.
.
.
A flyer inviting to a Public Discussion of Climate Change Science and Policy to take place on August 20th, at Servite High School Auditorium, caught my attention (flyers get my curiosity as you may remember the story of the one about the homeless, click here).
This flyer called my attention for several reasons. The paper in which it was printed was not on recycled paper, which nowadays is a basic environmental consideration. Then the announced speaker is a doctor of the CATO Institute, which for a guy like me coming from a non-conservative tradition, I have been skeptically opening up to their ideas. One of them is their objection to public transportation projects, which provided additional rationale to question wasteful projects like the ARTIC and the proposed Disney trolley.
So I checked up who this CATO speaker is , Dr Patrick Michaels, and wow! it confirmed my skepticism. His basic premise is that the warming of the planet is not as bad as we think it is. He is an expert in the subject, and his reasons although not accepted by the majority of the scientific community, need to be considered. Any relevant subject needs to be discussed, and Climate Change is a very urgent one. I hope it is not as bad as the evidence indicates, and I am open to hear a viewpoint indicating otherwise.
The problem is that his research and advocacy have been funded by the fossil industry, the main beneficiaries of policies that deny climate change. I’m not going to insert any links, you do the heavy lifting as my pal Gustavo likes to say. So the next question was why CATER would be involved with an academic whose ethics are in contradiction with what I thought CATER stands for. Granted, this doctor is not a “government entity” but there is no doubt his influence on public policies is tremendous, and for me, as negative as Pringle influence in our local government. And again, it is not his position on the subject but his conflict of interests that I thought was odd.
So based on this speaker’s history, I asked my friends from CATER for
a clarification. One of their supporters wanted to organize a fundraising event for them, this person knows this professor and his fame mostly in the conservative camp would draw a crowd. At the time of the flyer was printed no opposing speaker had been found yet. Mark Tabbert of CitizensClimateLobby.org, Newport Beach resident, will be presenting an opposing viewpoint — and there may be more than that besides.
CATER needs all the support we can provide, and these type of events are not only good for fundraisers but also to bring a serious, informed discussions on issues that ultimately have city halls implications. I hope they organize discussions on Income Inequality, Planned Parenthood, School-Charters and so on, presenting opposing views. I will not be able to attend this event. My neighborhood is having a meeting with Mr Vanderbilt, Anaheim City Councilmember , on the proposed homeless shelter.
So Deniers and Warmers, have a spirited discussion! Let’s keep 
digging and drilling , don’t worry, life will go on as we know it , or stop burning and Save the Planet.
To get tickets for this event : www.universe.com/drmichaelsinanaheim
Could you please post a link to his Oeuvre?
His paycheck depends on creating confusion. We’re not going to dissuade him.
One good graph generally allows one to call “Bullsh*t” on whatever dodgy claim is being used to create the confusion.
But one has to get the graph right on the firs showing, or else one is just helping muddy the issue.
I want to now which graphs to prepare. So, could you please present links to his work, so I can work on this?
Thanks.
I think you’re a bit optimistic that a bulletproof graph will have the desired effect.
Not on the speaker.
Not on folks who have already made up their mind.
You never convince those folks.
It’s on the people who really haven’t thought about it – which, surprisingly, is a huge swath of folks.
For the folks who have already made up their mind, more data actually makes them _more_ obdurate. The key persuasive technique for these folks — and it’s much harder — is establish why they feel the way they do, and then give them an alternative narrative that lets them preserve that feeling and sense of affiliation.
Hey, more power to you . . . I do admire your optimism and hope to steal some in the near future.
I will be in touch with you on this.
Is Google broken? 30 seconds to find this “hors d’ ouerve”, main course is up to you-
http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels
BTW, is Dr. Michaels an actual denier?
Because there are some over-blown claims being made about the pace and degree of projected climate effects. Calling BS on these overblown claims (like blaming any particular hurricane on Global Warming) does not, in and of itself, make one a denier.
As I understand it, he’s not a flat-out denier, even of anthropogenic climate change. But he believes that the predictions of both the rate and ultimate extent of warming are exaggerated and that the impacts on the environment are both exaggerated and as likely to be positive as negative overall.
(Note: that’s not an endorsement; I come down where I believe Tyler snd Ryan do. But it would also make him more moderate than any current Republican Presidential candidate other that probably Lindsay Graham.)
I’ll post a link to his Congressional testimony when I get a chance.
Help fight “crony” capitalism by listening to disaster capitalism fossil fuel funded junk science!
Why did you put “crony” in scare quotes? Is this part of the OC Weekly style guide?
Nice deflection Bloviator. Have fun raising money with Big Oil’s spin master.
Here’s his greatest hits!
http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels
Thanks for the link Gabriel; we have two experts preparing to refute him, and I assume they’ve researched him a bit but if not that could help.
No, seriously — why do you put “crony” in quotes?
If it’s not site policy, does it have to do with how you got access to your own forum by ignoring your boss’s foibles? You don’t like people poking at cronyism?
The money raised will not be coming from “Big OIl,” but from OC residents, mostly from Anaheim. And I really think that you may want to rethink having the “where do you get your money from?” argument, Poseur.
Riddle me this Bloviator: why would there be an editorial policy on blog comments? Cronyism is everywhere big bucks are. It’s like saying wet water.
But, by all means, do have fun with your Big Oil junk science featured attraction!
I will — and I’ll also have fun with the three people who will be challenging him. One of whom will be me.
If we need the “above-it-all politically impotent disdain” perspective included, I may be in touch. Meanwhile, it would be amusing to see you put together a protest. (You’d have to be on the sidewalk, of course, unless your OC Weekly expense account would cover a ticket.)
Bloviator: Why do you insist on bloviating about me, even when your bloviations have nothing to bloviate on?
Thanks for reading the Orange Juice Blog, Gustavo. Keep coming back – you’ll see that, maybe tied with the Voice of OC, it’s the best place to get your news and views on important political goings-on in this sleazy county (along with a few less serious organs like the Liberal OC and OC Weekly.)
Gustavo Pendejo,
Your thrall Gabriel shows up and slams us for having what amounts to a debate with the preeminent spokesperson on the side of the climate change issue with which 16 out of the 17 major Republican Presidential candidates agree. (As if that stance doesn’t already have credence in OC.) He suggests, wrongly, that we’re making money from Big Oil.
I don’t know whether you pay Gabriel or not — if you pay him per pointless insult, he’s probably doing well, though if you pay him by the actually useful political suggestion he’s probably, well, unpaid — but if so that he has probably made a portion of his money through, if you trace it back a few steps, sexual trafficking of unwilling participants promoted in your back pages. (If you do quality control on those ads, I will stand corrected after I get to pore over the details.)
Now I accept that that’s the inevitable cost of a population having a decent, challenging, progressive alternative weekly. It’s just sad to see us pay the price without getting the product.
Abrazos,
Greg
Ya mean people have to fork over money to see the Bloviator bloviate when he’s not a recognized bloviator on climate change? Mercy be upon them!
Verntriloquist: Orange Joke isn’t a preeminent spot for anything except the Bloviator’s bloviations divided into 12-part posts, each as unreadable as the next. I saw the readership stats here sag lower than an octogenarian’s nut sack before y’all took away my keys, ha ha!
Sad that you would know that – try teabagging with your contemporaries, mon frere!
Why the sudden interest in OJB from GSR? Lots of extra time to kill moderating the Weakly’s (empty) ‘comments’ section after the FarcePuke conversion? Great move. lol.. His confusion understandable as a Weak-ling, over anything providing TWO sides of an issue.
No, they’re forking over money to see Patrick Michaels, Mark Tabbert, and Dr. John Hoaglund. My interviewing Michaels in greater depth gets thrown in for free.
We’re certainly no match for the OC Weekly in stats — but then much of yours comes from entertainment reviews and access to what may or may not be victims of human trafficking. (Not that, I’m sure, you check.) But compared to other political blogs in OC, I believe that we’re usually third behind Voice of OC (which is really in the higher “professional” category) and “A Bubbling Cauldron” (which we like so much that we don’t mind.)
If people want self-exculpatory screeds on why both sides of a debate are stupid and the writer is too cool to even bother trying to come up with a solution, though, you’re definitely the go-to guy at the go-to venue. We’re a little more grown up than that — and we already understand the problems with capitalism as well as the dreariness of complaint without programmatic support.
Hey, same team.
Can’t we all just get along?
So that would be one press pass for GSR. Anyone else?