Talk:Patrick Michaels/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Linear"

Michaels' view is described as "linear", when it is actually a preposterous assertion that two non-linear effects will conveniently balance. One is a claimed CO2 effect - "each increment results in less and less warming", and the other is increasing CO2 emissions. I've never heard of this non-linear CO2 effect, and it strikes me as nonsense. Can anyone clarify? Rd232 18:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Michaels is mis-applying physics, probably by treating this as though the CO2 is in a gas cell in an instrument. The effect isn't merely that CO2 absorbs the energy - the energy is also re-radiated. Thought experiment: for a particular level of CO2 in the atmosphere there is an altitude at which half the energy that can be absorbed by the CO2 is absorbed. If you increase the CO2 that altitude is lowered. Absorbing the energy is just half the process: it also gets re-radiated. Even if the energy is shifted in frequency (such that CO2 no longer absorbs it) it is cavalier to ignore that the altitude at which the CO2 absorbs a particular portion of the radiation goes down as the CO2 concentration goes up.

Effectively, this means that the energy that is absorbed by the CO2 takes more hops to escape (half the energy, more or less, will go upward, half downward. Assume it re-radiates isotropically. Having to make more hops means it takes longer for the energy to escape into outer space. That is global warming. It doesn't appear any of Michaels' training was in physical science. His Ph.D. thesis apparently is about the effects of weather on crop yield - although I don't see anything in the library listing at UW Madison that indicates his early works there are part of his thesis. This is ad hominem enough, surely, but the point is that someone not trained in physical science is less likely to appreciate the principles of physical science. Quite a few deniers are almost certainly not aware of the proper temperature scale to use when discussing radiative transfer of energy. I'd never put such language in the article itself (and would hope that nobody else would, either) but in the discussion I think it may be appropriate. Minasbeede (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-linear in CO2 is fair enough: its band-saturation stuff, which makes in linear in log(CO2). Conveniently, CO2 inc is about exponential, so the forcing inc is about linear. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm shows the predictions from the TAR. William M. Connolley 20:28:32, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

Maybe it's the lateness of the hour, but why are we taking the log? And if the IPCC thinks the same, why is it cited to show why Michaels disagrees with IPCC range? Rd232 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Radiative forcing increases roughly with log(CO2). There are three regions: linear for low conc, sqrt for medium, and log for high. We're in the log region. This is std. Not sure what you mean for the second Q re IPCC. William M. Connolley 08:45:08, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

i have elided both quotes from the article. both are inappropriate; they are little more than ad hominem. i'm sure there will be push back. that's fine - explain to me the accuracy of the quote "he has published little if anything of distinction". well which is it? has he published some things of distinction, or nothing of distinction? plain and simple, it's weasel words by the person quoted, and on that basis, inappropriate.Anastrophe 07:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

fast work!

u editors ought to be on Wikinews. Doldrums 09:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  Looking at the East Anglia monthly temperature data, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/,
the global temperature anomaly for Jan 1998 was +.489 (and  +.546  for the year 1998),
while for 2006 so far the monthly temperatures are:

0.320  0.449  0.379  0.365  0.338  0.436  0.442  0.497  0.420  0.483

The difference in Januaries probably is statistically significant; the difference between .489 and .483 surely is not, but in any case the earth has not warmed since January 1998.156.56.74.83 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article on Michaels reads like more of a hit piece than a balanced biography. Why is there a section of quotes from critics, but none from supporters? Why is it stated that he has "published little if anything of distinction" when I also see references to articles he has published in Science, Geophysical Letters, and other major journals? And there is a link to "Evidence regarding Michaels' participation in crafted and executed strategy to discredit Al Gore through use of name of Roger Revelle," when in fact the link points to accusations against someone else. (Michaels is cited there only as someone who may have reviewed or or cited the disputed article.)Onorato 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've attempted to clean up some of the bias, but it is still very unbalanced. The "published little if anything of distinction" is a personal opinion of one of his critics that is clearly unsupported. It's all right to include some critics' opinions, but there needs to be more fairness and balance. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Michaels isn't a GW skeptic.

