Here's your UVA professor

Quote :

"Patrick J. Michaels From SourceWatch (Redirected from Pat Michaels) Spotted Owl Source: Cato Institure Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a "global warming skeptic" who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases. Michaels, who has completed a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979) is Editor of the World Climate Report, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virgina. While Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in Ausgust 2006 the Governor clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration. [1] He is also associated with two conservative think tanks: a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute. Funding Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. Asked about his funding on CNN in August 2002 Michaels rejected the suggestion that industry funding influenced his work. "Well, you know, most of my funding, the vast majority, comes from taxpayer-supported entities. I would make the argument that if funding colors research, I should be certainly biased more towards the taxpayers, of which I am one, than towards industry. But the fact of the matter is, numbers are objective," he said. [3] Michaels on climate change Michaels "co-operated with Ross McKitrick on another paper that managed to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening by [http://timlambert.org/2004/08#mckitrick6 mixing up degrees with radians]." [4] He also claims that Kyoto is an EU conspiracy to hurt smaller countries, despite the fact that basically every developed country except Australia and the US has joined. [5] 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). In August 2004, Michaels told Business Week "We know how much the planet is going to warm. It is a small amount, and we can't do anything about it." [6] But Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence." [7] Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another scientist to withdraw similar remarks.)[8] But Gleick stood by his statement and others have joined him. Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." [9] Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading." [10] And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make." "

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 12:01:39 AM

ALL OTHER SCIENTISTS WORK FOR FREE

2/23/2007 12:26:39 AM

excellent arguement

2/23/2007 12:31:24 AM

^^^ Every time you post, you make my point about the politicization of the global warming issue.

Quote :

"Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah' By Eric Pfeiffer THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 12, 2007 Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming. 'In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah,' said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy. 'It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way.' Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance [emphasis added]. 'There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them,' said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 'It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats.' CEI, which previously listed Mr. Legates as an 'adjunct scholar,' has published multiple reports questioning the science behind global-warming theories and has been criticized for accepting donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon. 'We have never said that global warming isn't real,' Mr. O'Keefe said. 'No self-respecting think tank would accept money to support preconceived notions. We make sure what we are saying is both scientifically and analytically defensible.' In an interview with local NBC affiliate KGW-TV, Mr. Kulongoski, a Democrat, said he hopes to take away Mr. Taylor's job title because his views do not mesh with the political opinions of most lawmakers in Oregon, including the governor. 'He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,' Mr. Kulongoski said. 'I just think there has to be somebody that says, "This is the state position on this."' Mr. Taylor was appointed to the position in 1991, when Oregon's legislature created a state climate office at the college. Mr. Kulongoski wants to change the position to a governor-appointed one. State Sen. Brad Avakian, a Democrat, is sponsoring a bill supporting such a move."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm



[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 12:58:35 AM

People who question the severity or causes of global warming are treated like card-carrying socialists nowadays.

2/23/2007 1:21:51 AM

"keep hundreds of billions of our own dollars within the US economy instead of sending to the middle east,"

I'm not taking any sides here, but this statement seems to imply (but I could be wrong) that most of our oil comes from the Middle East, which is inaccurate. According the the US Department of Energy, the top 10 countries the US imports oil from are:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. UK
10. Brazil

While there is no doubt that most of our oil is imported, the majority of it comes from sources other than the Mid-East. In fact only 19% of US oil comes from the Middle East while 50% comes from the Western Hemisphere. Again, I'm not taking any position on this issue or making a political statement. I'm actually quite uneducated on the subject. Just correcting what appeared to be an inaccuracy.

2/23/2007 3:58:20 AM

^ Next time, include the username so we know who posted the quotation in question.

2/23/2007 4:11:13 AM

I think that was mine

Even though we might not get a majority of our oil from the middle east, we get enough that middle eastern supply disruptions can have a considerable effect on our economy and the world markets (Oil Crisis in 1970's, OPEC cuts last year drove oil over $80 a barrel). The less money we can spend supporting despotic regimes and promoting militaristic foreign policy, the better.

2/23/2007 8:20:01 AM

This thread has hit yet another page without a credible article questioning anthropogenic climate change.

Or a valid reason for why we, people who know next to nothing about the subject, should be questioning 99.5% of those who have made this subject their lives' work.

OMG trusting people who know their shit is groupthink!

2/23/2007 2:05:12 PM

HOW DARE WE QUESTION PEOPLE WHO ARENT CERTAIN ABOUT SOMETHING

WHAT NERVE

WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE

WHY CANT WE JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY TELL US TO BELIEVE

2/23/2007 2:11:58 PM

By all means, question them.

So long as you have any basis on which to do so

Why aren't you questioning the evolution and gravity advocates? They are also still trying to figure out the details. Clearly this means that their overall theories are in question.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 2:18:30 PM

why arent you blindly believing in god from people who spend their whole lives studying religion

and more importantly why are you so upset when people want to question theories...oh no! dont question that hypothetical theory! just trust the scientists! dont even think about thinking about something for yourself!@

2/23/2007 2:27:39 PM

Twista's going to cry after this movie wins Best Documentary.

2/23/2007 2:27:43 PM

yeah thats really gonna tear me apart

i think i recall michael moore being pissed off that faherenheit 9/11 didnt win for best documentary because the film guild (or whoever) told them they didnt consider it a documentary

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 2:28:36 PM

Yes, I can picture the tears already.

That bout of weeping alone will cause the oceans to rise.

2/23/2007 2:31:15 PM

haha, gg

2/23/2007 2:33:33 PM

so what all did they teach you about climate change in your Creative Writing classes? probably some informative stuff

2/23/2007 2:34:05 PM

1) religion is based on faith, and is subjective. Apples to oranges.

And since when did 99% of all religious figures agree on the same religion?

2) I'm not upset at all; I'm debating. It's what you do on the internet. I couldn't care less what you believe.

3) My issue is not that you're questioning experts; it's that you're questioning experts without any rationale for your skepticism (except for ideology, of course) in a field you know nothing about.

^ What did you major in again? I can't recall which major gets you such a worthless job that you're able to post constantly while at work.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 2:35:15 PM

Quote :

"so what all did they teach you about climate change in your Creative Writing classes? probably some informative stuff"

I saw the movie.

2/23/2007 2:36:28 PM

^wow you watched al gore's film...wow

^^sure does sound like you care about what i think for whatever reason

hey boone are you posting from work right now

btw...i love how you continue to assume ideology and not natural skepticism

HEY DO YOU STILL THINK THERE ARE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES THAT CONCLUDE GLOBAL WARMING IS MANMADE

CAUSE YOUR DUMBASS DID JUST LAST WEEK BEFORE I TAUGHT YOU WHAT A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE ACTUALLY IS lol idiot

2/23/2007 2:39:54 PM

Quote :

"^wow you watched al gore's film...wow"

Yeah, it was pretty cool.

(And global warming did actually come up in one of my Creative Writing classes.)

2/23/2007 2:41:58 PM

I just got home from a conference, actually.

TWW is blocked from my work


And me agreeing that I was asking for the wrong type of article is your big win for this thread. Print out the text and stick it on your wall.

2/23/2007 2:43:51 PM

no its just something that should've alerted you to how truly uninformed you were on the subject of science in general

just keep assuming everybody who doesnt have 100% faith in the consensus has some evil motive

assume i'm paid by exxon
assume i have a worthless job
assume i'm an idiot
assume anything the scientists say is true
etc

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 2:49:22 PM

1. You didn't get good enough grades to be hired by Exxon
2. I mean, do I have to cut and paste all your daytime posts again?
3. I guess we could put it to a vote on the SB
4. Strawman.

2/23/2007 2:54:05 PM

1. assumption
2. please do
3. irrelevant
4. copout

EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SCIENTISTS EVEN TRY TO CONCLUDE IN A REPORT, I CAN THROW AROUND WORDS LIKE STRAWMAN AND SOUND SMART!

it didnt take you long at all today to change the tone of all your posts to attacking me personally...thats what people must tend to do when they dont know about the subject matter

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 2:58:10 PM

back on topic, here's some new meat:

Quote :

" Professsor in a sweat over global warming By Dan Sorenson arizona daily star Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.23.2007 If you're looking for a rosy view of global warming, that tough, smiling grandfather over at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory isn't your guy. Robert G. Strom, 73, is technically retired. He's a professor emeritus at the laboratory, but he's active on the science team for NASA's Messenger orbiter, due in the outskirts of Mercury next January. He has devoted most of his career to other planets, most notably Mercury. But about five years ago, he aimed his critical-thinking skills at Earth and global warming. "Last time I heard, Earth was a planet," Strom said in his campus office, wrapping up a teleconference with a group at Brown University. "I got interested 15 years ago when I was working on planetary catastrophes," Strom said. It was about five years ago, he said, when the mounting evidence for global warming and its implications for future generations hit him like a ton of bricks. The doomsday report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, released earlier this month, said the international panel of scientists had a confidence level of 90 percent that global warming was being caused by humans. The report didn't surprise Strom. He already was deep into a book for laymen on global warming, to be released next month: "Hot House: Global Climate Change and the Human Condition" (Springer, New York, 2007, $27.50). He's not pulling any punches. Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and one of the key authors of the report, called it a "slam dunk." Strom said, "Humans are responsible 100 percent, not just greater than 90 percent" (the panel's shocking finding). There's no argument, the way Strom sees it. That train has left the station — and it's burning coal. Strom lines up dozens of data sets suspected of having a connection to climate change; all show dramatic positive correlations with industrialization and population growth. Even the anomalies point to man, Strom said, noting dips during economic downturns such as the Great Depression, when greenhouse-gas production tapered off briefly. "Whenever you have a world recession," Strom said, "the greenhouse-gas emissions go down. They start going down first, even before you know you have a recession. When it starts going down, sell your stock." Another disturbing statistical burp — a decrease in temperatures followed by a dramatic spike — lines up with the Clean Air Act and its controls on exhaust stack emissions. "The one thing uncertain is long-term consequences," he said. But that, Strom said, is just a matter of how bad the situation will be. Without a massive turnaround in production of greenhouse-gas emissions within 20 years — a 60 percent cut in greenhouse gases or a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide alone — reversal of the trend may be impossible, he said. "When the CO2 abundance reaches 440 parts per million, the temperature will eventually reach a minimum of 3.6 degrees F (higher than average) no matter what we do," Strom said. The CO2 level today is 381 parts per million. And even if we were able to maintain today's levels, Strom said, that could produce temperatures 1 to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit higher worldwide in 50 years — "enough to produce serious consequences." The Earth already is an average of 1 degree warmer than the 1950-80 average. And for those who don't think that's a big deal, he points to a two-week heat wave in Europe in 2003 that killed thousands, and a 35 percent crop failure rate in the Midwest that was caused by a two-week heat wave. Strom said the message should be coming in clearly, and he professes sincere bewilderment at what he calls a lack of public and media attention given to global warming in the United States. To those who maintain that there will be some adaptive response to the results of warming, Strom said, "How do you adapt to starvation?" Not all scientists are convinced. Nationally, there are few who will deny the existence of global warming, but some will argue about whether it's human-caused, or if it is, whether that the cause is greenhouse gasses. "Yes, there is a human effect. But it's not that drastic," said John Christy, an atmospheric sciences professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, who is a frequently cited critic of the dominant thinking on global warming. "I happen to think some of the warming in the past years is due to humans," Christy said. "I do say there is more CO2 in the air, without a doubt, and that will make temperatures rise. The question is: How much and why?" He attributes some of the warming to urbanization and its resultant nighttime heat "sinking." Paved-over land holds heat, and sinking pollution layers that trap heat. "I'm skeptical in trying to predict the future with any great confidence," Christy said. He added that if people want to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the answer is building nuclear power plants by the thousands. "If you want to cut CO2 by 10 percent," Christy said, "you need 1,000 nuclear power plants. Nuclear doesn't emit greenhouse (gas)." Strom, who has three grandchildren, said the very young, or those yet to be born, will suffer the most if global warming isn't checked. "I'm 73," Strom said, "so I'm not going to be around to see what happens. I don't want my grandchildren looking back and saying, 'Grandpa didn't do anything.' I don't want to be part of that generation . . . the cause of the collapse of civilization." He does have a suggestion: a Kyoto Protocol-like agreement, but with teeth. Currently, 10 countries are producing 70 percent of the carbon dioxide, the largest of the greenhouse gases that are trapping heat and are blamed for the bulk of global warming. Strom said the Kyoto Protocol offers little hope because the United States, the No. 1 producer of CO2, didn't ratify the protocol; China (No. 2) and India (No. 5) are exempt as developing countries; Russia (No. 3) is saved from doing anything right now because of economic collapse; and Japan (No. 4), though it's trying, isn't hitting its goals. "So four of the top five are doing nothing," Strom said. And of the second five in the top 10 (Germany, Canada, Britain, South Korea and Italy), he said only Britain stands a chance of making its goals. "

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : spacing]

2/23/2007 3:09:51 PM

Quote :

"Strom said, "Humans are responsible 100 percent, not just greater than 90 percent" (the panel's shocking finding)."

Quote :

"Not all scientists are convinced. Nationally, there are few who will deny the existence of global warming, but some will argue about whether it's human-caused, or if it is, whether that the cause is greenhouse gasses. "

Quote :

"I happen to think some of the warming in the past years is due to humans," Christy said. "I do say there is more CO2 in the air, without a doubt, and that will make temperatures rise. The question is: How much and why?"

