The Art and Motivation of Editorializing Science

on

Let’s see if the the Washington Times will actually print this:

Dear Editor,

In a recent Washington Times opinion piece, Dr. Pat Michaels again triDr. Pat Michaelses to confuse the science of climate change and create the perception that there are a significant number of climate change scientists who disagree that global warming is happening and is caused by humans. I am not a scientist, but I do know that in science, much like any other profession, it helps to know the background of the information source.

In the case of Dr. Pat Michael’s, it would be dubious at best to consider him an objective source on the science behind the issue of climate change when you consider the following:

1. Michael’s has received over $115,000 from oil and coal interests and funding from the Western Fuels Association for his work on climate change.

2. Michaels is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a resident expert at the George C. Marshall Institute, both right-wing think tanks that have received millions from oil money-backed foundations and thousands from ExxonMobil

3. Michael’s has teamed up in the past with another self professed climate change skeptic, Dr. S Fred Singer, to delay action on reducing CFC’s and the hole in the o-zone layer. Singer has also admitted to receiving money from oil companies for work on global climate change.

If this is not enough to get you questioning the motivations of Pat Michaels, ask yourself why he spends more time editorializing science instead of actually practicing it.

Sincerely,

Jim Hoggan
DeSmogBlog.com
Vancouver, BC, Canada
(604) 742-4256

Related Posts

on

Cheniere Energy has introduced “cargo emissions tags” to assuage climate concerns of potential buyers. But a new report says these tags are riddled with problems.

Cheniere Energy has introduced “cargo emissions tags” to assuage climate concerns of potential buyers. But a new report says these tags are riddled with problems.
Opinion
on

Anti-science rhetoric and special interests have pushed us to the edge of climate chaos. But just as quantum physics disrupted our view of matter and energy, quantum social change disrupts our beliefs about what’s possible, how fast, and by whom.

Anti-science rhetoric and special interests have pushed us to the edge of climate chaos. But just as quantum physics disrupted our view of matter and energy, quantum social change disrupts our beliefs about what’s possible, how fast, and by whom.
on

Climate campaigners concerned over Jane Toogood’s role in a company that sells technology to produce hydrogen from methane.

Climate campaigners concerned over Jane Toogood’s role in a company that sells technology to produce hydrogen from methane.
on

The Vermont senator nevertheless supported final passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, calling it "a step forward" on climate and drug prices.

The Vermont senator nevertheless supported final passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, calling it "a step forward" on climate and drug prices.