Well, not usually. :shifty:
Well, it creates problems because it's very hard for others to judge if you are being "ludicrously over-the-top" or being serious or what.

I won't judge your posting style but I will say that it seems to me it risks misinterpretation or even confusion and in a science thread it seems that more plainly spoken posts will almost always serve better. But, do what ya do. I'll be more watchful in future so that hopefully I won't misinterpret.
Fair point. I'll avoid it in this thread. I read more science threads over there than I posted in.
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturji wrote: Have I questioned the science?

Please re-read my posts and tell me if you think I have. If something I said needs clarification, I will clarify it.
My one and only issue with the science is that SOME people (not all) seem a little too cocksure about climatology's predictive powers. (And even that issue is much less about the actual science than it is about the arrogance of some of the people involved.)

And that's the only "denialist" stance I have ever taken, but that's for another day.
This is a good clarification, because the impression at least was to the contrary.
I made a small error of ommission there - I think because I had mentioned it previously somewhere (though perhaps not very well): My other major issue with AGW is that some people seem to grossly over-estimate our ability to "combat" it. So two issues, not one, and neither directly critical of the science itself.
Fact-Man wrote:I don't concern myself too much with anyone who accepts AGW theory and does so even without question
Why should you? But then, why don't you? It's still misinformation.
Fact-Man wrote:, because, afterall, that puts them in my camp.
Fair enough. We're only Human.
Fact-Man wrote: I do concern myself with those who drink the Kool Aid offered up by the denialosphere in an uncritical manner. sort of a mirror image of those who accept AGW theory uncritically.
IMHO, that's just a different flavour of kool-aid.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote:What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
Fact-Man wrote: I would hope that you have some concerns with the tsunami of mis and disinformation that's flooded the airwves and print media over the past 15 or 20 years on the efficasy of AGW. In the in-house memo that was leaked from Exxon on this, they said, "Our product is doubt." And they have spent $millions spreading exactly that. Is this fair to the public? I'd rather think not. Fortunately, and despite their efforts, polling shows that Americans at least remain convinced of AGW theory by about 55 per cent, only down from 65 per cent a few years ago.
I am very much against mis and disinformation. (I think I've demonstrated that :shifty: )
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturgi wrote:It sure seemed like a mistake when someone who had joined this forum less than 24 hours before waded in and bitchslapped a long-standing member, telling them what they could or could not post and where, throwing fallacies and misrepresentations into the mix. Who died and made him mod?
I've addressed most of this at the beginning of this post.

I think your characterization of my response to your initial post as a "bitch slap" is an exaggeration. I think a careful read of it will demonstrate this.

Or, if your calibration is such that you do see it truly as a "bitch slap," all I gotta say is you never want to be on the receiving end of a bitch lap from me! ;)
Woah! Slow down there. I was not talking about you. I was referring to these posts:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 33#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 69#p353469 (Misrepresentations and attempted bullying)
You've been quite calm throughout.
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturgi wrote: I've never liked bullies, and I don't take that shit anymore.
None of us should. But I'm no bully, far from it.
Never said you were. See above. Sorry for the confusion.
Fact-Man wrote:
Mysturgi wrote: But as I've been trying to say... I'm not disputing the science. I'm not that kind of kaffir.
OK.
Mysturgi wrote:
Fact-Man wrote: It does however take some familiarity with the issue to do this, one has to know which arguments have already been debunked for example, one has to know AGW science pretty well and have some undertanding of where its weak spots may be. That's a fairly tall order but I'm the last guy who will claim it isn't possible.
And it's rather frustrating when people debunk those canards in response to one of your posts when you never said any such thing.
Mysturgi wrote:
Fact-Man wrote:I reckon we all suffer this to one extent or another. You sound pretty bitter about it. It pushes us to be clear. We can always ignore the dolts who don't get our point, purposeully or out of ignorance. I don't think we should waste our valuable time on such dimwittery. Pass on it and pass on them. Why waste your time?
I'm not bitter. It's just that when you have known bullying, there comes a point when you won't take it anymore. I may over react sometimes, but I calm down again.
Fact-Man wrote: I think the best approach is when you run across an argument you think has merit in debunking AGW to first throw it out there as a question, rather than as an assertion. "I ran across this paper and it appears to me it debunks AGW, has it been discussed? Is it holding water? Can it be trusted? Is my source reliable? Then see what you get by way of response and carry on from there. That is, of course, a non-confrontional approach and is, rather, a collegial one
If things remain civil here (as I hope they do) I will probably be doing that. [/quote]
Fact-Man wrote:They will remain civil if I have anything to do with it! :o
As a matter of fact, as if by magic, this week's New Scientist looks interesting, but I haven't read it yet, so no spoilers. K? :mod:

