The Patrick Michaels story continues to heat up. The Virginian-Pilot has weighed in with an editorial noting that the University of Virginia professor and state climatologist has taken money from fossil fuel companies, but notes that it’s an old story — first reported in 1990 — and he doesn’t seem to be violating any conflict-of-interest guidelines.
But back in Charlottesville, Kevin Lynch, a Charlottesville city councilor, has been digging into the story. As reported in the Cvillenews.com and aired in Waldo Jaquith’s blog, Lynch can’t find any documentation that Michaels is, in fact, state climatologist — despite the fact that he has been receiving some $90,000 a year in state funds. The legal authority and paperwork appeared to have been lost in the mists of time, and the state appears to be handing over money to Michaels out of habit. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine insists that Michaels is not a gubernatorial appointee. It would be a good idea for someone in state government — perhaps the Attorney General’s office — to get to the bottom of this.
In another piece, Lynch looks into the question: What, exactly, does the state climatologist do for his $90,000 a year? The main thing he does, apparently, is issue periodic “climate advisories” throughout the year. However, Lynch detects an editorializing trend in his advisories “expressing skepticism towards global warming in particular and fellow scientists in general,” a skepticism that he believes is inappropriate. Concludes Lynch:
I cannot see how any impartial observer could avoid the conclusion that using an official publication of the State Climatologist as an editorial vehicle to promote the agenda of Dr. Michaels’ power company funders is anything other than a clear conflict of interest.
Lynch, it seems to me, is asking perfectly legitimate questions, and I applaud him for his initiatve. However, Lynch’s argumentative tone suggests that Michaels’ greatest offense is to question global warming in the first place.
The one thing I have yet to see in any of the editorials and commentaries written about Michaels is a critique of his arguments. Painting him as a paid apologist for the fossil fuel industry is sufficent to dismiss his ideas without ever engaging them. Well, I have just purchased his book, “Meltdown,” and I’m working my way through it. I will comment in detail upon his arguments if this state-climatologist controversy doesn’t die down.
At this point I will say only this: Michaels’ knowledge of climatology, the scientific studies he cites and the arguments he makes cannot be dismissed simply by labeling him a tool of the bad guys. He may be wrong… He may not be offering a complete picture of the state of knowledge in climatology today… but he is not self-evidently wrong. By contrast, the characterizations of his views are laughably inaccurate.
Secondly, Michaels offers a critique of the scientific establishment that the pundits refuse to acknowledge. He examines the political economy of global warming, a multi-billion scientific industry that lives off of government funding. The only way to maintain that funding, he argues, is to keep the public and politicians in a state of alarm and agitation about the cataclysmic fate that awaits us all. The global warming true believers, if we are to believe him, are as motivated by self interest as those who oppose them. That’s the sad state of science in the world today.
Update: Daily Progress columnist Bob Gibson argues that there’s nothing wrong with the intellectual diversity that Michaels, “a little speck of red in a blue ivory tower,” provides UVa. “Politically correct research is fine, but as with science, research that questions prevailing wisdom often produces better wisdom.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.