Who is Patrick Michaels?
(James Wigderson is a blogger publishing at http://www.wigderson.com and a Waukesha resident. His column runs Thursdays in The Freeman.)
Who is Patrick Michaels? Michaels is a scientist at the center of the global warming controversy and the target of many e-mails revealed in the Climategate scandal.
Climategate is the scandal resulting from the public exposure of thousands of e-mails from researchers connected to University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). The e-mails allegedly reveal that what underlies the global warming “consensus” is a pattern of data massaging, avoidance of sharing data to prevent proper peer review, and behind-the-scenes efforts to silence critics.
Not exactly the scientific method we were taught in high school.
Michaels, who received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979, has challenged the research integrity of one of the leading advocates of the theory of human-caused global warming. As revealed by the Climategate emails, the reaction tended toward the violent. One scientific “peer” of Michaels even suggested he would “beat the crap out of him” the next time he saw Michaels.
In the case of Michaels, it shows that polite discourse and scholarly debate have no place in an ideologically manipulated scientific field.
As reported by Bill Osmulski of the MacIver Institute, some of the researchers defending the global warming theory were even considering trying to have Michaels’ Ph.D. from UW-Madison reconsidered. Fortunately, as Osmulski reports, nothing has yet happened on that front.
It’s just one example of the ugliness behind the groupthink and enforcement of the orthodoxy of man-made global warming revealed by the Climategate e-mails.
When science is politicized, it becomes subject to the rules of politics. And the first rule of politics is that timing is everything.
The Climategate scandal is forcing its way into public view as the world’s leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen to discuss what to do about global warming, if anything. Planning to be in attendance is President Barack Obama, who will use that European trip to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps while Obama is picking up his prize he can drop off former Vice President Al Gore’s Peace Prize for his global warming alarmism with a note explaining it was all just a mistake. Sorry.
Closer to home, the Wisconsin state Legislature, under the control of the Democrats, is about to consider the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force. The task force started with the unsettling premise that global warming is settled science.
One of the recommendations of the task force is an “enhanced renewable portfolio standard,” which is bureaucratese for more alternative fuels providing for Wisconsin’s energy needs.
More windmills will not just mean more dead birds and ruined rural scenery; Wisconsin’s electricity rates could shoot through the roof.
The reason why we turn to coal instead of solar and windmills is because coal is cheaper. Seventy percent of Wisconsin’s electricity needs comes from coal, which means in order to reduce greenhouse gasses we are either going to have to invest in “clean coal” technology (unproven and costly) or go with more expensive alternative fuels.
Not only will this be a cost to the ratepayer in the home, but this will be a hidden but expensive tax on business as well, making the business climate in Wisconsin even more difficult.
It’s a choice between economic growth and environmental extremism, and the extremists are in control. They will win, and Wisconsin jobs will be lost, all because the science of manmade global warming is supposedly settled.
Fortunately, the Climategate scandal’s demolition of that myth may make some in the Legislature to think twice until the science is completely reevaluated.
Less than 400 years ago, Galileo challenged the prevailing orthodoxies and became “the father of modern science.” Today, men like Patrick Michaels are again challenging the prevailing orthodoxies and they may just save science from politics.
Until this challenge has been answered and a real consensus on global warming has been formed, for or against, Wisconsin politicians should reject the task force recommendations and spare their constituents the terrible costs.
The melting glaciers[1], the declining sea ice[2]. the collapsing ice shelves[3], the rising tree lines[4], rising sea level[5], and the insects moving into newly warmed forest[6] don’t give a rat’s ass what the majority of IPCC or Fox news commentators think. The Wisconsin legislature can flip coins, consult Tarot cards, or look at the facts as best they can . Scientific consensus is a good starting point for policy decisions, but there are social, political, economic, ethical, etc considerations as well for the policy decisions. Once upon a time, King Canute made a policy decision contrary to a physical process[5]; Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Roy Spencer, and Richard S. Lindzen want to repeat the experiment. Oh, and Patrick Michaels, too. Just because a few tinfoil hat wackos disagree doesn’t mean there isn’t a consensus –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus is a reasonable place to start.
“Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions.”
Doran and Zimmerman survey at tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
” In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey” (Is it warming, and are humans responsible?)
Oreskes survey at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.’
[1] http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-9.jpg
[2] http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg
[3] http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=383
[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090812202047.htm
[5] http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
[Reply]
Who is Patrick Michaels?
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_J._Michaels
[Reply]
“Today, men like Patrick Michaels are again challenging the prevailing orthodoxies and they may just save science from politics.”
Not before Patrick Michaels is saved from destitution by those shadowy corporations who support him supporting them. One can’t help but wonder if Mr. Michaels didn’t pass a little under the table your way, James.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Captain Renault: In 1935, you ran guns to Ethiopia. In 1936, you fought in Spain, on the Loyalist side.
Rick: I got well paid for it on both occasions.
Captain Renault: The *winning* side would have paid you *much better*.
[Reply]
Orthodoxy exists in the world of religion, not in the area of scientific method James.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I would hope so. Shall we then characterize Global Warming as a religion?
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The great irony, of course, is that the miracles of Lourdes are now subject to the scientific method, while Global Warming is not.
[Reply]
“The great irony, of course, is that the miracles of Lourdes are now subject to the scientific method, while Global Warming is not.”
Come on James. We know you are smarter than that.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 3:04 am
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bfgwlv1ZNmYC&lpg=PA433&ots=btAAfpiEK3&dq=buckley%20lourdes&pg=PA433#v=onepage&q=&f=false
“It is not suprising, but worth stressing, that there is no tribunal in existence more skeptical than those through which you need to pass if your claim is to have been cured at Lourdes. It is a cadre of doctors who donate their time, spending periods of various lengths in residence at Lourdes. Their duty is to examine – their opportunity is to learn from – the phenomena that pass by. Only a minority of these men of science are professing Catholics.”
[Reply]
How nice for Lourdes. So if you dig that system, scientific research into climate change is ten times as rigorous.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
You’re really not paying attention, are you? Did they rigorously just let the dog eat their data, or did they do a rigorous job of massaging the statistics to make Al Gore’s graph look really, really neat?
[Reply]