Dan Minette wrote:
> Second, even the scientists who are in the "global warming skeptic" camp are
> not arguing that there will be no global warming as a function of the change
> in CO2. Let me quote one of them from
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970719/features.html
>
> Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it, the
> modelers and the skeptics are not so far apart," he says. Indeed, if
> pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and other skeptics suggest a doubling of
> CO2 in the atmosphere would raise average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5
> �C. And 1.5 �C is the bottom end of the modelers range of predictions.
>
Interesting note on this Michaels guy from
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/ecologist.html: "(he) is generally
described in the media as being from the University of Virginia. Michaels
edits the World Climate Report, which is funded by Western Fuels Association
(a consortium of coal interests) and associated companies. Additionally
Michaels has received funding for his research from Western Fuels Association,
Cyprus Minerals Company, the Edison Electric Institute and the German Coal
Mining Association. Michaels is on the advisory board of TASSC and was at one
time on the advisory board of the Information Council on the Environment.
Michaels was featured in New Scientist in July 1997 as "a climatologist at the
University of Virginia" and one of the "world's top scientists." Michael's
criticisms of global warming models are cited in the article without any
mention of his funding sources. Michaels in turn cites the New Scientist
article as supporting his views without mentioning the article was based on an
interview with him."
I think a good number of the skeptics are skeptical because it pays well.
Good post, Dan, thanks for the info.
Doug
