Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Most Credible Climate Skeptic - Not So Credible

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
TalkingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 04:39 PM
Original message
Most Credible Climate Skeptic - Not So Credible
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/pat-michaels-climate-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.

snip

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."

If only GreenPeace had enough money to buy all the "experts" they wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute"
That was all I needed to read for his credibility to be undermined with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. same here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Third here n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. He's like a tobacco company "scientist" then
They would say anything for a buck too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Seems there are two different conversations, and the deniers benefit from the confusion.
One, essentially the narrative (if you can call it that) floated by the "drill, baby, drill!" ostriches and Sarah Palin Creationio-theocrats, is that humanity can put as much shit as we want to into the atmosphere, because The 6,000 year old Earth is Flat, the rapture is coming, and the atmosphere doesn't really exist- only Jesus does.

The other narrative, which is true in a sense, is that we don't exactly know what the specific impact pumping up the atmospheric CO2 levels will be, beyond an inevitable temperature increase of some magnitude. Some species may do better. Some will certainly do worse. Weather in some places may improve. Weather in many places will get worse. We can't predict exactly what will happen, but it's pretty clear something will.

So the question is, do we continue to twiddle the knobs of our planet's climate whole hog, or do we do whatever we can to mitigate the impact? Seems to me like the answer is obvious, but then I'm not on a petroleum company's payroll.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. This crap will never be spoken of in the MSM. k/r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC