(OT:) Hey, DH, look at this...

javascript:msnvDwd('00','00da0a38-da8e-40fb-bb85-f7d2485c72a5','us','Source_Nightly

You might have already noticed that the link is slightly broken but, if not, my reply will probably catch your attention. Try it again, although I believe you are referring to a story that was also on the NBC Network nightly news.

I didn't catch the whole story but I did notice they had to go to the Cato Institute for their skeptic.

don't have a lot of faith in a "scientist" that can't tell the difference between degrees and radians. The paper he co-authored with McKitrick is junk

Here's what one of Michael's colleagues had to say about him: "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians, but lacks Richard Lindzen's scientific stature. He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

That probably pretty much sums up the deniers. They can't hack it in actual research because they're just not all that good (or hard-working), so they take their threadbare credentials over to denial in an effort to get attention and funding and strokes from fossil fuel executives. If they were actually trying to do science, no one would notice them at all. Working for denial, he gets to ride in private jets, gets invited to speak (and charges a few $$$) to industry groups, per diem living while on the road (can you say "Steak au Poivre?) and gets a nice office and sinecure over at Cato Institute. And all he has to do is write an op-ed piece every now and then. Sweet. I keep thinking I should award myself a doctorate in climatology and go to work for Cato, myself.

The naysayers are losing ground. They're no longer even denying that it's us causing the warming (that was in the story, if I heard it correctly from the kitchen) or that we'll get warmer, it's over how much warmer and how much it will cost to do something about it. Even the Presidunce has gone on record as saying he believes the science is good - he's still unwilling to do anything about it, of course.

You're pissing up a rope.

You missed the guy who said it's bound to get colder, eh?

I didn't catch the whole story but I did notice they had to go to the Cato Institute for their skeptic.

don't have a lot of faith in a "scientist" that can't tell the differencebetween degrees and radians. The paper he co-authored with McKitrick isjunk

Here's what one of Michael's colleagues had to say about him: "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians, but lacks Richard Lindzen's scientific stature. He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

That probably pretty much sums up the deniers. They can't hack it in actual research because they're just not all that good (or hard-working), so they take their threadbare credentials over to denial in an effort to get attention and funding and strokes from fossil fuel executives. If they were actually trying to do science, no one would notice them at all. Working for denial, he gets to ride in private jets, gets invited to speak (and charges a few $$$) to industry groups, per diem living while on the road (can you say "Steak au Poivre?) and gets a nice office and sinecure over at Cato Institute. And all he has to do is write an op-ed piece every now and then. Sweet. I keep thinking I should award myself a doctorate in climatology and go to work for Cato, myself.

The naysayers are losing ground. They're no longer even denying that it's us causing the warming (that was in the story, if I heard it correctly from the kitchen) or that we'll get warmer, it's over how much warmer and how much it will cost to do something about it. Even the Presidunce has gone on record as saying he believes the science is good - he's still unwilling to do anything about it, of course.

You're pissing up a rope.

Apparently I did. Post a link that works. I'll check to see whether he's a loser or a shill and, if he's got relevant publications to his credit, I'll look to see if his favorite technique is faked or stale data or just bad math (Michaels, to his credit, uses all three).

javascript:msnvDwd('00','00da0a38-da8e-40fb-bb85-f7d2485c72a5','us','Source_Nightly

You may want to try

to generate shorter links. I wouldn't trust scientists who work for political organizations because they're rarely chosen for their competence or objectivity.

I'm sure he's one or the other.

I actually didn't put too much stock in it myself...