The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels - It's a Small World After All

Tue, 2009-05-26 16:38Mitchell Anderson
Mitchell Anderson's picture

The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels - It's a Small World After All

It’s not often the public gets to follow the money trail, so it was a treat this week when PR Watch revealed the Cato Institute has been bankrolling a consulting company owned by notorious climate denier Patrick Michaels to the tune of $242,900 since April 2006.

Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and according to tax documents uncovered by PR Watch for 2006 and 2007, Cato ponyed up almost a quarter million to Michaels’ firm New Hope Environmental Services for “environmental policy” services.

Small world eh?

Both Cato and Michaels have a long and reprehensible history of questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change. Last month, Cato bankrolled full-page ads in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times, opining that climate change was “grossly overstated”.

Their statement was naturally targeted at decision makers in advance of the cap and trade legislation moving through Congress. It was signed by the usual suspects, including Patrick Michaels, who has made a lucrative career of challenging climate science on behalf of a variety of vested interests.

Real scientists were of course disgusted by this tactic, as well as the baseless claims being spread around the nation. A scientific evisceration of the Cato letter is available here.

For a more in-depth journey into the bowels of the carbon-funded campaign to confuse the public on climate change, you may want to peruse a remarkable affidavit filed by Patrick Michaels in 2006. He was weaseling out of testifying as an expert witness in court after learning he might be forced to unmask his funding sources.

It seems Michaels was hired by a number of auto companies and lobby groups, including General Motors and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a legal bid aimed at preventing the government of Vermont from regulating greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace intervened in the case seeking to have Michaels’ consulting company reveal its shadowy clients. Dr. Michaels quickly bid a hasty and undignified retreat. Rather than risk exposing who was bankrolling him as a professional climate expert he filed this remarkable document in court outlining the reasons why this would endanger his livelihood.

How badly did Michaels want to keep his backers secret? He states himself that dropping the trial “resulted in short-term loss of income to me.” How much, he did not say. However other parts of his affidavit show how lucrative it can be to hang a shingle a professional climate skeptic.

According to his sworn statement to the court, Michaels outlines previous clients that were lost due that pesky substance called “the light of day”. He states for the record:

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding.”

It is not often this sophisticated network of industrial obfuscation is glimpsed by the public. 

That washed up scientists are willing to testify in court for money, or shill for industry in the media is certainly not news. Many “experts” gladly took filthy lucre from Big Tobacco to cast doubt on the well-known link between smoking and cancer.

But the next time you see Patrick Michaels pop up in mainstream media as a so-called climate expert, bear in mind who is paying is meal ticket.

 

Previous Comments

Why is it ok for cash strapped governments to fund studies that will backstop their huge proposed tax grab but wrong for oil or bussiness interests to fund studies that may be contradictory?

Seems that the government’s motives are no less selfserving.

Why is it ok for government to fund science and and wrong for business interests to subvert it?

That would be a valid point if the government’s work wasn’t motivated by greed and desperation. The globe has stopped warming.

“The globe has stopped warming.”

That’s pretty funny. Thanks for the Friday laugh. Laughing

Check the EMPIRICAL data, not the computer models.

Significant cooling for the last few years

Davido is being deceitful, climate is taken over the trend of 30 years. What do the overall trends in these graphs look like? Cooling as Davido would have you believe, or warming?

As can be seen clearly, the inter annual variation of chaotic weather masks the warming signal in the short term, but over longer periods, the warming signature stands out from the noise.

Davido is being dishonest, as he well knows.

HadCRUT3 temperature anomaly

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

NASA GISS Annual Mean Temperature Change for Land and Ocean

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif

 

Good grief. Did you bother to read the crap that goes with Spencer’s graphs. And have you noticed that he has finally ceased to use fourth order polynomials that have no physical relation to observations, mechanisms or theory?

Or are you just that naive?

the statistically ignorant, and those seeking to deliberately deceive people would proclaim that a climate warming trend has reversed based on only 2-3 years worth of temperature data.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of all three in the denialsphere.

There is deceptionn no doubt about that.

Using computer models and fear mongering.

proves so aptly.

I wish it were true. I wish we had no worries at all.

2-3 years of data is simply statistically insignificant.

Ted champagne

Why is spam so ……

Argh!

It’s bad enough to have to deal with the Davidos of this world.  So here’s the challenge: someone must have figured out a way to block this stuff without filtering out anything with a link in it.  Ideas?

No idea how to filter it out. But how about we identify them, catch them, then wire them up to a wind turbine to test the intermittency of wind power?

as bad as they are, it’s nothing like dealing with the like of “Rob” and that crew!

FYI, here’s the real graph for satellite (and ground) temperature data, as well as a discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Satellite Temperature Graph

Thanks, Mitch.  That’s a nice little dose of reality. Or at least it would be if the outlook weren’t so dire. 

A graph that stops at 2005/2006

graph to your heart’s content using what ever data set(s) you like between any years that you like:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

 

That’s better.

LMAO Mitchell. Wikipedia? 1982-2005? Usually we wait untill late June to pick cherries but because this year has been cool, you should at least wait until early July.Wink

Jim

Thanks for that link, it’s a cool site.

I was surprised to see TSI was lower than the previous two minimums.

Thanks again.

Dave

But why the surprise? The sun hasn’t been this quiet since around 1910, IIRC.

Not that changes in TSI in any way negate the physics of greenhouse gas warming, mind you.

I’d heard coverage of weak solar winds and reduced magnetism but it’s the first graphical representaoion of TSI I’ve seen…..and time will tell about the climate effects.