The UVa prof. who got nailed for passing himself off as the Virginia Climatologist has resigned from the university, Bob Gibson writes. Michaels has accepted big money from the energy industry while denying global climate change. Back in July he quit his gig as an expert witness in the big Vermont auto emissions case rather than name any of his financial backers.
Comments are closed.
He ain’t gone. He’ll be back soon quoted as a “former UVA professor emeritus” by one of our resident legalists taking another half-ass shot at climate change science.
There is still good money to be mined by Michaels and the Cato Institute. Look for his buddy George Allen to re-open the mine.
Do you have a link to where he’s denied global climate change? I’d like to read that.
So much for “academic freedom” and the value of “dissent,” eh?
So much for “academic freedom” and the value of “dissent,” eh?
I pose the following questions with a certain amount of trepidation, because I really don’t like the “so my guy did something bad, but your guy did something worse” school of political discourse. But, I would like to kick off some real discussion on the topics of “academic freedom” and the value of “dissent”. So…
What about the academic freedom and value of dissent, as applies to Ward Churchill? How does his situation differ from that of Patrick Michaels? How does it change the equation when funding sources enter the picture? I’d particularly appreciate hearing comments from members of the academic community.
Ward Churchill wasn’t engaged in an academic question when he refered to the WTC dead as “little Eichmans.” Although it was a matter of academics that he was found, after an exhaustive review, to be a fraud and a plagirist.
The funding question you raise wrt to Michaels is analogous to that of NASA scientist James Hansen – one of the country’s foremost global warming alarmists.
“In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA’s official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being “silenced,” despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a “constitutional right” to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.”
“Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.”
“A report revealed just this week, shows the ‘Open Society Institute’ funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to “shape public policy,” is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that “removing Bush from office was the “central focus” of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.”
As far as I know, no one’s calling on Hansen to resign b/c of a conflict of interest.
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm
No.
So what was your point?
FYI, Ward Churchill will be in Charlottesville on Oct 5; he’ll be at the Vinegar Hill Theatre accompanying a documentary called “The Canary Effect.” He’ll also be at Live Arts for a panel discussion on Sunday Oct 7. more info here: http://columbusdaycville.com/
(full disclosure: I’ve worked for one of the organizations sponsoring the above events)
I absolutely love the bio for Churchill on the Charlottesville Columbus Day deal: “Until recently he held the position of Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.” Hmmm, what happened recently?
That he is regarded as a “leading analyst of indigenous issues” demonstrates the bankruptcy of the field. But with terrorist-aiding lawyer Lynne Stewart set to teach a legal ethics seminar at Hofstra (I guess Mike Nifong wasn’t available) and Mahmoud A’jad speechifying at Columbia, it’s good to see Charlottesville’s hard-core left won’t be left behind.
I find it puzzling that anyone would associate Ahmedinejad with lefty politics. He’s a hardcore religious fundamentalist conservative.
Hey, since you’ve got all this time, how about answering all those unanswered questions in the previous thread? Or did you run out of cut and paste sources?
Much as Pat Michaels wasn’t engaged in an academic question when, for decades, he fraudulently claimed to be Virginia’s state climatologist.
It’s important to recall the circumstances under which he first came under criticism one year ago. Michaels has made a career out of expressing grave doubts about global climate change (denying its impact, meaning, and causes, though always stopping short of deying its existence) when addressing pop culture audiences, but not once expressing such views in any academic study, report, or paper. He’s never made any effort to support his views — or even declaim his views — within the realm of academia or even science. It’s almost like there were two Pat Michaels at UVa: the level-headed, rational professor and the paranoid talking head.
Had he performed the research necessary to support his opinions, or even published papers citing others’ research, I’d respect the man (ignoring his claims to be the state’s climatologist). God knows I love somebody doing the precise opposite of what everybody else is doing. But he never did. He knew that he didn’t have the data to back up his claims, and so he kept the two Pat Michaels separated.
When push came to shove in the Vermont case, talking head Michaels defeated rational professor Michaels.
@ Katey:
It’s who invited A’jad that I find revealing, and while some may find it convenient to call him “conservative,” his anti-Bush talking points (Katrina, Iraq, health insurance, warrantless wire-tapping, etc.) read like a New York Times editorial.
Since when is there supposed to be a “point” involved in asking for a link to something, Bubby? And though I wasn’t talking to you (since you didn’t say anything about Michaels denying climate change) — the point is that I’ve heard and read lots of things that Prof. Michaels believes, and none of them include denying global climate change.
Therefore, that would be something very interesting to read.
Clear enough for you?
Right, because anyone who opposes the Bush administration is in the same big leftist communist terrorist organization. Why, I had lunch with Castro just this afternoon.
This assertion is mind-boggling. You don’t have to be leftist to oppose Bush, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of a religious fundamentalist country with minimal civil liberties. He’s not leftist. Also, did you hear/read the introduction he was given at Columbia? Or the questions they pitched at him? It’s not like they invited him there because they thought he had some good ideas.
You do yourself a discredit with this ridiculous argument.
I didn’t mean to imply that A’jad would fit neatly between on the debate stage in between, say, Mike Gravel and Chris Dodd. He’s a zealot who hates who hates the US and believes someone called the 12th Imam will be coming back to earth any day now to establish a worldwide Islamic society.
