Last night, before a nice crowd at the UNM Law School, Cato Institute climate expert Patrick Michaels presented on some of the issues addressed in his new book “Climate Coup: Global Warmings Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives.”
His powerpoint slides can be found here and video of his talk and the Q&A period can be found below:
Cato is garbage, it’s mostly funded by big oil!
Andrew, we trust you read the book, then?
I really enjoyed Dr. Michaels’ presentation.
I had expected to hear a climate change denier and was surprised to find that Dr. Michaels totally believes in Global Warming and the role of man’s activity in causing some substantial part of Global Warming.
My take re his presentation was that he:
A. Objects to the Nationalization as it were of science.
B. Believes that Warming is happening at a lower rate than the most accepted rate.
C. Believes that it is not possible to substantially reduce this rate of increase
D. Believes that the impact is likely to be less than some believe and
E. Market mechanisms are the better way to deal with this situation.
He divides scientists into three groups…not two as is usually done re their position on Climate Change and puts himself into the middle group which I would label “Climate Change Impact Minimizers”. So I believe that the argument between those who believe that Climate Change is more serious than Dr. Michaels believes and Dr. Michaels should center on:
A. What is the better projection of the rate of Warming
B. What is the impact of alternative scenarios for Warming going to be
C. Is government action appropriate or likely to create more problems than it solves
Plus I would add, might the dynamics of energy (current high rate of importation and increasing costs of fossil fuels assuming economic growth worldwide) tend to provide part of the solution…this is really a subset of C but I break it out as I think it is very important.
It is interesting to me how people categorize others without actually listening (or reading) what they have to say. Of course Dr. Michaels does present his information in a very provacative way but perhaps that is necessary to get attention.
I thing the Rio Grande Foundation has performed a valuable service to New Mexico by bringing Dr. Michaels here. I hope that there is follow-up because it seems to me that on one hand Dr. Michael has raised some important issues and on the other hand he might not be correct in all of his conclusions. Thus further discussion can help increase everyones understanding of this important issue. It is important whether or not one is in the Climate Change Impact Minimizer category or the Climate Change is a Crisis category. The appropriate approach depends quite a bit on which category is closer to fully understanding the situation.
I realize that people with differing opinions don’t like discussing their differences but prefer to use their energy to disparage and debunk those with alternative opinions. I find that very unsatisfactory as it leads to schizophrenic public policies as one or the other group temporarily gains and loses power.
We have the same problem with water issues….people form an opinion and will hold on to it in very determined way. And that of course leads to the same problem and the same solutions…namely courts.
Courts are not where science should be explored and is not even a very good way to attempt to control the Legislative and Executive Branches of government ….at the National or State Level. Going to court is an admission of failure to be very convincing. It is preferable to going to war that is for sure but it doesn’t usually result in social cohesion.
At any rate I thank the Rio Grande Foundation for taking the lead on getting this topic discussed in New Mexico. I hope there is follow-up and constructive follow-up.