Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Patrick Michaels RIP

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Patrick Michaels

by Bill Tracy

Nationally known climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels has died, and there is certainly a huge Virginia connection.  Michaels considered himself to be a “lukewarmer,” denoting a belief that there is indeed a man-made (CO2) component to climate change. But, he said  “What I’m skeptical about is the glib notion that it means the end of the world as we know it.”

Many liberals, of course, feel that climate change  is in fact an immediate and dire emergency. They would label Michaels a “denier.” The Washington Post obituary seemingly took the high road and instead used the slightly less divisive word: “contrarian.”

I was personally well aware of Pat Michaels, but mainly from his Cato Institute days. As a transplant from New Jersey, only now do I realize he was a professor at the University of Virginia for 30-years.  He also served a stint as Virginia’s  state climatologist.

Some of you knew Pat Michaels far better than I did; therefore comments below are welcome.

Just to spice up the discussion,  here are a few controversial, and strictly Virginia, anecdotes that “caught my eye” (as Judith Curry might say):

Anthony Watts of  Watts Up With That? recalls that Michaels once told him that “his only regret was hiring/promoting Michael Mann while he was at the University of Virginia.” Mann of course is a well-known climatologist/alarmist known for the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. Taking a step back from the divisiveness, however, it is interesting that Virginia had played such a central role on the climate change stage.

Michaels’ involvement with UVa apparently started to come to an end during the administration of  Governor Tim Kaine, which insisted that Michaels clarify that his personal stance on climate change did not represent state of Virginia policy.  Shortly thereafter Michaels resigned his post at UVa citing lack of academic freedom. Where have I heard that before?

Finally, folks on “both” sides of the climate change issue seem to relate that Pat was a friendly and jovial human being. A good guy to have a beer, and deep discussion with, seems to be a common sentiment.

Bill Tracy, a retired engineer, lives in Northern Virginia.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

58 responses to “Patrick Michaels RIP”

  1. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I’m glad to know that the WaPo did not describe Michaels as a climate-change “denier” — because he absolutely was not. As Bill Tracey rightly observes, he was a “lukewarmer” (as Steve Haner and I both are). Michaels believed that the Earth’s climate is getting warmer, and he acknowledged that human activity played a role. He just didn’t buy into the worst-case scenarios of the climate alarmists. He did not see warming as an existential crisis for humanity.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      “Lukewarmness” rings as very personal and solipsistic. Would that view change were it made from Iceland or a Saharan nation? What did Jesus say about being lukewarm?

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        It just means believing that humans are causing a lot of the warming but that it is harmless, or even beneficial. The other two camps are (1) believing that humans are causing dangerous warming and (2) believing that humans are not causing the warming (which is my view).

        Despite this difference Pat and I worked well together, resisting the alarmist view which we both thought dangerous in itself.

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      E&E News did call him a denier but they mean not accepting the scare story of climate catastrophe. The article itself was pretty good, almost respectful.

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Jim- Re: minor typo: no “e” in Tracy

  2. CB Avatar
    CB

    A life wasted on lies!

    Always follow the money.

    http://www.desmog.com/patrick-michaels/

    1. JayCee Avatar
      JayCee

      Shame on YOU CB

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Folks like Pat and me are proud of our DeSmog dossiers. Shows we are effective against alarmism.

    3. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Indeed, so start with the $2.6 billion a year US Global Change Research Program which buys a steady stream of alarmist science. Just read their wildly alarmist National Climate Assessments, or as I call them, the National Scares.

      I think CEI just published Pat’s latest critique of the NCA junk.

  3. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    He and Biorn agreed on a lot. Michael Mann was an ass and remains one. Note how many climate climate chicken little’s have private jets and yachts along with massive McMansion.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Where have I hear that before?”

    In your echo chamber…

  5. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    He posted several good articles on climate on the state climatology website when he was the state climatologist. One of the links from that website was to Weather Underground, which I used to visit regularly until they got caught up in the sky is falling crowd.

  6. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    I worked closely with Pat at Cato. Our grandest product was this study: “Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding‐​induced Biases”
    https://www.cato.org/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding-induced

    We identify 15 different bias types, which can sequentially cascade, with a climate change example for each. We also look at how much research is being done on each bias type.

    The point is that Pat was fun to work with but also a scientist who did great original work. I especially recommend his book “Lukewarming” even though I am not a lukewarmer. It is a plain language review of the science.

    1. CB Avatar
      CB

      …and yet another life wasted on lies.

      How are you guys doing your job when you make your coordination with each other so obvious?

      How are you going to mislead people when absolutely everyone can see your financial incentive to do so?

      “[David] Wojick was a “scientific advisor” for a now-defunct Greening Earth Society (GES), a group created by the Western Fuels Association, a large US coal industry association.”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/david-wojick

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        fossil fuel companies funding climate deniers… who knew? 😉

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Kind of like VCs and PEs with billions invested in “clean energy” funding climate change alarmists?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            secretly ?