Michaels does not deny that the globe is warming and he does not deny that humans are the cause of this warming. I thought the exclusion of one of these two things were necessary to be label, pejoratively, as a skeptic. Michaels denies the catastrophism of the IPCC and others, but does mean you should attack him as a skeptic of science. ~ UBeR 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it a little hard to tell whether Michaels is a skeptic or not. In his more temperate moments, his statements regarding the science are in marked contrast to his shrill and sarcastic op-eds and such. He's widely characterized as a skeptic in the mainstream press, so the argument could go either way. Raymond Arritt 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, we should adhere to biographies of a living person guidelines. Pejorative statements must be quantified with enormous scrutiny. ~ UBeR 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you think referring to someone as a GW skeptic is pejorative? ;-) Kidding aside, I don't see how the label adds anything to the article so delete it if you want. Note again that he's widely characterized as a skeptic in the media and (to my knowledge) hasn't objected. Raymond Arritt 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily, but I think your comrade William does.[1] Cheers. ~ UBeR 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming skeptic implies to me that he is skeptical that anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. This isn't the case, of course. He IS skeptical of global warming alarmism. I would rather rewrite the first part of the sentence to say "He is a well-known skeptic of global warming alarmism..." Geoffrey Allan Plauche 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried to edit this to cover all the nuances. I have noted that he has stated he accepts that temperatures have warmed and accepts the basic science, and have also noted that he is widely regarded as a skeptic (and gave a few supporting references). I think part of the problem is that he tends to tailor his message depending on the audience: when responding to straight-media interviews he comes across as much calmer and more mainstream, but when writing for business think-tanks or conservative publications he is far more shrill and extreme. It's not our place to say which (if either) is the "real" Pat Michaels but simply to give both views and let the reader decide. Raymond Arritt 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather object to the description of Michaels's op-ed and commentary pieces as "shrill and extreme." Perhaps more skeptical of the possible negative effects of global warming than you would prefer, but shrill and extreme? Compared to the skeptics who produced and advocate the Global Warming Swindle documentary he is a downright mainstream skeptic. (That's actually what he calls himself, by the way, a mainstream skeptic.) Also, I don't believe that the Cato Institute is a conservative think tank. It's libertarian. And libertarianism is not neatly pigeonholed as either left or right. National Review, on the other hand,...very conservative, but Michaels is a Cato Senior Fellow. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments regarding "shrill" referred more to the snide, sarcastic tone that he often uses rather than his views, which as you say are not too far out there (especially his more recent views, which are tamer than what he was saying 5 or 6 years ago). Stuff like deriding mainstream climate researchers as "Al Gore’s scientists"[2] and such. Raymond Arritt 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. At the risk of being nitpicky though, snide or sarcastic would be more appropriate than shrill. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Fair? Really? ~ UBeR 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's changed a lot over the past few years and is not your mother's Vanity Fair, so to speak. As well as the pretty pictures it's now also known for "gutsy but carefully vetted investigative stories."[3]. Delete it if you think the graphical content disqualifies it as a WP:RS. That still leaves the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, etc. Raymond Arritt 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I remove some that don't really make a good case or aren't really directly calling him a skeptic? For example, Vanity Fair's, "The stars, as in any constellation, are an eclectic bunch. They include fringe scientists such . . . Patrick Michaels" or "CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have. Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels." ~ UBeR 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"In 1998, Michaels was invited to testify before the US Congress. He maintained that climate scientists had wildly exaggerated the likely impacts of global warming. He illustrated this with reference to a paper by the climatologist James Hansen in 1988. Hansen had presented three possible scenarios for temperature rises by 2000: high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible". As it happens, his middle scenario was almost exactly right. But Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. This, he claimed, proved that climate scientists were exaggerators" -- Paul Krugman, 29th May 2006. Swift Boating the Planet. New York Times. You're right, that's not skepticism at all. ~ LamontCranston 8:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gelbspan on Tom Wigley

Dear user Kim D. Petersen: Sorry if I seemed to be doubting your word on the sources for the material on Tom Wigly. I did not doubt that Gelbspan referred to Wigley as "one of the world's leading climate scientists", I merely disagree that, as written, the sentence made it clear that this honorific description was clearly Gelbspan's conclusion, since only the statement by Wigley that you included in quotes was clearly from The Heat is On, with the introductory material, as I said, being in the "voice of Wikipedia." I was reluctant to repair the paragraph because I thought that perhaps the phrase "one of the world's leading climate scientists" might be a direct quote and should be presented as such, but I had no easy access to the source to check this. I gather from your remarks on my user talk page (i.e. it is almost verbatim) that it does not belong in quotes, so I have left it as is and merely reorganized the paragraph to make the source of all the conclusions presented unambiguous. —Blanchette 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The description of Wigley as a "leading climate scientist" is a common one (including such quality sources as Nature and the American Geophysical Union), so it's not a controversial point. Raymond Arritt 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - lets take this slowly: 1) Its not Gelbspan who is saying this (i have no idea where you get that from). 2) Its verbatim from the source [4] - read the 2nd last paragraph. 3) Its a direct quote - but not from a person - but from the Pacific Institute.

Would you please read the references before judging whether or not something is attributable - or to whom (or what) it is attributable. --Kim D. Petersen 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You should make it more clear you are plagiarizing from the Pacific Institute. ~ UBeR 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR: I'm not plagiarizing anything. I'm not the contributer of this - i just have this article on my watchlist, and what i'm protesting is that the text is changed away from what the reference says. --Kim D. Petersen 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Or rather that the deletions of text from this is summarized as "unsourced", "Clarifying source" - when nothing of the kind is accurate or supported.

Btw. i'm not against this being rewritten or deleted entirely - i have no feelings for the content. If you want to clarify it - go ahead. --Kim D. Petersen 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Kim D. Petersen, now I know what you're talking about. I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant sooner. I managed to find the source of the entire paragraph in question in the Michaels article. Because of the way you (I mean someone) formatted the paragraph in the article it was not obvious which reference (Gelbspan or Pacific Institute) went with which piece of information. I have reformatted it as a block quote since the entire paragraph (minus their inline citation) was taken from the Pacific Institute article. My only change was to replace the Institute's inline citation of Gelbspan with an ellipsis and a Wikipedia-style reference. In the future, maybe you (anyone) would consider using block quotes for this kind of material written by others, and help people like me avoid confusion. The block quote icon is the second from the right on the edit toolbar. Thanks! —Blanchette 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Kim D. Petersen thinks describing the Pacific Institute as an environmental advocacy group is POV since they self-describe as so: "The Pacific Institute is dedicated to protecting our natural world, encouraging sustainable development, and improving global security." [5]. The point is to describe them briefly; nevertheless I'm dropping the description — perhaps Kim can do better. It would not be consistent with Wikipedia policy to revert the entire paragraph again, however, since it would be plagiarism to present quoted material in 'the voice of Wikipedia' when it is in the voice of the Pacific Institute. —Blanchette 22:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:MoS. I think that you are trying to change this because you do not like the content or the source- thats not your perogative. Tom Wigley is one of the worlds leading climate scientists. And the text is attributable. We could easily change the wording so that it isn't a direct plagiarized paragraph, and still have the same text - as it follows the guidelines in WP:ATT. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source for "leading" [6] - and these people (American Geophysical Union) should know, and you'd have a hard time calling them advocates :-) --Kim D. Petersen 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Its now reworded - and i've added extra attribution. Now its not the Pacific Institute who is saying anything - except to back up the specific wording in the book. Satisfied? --Kim D. Petersen 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy whether it's a controversy

