Guest Commentary by Paul Driessen
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.
Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”
It’s time to clear a few things up.
Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”
The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis.
Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.
This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.
There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.
Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.
If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.
As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.
The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.
No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.
Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China, India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.
The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.
We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.
We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)
It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.
We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.
Nick Stokes and others who are crying out against Cuccineli, on the Wattsupwiththat blog, I apply the same kind of logic to you and your alarmist warmist community.
Before you expect me to pay until November for taxes which are wholly unnecessary and since based on the lies and practices of a shoddy scientist, then get your facts straight.
If a scientist has to knowingly put information into a collection of data to force it to display his desired outcome, he is not only violating the code of science by demolishing the scientific method three ways to Sunday, but he perjured himself before the US Senate Energy council when he spoke before them, and He and the University of Virginia are in direct violation of the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
I think Cuccineli is completely correct in investigating this matter, but I think he should wait and involved the US Government, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Jones have perjured themselves before the US Senate and British Parliament. Just because the British High Council was stupid enough, and bough enough to release Mr. Jones from all wrong doing, I don’t think we should be.
For those who say if the government goes after Mann that it will destroy the freedom to advance science in America.
No it won’t! It will only keep dishonest scientists from being brave enough to ever attempt this sort of crime in the future.
For those of you who don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of this being a crime, Mann, Gore, and others because of their lies and bad science, have caused the US Government to hop down a bad bunny trail and fork over trillions of tax payer’s money to further studies of climate change. That is money that could have been used other places in much better ways for things far more important than the possibility of the global temperatures increasing 1 lousy degree centigrade over the next century. There isn’t even any proof that it will, and certainly no proof that it is anthropogenic in nature.
Gore and Obama and Pochauri and others expect us to sit still while they cram huge debt down our throat and disastrous ideas like cap and trade down our throats and idly sit by while people like Mann and Jones like through their teeth. I for one will not sit still for it. Science and Scientists, and Politicians be damned if they think they are going to convince me to work until November to pay taxes for something that isn’t real!
Back when our country was a fledgling nation people were tried for treason for crimes less devastating than this. Politicians have become strange bedfellows with Scientists and both should be afraid of lying to the American People and trying to take away their freedoms and hard earned money.
Jim,
If you are implying that we should merely allow scientists to govern themselves and keep the government out, aren’t we discussing the facts of how truly bad a job the scientists have been doing of governing and watching themselves?
I think the turned over CRU team letters say that far better than any attorney ever could.
Being a Centrist I am far from wanting more and bigger bad government interupting our daily life, but someone aside from politicians and scientists need to govern this kind of thing.
What should happen is there should be a citizen watch group but of course the politicians and scientists both would say it’s far too complicated to have mere civilians monitor and pat us on the head and tell us how stupid we are.
I woud promptly bite the hand that pats me and say put me in there and I’ll show you how stupid we are!
HR read my 3 comments above to realize how inconsequential that would be in comparison to what was perpetrated across the globe by these men.
These is far more outreaching than anything that Nixon perpetrated and he was crucified because he helped Golda Meier out when her country was about to be wiped off the face of the earth rather than holding his hand like they wanted him to, it wasn’t really about watergate or the 18 minutes of missing tape.
What Gore and Mann and Obama and Pachauri have perpetrated on America and the World is nothing short of treason and such villainy as to make Charles Manson look like a schoolboy in a Catholic Uniform who wet his pants.
Over 1.8 trillion dollars has been spent by the US Government in the last 10-15 years on climate change studies, millions if not billions have been wasted on other green studies because of climate change. These men aren’t altruistic with a concern for the environment… please. They are concerned about their leather office chairs and their huge budgets.
Gore has two companies that are already set up to handle carbon trade, Until recently Obama was a principal in the Chicago Carbon exchange and the Emerald City. For Obama to push cap and trade is a massive conflict of interest.
