Climatologists agree that fossil fuel emissions are worsening global climate change. Except for UVa Professor Environmental Science Patrick J. Michaels, who I can only assume is a never-ending source of embarrassment to the university. Today comes the news that Michaels is on the payroll of power companies, having accepted $100,000 from one power company and planning to accept another $50,000 from another. Burning coal significantly harms our environment, and power companies are desperate to cover up that message, hence the sponsorship of Prof. Michaels. He says that he sees no conflict of interest in accepting the money. To the extent to which he claims to be a scientist, there’s a clear conflict. But if he would confess that he’s simply a lobbyist, it’d be business as usual.
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
foursix and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
An embarrassment? If anything, he should be one of the reasons the University feels great pride.
CR UVa
Obviously you didn’t read this morning’s article. In it the President of the American Ass. for the Advancement of Science states “The fact is that the drumbeat of science and people’s perspectives are in line that the climate is changing.” ……..Science…..it’s been around awhile. You ever heard of it?
I agree with you, CR.
While I don’t necessairly agree with Dr. Michaels, it is a good thing to have dissenting opinions in any field. No one has proven global warming, it is in fact a theory and Dr. Michaels isn’t the only one who disagrees with that theory.
Dr. Michaels isn’t some hack, he is a well regarded professor and Virginia’s state climatologist.
Know what else is a theory? Gravity. And any physicist who argues that it doesn’t exist should be fired.
So presumably it’s good and healthy to have Ward Churchill teaching at University of Colorado.
Right?
My understanding is that a lot of scientific work is funded by grants, at least some of them given by groups that have an political of economic interest in the results. Presumably, environmental groups also fund research on climate change. The scandal of this case would be more clear to me if someone who knows the scientific conventions could explain what is unusual about it, especially what makes this kind of funding turn a scientist into a lobbyist.
Aside from the ethical debate of whether a scientist should accept money from an interest group, let’s remember one thing. Michaels was firm in his beliefs before this newfound wave of money. I could understand a community uproar if he felt this way after the donations, as if to flip-flop on the issue. Was there any sign he was wavering in his anti-global warming position prior to the in-flow of cash?
The same logic could be applied to campaign finance law — Sen. Smith was always in favor of drilling under Monticello for oil, so he can take all the money from Shell that he wants. That was how we ran things in this country for a long time, but since we learned that contributions aren’t that black and white, we’ve instituted campaign finance laws that place a cap on contributions.
“never-ending?” What would be the foundation for this assessment? If this is the first time I’m hearing about this person I don’t see any reason to assume he’s done anything else. And no I don’t think disagreeing with a liberal article of faith is reason enough.
It’s my understanding–I ain’t a scientist, or even all that smart–that much of the strategy of global warming deniers (Oil companies and the like) is to paint global warming as a matter of debate, with many conflicting opinion. In fact, almost no scientists dispute that the earth is warming, and humans are causing it, yet the fact that so many seem to believe that warming is neither real or caused by humans shows what an effective strategy the deniers have mounted.
I’ve got no problems with Michaels or his work, but he should be viewed as the fringe character that he is.
From the first page of Google results alone:
Media Matters: “Pat Michaels: scientist, energy industry lackey, Washington Post contributor”
ExxonSecrets: Patrick J. Michaels Factsheet
Source Watch: Patrick Michaels
ExxonSecrets rightly describes him as “possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist.” The fact that you haven’t heard of him indicates that you probably don’t follow climate research. Among people who do, he makes UVa look bad for employing him.
1) Einstein argued and proved that gravity as it was understood before his time did not exist. Was he a never-ending embarassment? Should he have been fired?
2) If the currently prevailing hypothesis regarding human causation of global warming is scientifically sound, it should have nothing to fear from dissent and open debate.
3) Ward Churchill’s problems go far beyond his having unpopular views. If that was the extent of them, then yes, having him teaching would be a good thing.
4) Scientists are not public officers.
5) It’s amazing how far much of the left has sunk to rigid defense of dogma and the silencing of dissenters (“That’s just the way it is and anyone who denies it should be fired!”) in the last couple of decades. That should be the real source of embarassment.
Wrong about Einstein. He did not claim that things do not fall when we release them. That would insane, because they do fall. Likewise, when Prof. Michaels claims that temperatures are not, in fact, increasing, that is also insane, because they are. If he presented an alternate hypothesis as to why they were, that would be interesting. When he says that they’re not, that’s just stupid.
