I’m sure someone with more patience and/or a masochistic streak will go about debunking the entire thing, but here’s Michaels claiming that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming has been manufactured:
The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias [the peer-reviewed literature].
A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research…
Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” he wrote in one of the emails. “We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned.
In point of fact, half of the Climate Research board resigned over the failure of the review process at their journal and the subsequent failure of its publisher to adequately address that problem- not due to any strong-arming by Mann or Wigley. And you don’t have to take my word, or Mike Mann’s, over Pat Michael’s. You can just read what one of editors actually said about it at the time.
[UPDATE: Here's Hans Von Storch, another former editor of Climate Research, in the WSJ taking oblique aim at liars like Michaels (emphasis mine):
And what of the... the skeptics? They say these words [CRU emails] show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic’s paper, at that.]
Of course Pat Michaels lying about climate science probably doesn’t even amount to “dog bites man” news these days. But I am left with an interesting question- Pat Michaels runs a “science consulting” business which consists largely of providing a veneer of scientific credibility to fossil fuel interest propaganda, so it’s not surprising to catch him making things up in order to undermine emissions reductions and attack the credibility of those who have pointed out his dishonesty in the past. The WSJ editorial board likewise has an understandable if similarly ulterior motive to undermine any forthcoming regulation.
But what about the subscribers to the WSJ?
They’re ostensibly entrusting the WSJ with their hard-earned capital to become more informed about the world around them, not less. And yet here Pat Michaels and the WSJ are, assuring them that up is in fact down. If the WSJ’s subscribers are paying money to become informed, the product they’re receiving is grossly defective- perhaps even harmful. If, on the other hand, they are merely looking to confirm their preexisting beliefs about something irrespective of the facts, there are plenty of white papers and press releases from front groups like Heartland or CEI that provide the same kind of fiction without the WSJ’s subscription fee. [And those attempting to compartmentalize the Journal's op-ed lies while hoping to enjoy its "straight" reporting are finding that even the "news" pages are becoming increasingly Murdochian.] So what’s an intellectually honest, or at least rationally acting, Journal subscriber to do?
[UPDATE: A relevant Climate Denial Crock of the Week: