The Art and Motivation of Editorializing Science

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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