Dissent and open debate is fine. Nobody’s said otherwise.
Ward Churchill’s problems were things other than his views in the same way that Capone’s problems consisted of not paying his taxes.
Nobody claimed scientists are public officers.
Nobody said anybody should be fired.
No I don’t follow climate research. Thanks for the links.
I can’t imagine many people do. :)
Likewise, when Prof. Michaels claims that temperatures are not, in fact, increasing, that is also insane, because they are.
Except that he isn’t claiming that. Maybe you should read him before condemning him.
The Theory of Gravity was not just the observation that things fall. That was known in prehistory. It was a model to predict how (and to a degree why) any given thing(s) would fall. Einstein pointed out that that model was incomplete and in parts incorrect.
Michaels is saying the same is true of global warming today. He isn’t disputing what a thermometer dipped into the Gulf Stream on June 1 read, he’s disputing certain hypotheses about why it read that way and what that means for the future.
Waldo, to infer I consider Michaels’ accepting the money as ethically sound is a mistake on your part (and for the record, to infer otherwise on my part is wrong, too). I was simply pointing out a fact. I should have followed my statement with two opinions: the one written above and, “Moreover, I could understand a community uproar if he accepted money from companies seemingly trying to ensure he solidified his position.” In an effort to find out more information, my question remains unanswered, which may very well be because the answer is not readily known. You were wrong, however, to infer that I was staking a position on the ethics of the issue.
If Michaels is funded in whole or in part by power companies, and he happens to think global warming isn’t caused by humanity, that’s fine – as long as every paper he publishes, every talk he gives, and every student he teaches is informed about this conflict of interest (note that I didn’t say “apparent” conflict of interest – the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to make it an actual conflict – if he refused the money, it would actually give a lot more weight to his opinion. As it is, it appears he’s been bought).
I’m not sure the “chicken or the egg” argument matters. I can easily see the oil companies and utilities hearing about this guy’s stance and wanting to fund his research (not to mention his health plan). I’m sure it enboldens him.
If a doctor is researching artificial hearts, I would expect makers of artificial hearts to want to fund him. That happens all the time. I think most doctors also tell their patients that they’re so funded when they sign the myriad releases that are required. Ditto with doctors paid to conduct drug trials.
I think Michaels is probably an honest scientist with a different perspective, and now he’s being handsomely rewarded for it becuase like-thinking companies with deep pockets want to make sure his perspective is heard. Doesn’t make him right, but it does concern me that his opinions appear to have the impramateur of the University of Virginia. That bothers me a lot, because it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s one of a very, very small group of University personnel who could possibly support his conclusions.
I’ll bet he and Sean Hannity are on a first-name basis, though.
Three questions:
How does one get to be “state state climatologist”?
Is it a lifetime appointment?
Did George Allen have anything to do with Patrick Michaels getting the gig?
Harry, good questions. It wasnt George Allen who appointed Michaels. Michaels has been in the position since 1980, which was during the Dalton administration. Allen did intercede to restore cuts to Michaels’ office during the State budget cuts of 2002, lauding Michaels’ for “using sound science rather than political science”
I am surprised that anyone living in this area for the past 5 years believes Michaels has any credibility as a ‘climatologist’, after the drought of 2002. That drought was the worst on record and was 4 years in the making, however up until the end of 2001 Michaels denied that there was any drought. He changed his tune sometime in the Spring of 2002 when it was plainly obvious that the reservoirs had not recharged over the winter. By then, we were running something like a 30 inch rainfall deficit over 4 years.
As far as Michaels taking money from the power companies, of course its an issue. He’s not just a random Envi Sci prof trying to bring in a little extra grant money for his department – He’s the State Climatologist. Does anyone think it would be a conflict if the head of the State ABC board was being paid 150K to do ‘research’ for the alcohol lobby to support the thesis that underage drinking is not really a problem and shoudnt be discouraged?
The Office of the State Climatologist is part of UVA’s Department of Environmental Sciences. It has a line in the State budget but I cant figure out under what authority he was appointed. Maybe Blair knows. Maybe no one knows, which would possibly explain why he hasnt been replaced with a credible scientist by now.
Kevin Lynch to the rescue! The thought that global warming is ‘open to scientific dispute’ is just another example of the truly mind-numbingly effective tactic the republicans have been deploying for years of changing a definition to something that sounds like its in line with their agenda. Thus short phrases get charged with meaning they do not factually possess. Like the ‘death tax’ (and by-the-way, isn’t it interesting that the republicans have loaded the elimination of the same with a minimum wage hike in an election year). Kevin Lynch: rescue me any time!
The Roanoke Times has a pretty harsh editorial today, condemning Michaels. The point that the Times made here is the point that others have made here — the real story is not that he’s accepting this money a professor, but that he’s accepting this as the state climatologist. (And that our state climatologist denies the existance of global climate change.) I think that’s spot on.
Jeez, Waldo, you’re usually much less doctrinaire in your policy views. While I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to the earth getting warmer, it is far from certain that this trend is influenced by human activity. In addition, weren’t many of these same scientists (or people of the same ilk) who now bang the drum on global warming warning of an impending Ice Age just thirty or so years ago?
All research scientists in the field agree that it is caused by human activity. Agreement is total. Of the 928 of peer reviewed papers published on the topic from 1993-2003, not one has suggested otherwise, to say nothing of demonstrated so. Every global organization involved in the matter agrees, from the UN’s IPCC (comprised of thousands of research scientists from hundreds of nations) on down, that it is man-made. There is no evidence to the contrary.
I can’t manage to extract “far from certain” from that. In fact, I can’t see how we could be any more certain.
No, they weren’t the same individuals (that’s an awfully long time to continue to do research in the same field), but there’s no reason to think they were wrong. “Global warming” is a vastly oversimplified term. “Global climate change” is a better term.
Imagine you have a clear-sided 5 gallon jug with 4 gallons of ice water. And imagine that you take a gallon of boiling water, dyed red, and pour it in there over the course of, say, twenty seconds. Do those five gallons immediately heat up simultaneously? Of course not. The two types of water will initially resist blending. Eddies will whirl about the container, with channels of hot coursing through the body of icy water. If you let it sit for a minute or so then, finally, the entire container will more or less equalize to a light pink. Along the way, though, the entire thermodynamic structure will be thrown into disarray.
Likewise for global climate change. Here’s one of the first things that came up in Google for more information.
“Doctrinaire” isn’t really the word. It’s as if he was claiming that the earth is flat, or that babies come from storks. The number of research scientists in the fields that believe either of those things is the same as the number that believe that global climate change is not man made.
Color me unconvinced. Frankly, your five gallon bucket example is reminiscent of the quack on Democratic Underground who “proved” the twin towers were blown up by the US government by erecting a structure made of chicken wire, placing a cement block on top of it, cutting a few holes in the wire, and then lighting some kerosene at its base to demonstrate that two 110-story structures could not possible have collapsed from the impact of a 737 loaded with jet fuel.
The fact remains that the majority of scientific opinion 30 years ago was that the earth was getting cooler, not warmer. Citing the UN to convince anybody of anything (other than how to successfully bilk the US taxpayer or coddle Hezbollah) does you little credit.
Conflating global climate change with 9/11 deniers is beneath you, I believe.
See if you can cite a single peer-reviewed paper that provides any evidence that global warming is not man-made. With a thousand such papers in the past decade, you can find one.
Just one?
Right?
*tongue in cheek*
Hey I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. So I know global warming is all a made up liberal hoax. It’s really just a bunch of rich liberals worried about losing their beach houses because they were scared by some crackpot scientific report telling them the coastlines would be underwater sometime in the future. And the reason the republicans aren’t concerned is because they can all afford to buy real estate along the predicted new coastline anyway.
:)
Waldo, you’re wrong. Michaels didn’t accept any money as a UVa professor or as state climatologist. UVa professors are allowed to do consulting work outside of the university. You may want to check out Michaels’ other affiliations, before you make or repeat these unfounded accusations!
If the chair of the Charlottesville School Board accepts a $100,000 consultation contract from somebody petitioning for a school construction contract, we can agree that would be inappropriate. After all, as the school board chair, that places them in a position where their judgement may be compromised.
“But wait,” objects our hypothetical chair. “I didn’t accept that money as the board chair. I accepted it as a consultant.”
This pretends that an individual is capable of removing their brain, setting it into a bucket, and putting in their other brain, unpolluted by the knowledge that the contribution has been made. This is silly.
Michaels is the state climatologist. As the state climatologist, it is inappropriate for him to be taking this money from such interests.
‘Michaels is the state climatologist. As the state climatologist, it is inappropriate for him to be taking this money from such interests.’
Your example of the school board chair is not the same since if they did take money and disclose it they couldn’t vote on the item in question. It’s rare but not unheard of.