  7. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    I’m glad that most of these comments are respectful which is what Pat deserved. He and I did a lot of climate related work in the 1990s and I never heard him ever say that climate change wasn’t real or that humans were not contributing.
    The comment about a “life wasted on lies.” says more about CB whoever he/she is than Pat. He paid a price for sticking to his principles.

    1. CB Avatar
      CB

      Another life wasted on lies!

      Always follow the money.

      “[William] O’Keefe suggested funnelling funding through Donors Trust, a secretive group that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the conservative movement in the US.”

      http://www.desmog.com/william-o-keefe/

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        It is not secretive and is approved by the IRS. It simply has a policy of not publishing lists of donors to the public. Not for profits are not obligated to publish donors. What is important is the quality of the work; not the funder.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Wrong! It’s IMPORTANT to know WHO is funding.

          Even almost ALL Conservatives agree also, including virtually all of them here in BR.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            If the work is first rate and rock solid, what difference does it make. If you like the funding source does that mean you are more likely to accept the work produced by it. Confirmation bias runs rampant!

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “first rate” is a totally subjective term.

            DO you like elections that don’t identify the donors?

            Did you approve of the way the Tobacco lobby attacked science and misled people about the health effects of cigarettes?

            And now you confuse confirmation bias with anonymously paid lying and deception?

            It MATTERS who is funding messages and claims and especially so if they are lies and misrepresentations.

            You guys are always blathering about Soros money… what hypocrisy!

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I’ll say this again, if a piece of work meets high standards or scholarship, that is what matters; not the funding source. If it doesn’t, an open funding source doesn’t make it acceptable. Take your complaint to the IRS which sets reporting regulation.
            I don’t know who ” you guys” are. My comments dealt with the quality of work product. Nothing more; nothing less.

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Generally I don’t disagree, but if a donor wants to keep it anonymous, that request should be honored. Non profits do that.

            As to Soros, you are correct, but the Left does it too in a big way, such as Koch….

            Case in point! Right after I posted that Koch came up below by CB……

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so you LIKE anonymous donations to election campaigns?

            VPAP is performing a fools errand?

          6. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Campaign contributions to candidates are not anonymous, so I would not like that, but its not going to happen either. I am talking about contributions to tax exempt organizations.

          7. CB Avatar
            CB

            “almost ALL Conservatives agree also”

            Heh heh heh…Their “conservatism” doesn’t seem to show in their votes.

            Maybe they aren’t all that conservative afterall…

            “Fossil fuel money in politics tilts overwhelmingly toward Republicans. Oil and gas companies give 87% of their donations to Republicans, coal companies 95% of their campaign funds to GOP politicians. In listing currently serving U.S. senators with the most backing from fossil fuel interests, it’s not until the 17th slot that a Democrat appears, Joe Manchin of West Virginia.”

            yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well, yes. They say one thing but do another. It’s “terrible” if Koch is funding in “secret” but Donors Trust is just fine.

  8. Wahoo'74 Avatar
    Wahoo’74

    We need more Patrick Michaels. Democrats think climate change is our #1 existential threat. Never mind about: millions of illegal aliens pouring over our southern border, Chinese aggression, Russian atrocities and return to Stalinist tactics, highest inflation in 40 years, a crippled energy policy due to Biden regulatory dictates, etc.

    Truly absurd. Where are his successors to restore objectivity to the Climate Change debate?

    . https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democratic-caucus-leader-claims-climate-change-largest-national-security-threat-facint-us-world.amp.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Pat was by no means alone. I could list 100 active skeptical scientists (including me). But there is presently no chance of turning the Democrats around. Nor do we need to. All we have to do is keep them from doing great harm and so far we have done that pretty well. The Nov elections should be very helpful.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      are you excluding the rest of the world on the issue?

      or is your whole world those pesky Dems?

      NewsFlash – MOST of the rest of the world believes in GW. Does that make them all Dems?

      1. Wahoo'74 Avatar
        Wahoo’74

        For now, those pesky Dems👎😂

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          gotcha

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Pollution is waste, and waste is lost profits. At least be guided by your own buffoonery.

  10. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I never met him, which I regret. I reached out a year ago trying to get him to come speak to the Jefferson Institute conference on these issues we did in September, with no luck, perhaps because by then illness had set in. Some very unkind things have appeared from the Keepers of the True Belief since his passing, more evidence that personal attacks are the only sharp arrow in their quiver.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Or, perhaps even in his lukewarmness he still recognized a totally untenable position and refused to lend credence.

  11. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I resist being labeled as a “lukewarmer,” as it is largely meaningless like other labels. There is evidence of a surface warming trend, not the first by any means, but there is evidence. GHG concentrations are higher may very well be contributing, but are only one way 8 billion humans could be affecting the planet (compared to the only 2 billion or so around a century ago.) Few things are totally good or bad and no question CO2 is plant food and higher concentrations in the atmosphere have benefits. But I wish we were cutting down fewer trees. (Another reason to let developing nations move to fossil fuels.)

    As to CB’s trashy attack, I will count it as a red letter day when those character assassins at DeSmog attack me too. Please, Larry, Eric, Nancy — make it happen!

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      But we are also emerging from the a Little Ice Age so natural variability is a plausible hypothesis.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Too late, my friend, as JAB has defined your view. Absolute causality for global warming is likely as far from being determined as those of the best paths forward. As long as science may be seen to debate the issue, policy makers may be lukewarm to choices.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Salting Carthage.

    4. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I suspect you’re not that big a fish – eh?

      Yeah, I thought when JAB labelled you as “luke” it wasn’t good.

      So what do you self-identify as if not “luke”?

    5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Yes hitting 8-billion population this year with projected max around 11-billion in 2100. There are differing estimates, but I never see too much talk that climate change will stunt the world population growth and cause more deaths than births (one definition of Armageddon, I suppose).

    6. CB Avatar
      CB

      You aren’t smart enough to be paid for your lies.

      …and seeing the caliber of the people who apparently are smart enough to be paid for lying, I’d suggest you should be quite insulted by that fact…

      “The Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy industrial ideologues appear to be cloaking an untold amount of their donations to conservative political outlets through DT [DonorsTrust].”

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Donors_Capital_Fund

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        ” United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.[1] was a case in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held several major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act[2] by engaging in numerous acts of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about nicotine addiction and the health effects of cigarettes and environmental tobacco smoke.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philip_Morris

        This is essentially what the fossil fuel industry as been doing with paid Climate Deniers and the folks they have convinced with their false claims about climate.

        Once some of them “retire” they claim innocence ….

        1. CB Avatar
          CB

          They’re the exact same people!

          Some people specialise in selling dishonesty for cash.

          I can’t even imagine a life so empty and pointless…

          “Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” and “individual supporter” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation.”

          http://www.desmog.com/patrick-michaels/

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s like folks here don’t know or care about how the tobacco settlement came to be in the first place.

            It was a heavily and anonymously-funded disinformation campaign that got exposed for what it was.

            The same thing goes on right now with Donor’s Trust which funds organizations that traffic in disinformation campaigns.

      2. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        What about Soros….? Ultra wealthy, ultra donor.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          How do we KNOW about Soros?

          Do you KNOW who is donating to Donor’s Trust?

          1. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            To be clear, my comment was a reply to CB’s post about Koch, not one of yours, it just got posted down here. I don’t know anything about Donors Trust.

            But assuming you were querying me on my comment about Soros as a general matter, you can ask that question in circular fashion all day. You and CB talk about Koch’s donating in secret, but if it was a secret, how did you know? You provide a link that you read it in a publication. Ok, how reputable is that publication?

            So you need to read reputable journalism, like Bacons Rebellion! I trust was Jim says, and I trust the facts in what Dick and others say in their articles. I might not agree with what they say, and might even challenge a source as I believe you do, but I don’t believe they are being untruthful. The more we read, the more we learn.

            The bottom line is David Koch did interviews before he died that he did make donations, Soros the same. They may not advertise who they donate to, but they don’t hide from it either. If the Wall street Journal or Fox says a certain DA election was funded by Soros, I am not going to challenge the facts, any more than you wouldn’t if the Washington Post says the same about Koch.

  12. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    I never knew him personally but heard him speak a number of times. Very entertaining but also scientific in his analysis. Great guy.

  13. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    The Climate debate would be improved if participants would disclose the source of their financing. This doesn’t mean they are necessarily right or wrong but disclosure to the public of this information would provide context. This should cut both ways.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I agree. And so do most of the others – left or right in BR. Now convince Mr. Wojick

      1. CB Avatar
        CB

        Bacon’s connected to the dirty cash too. I can’t remember how at this point, but if you dig enough, you can find it. I think it was Koch money he was dipping into.

        1. James A. Bacon Avatar
          James A. Bacon

          CB, your reckless. ill-informed comment utterly discredits you.

          I’ve never taken Koch money, and I’ve always been 100% transparent about where my money comes from. When Dominion supported this blog I was totally up-front about it — I posted the Dominion log on the opening screen and provided a link to the terms of the sponsorship agreement. I’m far more transparent about where my funding comes from than, say, Virginia Public Media or The Virginia Mercury.

          At present, Bacon’s Rebellion has no sponsors. We gratefully accept donations from readers, but most donations are small — enough to pay the expenses associated with publishing a blog, plus a little extra. I’m retired so I have no need of outside income. I don’t make a dime from the publication. The blog takes no outside money, we are beholden to no one, and we answer only to our own consciences.

          1. CB Avatar
            CB

            Sorry, you were taking money from another polluter.

            My bad.

            “Dominion Energy, Inc., commonly referred to as Dominion, is a North American power and energy company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia that supplies electricity in parts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina and supplies natural gas to parts of Utah, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.”

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Energy

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      We seem to have thousands of left-funded enviro groups, and MSM favoring left, and that is considered the altruistic neutral position for the betterment of mankind. Therefore anyone not funded by the left is a bad guy (or gal).

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        No. It’s about secret funding.

Leave a Reply

Read More