(Edit: fix quotes)
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

User avatar
Reverend Blair
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:22 pm
About me: If I had my way I'd buy a few acres of land and an old tractor. I'd drive the old tractor around the land and passers-by would stop to ask me what kind of crop I was farming. "Crop?" I'd say, "Crops are work, I'm planting ideas."
Location: Most likely to your left
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Reverend Blair » Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:22 am

Death Banjo and a megaphone...got me through six or eight paragraphs today. Play it loud.



Mysturji wrote:My other major issue with AGW is that some people seem to grossly over-estimate our ability to "combat" it.
Do you mean scientifically and technologically, or do you mean politically.

I have serious doubts about the latter, but we've already got most of what we need to do the former.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9058
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by macdoc » Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:47 am

Myst claimed bullying
Woah! Slow down there. I was not talking about you. I was referring to these posts:
viewtopic.php?p=353333#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
viewtopic.php?p=353469#p353469 (Misrepresentations and attempted bullying)
You've been quite calm throughout.
First
viewtopic.php?p=353333#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
- the on topic aspect was cleared with the Mods - it was stickied and is the result of a couple years work behind the scenes at dawkins - you may confirm that with mods here stars, prins etc. and your post was moved.
Bottom line you have your hackles up for no good reason and instead of discussing the issues you are discussing the boards structure and modding.

Second
viewtopic.php?p=353469#p353469 (Misrepresentations and attempted bullying)
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.
You said control the weather...there was no misrespresention - maybe you should read what you wrote.

If you have a problem with the posts I makw then ask me or ask a mod don't slide a bullying accusation in another dialogue....

You tell me who is being confrontational here and making assumptions in this post
Heed the creed or STFU?

Did I question the science?
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.
So how moving on and discuss some issues instead of irrelevancies.. :coffee:
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

Fact-Man
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Fact-Man » Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:10 am

Mysturji wrote: Why should you? But then, why don't you? It's still misinformation.
It's a matter of priorities. I do support widespread educational effots in the wider community.
Mysturji wrote: IMHO, that's just a different flavour of kool-aid.
Except, one brand's been manufactured, the other is the natural outcome of scientific research.
Mysturji wrote: Woah! Slow down there. I was not talking about you. I was referring to these posts:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 33#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 69#p353469 (Misrepresentations and attempted bullying)
My apologies for misinterpreting your post in this connection, albeit, it wasn't something that concerned me a great deal and I admit to not having super-focused on it.

I see macDoc has engaged you on these matters. Be careful, he can be tough; I know, I've been through some wars with him myself. We do remain friends and colleagues, nevertheless. ;)
Mysturji wrote: As a matter of fact, as if by magic, this week's New Scientist looks interesting, but I haven't read it yet, so no spoilers. K? :mod:
Now I have to run right over there and find out what's up! :ask:

I appreciate your tone. :flowers:

Onward! :D
A crime was committed against us all.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Mysturji » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:40 am

Deep Sea Isopod wrote: Some good stuf that I won't have to write now, so thanks. :tup:
Fact-Man wrote:
Deep Sea Isopod wrote: And we're about 10,000 years into an interglacial period. Isn't another ice-age due?
No. The current interglacial we are enjoying probably has a lifepan of 24,000 years.
So in other words, we're approaching "Peak Heat". Interesting.
Fact-Man wrote:
Deep Sea Isopod wrote: Having said all this, I do believe we should clean up our act anyway. End our reliance on fossil fuels and look for cleaner, renewable energy. Stop deforestation. End overfishing. Etc.