The recent edits of this article mainly consist of adding, deleting, adding, ... the following sentence "The scientific controversy [...] was resolved by 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to [...]". What do you think of the following version: "The scientific controversy [...] run out in 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to [...]" or, "ceased", "terminated", "diminished", "ended", "was put to an end" or something like that. It think its better that we discuss this on the article's talk page instead via the edit summaries. --Cyfal (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There was never much "scientific controversy" to begin with. There was just this phenomenon that we didn't know the specific mechanism of and which a few smart people eventually figured out. The idea of a raging "controversy" sells newspapers, but the word is used for too many instances where it doesn't apply. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I reworded to get rid of the bogus "controversy." Better now? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current revision (while being somewhat less POV) doesn't make that much sense. Is it that hard to simply state something like "Although most scientists considered (insert controversy) settled in the mid-1990s (include the awarding of a Nobel Prize), Michaels persisted in advocating (blah) until at least 2001." Jdb1972 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about changing the current sentence in the article to "Although scientists generally considered the basis for the relationship between CFCs and the ozone layer to be settled by 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Paul Crutzen , Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland for their work that demonstrated physical mechanisms for the effects of CFCs on ozone depletion, Michaels persisted in advocating against the CFC phaseout as late as 2001." I think "most scientists" isn't as accurate as "scientists generally," but otherwise Jdb's proposal isn't too bad. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is well served by its typical "most scientists consider the Earth to be round though others say it is flat" version of NPOV.[7] Per WP:WEIGHT we don't need to take tiny-minority fringe positions into account. Just say that the scientific basis was established by 1995. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you (and thank you for the link to the funny comic) — but this article is about a person belonging to the tiny-minority fringe position, therefore a mention is adequate. I think Brian A Schmidt's version is fine. You may think of "Although scientists generally considered the earth to be round from the third century B.C. onward, Charles K. Johnson persisted in advocating for a flat eart as late as in the twentieth century A.C." which would be adequate in Johnson's article. --Cyfal (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appropriate. It was the erroneous implication that there was a big scientific controversy that I objected to. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I now updated the article like this and removed the disputed-tag, I guess it's ok now. --Cyfal (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous Article Reminds me of Gulliver's Travels.

Hit piece. Now I see why one of the founders of Wikipedia resigned. The suppression of counter ideas to the herd laser like focus on ridiculous science is not condoned by the Stalinist thought controllers of the world. Norm Worrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.99.38 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the least NPOV articles on Wikipedia; I do not know where to begin on editing out the religious fervor. After the top 9/10ths of the page consisting of criticism, the bottom 1/10th is a section on yet more criticism (this time with a helpful label!). The sole purpose of this page seems to be to discredit an AGW heretic (not an AGW infidel even!) using political-style attacks. 137.186.41.143 (talk)

You're being a bit boring, but there isn't much else going on so I may as well tweak you a bit: do you include the quotes from Michaels, and the list of his pubs, in the 10/10's biased bit? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Cato website

I have removed the passage cited from the Cato website. Using such a long quote is problematic in many ways. First of all, it doesn't seem clear to me whether it is really a public domain source. And if yes, it still remains a biased partisan source and thus problematic even if it is labelled as such one. If the content is correct, it should be possible to back it by other sources and incorporate the reformulated content without copying long passages from websites of conservative think tanks.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Part time? Professor?

BS says Micahels is part time. FG says no. But we don't even have evidence that he is a prof. The article says "He is a former university Climatologist for Virginia, a position he held from 1980 [1][2] until his resignation in 2007" which I think is correct. Michaels uni page [8] says "Title AASC-Designated State Climatologist Department Virginia State Climatology Office" and I don't think that can be correct - so that page is out of date. Micahels own page [9] says "Research Professor;" but it *also* says "Selected Recent Publications: Hux, J.D., P.C. Knappenberger, P.J. Michaels, and P.J. Stenger. 2001. Development of a discriminant analysis mixed precipitation (DAMP) forecast model for mid-Atlantic winter storms. Weather and Forecasting 16:248-259. Knappenberger, P.C., P.J. Michaels and R.E. Davis. 2001. The Nature of Observed Temperature Changes Across the United States During the 20th Century. Climate Research 17:45-53. " so that page is clearly years out of date.

So until anyone presents any up-to-date info, I don't think we can assert that he is still a prof there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He's still a Research Prof according to the departmental web page and is still listed in the university directory. (BTW don't know if you're aware, but in the U.S. a "Research [Assistant|Associate] Prof" usually is a soft-money position that is not eligible for tenure.) I wouldn't put too much stock in the personal web page not being updated -- he wouldn't be the first prof to be less than meticulous about keeping his web site current (me looks up at ceiling, whistles...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So I'll restore research professor. No I wasn't aware of the meaning of the term, and I suspect many others weren't either William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See the fixed Daily Progress link in the main article. He's part-time.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Virginia doesn't list him on its faculty page.[10]. Yes he's still in the directory, but these can often by years out of date (especially when its a database entry without an associated web page). In the absence of any info to the contrary perhaps we should go by The Guardian's profile (where he recently had an article) which mentions only Cato.[11] Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to list him as working at Cato and as a retired UV professor. The Daily Progress link says he's retired, now part-time but on leave, and not getting paid except for retirement (i.e. he's not working for the university and not getting paid).Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP Dispute, TASSC

The citation given for this claim doesn't appear to support the allegation -- I couldn't find Michaels' name in the cited document. Needs a better cite, or needs to be promptly removed. See WP:BLP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed another cite which made no mention of him. Edgespath24 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Michaels IPCC "work" be in the first sentence?