Taking money and properly disclosing it is university science for the last several decades. If it’s legal and disclosed the fine. That is not to say that if the science is shown to be bogus or tainted then there is not a problem. Cloning in Korea anyone?
I just think the idea of a state climatologist with a NOAA headquarters, several university and the founders of the weather channel all located in Virginia just odd. Why don’t they just fire him, it is not like he is a judge of something.
On the contrary, you explain why it is the same — Michaels ought to, like our school board chair, recuse himself from any state matters pertaining to the climate in his role as state climatologist.
Government officials can’t have these conflicts and vote on allocating tax dollars, academics can in this case. If Micheals wasn’t a professor and just the State climatologist the I would agree with you. By your standard all drug research funding would have to be different.
What Micheals is doing is legal because he is an academic. Academic freedom is like freedom of speech, it only seems to matter when you don’t agree with the author.
Waldo – I don’t think researchers take any kind of oath that when they become professors, they represent their university 100% of the time. You would be surprised how many UVa faculty have consulting businesses on the side. Precisely because it might otherwise present a conflict of interest. Obviously this consulting would be in the individual’s area of expertise, so it’s naive to say they should recuse themselves from any matters pertaining to their role at UVa. Michaels has done nothing wrong. You are obviously not a scientist, but obtaining funding from those organizations that have an interest in your research is what every scientist does–regardless of whether it is as a professor, fellow, or private consultant. Your biased accusations, and those by the Roanoke Times, are simply unfounded.
You keep talking about UVa professors but not state climatologists. I’m confused. Are you conceding the point about Michaels’ role as state climatologist?
I refer you to UVa Financial & Administrative Policy: Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts, section 2.7:
With the definitions section specifying:
I’ve got to say that it’s not looking real good for ol’ Professor Michaels.
Why stop there? You should expand your “unfounded and biased” list to include The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Houston Chronicle, the AP, ABC News, and Inside Higher Ed, all of whom have written about this matter in the past few days. As Inside Higher Ed wrote:
You know that Inside Higher Ed — raving anti-academics they are.
Michaels’ role as professor and state climatologist is one and the same. Let me aks you this – if Mike Mann went to Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, etc. and asked for funding, would you be crying foul? No, you would probably applaud him. Yet these are private companies, pushing an agenda (quite radical, in some instances). As perlogik points out, however, you happen to agree with their agenda, so in your view there would be nothing wrong with that.
I mentioned the Roanoke Times because that is an article you referenced. Why don’t you read the Times Dispatch? Neither UVa, his department, nor the Governor’s office think there is anything wrong with his “actions.” Research funding does not constitute ‘gifts’ or ‘loans,’ you are only illustrating your inexperience in how academia and the scientific world work. If Michaels had done something wrong, UVa would not be defending him. Your point is moot.
Since you apparently know what I think before I think it, I can’t see any point in continuing this discussion with you.
But you already knew I thought that, didn’t you?
Rob – Prof. Michaels’ position as a research professor at UVA is in fact separate from his position as State Climatologist, which are both separate from his consulting business and conservative pundit sideline. He generally has kept these separate, although one can easily find examples when the former are used to provide credibility to the latter. For example, a two minute search on google turns up the following:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/07252002Hearing676/Michaels1146.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882577922/102-9671826-6844164?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/12083.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95260,00.html
Hence, the appearance of conflict.
Greenpeace is a non-profit and TNC is a charity. Whatever gave you the idea that these were private companies? A better analogy would be if Michael Mann was using his professional affiliations to promote and popularize research showing that 100 percent of America’s energy needs could be immediately met with biofuel, when most scientists put the number at 10 percent at best. Further suppose that Mann is appointed Virginia’s State Energy Commissioner, all the lefty rags were running headlines like “State Energy Commissioner says America can meet all current energy needs with biofuel” and 50 percent of the public believed it to be true, despite claims of “nonsense” from 99 percent of scientists. If it was subsequently revealed that the biodiesel lobby was paying Mann to the tune of 150K, you can bet that there would be hell to pay. People like Limbaugh would be calling for Mann’s head and would probably get it.
There are a couple of other interesting questions that Jack raised earlier – Namely: How does one get to be State Climatologist and is it a lifetime appointment? Seems like valid questions and I’ve made a number of inquiries over the past two days to try to answer them. The short answer is no one seems to really know.