But I'm not in favour of hitting the poorer people with sky high taxes, and not giving them an alternative.
I drive an old diesel car and cannot afford a Toyota Prius, but I need the car to get to work. Public transport is a no go. Car sharing is not possible. I have no choice but to pay any taxes due. To a wealthy person, no amount of tax will stop him driving a big car or flying off for a few foriegn holidays, so all it's going to do is make the poor poorer, while the wealthy carry on as normal.
All the talk we hear about the cost of reducing emissions and mitigating global warming is at this point just so much hot air, much of it shot through with money making schemes created by nefarious parties, e.g., cap and trade.
Hey! That's my line! :lay: And I was soooo looking forward to saying "Don't blow smoke up my arse and tell me it's global warming".
Fact-Man wrote: The denialosphere has produced a lot of scary scenarios on this front as they try to browbeat people into doubting the science of AGW.
As scary as the propagandasphere?

And thanks, Isopod for that David Bellamy article (even if it was in the Daily Mail :hehe: ). I remember reading that at the time. (In a different newspaper!)
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Mysturji » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:54 am

Reverend Blair wrote:Death Banjo and a megaphone...got me through six or eight paragraphs today. Play it loud.
[youtube snipped]

Mysturji wrote:My other major issue with AGW is that some people seem to grossly over-estimate our ability to "combat" it.
Do you mean scientifically and technologically, or do you mean politically.

I have serious doubts about the latter, but we've already got most of what we need to do the former.
Mainly political.
And while we may have the technology to drastically reduce emissions, even with the political will (yeah, that's gonna happen) there is still the logistical problem of building the physical machines, installing them and getting them all up and running, How long do you think that would take?

BTW Rev, which "side" are you on in all this? Your first post in this thread came down on the sceptical side, but since then... :think:
Just askin'
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Mysturji » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:12 am

macdoc wrote:Myst claimed bullying
Attempted bullying.
macdoc wrote: First
viewtopic.php?p=353333#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
- the on topic aspect was cleared with the Mods - it was stickied and is the result of a couple years work behind the scenes at dawkins - you may confirm that with mods here stars, prins etc. and your post was moved.
Bottom line you have your hackles up for no good reason and instead of discussing the issues you are discussing the boards structure and modding.
Whether the mods here agreed with your position is not the point. YOU are not a mod. If you had an issue with my post, you should have reported it to the mods, not put on your own mod hat, because you don't have one. You have no authority here. No more than any other ordinary member. My hackles are down. In fact, I have admitted mistakes and apologised for them.
macdoc wrote: Second
viewtopic.php?p=353469#p353469 (Misrepresentations and attempted bullying)
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.
You said control the weather...there was no misrespresention - maybe you should read what you wrote.
Maybe you should read what YOU wrote:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 69#p353469
You clearly don't understand the science or you would not state we have no impact on the climate that we can affect with changing our approach to energy
Please indicate where I said that. I don't remember it.
you confuse climate with weather - your lack of understanding is obvious
Do I? Is it? Scroll up. Fact-man's definition of climate will do for me. I don't know where "30 years" came from - I would have said "a long period of time" - but I have no problem with it.
All I said was "We can't control the weather", and "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". In layman's terms, the climate is "made up" of weather. I say we can't control the weather. Are you saying we CAN control the climate?
Do you really think that putting the CFC threat on ignore and coping with aluminum covers and sunglasses for animals was a valid approach??
No. What a stupid question! Please indicate where I said that. I don't remember it.
Or letting acid rain kill the fresh water lakes entirely...as it did with some in Ontario??
No. What a stupid question! Please indicate where I said that. I don't remember it.
We DID change the climate as you admit
And your problem with that is...?
Last edited by Mysturji on Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