The lead sentence of this article describes Michaels as an author and reviewer of the IPCC. The standard for making this claim is pretty low, but I don't think it should go into the first sentence without some evidence that it's an important part of his work. Do we have or know of anything beyond a content-free sentence on the Cato bio page?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took it out. "reviewer" is the std meaningless puffery. Author is unsourced. If anyone cares to find out what he contrbuted to (which report, which chapter, any idea as to content?), it could go somewhere into the article. It isn't a major part of his work William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Who funds what

Seeing as how there are articles dealing with the Greening Earth Society and the World Climate Report adding additional material about who funds them would seem to be an attempt to bias the article with guilt by association. BLP specifically warns against guilt by association connections, especially when there is no secondary reliable source criticizing or even linking Michaels' work and any funding by the WFA.

And as this is a BLP issue, the editors who continue to add this information need to justify why it belongs here; the burden is on you to demonstrate why it should stay, not me on why it needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BluefieldWV (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It would only be a BLP issue if it was unsourced, libellous or in other ways smearing Michaels. It isn't.. it is instead presented as plain factual information, which is adequately (as you yourself point out) in the other articles. The entire "guilt by association" claim you are making here, is based not on what the text says - but instead that by an argument of "i don't like it".

That the article doesn't cite or quote someone criticising Michaels for this, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (it does [12][13][14][15] ...etc...), but instead that an editorial decision has been made not to include it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its would seem to be a BLP issue because its well poisoning and poorly sourced. The rules and guidelines that regulate the content of articles here appears to be pretty strait foreword.

The wired article doesn’t mention Michaels

Media Matters ... do we really have to go there?

Sharon Beder "personal website" is not subject to editorial oversight and is not a RS.

The book ... care to cite a specific page #?

So what you appear to be trying to do is directly link Michaels' work and who funds the organizations he works for without any reliable and notable second hand sources that also make this leap. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 127 in "Green backlash: global subversion of the environmental movement" for one example, in case you really are interested:

Through the likes of Maduro, Dixy Lee Ray and Limbaugh on ozone depletion and Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling on climate change, the science backlash was an important international phenomenon in the early 1990s. They were heavily backed by the fossil fuel companies as well as OPEC and promoted by the networks of right-wing think-tanks, who were advancing their own political agenda.

As for Media Matters, it certainly is reliable enough in this instance

and while you may disparage Professor Beders online book, she is an expert on this particular thing[16][http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001HPS2JI]. (hint: WP:RS)

As for the Wired article not mentioning Michaels.... Interesting... I guess it doesn't begin with "Pat Michaels -- Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute" and that i'm also hallucinating that it states: "The Intermountain Rural Electric Association, or IREA, of Sedalia, Colorado, gave Michaels $100,000 and started the fund-raising drive, said Stanley Lewandowski, IREA's general manager. He said one company planned to give $50,000 and a third plans to give Michaels money next year."

Nice try - no cigar. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

-From WP:BLP

Live up to your own rules and stop turning this into your personal website. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Bluefield in every sense and every allegation. However, I'll suggest a compromise - put the info about WCR being funded by Greening Earth Society in the main text instead of the intro. I don't think it's important enough to require being in the intro. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't had time to fully come up to speed with this dispute but can I ask, why are there no reliable sources, or indeed any sources, given for the sentence, "He is a fellow of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association."? I'm not saying there aren't any, but the editors involved in this dispute know full well that they are absolutely required. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They are presented in the articles at the other end of the wikilinks. But you can if you feel that they are missing, insert one of the references given above, or one of those presented at the other end.... Either way is good for me. (its just redundant :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have followed the Wikilinks to World Climate Report where I have found a mondotimes article establishing Michaels as its head, and then I found The Sanfrancisco Chronicle, and finally Gelbspan, which taken together, establish the basic facts. However, only one source is connecting Michaels, via two levels of indirection, with Western Fuels: Gelbspan.

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.

So I'm not really sure what to make of this; I'll have a think about it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - so you haven't looked at this actual thread...? I cite a couple of sources that i found just by a quick check for references. Look up dude! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But i assume you want more? Here is one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be interesting as well [17] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The reader shouldn't need to read through the talk archives, or through other Wikipedia articles, to find the reliable sources; the sources are supposed to be already linked in the article. If an editor then removes text as a BLP violation in good faith, as appears to be the case with BluefieldWV's concern, the editor who restores the text is required to resolve the issue by adding the missing reliable sources. This doesn't appear to have happened here, and the result has been disruption and conflict. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it. Frankly i have no troubles with the article having more references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, there are plenty of sources discussing Michaels' conflicts of interest after taking money from fossil fuel interests, but I can't find one appropriate for what we have in this article, namely, a connection between Michaels and Western Fuels via the two levels of indirection given in this article (i.e. Westfuels funds Greening Earth funds Michaels). The sources talk about Michaels taking $115,000 or so directly from Western Fuels, back in the early 90s. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then i guess the CBC didn't write: "World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.", and i'm just looking at a mirage --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been Gelbspan, not CBC, who wrote that. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now provided another source for this, which isn't Gelbspan. I'm not really opposed to moving this out of the lede - but there is not enough here to merit a specific section. A rewrite of the sections with no sepearate criticism section would be preferable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

• Use this to improve the article a bit; as it stands it is factually correct but omits more than a little; it is misleading (POV) by not telling the whole story:
• How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus by PATRICK J. MICHAELS.
• Don't even think about deleting this, folks. • Ling.Nut 07:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

New Hope Environmental Services

Before I revert it back, someone want to tell me why it should not be noted that Michaels owns and operates New Hope Environmental Services (Chip Knappenberger is an employee AFAIK, although he may be part owner, you can check at the VA Secretary of States Office). Moreover, NHES's web site specifically says that they are "an advocacy science consulting firm that produces cutting-edge research and informed commentary on the nature of climate, including patterns of climate change, " (talkEli Rabett (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a non-notable organization. Thus, it doesn't need to be noted. -Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is the organization that all of the firms mentioned in the biography route their funding to Michaels through. It is also the home base for his World Climate Report "World Climate Report, our bi-weekly online publication, is the nation's leading source of breaking news concerning the science and political science of global climate change." http://www.nhes.com/. If you want to exclude NHES, you also have to exclude WCR. FWIW take a look at the Wikipedia articel on World Climate Report Eli Rabett (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Eli Rabett (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Books

Why remove the books? [18]. He wrote them, self-pub or not William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand shoulder to shoulder with William M. Connolley on this issue. Perhaps this confluence of opinion is a sign of the coming of the end of the world. • Ling.Nut 12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

References to papers with Ross McKitrick

McKitrick, Ross R. and Patrick J. Michaels. (2007) Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded surface climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465. .

McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "Are Temperature Trends Affected by Economic Activity? Reply to Benestad (2004)" Climate Research 27(2) pp. 175-176.

McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data" Climate Research 26 pp. 159-173.

These are all published and peer reviewed papers that should be included. Hengav (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:Be Bold! -- put 'em in! Best Pete Tillman (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

UCS

I'm not happy with this edit. UCS's statement isn't at all controversial. Michaels got the facts exactly reversed. The history of the Climate Research affair is well known and Michaels verifiably misrepresented it--a fact which UCS merely documents, quoting von Storch himself as responding to the falsehoods in Patrick Michaels' op ed: "In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a [climate change] skeptic's paper, at that." There's no problem with the sourcing here. Michaels did what they said he did and they prove it. --TS 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Did they prove that he "deliberately misrepresented"? And is UCS an appropriate source for a skeptic bio? It's not independent, it is an organization with a well known stance on the climate debate. ATren (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They proved that he made a malicious accusation unwarranted by the available evidence. That establishes deliberate misrepresentation. Is it appropriate? I don't see why not. It's not as if UCS was the one out on the limb. They're only sitting on the ground pointing and suggesting that somebody fetch a ladder. --TS 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, are you really arguing for a UCS as reliable for "deliberate misrepresentation" here, while arguing against international media coverage for a COI claim about Pachauri? How can such a differing standard be justified?

In any case, UCS is a partisan organization, there has been no independent media coverage that I can see (if there is, then that could change my stance), and it's a direct accusation of deliberate misrepresentation by Michaels, i.e. the intent to deceive. Partisan organizations are not appropriate sources for such strong accusations directed at an ideological opponent. ATren (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: yes. UCS has a better grasp of the facts than the writers of the Telegraph piece. On your second, I think you've got a point. I imagine that Michaels' ridiculous claim has been shredded widely and by multiple independent sources, but if I find that it hasn't I won't push the case any further. --TS 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your assertion that UCS has a better grasp of the truth than the Telegraph might very well be true, but it's also irrelevant. The first line of WP:V makes this clear: verifiability, not truth. We don't evaluate, we report. ATren (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that Media Matters did a characteristically thorough job of shredding Michaels here, citing the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. But no, if you think UCS is "ideological", then I guess Media Matters is too. But the point is that their statements are reliable and verifiably correct. Your quibble about the difference between verifiability and truth is, in this case, just a quibble. Verifiable is verifiable. The press has speculated about Pachauri,and has so far got it badly wrong. These organizations have established that Michaels made reckless and false statements. --TS 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I find it hard to believe that these organizations have established proof of Michaels' intent, which is what is being claimed by the words "deliberate misrepresentation". But in any case, it doesn't matter. We are not here to correct the wrongs of media, we are here to report what they say, right or wrong, and in order to do so, there has to be a somewhat objective standard for what is reliable. That standard says that major newspapers are more reliable than partisan groups, and we must respect that even in cases where we believe the "reliable" sources are wrong, or else all hell breaks loose. ATren (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Absent laweyrly arguments, they've established intent. His intent was to cause harm and he did not care about the facts. But as to sourcing, I'm still not happy, so I'll leave it there until and unless I find more prominent (I think that's the issue here) sources lambasting Michaels for his damaging solecisms. This is why it's a BLP issue: wonderful as they are, UCS and Media Matters are small beer and I'd really rather wait. If somebody who matters actually upbraids Michaels publicly for this incident, then we can put it in. --TS 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is absurd to point to this small press release from the UCS as definitive or unbiased. Without even having to argue in the murky waters of how partisan they are or aren't, did you actually read both Michael's WSJ piece and the USC press release? He speaks to many more incidents of irregularities (such as the editorial board's treatment of Roy Spencer, Yale's James Saiers whom Michael's alleges was pushed out of the group, Ben Santer's complaint and statements - directly quoted no less -, and so on.) The USC press release speaks to none of this, and only quotes one of the five board members who resigned (one who isn't cited by Michaels anyway). It is absolutely (and obviously) correct to consider the language "deliberate misrepresentation" as not only premature (until other more mainstream sources are found) but not even bourne out by the content. Jlschlesinger (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an independent, third-party reliable source which concurs with UCS' opinion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he or isn't he a former state climatologist?

The lede says he is; the article seems to say he isn't. If this has already been discussed before or there's some nuance that I don't understand, please disregard my question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources here are clear. He was appointed by the governor in 1980. In 2006, the new governor said the position was no longer governor-appointed, but university-appointed. The original text misrepresented that to state there was "uncertainty over whether or not he held the position". This is false, violates BLP, and I have removed it. FellGleaming (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The uncertainty is quite apparent in the sources, and the article should reflect it. The new governor didn't say "no longer" but that Virginia didn't have a state climatologist. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the source says his office does not appoint a state climatologist; the the responsibility for doing so lies with the university. The direct quote from the source you're using is:

" Tim Kaine’s office claimed Michaels did not hold a governor-appointed position and said his views did not represent those of the Commonwealth. At that time, state officials said no evidence could be found that a governor had appointed a climatologist since 1980 and that the ability to appoint the climatologist shifted to the University in 2000." Please do the right thing and self-revert this; as a BLP, the bar is very high to not impugn a person's character. FellGleaming (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Whether William M. Connolley is, or isn't, a fan of the subject, he still has to abide by WP:BLP. If he believes that cleaning up poorly sourced, biased material and original research constitutes "anon whitewashing" -too bad. Find better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.50.156 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just claiming that WP:BLP has been violated does not make it so. Your edit summaries do not offer sufficient explanation either, indeed it is hard to make sense of them (e.g. of your claim that it is an ad hominem to state that Michaels "is a fellow of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute"). You have mass-deleted sourced content and continued to edit war instead of accepting Vsmith's advice on your talk page to explain your concerns more clearly here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That edit removed a factual error and an attempt at poisoning the well. the issue isn't the CATO institute (which was already mentioned in the lede) but this: "and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association." -these orgs are now defunct -check their articles.

The CFC section was composed entirely of original research via primary documents by Michaels plus a citation which didn't mention him at all. If there is a notable controversy about his stance on CFCs, find reliable sources for it.

As for the rest of my edits, they are self-explanatory. Citing pressure groups, especially ones hostile to a subject, is not good enough for a BLP. You need to find reliable sources.

I would appreciate people actually looking at the edits and the problematic sources before restoring them. 222.153.50.156 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New source

A new source has become available that gives a good deal of biographical information about the subject, including additional verification for some of the stuff already in the article. It also gives details about Michaels' relationships with "big polluters" from the energy and auto industries that are not currently covered by this BLP. Here's a hand ref to copy/paste:

• <ref>{{cite web | url=http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/pat-michaels-climate-skeptic | title=Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All | publisher=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] | accessdate=2010-02-26 | date=February 26, 2010 | last=Sheppard | first=Kate}}</ref>

I'm going to take a look at this a bit later to see if some of this can be incorporated into the article with the right sort of weight, but I wanted to throw it up here in case someone else had some time on their hands. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a polemic blog ... so no, its not an appropriate source. WVBluefield (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's rather an oversimplification, if you don't mind me saying so. The magazine is used as a reliable source for thousands of Wikipedia articles, particularly when used to verify things that are relatively uncontroversial. It has been described at WP:RSN as having "a reputation for fact-checking". In the same thread, another commenter says: "Certainly the WSJ is a reliable source, as is Mother Jones. The issue in evaluating the reliability of a source isn't where they stand on the political spectrum: it's whether they have shown a commitment to intellectual honesty and competent fact-checking." The piece also features a number of links to other useful sources. The author regularly writes for newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as for Washington-specific organs like The Washington Independent and the Washington Spectator. So your characterization could be described as either extraordinarily harsh or misplaced. For controversial information, it will certainly be necessary to seek corroborating sources; however, dismissing the source entirely is unwarranted. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That all woudl be relevant if it were Motherjones' magazine, but its all attributed to its weblog. WVBluefield (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's largely academic. Blogs of respected publications are used as reliable sources all the time, especially when they are written by respected journalists. I will begin working on something to include in the article soon. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RV: why

I reverted this edit on the basis that it's based on an opinion piece by Monbiot and therefore I'm not sure that it's a reliable source anyway, I don't see how it's especially relevant to Michaels' bio and mainly because even if it is considered worth including, I don't see that it belongs in the opening of the article. Thepm (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored. A highly-relevant characterization by a respected commenter in Michaels' field, writing in a reliable source. Michaels has set himself up to be a visible voice in the climate change debate, so his motivations are extremely relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really contending that an unsupported passing mention in an opinion piece that uses Monbiot's own blog as its reference warrants being mentioned in the lead of a BLP? Thepm (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although I do not agree with your interpretation. If it makes you feel better, add the Mother Jones source from the section above (which gets into greater detail). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Without conceding for a moment that the sentence is in any way relevant or even reliable, can I ask you to consider whether you would be agreeable to moving it to the body of the article rather that keeping it in the lead? Thepm (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Substantial changes to layout

I have made substantial changes to the layout of the article and attempted to place all of the existing text under more appropriate headings. I've attempted not to change the content at all and where I have changed text, it was simply grammatical changes in order to improve the flow of the article. Notably, I have removed as much as possible from the lead so that it is now a brief introduction into who Michaels' is. It was not my intention to change any meaning or content, so if I have, please let me know. Thepm (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

I'm unsure why O2RR removed the text he did. Looking at the BLPN report, it seems fine William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no uncertainty over whether or not Michael's retained the position. The uncertainty was over whether or not it was a position officially sanctioned by the Governor's office, as opposed to the University of Virginia. The source makes that clear. Furthermore, in the article's lead, it's simply poisoning the well against the article's subject. FellGleaming (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nooo... there is indeed uncertainty over whether he retained the position. If he had it from the gov, and the posn passed from the gov's gift, it is unclear whether he retained the pos William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation; the source says a very different thing. It merely says the authority to appoint new people to that position was passed. The article even specifically says Michaels resigned from the position, something which is impossible to do if you do not hold it.

