Fossil Fuel Flak Spins N.C. Climate Change Commission

A prominent climate change contrarian this week warned the North Carolina group studying the impact of global warming on the state to beware of "pervasive bias" in the debate, Carolina Journal reports.

Speaking yesterday before the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, Patrick Michaels said he analyzed the content of "reports that are presented in public" on climate change. He found the idea that "it's worse than we thought" dominated "it's not as bad as we thought" by about 15 to 1.

One might think that indicates a consensus that things are indeed worse than we thought. But that's not the conclusion Michaels draws. Instead, he said his findings indicate a "pervasive bias" in the public discussion on global warming.

"So what we are dealing with is an information flow in which we’ve thrown a coin 16 times and gotten only one head," CJ reported Michaels saying.

Ah, yes. Science as coin toss.

Speaking of bias, it was interesting to see how CJ reporter Mitch Kokai identified Michaels. Besides noting Michaels' job as Virginia's state climatologist, Kokai also reported that he's a research professor at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute -- all true.

But Kokai failed to follow the money and report on the well-documented funding of Michaels' work by fossil fuel interests. According to the watchdogs at Exxonsecrets.org, Michaels publishes the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming that's funded by the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal interests.

Michaels' known also funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association; $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute; and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, according to Exxonsecrets.org. In addition, he received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association in addition to the undisclosed amount the group pays him for the climate newsletter.

In a December 1995 article in Harper’s magazine, journalist Ross Gelbspan reported that Michaels received more that $115,000 in the preceding four years from coal and energy interests. And as I reported last year in The Independent Weekly, Michaels is also a consultant for the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED), a Texas-based group that says it is "dedicated to protecting the viability of coal-based electricity."

Does Michaels' acceptance of money from groups avowing to protect coal-based electricity necessarily mean his science is bad? No. But it does raise red flags about Michaels' own potential biases -- especially since Michaels typically does not disclose his financial ties to fossil fuel interests when speaking in public, as I also reported last year in The Independent.

And what about the potential bias of the John Locke Foundation? As I pointed out in the same Independent story, the organization in recent years has accepted at least $81,000 from fossil fuel interests, including CEED.