Everyone I contacted at UVA, from Envi Sci dept all the way to the VP, said the position is a Gubernatorial appointment. The Governors office is equally adamant that it must be a UVA appointment, since there is no record of the office in the “Blue Book” of executive appointments and no record in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office of there ever having been such an appointment. (BTW, in the Dispatch article, the Governors office didn’t say they didn’t think there was nothing wrong with his actions – they said they didn’t think they had anything to do with his actions). Hmm.
Only one thing to do, which was to ask Prof Michaels himself, who told me that “State Climatologists are appointed via a Memorandum of Understanding between the National Climatic Data Center, the relevant University, and the Executive Branch”. Unfortunately, Prof Michaels doesn’t have a copy of said MOU, so Jack’s questions remain unanswered. Apparently, neither UVA or the Governor’s office have a copy of said MOU either, or else haven’t been able to locate it yet. Supposedly, the MOU would have been done in 1980. Prof Michaels suggested that I contact NCDC to see if they have a copy, which I will do tomorrow. In the meantime, it does raise some interesting questions in addition to Jacks’: Who exactly has oversight of this 91K line in the State budget and who does the State Climatologist answer to? Perhaps we’ll find out tomorrow.
(1) the President of the American Ass. for the Advancement of Science states “The fact is that the drumbeat of science and people’s perspectives are in line that the climate is changing.” –Cvillity
(2) Know what else is a theory? Gravity. And any physicist who argues that it doesn’t exist should be fired. –Waldo
(3) Aside from the ethical debate of whether a scientist should accept money from an interest group — cvillenewser
(4) Nobody claimed scientists are public officers.– Waldo
(5) KevinLynch Says:
[…]
(A)I am surprised that anyone living in this area for the past 5 years believes Michaels has any credibility as a ‘climatologist’, after the drought of 2002. That drought was the worst on record and was 4 years in the making, however up until the end of 2001 Michaels denied that there was any drought. He changed his tune sometime in the Spring of 2002 when it was plainly obvious that the reservoirs had not recharged over the winter. By then, we were running something like a 30 inch rainfall deficit over 4 years.
(B)As far as Michaels taking money from the power companies, of course its an issue. He’s not just a random Envi Sci prof trying to bring in a little extra grant money for his department – He’s the State Climatologist. Does anyone think it would be a conflict if the head of the State ABC board was being paid 150K to do ‘research’ for the alcohol lobby to support the thesis that underage drinking is not really a problem and shoudnt be discouraged?
(C)The Office of the State Climatologist is part of UVA’s Department of Environmental Sciences. It has a line in the State budget but I cant figure out under what authority he was appointed. Maybe Blair knows. Maybe no one knows, which would possibly explain why he hasnt been replaced with a credible scientist by now.
[and more recently]
(D)There are a couple of other interesting questions that Jack raised earlier – Namely: How does one get to be State Climatologist and is it a lifetime appointment? Seems like valid questions and I’ve made a number of inquiries over the past two days to try to answer them. The short answer is no one seems to really know.
——————————
Can anybody guess what I’m going to say? We see the liberal play book right here.
(1) How dare you question authority? How dare you disagree with what the majority has concluded? If you have 2 authorities competing (Assoc of Science and state climatologist of Virginia) side with the position that has greater funding, larger majority, or the one you feel more comfortable with.
(2) Waldo’s not watching enough History or Learning Channel. Newton himself, responding to scientific critics of his day, confessed he had no idea what gravity is. To this very day, nobody knows. Newton’s equations are scientific only in that they predict behavior, but not why. We call it gravity, but that’s just another way of saying it follows Newton’s Laws. Dark matter is an example of the faith we place in science. Instead of accepting the possibility that the Gravitation equation might not be exactly the same across the expanse of the universe, we’d rather imagine invisible, unmeasurable stuff so that the equation works out.
(3) Why is it ethical to accept public funds? How is the government not an interest group? What if Michaels accepted money/salary from a non-profit group or the government and used it to pay his mortgage and whatever? How would this not be a conflict of interest influencing him to arrive at conclusions that keep the $$$ coming to buy a new car?
(4) How is a public scientist different from a private scientist? How is it that one is naturally ethical and the other assumed to be a greedy charlatan?