Further, you've failed to respond to the well-poisoning issue. Why does this even belong in the lede otherwise? FellGleaming (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it belongs in the lede is a different matter, I agree. Simply removing the text is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But William, there is already a lengthy description elsewhere in the article. The text was not removed from the article entirely, it was simply removed from the lede. So why did you restore it? FellGleaming (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed it again. Hopefully you're happy now. I argue that the only notable thing about him being SC was the leaving of it, so I've removed all mention from the lede. Is that an acceptable compromise? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [BTW: I don't think that counts as a vio of my 1RR but if anyone disagrees I'll happily self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)]

The lede is fine. The description within the article still misrepresents the situation. The Governor's office did not "clarify Virginia does not have a climatologist"; it clarified that their office no longer had responsibility for making the appointment. We can't leave a BLP in a situation which inmplies a subject was claiming a position they didn't rightfully hold. FellGleaming (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems a shame that O2RR couldn't be bothered to link tot he BLPN discussion. It is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_Michaels William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I expect experienced editors to be able to find the thread when I say in my edit summary that there is a thread at the BLPN, the other editor involved here in the discussion was the editor that opened the thread so he clearly knows where it is and I have also since then left you a note on your talkpage with a specific direct link to the BLPN discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Threats made in Climategate emails

This is both topical and notable. I don't understand the objection that it shouldn't be mentioned. This isn't an anonymous statement from a kook; it's a threat against one climate scientist to another for no more than a disagreement in opinion. The fact it wasn't made directly to Michaels is irrelevant. If you threaten the president (or anyone else for that matter), you're guilty of a crime, whether or not he personally heard the remark. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't actually a threat. A threat would be "I will" or "I intend to" beat Michaels. Saying "I'm tempted to" (my itals) is a description of Santer's internal emotional state. Since material about Santer falls under BLP it should come from rock-solid sources, without any possibility that distortion has crept in from a WP editor's (mis)interpretation. I think to insert 'Santer threatened Michaels' based on the email is very much a distortion. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and it should not be worthy of inclusion in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a clearcut WP:COATRACK, and a WP:BLP violation (against Santer) to boot. It has absolutely no relevance to Michaels biography. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Michaels was discussed in the climategate emails _{(or, as it is known on wikipedia, the alleged possible hacking or theft or maybe leaking although how you could say that without blushing I mean it was clearly a theft of a series of emails and other documents including programme notations that were private correspondence between highly respected scientist who were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud which was alleged by notorious polemics that were being supported by big-business etc, etc)} is notable in the context of Michaels' bio. That fact that Santer expressed his frustration with Michaels to a third party in more colourful terms than he would have if the he had known the correspondence was to become public, is not. Thepm (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that assessment, Thepm. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good! So can we all agree that we'll put a mention of the climategate emails probably in the "Criticism and Support" section, saying something like;

Michaels was a subject of some criticism in a number of emails that were released from the Climactic Research Unit in November 2009.

Do we need any more than that? I guess we need a reference.Thepm (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"released"? Did they do that? Hmmmm. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't say the CRU released them, but fair enough, we're not quite there yet. Still, I'm sure I can see it from here! How about

Michaels was a subject of some criticism in a number of emails that were included in an unauthorised internet leak of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

I've tried to use wording similar to the lede of the climategate internet email cru thing on the basis that it's already been through the compromise wringer.Thepm (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored removed sections

I have restored two sections removed by AQFK per my comments in the "why" section above. The claim that these sources aren't of a sufficient standard to pass WP:BLP is absolutely bogus. The editor in question would do well to remember the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not mislead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP problems

I removed this reinsertion[19] for BLP reasons, the rationale is different for the two paragraphs.

• First paragraph is cited to a columnist/op-ed writer - and is directed directly at Michaels the person, and is not a reliable source for such information. Monbiot quite likely holds that opinion, but it hasn't anywhere close to weight enough to merit mention (not to mention that such would be a breach of BLP).
• Second paragraph, is again a columnist/op-ed writer - this time the BLP violation is towards the "conspirators" that the author mentions. Not only is this not a reliable source for such information - it is also conspiracy speculation that has been shot down in 4 different official inquiries (see Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident). Clear BLP violation.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also note that both paragraphs have earlier been removed as BLP violations[20][21] - please do not reinsert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with the second, but not the first. As I indicated in an earlier section, Michaels puts himself in the public eye deliberately; therefore, the opinion piece by Monbiot (a well-known commenter in the same field and writing in a legitimate source) seems completely relevant and appropriate. Also, using "BLP vio" as an edit summary does not make it so. The onus is certainly on the person making the addition to demonstrate its relevance, but I believe that I have adequately performed that function. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that AQfK has brought this up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_Michaels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are better sources out there that can be used to support the gist of what Monbiot is saying. That bit is fixable, it just takes a little effort. It's always better to use the best sources available. The other bit I'm not so sure about - I have no easy fix for that problem. Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All scientists should be skeptics

I've removed the bit here.[22] The reason why is that when I read the cited article, it's unclear to me whether Micheals means that he's skeptic as good scientists should be or if he means that he's an AGW skeptic. Words can have multiple meanings and I'm not sure one can draw the conclusion that Michaels meant an AGW skeptic. Does anyone know if Michaels self-identifies as an AGW skeptic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Your argument is ridiculous. It specifically (and obviously) means he is skeptical about the science of anthropogenic global warming, and it has nothing to do with what you are suggesting. Besides, your statement "all scientists should be skeptics" is fundamentally flawed. Scientists should be cautious, but skepticism is something else. This is a typical semantic argument favored by AGW-deniers, and that sort of behavior has no place on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? SBHB provides a much more meaningful response. You would do well to learn from his example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

It's a complicated issue. I wondered about the meaning of "skeptic" too, until I noticed that his other uses of "skeptic" in the article consistently had the meaning of global warming skepticism. It would be very odd if he used the word in one sense throughout the article but used it in a different sense when referring to himself. His current employer (Cato) calls him a skeptic as well, and the sense is clear; e.g., "Unlike other skeptics, senior fellow Patrick J. Michaels admits that there has been a small amount of warming"[23]. But in a WSJ editorial[24] he calls himself a "non skeptic." It appears that he holds himself out as a skeptic when writing in skeptical venues (such as his Cato pieces) and as a nonskeptic when writing in more mainstream venues (such as the WSJ). How do we handle it when someone's self-descriptions are inconsistent? I favor including both and letting the reader decide. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

SBHB: It is a complicated issue and part of the reason why I bring this up is that I seem to member watching an interview with Michaels where he says he's not an AGW skeptic. This was about a half year ago so I no longer remember the URL. Anyway, I agree that when someone's self-descriptions are inconsistent, including both and letting the reader decide is a good way to handle the situation. Given the complicated nature of the issue, I would think that this should be omitted from the lede and included in the body. Do you think this is a reasonable solution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The fact that he is a self-described AGW skeptic is extremely significant, since his entire existence is devoted to the subject. Surely this is obvious? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead might have a statement "He has described himself as a global warming skeptic on some occasions but has stated he is not a skeptic on others," with a fuller development in the text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey: Huh? Patrick Michaels' entire existence is devoted to this subject? Surely, you jest. This is a biography of a living person, not a WP:COATRACK to re-argue AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted his comment to mean that if Michaels wasn't a prominent skeptic it's unlikely he would have an article here. That's almost certainly true, since aside from the skepticism Michaels is just one out of zillions of middle-rank scientists. But I can also see how the comment could be taken the way you took it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. By "entire existence" I was referring to his work as a climatologist, which (weirdly enough) has quite a bit to do with climate change (which he erroneously seems to believe has nothing whatsoever to do with Big Coal, the industry that pays him). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd section

I don't know the background, but this paragraph makes it appear as if the article is under attack in some way, so it's best left out unless it can be written clearly and neutrally. As it stands, it seems fairly meaningless, especially standing in its own section

== State climatologist ==
In 1980, then Governor of Virginia John N. Dalton appointed Michaels to the position of Virginia State Climatologist. In 2006 the office of the current Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, stated they no longer had responsibility for appointing the position, and that, in the year 2000, that role had passed to the University of Virginia, through its certification of the American Association of State Climatologists. Michaels was asked to "avoid any conflict of interest or appearance thereof by scrupulously avoiding the use of the title of 'state climatologist' in connection with any outside activities or private consulting endeavors." Michaels later confirmed he had resigned from the position.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We could add the stuff abot Michaels misusing his title as State Climatologist to bolster his views, I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

References

IPCC

I took out "and a contributing author to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." [25]. That claim is uncited. I can find no evidence for him in AR4. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/203.htm lists him as either an author or reviewer of the TAR synth report; but I don't know how to tell whcih. And the original unqualified text isn't usable any more. "expert reviewer" is generally just peacock - loads of people were that, and the term became completely meaningless for AR4 which had open review William M. Connolley (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He was a co-author on the FAR, if memory serves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fellow?

Is he? http://www.marshall.org/fellows.php thinks not. But what do they know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he used to be a fellow and is no longer? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be what happened. I was thinking of changing the wording to read, "Fred Pearce states that he is a fellow with the Institute, but the Institute's website does not currently list him as such." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh......technically, that's original research. Can we just restore it using past tense? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Far more likely is that Pearce got the Marshall Institute and the Cato Institute mixed up. He's a Senior Fellow at Cato and apparently once was a "visiting scientist" at Marshall. I've never seen any other reference to Michaels being a Fellow at the Marshall Inst. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All this talk because you need to rescue Pearce as an RS when he isn't one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it out again. If the book says "PM *is* a fellow at GMI" then it is wrong. But that doesn't entitle you to make up your own "PM *was* a fellow at the GMI". That is so obviously wrong I'm amazed that you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could email Michaels and ask him which source is correct? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"described himself as a skeptic"

The source for this statement appears to be ten years old.[26] Do we have a more current source for this self-description? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Pearce, p. X, Michaels once said, "The truth is that what we sceptics say is always pilloried by the climate modellers, and then adopted as their own five years later." Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See four threads up. His self-characterization appears to waver, so it would be more faithful to the sources simply report it as such instead of trying to pigeonhole him in one camp or the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I remember the discussion above. But I didn't realize that the source was 10 years old. I can't help but wonder if the source is out of date? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)