Democrats Intimidating Opposing Points of View

Here is a little more irony from our friends at the Washington Post.
 
Over the weekend I was at my local coffee shop and I picked a copy of the Washington Post metro section while waiting on my order. On page C7 a story about Virginia State Climatologist caught my attention. Headlined "Climatologist Draws Fire from Critics" by Juliet Eilperin and David Fahrenthold.

At first I thought this was going to be a rehash of the false story spread around last January and Febraury accusing the Bush administration of silencing NASA Climatologist and political activist James Hansen. Instead this story recounts the actions of newly minted Virginia Governor, Democrat Tim Kaine getting out his jackboots to shut down Patrick J. Michaels, the Virginia state climatologist and prominent global warming skeptic.

The silencing Hansen story was part of Al Gore's global warming propaganda tour. Hansen got so much major media time the charge was beyond laughable. The New York Times did at least two stories. The very same Juliet Eilperin spun it out for the Post, and NPR did a set piece based on the Times and Post stories.

Without any sense of irony or any reference to her previous story, Eilperin denigrates Patrick J. Michaels, the Virginia state climatologist, suggesting his contrary views on global warming is mere moonlighting. Here is how she describes him:

"(Michaels) has a day job that makes him a cross between a meteorologist and a librarian."

Well let's see now, how can we muddle this man's credentials? Ok, blurr the lines, diminish his stature. Got it,  a cross between a meteorologist and a librarian, that it'll do it.

"He gathers weather data and answers weather questions: What caused the great James River flood of 1771? How windy was it last Tuesday? Where's the best place to put a vineyard?" Nobody dislikes him because of his day job."

Imagine that, on the state payroll and paid to answer esoteric questions.  Sure sounds like pork barrel spending to me. But don't be alarmed, nobody dislikes him. So what is  Michael's  crime? Eilperin cuts right to chase,

"he's  a professor at the University of Virginia, who also moonlights as one of the country's most aggressive and, in some circles, most reviled skeptics about the scientific consensus on climate change. It was that role that landed Michaels in the center of a small controversy in Richmond last month, when the administration of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) asked him to be clear that he is not speaking for the state when discussing issues such as global warming."

I thought President Bush was the one trying to suppress the scientists.
"He, in fact, speaks for himself," said Kevin Hall, a spokesman for the governor.

Ms. Eilperin then surveys various state climate agencies and explains that these previously obscure bureaucrats are now at the center of the global warming debate.

She is herself uncomfortable with this function being handled by the states. What she calls  "a loose, irregular system" 

To her credit Ms. Eilperin, shares some important observation regarding the politicization of global warming citing controversies in several states as climatologists have taken public stances on global warming that differ from those of the politicians running their states.

Eilperin writes:

"In Oregon, for instance, climatologist George H. Taylor has been criticized by Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) for his views. Taylor acknowledges that the Earth is warming but says it is impossible to calculate how much of that is caused by human activity. That view is at odds with the consensus among many climate scientists. But, Taylor said, "consensus in science doesn't really mean much. What matters is the truth. Often consensus is wrong."

Of course, this directly contradicts Al Gore's claim that all  scientists have bought into his global warming orthodoxy. Naturally, Eilperin can't allow this to be last word, and in the standard "to be sure" paragraph she give the warming evangelists their platform:

"The view of critics often is simple: State climatologists are behind the times."

She quotes Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University:

"I know there's a lot of frustration with not having a state climatologist reflecting the very strong consensus in the scientific community about the human impact on global warming."

In other words, she can't believe the gall of these heretics. These global warming promoters are downright theological about this.

Eilperin wraps up with a detailed history of Michaels' background, giving his critics ample opportunity to undercut his credibility. Making sure to note he was appointed by a Republican. In spite of her best efforts, it was very challenging to knock down someone as highly regarded as Michaels. Not one to give up easily, she employs loaded adjectives like "fiery" yet she concedes that he is a frequently quoted global—warming doubter undercutting the "moonlighting" meme. She cites Michael's paper for the Cato Institute "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories." In full water carrying mode, Eilperin writes that when Michaels is quoted as a state climatologist 

"it creates the false impression of another side to a closed debate." [emphasis added]

Not wanting to rely on her own conclusions, she trots out Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

"He's sort of one of the central figures in what I would call a disinformation campaign."

Eilperin saves the money shot for last:

"This summer, news reports revealed that Michaels had asked for money for his research from coal—burning utilities."  Horror of horrors, money from electric utilities.

In spite of Ms. Eilperin's obvious biases, we do learn some interesting facts about how Democrats treat those that disagree with their global warming dogma. She details the conduct of the Kaine administration:

"After the fundraising reports came out, they  investigated how Michaels had come by his title, and officials determined that he worked for the university, not the governor. So they sent Michaels a letter asking him to make it clear that he was not speaking for the state during his "outside activities" or consulting."

This campaign against Michaels sounds like something Moveon.org would accuse President Bush of. Now, who's hostile to "science"

She ends with a half—hearted defense of Michaels quoting Mark Shafer, the director of climate information at the Oklahoma Climatological Survey:

"He has a 25+ year record of climate services to the people of Virginia and provides a lot more services that do not get the press of his research." Pretty tepid.
 
Well there you have it. The Democrats are actively suppressing opinions that differ from their global warming alarmism. Especially opinions rendered by highly qualified professionals that expose them for what they are. Comparing the way this story was handled to the way the James Hansen story was framed says a great deal about the media and their Democrat allies. 

Christopher Alleva   9 18 06

Here is a little more irony from our friends at the Washington Post.
 
Over the weekend I was at my local coffee shop and I picked a copy of the Washington Post metro section while waiting on my order. On page C7 a story about Virginia State Climatologist caught my attention. Headlined "Climatologist Draws Fire from Critics" by Juliet Eilperin and David Fahrenthold.

At first I thought this was going to be a rehash of the false story spread around last January and Febraury accusing the Bush administration of silencing NASA Climatologist and political activist James Hansen. Instead this story recounts the actions of newly minted Virginia Governor, Democrat Tim Kaine getting out his jackboots to shut down Patrick J. Michaels, the Virginia state climatologist and prominent global warming skeptic.

The silencing Hansen story was part of Al Gore's global warming propaganda tour. Hansen got so much major media time the charge was beyond laughable. The New York Times did at least two stories. The very same Juliet Eilperin spun it out for the Post, and NPR did a set piece based on the Times and Post stories.

Without any sense of irony or any reference to her previous story, Eilperin denigrates Patrick J. Michaels, the Virginia state climatologist, suggesting his contrary views on global warming is mere moonlighting. Here is how she describes him:

"(Michaels) has a day job that makes him a cross between a meteorologist and a librarian."

Well let's see now, how can we muddle this man's credentials? Ok, blurr the lines, diminish his stature. Got it,  a cross between a meteorologist and a librarian, that it'll do it.

"He gathers weather data and answers weather questions: What caused the great James River flood of 1771? How windy was it last Tuesday? Where's the best place to put a vineyard?" Nobody dislikes him because of his day job."

Imagine that, on the state payroll and paid to answer esoteric questions.  Sure sounds like pork barrel spending to me. But don't be alarmed, nobody dislikes him. So what is  Michael's  crime? Eilperin cuts right to chase,

"he's  a professor at the University of Virginia, who also moonlights as one of the country's most aggressive and, in some circles, most reviled skeptics about the scientific consensus on climate change. It was that role that landed Michaels in the center of a small controversy in Richmond last month, when the administration of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) asked him to be clear that he is not speaking for the state when discussing issues such as global warming."

I thought President Bush was the one trying to suppress the scientists.
"He, in fact, speaks for himself," said Kevin Hall, a spokesman for the governor.

Ms. Eilperin then surveys various state climate agencies and explains that these previously obscure bureaucrats are now at the center of the global warming debate.

She is herself uncomfortable with this function being handled by the states. What she calls  "a loose, irregular system" 

To her credit Ms. Eilperin, shares some important observation regarding the politicization of global warming citing controversies in several states as climatologists have taken public stances on global warming that differ from those of the politicians running their states.

Eilperin writes:

"In Oregon, for instance, climatologist George H. Taylor has been criticized by Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) for his views. Taylor acknowledges that the Earth is warming but says it is impossible to calculate how much of that is caused by human activity. That view is at odds with the consensus among many climate scientists. But, Taylor said, "consensus in science doesn't really mean much. What matters is the truth. Often consensus is wrong."

Of course, this directly contradicts Al Gore's claim that all  scientists have bought into his global warming orthodoxy. Naturally, Eilperin can't allow this to be last word, and in the standard "to be sure" paragraph she give the warming evangelists their platform:

"The view of critics often is simple: State climatologists are behind the times."

She quotes Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University:

"I know there's a lot of frustration with not having a state climatologist reflecting the very strong consensus in the scientific community about the human impact on global warming."

In other words, she can't believe the gall of these heretics. These global warming promoters are downright theological about this.

Eilperin wraps up with a detailed history of Michaels' background, giving his critics ample opportunity to undercut his credibility. Making sure to note he was appointed by a Republican. In spite of her best efforts, it was very challenging to knock down someone as highly regarded as Michaels. Not one to give up easily, she employs loaded adjectives like "fiery" yet she concedes that he is a frequently quoted global—warming doubter undercutting the "moonlighting" meme. She cites Michael's paper for the Cato Institute "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories." In full water carrying mode, Eilperin writes that when Michaels is quoted as a state climatologist 

"it creates the false impression of another side to a closed debate." [emphasis added]

Not wanting to rely on her own conclusions, she trots out Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

"He's sort of one of the central figures in what I would call a disinformation campaign."

Eilperin saves the money shot for last:

"This summer, news reports revealed that Michaels had asked for money for his research from coal—burning utilities."  Horror of horrors, money from electric utilities.

In spite of Ms. Eilperin's obvious biases, we do learn some interesting facts about how Democrats treat those that disagree with their global warming dogma. She details the conduct of the Kaine administration:

"After the fundraising reports came out, they  investigated how Michaels had come by his title, and officials determined that he worked for the university, not the governor. So they sent Michaels a letter asking him to make it clear that he was not speaking for the state during his "outside activities" or consulting."

This campaign against Michaels sounds like something Moveon.org would accuse President Bush of. Now, who's hostile to "science"

She ends with a half—hearted defense of Michaels quoting Mark Shafer, the director of climate information at the Oklahoma Climatological Survey:

"He has a 25+ year record of climate services to the people of Virginia and provides a lot more services that do not get the press of his research." Pretty tepid.
 
Well there you have it. The Democrats are actively suppressing opinions that differ from their global warming alarmism. Especially opinions rendered by highly qualified professionals that expose them for what they are. Comparing the way this story was handled to the way the James Hansen story was framed says a great deal about the media and their Democrat allies. 

Christopher Alleva   9 18 06