On Sat May 27, jthorn65 wrote:
> If the left is looking for a "Churchill of the right" to go after it is
> Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Climatology at the University of
> Virginia.
[And the next day, here you go. It's not entirely about Michaels. But it's a start.]
The New York Times
May 29, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Swift Boating the Planet
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore
questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989
hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what
happened to Dr. Hansen later.
And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good
illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of
doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of
people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr.
Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political
issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side
doesn't play by any known rules.
Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly
that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with
Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has
been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified
again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration
altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's
movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was
revealed.
In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific
colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a
growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been
universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.
But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a
campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the
increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate
skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.
Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University
of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the
energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous
presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global
warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen's predictions. As
evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper
written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising
temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually
taken place.
In fact, the chart Dr. Michaels showed was a fraud that is, it wasn't
what Dr. Hansen actually predicted. The original paper showed a range
of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen
squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it
seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all
the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper
described as being "on the high side of reality."
The experts at www.realclimate.org, the go-to site for climate
science, suggest that the smears against Dr. Hansen "might be viewed
by some as a positive sign, indicative of just how intellectually
bankrupt the contrarian movement has become." But I think they're
misreading the situation. In fact, the smears have been around for a
long time, and Dr. Hansen has been trying to correct the record for
years. Yet the claim that Dr. Hansen vastly overpredicted global
warming has remained in circulation, and has become a staple of
climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak.
There's a concise way to describe what happened to Dr. Hansen: he was
Swift-boated.
John Kerry, a genuine war hero, didn't realize that he could
successfully be portrayed as a coward. And it seems to me that Dr.
Hansen, whose predictions about global warming have proved remarkably
accurate, didn't believe that he could successfully be portrayed as an
unreliable exaggerator. His first response to Dr. Michaels, in January
1999, was astonishingly diffident. He pointed out that Dr. Michaels
misrepresented his work, but rather than denouncing the fraud
involved, he offered a rather plaintive appeal for better behavior.
Even now, Dr. Hansen seems reluctant to say the obvious. "Is this
treading close to scientific fraud?" he recently asked about Dr.
Michaels's smear. The answer is no: it isn't "treading close," it's
fraud pure and simple.
Now, Dr. Hansen isn't running for office. But Mr. Gore might be, and
even if he isn't, he hopes to promote global warming as a political
issue. And if he wants to do that, he and those on his side will have
to learn to call liars what they are.