I am, however, fascinated with the left’s willingness to provide platforms in otherwise respectable surroundings for anyone with an axe to grind against America. W. Churchill, Lynne Stewart, A’jad, that Taliban dude that Yale gave a scholarship to (it was revoked after a year, but only after pressure from both horrified alumni and outsiders). What’s up with that?
Not only do I believe it’s just plain wrong, but, politically, it does a horrible disservice to candidates and causes that are left-of-center.
IP: You more than anyone should understand that you don’t have to expose yourself to the open ridicule of an easily refuted, unsupported, or discredited position when you can simply muddy the waters, sow doubt, and obfusticate from a safe redoubt…in Michael’s case – the University of Virginia.
Put another way, the guy is a bad scientist – he does sloppy, undocumented work, he can be bought. But he’s not stupid enough to show his red ass.
Frankly, I think it’s great that he was invited (and agreed to participate). His comments did nothing but emphasize the dishonesty and fanaticism of his positions. Bravo for free speech and its potential to shine a bright light on bullshit.
I think some are confused that being willing to listen to someone or something means you embrace it.
That’s one of the things that I love about America. We have a great tradition of providing platforms for all kinds of people with axes to grind. If they’re kooks, they will generally be seen as such. On the other hand, ocassionally, today’s kook will be seen as tomorrow’s genius.
I feel confident enough in the strength of our democracy to permit and encourage a broad range of dissenting views. There was no real need for the president of Columbia University, for example, to have introduced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he did (other than the need to save his own job). The audience was smart enough to figure things out for themselves. They didn’t need flashing lights to tell them to laugh when Ahmadinejad said that there was no homosexuality in Iran.
I agree that you’ve articulated the best defense for allowing people who openly support or sympathize with terrorism a platform to speak, but I still think it’s not something we need. It’s too easy for the speaker to turn it into a propaganda victory. For example, the Iranian news censors edited out Bollinger’s introduction and the laughter elicited by A’jad’s assertion that Iran has no homosexuals.
Sure, it’s big of us to give these people our ear, but better, I think, to give them our back.
it’s big of us to give these people our ear
But, I don’t think we do it for them. We do it for us. Because that’s who we are.
It may be who we are, but, if so, it’s certainly who we’ve become. I don’t know. Would FDR have given Yamamoto a forum, or Winston Churchill one to Hitler? I think not.
The worst is actually this Charlottesville group inviting Ward Churchill in not in spite of what he’s said and stands for but precisely because of it. They aren’t trying to challenge his beliefs but to agree with them. And that is the unkindest cut of all.
Harry Landers perfectly describes a fundamental American value with:
And JS then shows just how much he doesn’t understand it. JS, you’ve clearly much more in common with those scary religious fundamentalists that you go on about than any of the folks that came up with the Constitution.
I hope he would have. The only thing to fear about giving Hitler a forum is the power of his ideas. If Hitler’s ideas were better than FDRs, then Hitler should have won.
Understand, JS, you’re arguing two precisely opposite things here. On the one hand, you argue in favor of intellectual freedom in the matter of Patrick Michaels — saying that he should have a forum to prove his ideas because the best ideas will ultimately win out, if they’re all given a fair shake — but on the other, you argue against intellectual freedom for those whose ideas you fear. I say that if those ideas are so bad, they’ll be received as badly as Ahmadinejad’s speech was received yesterday.
Not only is there no danger in the ideas of those with whom we disagree, they should offer hope to the rest of us. I believe that Republicans should get their message out long and loud because I believe that Democrats’ ideas are better. We win that debate. You ought to believe precisely the opposite, as I suspect you do. The same is as true for Hitler and FDR’s ideas, or America’s and Ahmadinejad’s.
I usually endeavor not to reply to your asinine provocations, MB, but if you wanna line up with A’jad and various other scoundrels and charlatans and leave me on the other side of the clearly delineated fence, well, that’s OK with me.
“Would FDR have given Yamamoto a forum…”
Almost certainly not. And I don’t think that it’s a valid question in this setting. FDR’s government also created internment camps for asians living in America. Do I agree with everything FDR did? No. Do I think overall he was a decent president? Yes. Do I think that all the specific decisions of our founding fathers were correct and just? No. Do I think the ideals that they aspired to were worthy? Yes.
And the question here is: do I think freedom of speech is important, and that the glory of America is in the freedom to present differing opinions and choose between them? Well, hell yes.
That’s okay with you because you’re someone who hasn’t the slightest interest in anything deeper than an US VERSUS THEM view of everything, where THEM is everyone outside of your rather limited world (and is subject to redefinition at anytime, for your own convenience).
But if you look at it – and if you’re honest (hard for you, I know) – you’ll see that you have far more in common with Ahmedinejad (is it really so hard to remember? all them foreign syllables are strange, I know) than not. You’re both sad little men who have demonstrated more interest in winning one for his team (i.e., the people that look and think exactly like you think they should) than anything else. Tolerance, honesty, and decency are all sacrificed in the pursuit of that goal. Neither one of you are entirely stupid – you both have enough sense to know how to occasionally play to the sense of decency of those perhaps just outside of your team, so they’ll feel a little defensive when you’re attacked by those perceived to be further outside. Of course, that’s just a tactic in service of your larger divisive agenda. In the end, you’re both substantial net negatives to the world. The difference between you two, I guess, is that he plays the game a bit better.
I’m a “net negative” to the world? Damn, I reckon I’ll have to try to be more like you.
There’s always hope. Even for you.
And that’s a nice positive note on which to end that particular back-and-forth.