User avatar
Reverend Blair
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:22 pm
About me: If I had my way I'd buy a few acres of land and an old tractor. I'd drive the old tractor around the land and passers-by would stop to ask me what kind of crop I was farming. "Crop?" I'd say, "Crops are work, I'm planting ideas."
Location: Most likely to your left
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Reverend Blair » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:59 pm

BTW Rev, which "side" are you on in all this? Your first post in this thread came down on the sceptical side, but since then...
Just askin'
As I thought I'd explained earlier, I'm on the side of the science. I started out skeptical, but when I looked at what the scientists were saying it became apparent that I was wrong. The science backing up current global warming theory is massive, it goes back more than a century, and it's so intertwined with a variety of scientific disciplines that it can only be looked at as sound.

I have some serious doubts about whether we'll take any actions at all before it's far way late, but I don't think that's a reason not to try or an excuse to do nothing.
Mainly political.
And while we may have the technology to drastically reduce emissions, even with the political will (yeah, that's gonna happen) there is still the logistical problem of building the physical machines, installing them and getting them all up and running, How long do you think that would take?
I think it will take too long to avoid serious damage, but so what? We have to try anyway, and part of that trying is pushing back against the denialists. The other parts are doing what we can personally, and voting for people who support fighting climate change politically.

Ladies and gentlemen, Hayes Carll:

Fact-Man
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Fact-Man » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:54 pm

I found this rather interesting, and somewhat typical:
Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All

— By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Feb. 26, 2010 3:00 AM PST
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010 ... te-skeptic

Patrick Michaels has more credibility than your average climate skeptic. Unlike some of the kookier characters that populate the small world of climate denialists—like Lord Christopher Monckton, a sometime adviser to Margaret Thatcher who claims that "We are a carbon-starved planet," or H. Leighton Steward, a retired oil executive and author of a best-selling diet book who argues that carbon dioxide is "green"—Michaels is actually a bona fide climate scientist. As such, he's often quoted by reporters as a reasonable expert who argues that global warming has been overhyped. But what Michaels doesn't mention in his frequent media appearances is his history of receiving money from big polluters.

Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, has some impressive-sounding credentials. He has a PhD in ecological climatology and is a senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He's a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He regularly touts his work as a contributing author and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. (Almost every climate scientist in the world has at some point contributed to or reviewed an IPCC study.) Unlike climate skeptics who implausibly claim that there's no such thing as global warming, Michaels accepts that it's happening, but downplays the severity of the problem and the role that human activity plays in the phenomenon.

With climate science increasingly under siege, Michaels has been getting plenty of airtime lately. Following reports of errors and sloppy research procedures with the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Michaels featured prominently in a CBS News report last month, claiming that there is "no doubt the trust in the UN panel has been undermined." And after hacked emails revealed that a group of climate scientists had tried to block skeptical views from academic papers and journals, Michaels appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 to debate Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"). Michaels said he was "troubled" that scientists at the heart of the controversy might have tried "to hide things" from Freedom of Information Act requests. He was also featured prominently in a New York Times piece calling the controversy "a mushroom cloud" for climate science, and appeared several times in the Wall Street Journal complaining that scientists said mean things about him in the emails. (It's worth emphasizing that while the incident revealed scientists behaving unprofessionally, nothing in the emails undermined the underlying science of climate change.)

But Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. Here's the back story:

Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states. In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont. The auto industry's lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet. But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont's law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his "advocacy science consulting firm," New Hope Environmental Services.

Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter. The judge disagreed, and ruled that Michaels' clients were a "viable area of cross examination." "I understand that maybe it's a little embarrassing," said Judge William K. Sessions III. "[But] it's not highly confidential information."

