Hey, any thoughts or responses to this video? I’m deeply skeptical with it coming from FOX News.
Who is he and what does he say?
Well, Patrick Michaels…
- 1991: served on a committee which aimed to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”
- 1992: writes a book where he aims to show slight warming is much less than doomsday climate prophets suggest (suggesting we should doubt computer models) and warming is actually good for the planet
- 1994: a member of the advancement of sound science coalition aimed to cast doubt on the health and environmental impact of tobacco
- 1998: part of a two film sequence on “the greening of planet earth” - some arguments: climate models are “garbage,” earth warming due to sunspots, any changes will be “modest and benign” - sent this propaganda pseudoscience to every congressional office on the hill
- 2006: received at least $100,000 to specifically combat climate change “alarmists”
- 2008: gave an interview dismissing rising temperatures and advocating for a “do nothing approach” - argued just 1 degree Celsius rise due to el nino and the sun and sea levels will not rise
- 2009: remarkably gets to testify before congress and omits his financial and professional history with the fossil fuel industry
- 2010: says roughly 40% of his “research” funding comes directly from oil industry
- 2017: Michaels on John Stossel’s “green Tyranny” series- originally on Fox but then funded by Koch brothers; argues a few degrees warming is good, life expectancy nearly doubled as the planet warmed!
Generally speaking, any video titled “the truth about…” almost guarantees that it is wrong or mistaken or at the very least misleading.
9 Likes
In addition to what Matthew said:
Director of the Center for Study of Science at the Cato Institute, an A.B. and S.M. in Biology Sciences and Ecology from the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from University of Wisconsin. Past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, Program Chairman for the Committee on Applied Climatology at the American Meteorological Society. Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years.
All of that is mentioned at the beginning of the video. However, it’s important to note that there are always going to be well-educated outliers for anything. The consensus among climate scientists, as far as I know, is that climate change is real and is a major problem. You can find scientists with degrees and Ph.D.s who are YEC as well.
that is my take home lesson for the day, to avoid clickbait! Thanks.
5 Likes
And how much do you trust outliers that are making a lot of money on their outlying opinions? Me, not much.
3 Likes
Yeah I read up on him. I am fully aware that America has Ph.D. YECs. Anyone who takes money from tobacco companies to lie and call it science makes them look like… honest, honourable scientists.
Not me, either. Perhaps it’s a failure on my part, but my point was to state that just because he has all those credentials doesn’t mean he is right or that what he says can be trusted.
4 Likes
I guess the majority of the time i don’t side with outliers, though I can’t say I always disagree with them though. The majority of people I meet within the scientific community reject God. Yet I side with the outliers who accept him. Though I guess I don’t really consider them outliers in the same way I view this guy. Even though the majority of scientists I know are atheists, it’s not like it’s just 1 out of a 100 who believes in god but I think it’s closer to 1out or 3 or 4.
With climatologists though it seems to be 88% and above support climate change being caused by humans. Many of the factors are at 98% agreement. So 3-10% going against the grain is far less than roughly 40-50%.
The other reason why I believe in it besides the number of climatologists is because it overlaps with almost every single earth science and across all nations and cultures almost all
Scientists accept it.
Additionally I don’t get my facts from mainstream media. I don’t even watch news regardless if it’s cnn or fox. Such as 99% of what I learned about the vaccine begin from links in here that cited multiple sources and so on. In general I guess though when I hear some thing is from FOX there is a immediate suspicious and highly doubtful “feeling” that arises. I guess I’m associate it with something negative despite having grown up where it use to be the main source of news media I watched and trusted in. Almost all of my teen life snd early 20s I associated fox with something positive until they routinely disappointed me.
With that where the funding comes from does not generally concern me to much but I make note of it.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.