Two different perspectives...one scientist says humans are 100 percent responsible...another scientist says theres the question of how much are we responsible...hey Boone why don't you google John Christy and see how many oil companies' payrolls he has been on in the past since he isnt convinced that humans are causing global warming

2/23/2007 3:17:43 PM

john christy has also said this:

Quote :

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

2/23/2007 3:24:29 PM

yeah that was paraphrased in the third quote of my last post

Quote :

"I happen to think some of the warming in the past years is due to humans," Christy said. "I do say there is more CO2 in the air, without a doubt, and that will make temperatures rise. The question is: How much and why?""

so you're not really saying anything that i didnt just say

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 3:30:06 PM

nm

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : nm]

2/23/2007 3:30:11 PM

^ >.<

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:42 PM. Reason : i logged out to see the self pwnt...gg troll]

2/23/2007 3:30:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't want to be part of that generation . . . the cause of the collapse of civilization."

Hyperbole much?

The thing that trips me out about these scientists is all the gloom and doom that they predict to try to get their point across.

Its hard to take their transparent scaremongering seriously.

2/23/2007 3:33:21 PM

i thought the only scaremongering tactic in modern day politics was the threat of terrorism?

2/23/2007 3:37:18 PM

to be fair, the first guy also expresses some doubt about the long-term effects of man on the climate. but he just advocates action now.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 3:43:41 PM

then to be fair how come anyone who is even skeptical that humans are causing catastrophic global warming (not denying it, just being unsure/skeptical) tends to be painted as someone with an agenda, paid by oil companies

2/23/2007 3:45:51 PM

anecdotal and pointless post

2/23/2007 3:47:23 PM

more like a microcosm of how skewed public perception is of the whole issue

2/23/2007 3:52:37 PM

Quote :

"more like a microcosm of how skewed public perception is of the whole issue "

can a statement be a microcosm?

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM. Reason : }]

and from what you do you base that statement?

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM. Reason : oh right anecdotal evidence]

2/23/2007 3:54:39 PM

Quote :

"how come anyone who is even skeptical that humans are causing catastrophic global warming (not denying it, just being unsure/skeptical) tends to be painted as someone with an agenda, paid by oil companies"

so sarijoul i guess you cant comment on the content of this quote...you cant make a comment on how anyone who doesnt blindly believe the consensus is labelled someone with alterior motives? thats not something you want to address?

seems to be pretty important based on a lot of the (mis)understanding in this thread

2/23/2007 3:57:17 PM

Quote :

"alterior motives?"

ahaha. and again

^and i don't believe it's true. i think some dumb people who are very loud say those sorts of things, but it's by no means a consensus.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 3:57:59 PM

ulterior motives

care to comment yet? or choose something else trivial to change your subject to?

2/23/2007 3:58:41 PM

how can i comment on your baseless claim?

2/23/2007 3:59:59 PM

baseless huh?

so nobody in this thread who isnt completely convinced of global warming has been labeled as someone with ULTERIOR motives? none of the scientists mentioned in this thread who are skeptical of global warming have been criticized of being oil company puppets? cause that would be the only way my claim was baseless

but please...when something doesnt fit your side of the argument, just focus on some small detail and blow it out of proportion

Quote :

"i think some dumb people who are very loud say those sorts of things, but it's by no means a consensus"

so now manmade global warming is "by no means a consensus?"

WOW

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 4:02:25 PM

i didn't say that. i said that it wasn't a consensus for people to debunk any and everyone who casts doubt on global warming as having ulterior motives.

and besides, i don't really care to comment on the actions of other people in this thread. they by no means represent my views, or the view of the general public.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM. Reason : i mean can't we talk about the topic at hand and not the people in this thread?]

2/23/2007 4:07:13 PM

so how is my claim baseless if there are dumb loud people who do what i claim?

2/23/2007 4:08:31 PM

you have shown no basis beyond anecdotal evidence supporting your claim that this was by any means a consensus view

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 4:08:57 PM

where the hell did you get it in your head that the consensus i was talking about was anything other than the scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming?

2/23/2007 4:14:07 PM

Quote :

"then to be fair how come anyone who is even skeptical that humans are causing catastrophic global warming (not denying it, just being unsure/skeptical) tends to be painted as someone with an agenda, paid by oil companies"

2/23/2007 4:15:56 PM

where the hell did you get it in your head that the consensus i was talking about was anything other than the scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming?

2/23/2007 4:16:18 PM

you said anyone who doubts catastropic climate change is painted as having ulterior motives. i think that claim is baseless. you have not given any evidence of this beyond anecdotal evidence from this thread (which is even shaky at best)

2/23/2007 4:18:00 PM