In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list. In an affidavit [PDF], Michaels stated that New Hope was his primary source of income, and being forced to reveal its clients would "imperil my livelihood." He emphasized that the "sole reason" he did not testify was "concern that my trial testimony would result in the loss of confidentiality for the New Hope information."

The auto lawyers were "desperate to shield who Pat Michaels makes his money from," David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club and one of the lawyers for the state in the case. "It's beyond unrealistic," said Bookbinder. "It's like saying in a speeding case that you're not able to ask about how fast someone was going."

As it turned out, Michaels' attempt to keep his client list secret wasn't entirely successful. The court documents reveal that lawyers for the defense saw records revealing that Michaels had received money from at least one very large energy company.

In addition, Greenpeace recently obtained an older copy of Michaels' curriculum vitae via a Freedom of Information Act request that shows that the Western Fuels Association, a coal and fuel-transportation business group, gave him a $63,000 grant in the early 1990s for "research on global climatic change." He also received $25,000 from the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric utilities, from 1992-95 for "literature review of climate change and updates." And a 2006 leaked industry memo revealed that he received $100,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to fund climate denial campaigning around the time of the release of An Inconvenient Truth. Reporter Ross Gelbspan wrote in his 1998 book The Heat is On, one of the earliest works documenting industry funding for climate change skepticism, that Michaels also received $49,000 came from the German Coal Mining Association and $40,000 from the western mining company Cyprus Minerals.

In the Vermont case, the auto dealers eventually replaced Michaels with John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who believes that concerns about global warming might be overstated. However, Christy proved to be a far less agressive defender of that view than Michaels. According to court transcripts, Christy eventually admitted on the stand, "The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels." Vermont went on to win the case and eventually the Environmental Protection Agency not only granted states the right to set those higher emissions standards but adopted the stricter rules nationwide.

Michaels is still frequently called on as an expert source by mainstream media outlets. Even as he's bashed the IPCC for its lack of transparency, he refuses to come clean about the sources of his funding. It turns out the climate skeptics' most credible expert isn't so credible after all.
A crime was committed against us all.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:05 am

macdoc wrote: First
viewtopic.php?p=353333#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
- the on topic aspect was cleared with the Mods - it was stickied and is the result of a couple years work behind the scenes at dawkins - you may confirm that with mods here stars, prins etc. and your post was moved.
Bottom line you have your hackles up for no good reason and instead of discussing the issues you are discussing the boards structure and modding.
I must pull you up here Macdoc.

The two individuals you mention are not mods here. They never have been. :dono:

We agreed to stickying the thread and making sure that it stayed on topic. I am not very happy personally with that topic being so restrictive but, as long as this thread exists for all other relevant discussion aside from that narrow focus, I can live with it.

The initial antagonism here stemmed from that initial restriction on discussion. It is not the usual Ratz way of doing things and it was perhaps naïve to expect all of our existing members to simply accept it without complaint.

I think everyone understands the set up as it stands now, so please keep to the topic - which is GW and CC.

Thanks.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Reverend Blair
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:22 pm
About me: If I had my way I'd buy a few acres of land and an old tractor. I'd drive the old tractor around the land and passers-by would stop to ask me what kind of crop I was farming. "Crop?" I'd say, "Crops are work, I'm planting ideas."
Location: Most likely to your left
Contact:

Re: "Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

Post by Reverend Blair » Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:07 am

Huh...had a long, boring day. I was actually writing about some of the things can people can do to reduce their carbon footprint though. 1500 words (I get paid by the word, so word count is important) on landscaping and yard design. Something I hadn't considered before though...big trees (pines) then some bushes, low plants, etc., then work it back up and out to direct the prevailing weather away from your house. Some of my research says as much as 40% savings in heating and cooling if all works out...I cut it to 20% because I get my mushrooms from the supermarket instead of cabbies these days.

Anyway, spring 2011 look for the book with the tractor/flowerbed on the cover. They haven't picked a name yet. Chapter 3 is mine, unless they change the layout. And maybe chapter 12 too.

And that makes it time for some Drive By Truckers:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests