In the great global warming debate, there has long been a succession of 'experts' wheeled out to denounce any statement suggesting the climate change is anthropogenic in any way. One of these experts is Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, who has appeared in dozens of media reports, live talk shows and debates in the USA.
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
2 comments:
As you know, I am not a big believer in tackling the player and not the ball. Or, indeed, who the player may be playing for.
The argument should stand or fall on its merits, no more; no less.
That said, this shows how we are in very murky waters. It is obvious that, in this day and age, if only for context we need to have a good handle on where (or in this case, who) a proponent of a view is coming from. Especially if it is a person doing so from a claimed objective background, such as science (though who funds whose research makes most of this a zoo, too).
I'd be interested in what he could be hiding that would cause such a coy reaction from one obviously well happy to pop head above parapet.
Sadly, other than mutual smears such things rarely get delved into much deeper as the machine of spin rolls on. All we are left with is a nasty taste.
Look at how some media here play out 'so and so declined to leave their family tonight to come to our scummy studio and be abused by editted sound bite... so what have they to hide?'.
Which, of course, and in turn, means scummy so and so's can avoid being put on the spotlight by making the claim that it would not be fairly conducted/wasn't convenient/had another booking/[insert excuse here].
The only real losers are the truth, objective information... and us.
Peter, I agree entirely. I just think that in this particular case, Michaels is withdrawing because he does not want anybody to know just who has paid for the ball.
He's basically saying "its my friends' ball and you're not playing with it because I don't want you to know who they are". And how can you tackle for the ball if its been taken away from the field of play?
As you say, this is very murky water, but if you are willing to appear as a witness in a key court case, you should expect to have the heat put on you. Withdrawing because you are scared of the heat, or, in this case, far more likely, the possible disclosure of who bought the ball for you, can only be seen as either a)cowardly, or b) hiding something that is potentially nasty.
I'm sure I've read that an investigative reporter who was digging around the Cato Institute was warned off big style by some particularly nasty people - I'll see if I can find something when I get the time.
All in all it is very depressing and only enhances one's suspicions about those in positions of high power. In the end, as you so rightly observe, the losers are ultimately ourselves. Maybe the truth will out one day, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Post a Comment