(5)(A) Kevin is revising history and basing his claim that ’02 was the worst drought ever because a government agency (RWSA) said so. (how dare you question authority?) Since Kevin is a government authority, should we take his word? Actually the reserviors did recharge over the winter ’01-’02 magically and without any rain. According to the Virginia Climate Advisory and the precipitation records from McCormick Observatory (which I have in an Excel spreadsheet thanks to Mr. Stenger in the climatology office) ’99-’02 is not the worst drought on record. Proclaiming a dire emergency and scaring the public allowed the gov’t to impose water restrictions, but they had to raise the trigger from 65% of capacity in ’01 to 70% in ’02 because still the drought was not as bad as just 25 years before when those guidelines were developed.
Michaels never changed his tune. In ’02 he said the drought was worse than in ’01, ’00, and ’99. Michaels never said it was the worst drought on record, because it’s not.
(B) Here’s another analogy: What if you were paid $150K by ABC to do ‘research’ to support or oppose a new bill that ABC proposed? Would that influence the scientific results? How is accepting public funds not an inherent conflict of interest?
(C) I don’t know for sure but I think the Governor appoints the State Climatologist who serves at his pleasure. Michaels served under Democratic and Republican administrations. He could have been replaced anytime in his 26-year career, much as his predecessor Bruce Hayden was replaced for not handling the drought of 1977 very well or the following years which saw record cold and energy rationing in Virginia.
(D) Ah, no one seems to know the answer to your question. That seems to be going around.
Here are the facts. No need to demonize me or call me names. My skin has become rather thick in the last 6 years of speaking truth to power. What liberals hate the most– a minority point of view.
The Last Drought: Has Time Stood Still for 25 Years? Sep 3, 2002
Drought Perspective Sep 18, 2002
The Witness Report This newsletter from Aug ’01 to Apr ’01 was inspired in part to document the disparity between government pronouncements and the reality of the drought-water issue.
I have already been keeping CvilleNews junkies informed with scientific information on water supply and drought issues. Except my truth is invisble to the supreme arrogance that allows Waldo to substitute ad hominem attacks for scientific arguments, all for the purpose of furthering his agenda and providing a smoke screen to hide his ignorance, and inability to separate a person’s status from the content of his conscience. Imagine a world you treat those who disagree with you the same as those in agreement. Ah, that would not be Cville.
Excerpt from my report on the city council meeting 7-17-06.
“Then followed Mayor David Brown’s “Climate Protection Agreement.” The Council voted unanimously to support the ideas contained in the 12-point document. The resolution has no legal weight and expresses only Council’s opinion. However, resolutions often precede legislation in the process of incrementalism.
Despite the speakers earlier and large crowd of environmentalists, some with hand-held signs, no one explained how global warming and man-made warming are the same thing. No one explained how the ending of the current ice age is not normal, or how man caused the 9,800 years of warming prior to the industrial revolution and age of fossil fuels, or the billion year warm period prior to the present 3 million year cycle of ice ages. However, Al Gore’s propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth” was mentioned.”
Kevin,
Nice work! This is the single weirdest piece of Virginia news I’ve seen in weeks. The idea that someone can finesse themselves into a lifetime appointment as our state climatologist simply by everyone forgetting how to appoint a new one is absolutely flabbergasting.
Cvillenative,
Michaels is taking money from power companies who have a vested interest in a particular official stance on global warming. This would be just as wrong if he was taking money from Greenpeace. The problem is not what his opinion on global warming it. The problem is that as a public official he is accepting what are obviously bribes. Just like Duke Cunningham might have been inclined to vote for more contracts to MZM even without the bribes, it doesn’t really matter. Michaels is accepting over $100,000 from companies that have a clear objective with regard to his official duties for the Commonwealth of Virginia. At very least he should be fired. At the worst he should be prosecuted.
This isn’t about global warming (and if you don’t believe in global warming then you’d better grab onto this take on the matter right away). It’s about a corrupt public official.
According to the AP, Prof Michaels is not just taking power company money – he is soliciting it – for a clear purpose.
“Pat Michaels — Virginia’s state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute — told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.”
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71486-0.html?tw=rss.technology
Oh, damn.
Pat, Pat, Pat.
Being attacked by Blair Hawkins is like being called a Zionist by Mel Gibson. I can’t wait to start being woven into his conspiracy theories — looks like it may have started already. It takes me back to the good old days when he tried to run for House of Delegates, but just couldn’t get his act together.
[…] Why does Virginia have a state climatologist if he “doesn’t speak for the state in terms of climatological policies”? Patrick Michaels such an ardent global climate change denier that he pretended there was no drought in 2002. It’s time to get rid of this $90k/year position. […]
Interesting new information here:
http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149189858881&path=
(Hope I did that right)