You think $55,000 to the Cato Institute--- not to Michaels himself--- somehow compromises Michaels? Are you serious? Look, based on that logic, the funding the Pentagon gave directly to Noam Chomsky would make him... well... adopt saner views that were more like the Defense Department's. We've all looked at work from the Fraser Institue and Cato, and they aren't corporate shills anymore than FR is. Saying they people from those places can't be trusted is equivalent to saying Ed Meese isn't an expert on the Constitition because he was in the Reagan administration. How can you talk about smearing Liming Zhou and then immediately thereafter attempt to smear Michaels and McKitrick?
I appreciate your repeating the essential point that the AGW enthusisasts, last vestige of defense, that of claiming bias, challenging credentials and claiming CONSENSUS, says nothing for the merits of their scientific theories, which do not withstand any reasonable scrutiny.
The series of posts attempting to smear sources of studies and commentary contradictory to AGW, was remarkable for its failure to address key fallacies of AGW, such as the fact that claimed/ actual measured increases (possibly/probably influenced by UHI) over the last 100 years were non uniform and substantially preceeded measured increases in CO2 levels which disproportionately occurred after the temperature increases they claim are caused by CO2 increase.
Clearly there is a small legion of AGW true-belivers who will not be moved by logic, science, or common sense. They are actually few in number, however, and do not seem to respond well when directly challenged.
Interestingly I never "smeared" Liming Zhou, I simply pointed out that if he expressed an opinion to the effect that his proof of Shanghai being a strong UHI, was not proof of a Global UHI influence on GAT, that his study didnt really addresss that question one way or another. Other studies of course, have demonstrated that UHI occurs in very small towns, and thus the only non-estimated historic temperature data predating sattelite measurements (1979) are hopeless contaminated by UHI that none of the IPCC models meaningfully attempts to/ or can deal with. Pluse the multiple, non-linear, often chaotic, natural cycles operating to influence GAT are admittedly not addressed by IPCC studies and further admittedly unknown in their influence on GAT.
Sort of like studying acquarium fish to learn about whales.
And Michaels not only worked for the CATO institute, which receives funding from Exxon. The quarterly he edits, (World Climate Report) is funded by Western Fuels, through the GREENING EARTH SOCIETY. He also was a visiting scientist for the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $80,000 from ExxonMobile for its Global Climate Change Program in 2002.
There is a conflict of interest, even though you believe the energy industry is not attempting to profit from their findings, and that the researchers will not continue to please these companies in order to get more $$$ in the future.