You don’t think it’s unrelated that Obama and Emmanuel had Clinton try to bribe Sestak not to run in the primary of the Pennsylvania Senate race against Arlen Spechter?
I find it curios that scientists would object to and empirical fact finding venue, under the rule of law, in the effort to provide quality control for a discipline that apparently cannot police itself. Ironic that said scientists would call that exercise in quality control a “witch hunt,” which, from what I understand, a “witch” is a complex of supernatural phenomena beyond the scope of normal science and empirical fact finding. Perhaps they are confusing witch hunt with their consensus driven climate science?
From a post by Chuck Wiese
May 30, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“According to modeling projections by Hansen around 1990, the current global temperatures are supposed to be around 1.35 DegC above the 1979 mean. We are far from this.
——————————–
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr.
Certainly, if you have a fixed agenda and aversion to the truth……………….
If AG Cuccinelli has prima facie evidence of fraud he should tell the world what it is and proceed from there, if he’s fishing he’s out of order.
Why doesn’t someone in the US ask for the data under the FOIA, a private citizen, or and organisation like the CEI? The UVa can’t possibly equivocate on that request now they’ve demonstrated the alacrity with which they provided the Dr. Michael’s emails.
One thing we can all agree on is that the scientific community has allowed Mann and his ilk to run their own agenda, and indeed have defended him because they agree with the CAGW hypothesis, so it will take a generation for scientists to appear who can accept the truth of the hockeystick fraud. For Mann, Jones, Briffa et al a place in the Scientific Hall of Infamy awaits, that their fate, getting away with it now doesn’t mean that they are safe forever.
1personofdifference says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I am glad Mr. McKitrick came and made his comment as I was concerned for a while that he wasn’t wanting science to be trumped by governmental investigation as if science is above the law. I’ve read numerous warmist websites congratulate Mr. Mckitrick for standing out against AG Cuccineli. However, like usual the warmists just can’t seem to get it right. I don’t see anything in any writings by Mr. McKitrick or by Mr. McIntyre where they have said that government shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of science. The only thing I’ve seen Mr. McKitrick say here or anywhere is:
1. That is not exactly what we said or accomplished, such and such is
2. If Cuccineli or any other AG is going to go after Mann or anyone else they better get their facts straight and go at this correctly.
(Mr McKitrick correct me if I’m wrong)
———————————————-
Quoting McIntyre:
“This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
The key issue to handle is not scientific ‘fraud’, per se, but the ‘interpretations’, ‘spin’ and media reporting of such ‘science’.
The key issue is not usually ‘did they measure something correctly’ but ‘is what they are measuring the best leading indicator for trouble?’
So for example, you get a research group measuring, accurately, some parameter of a Greenland ice core. They then INTERPRET this data in some way or another. Often based on some work somewhere else which says that this measure is a good proxy for something else. Which may or may not be accurate, but which again was based on some measurements which were. Often, the interpretaton may be in terms of scenario modelling, the worst of which may be a significant temperature rise. From which a media story is run which implies that the research portends ‘global warming’. Which isn’t strictly true, but which fits a political agenda. Or a short-term need to generate profits by pandering to readership’s prejudices.
Note how lots of little things, rather than one big bad wolf, can contribute to this occurring. A little spin in the discussion of a research paper isn’t spin, it’s standard industry practce. The effects of that may be the same as actually fiddling the figures, but the former is ‘real world science’, the latter is ‘ostracism for life’. There’s less difference than you might think between the two in terms of outcomes, but scientific communities somehow fail to see this…….
I suspect that the clock is ticking for this kind of research. As we are now 30 years into global temperature monitoring of the land masses, the sea and the atmosphere with global reach and daily measurements. Not to mention real-time measurement of the sun and cosmic rays using new telescopes/satellites. There may be modifications to such work, but it is likely to become a global data centre which replaces the old standards of e.g. CET, ice cores, deep sea cores etc etc.
So my suggestion to politicians is this: HOLD YOUR HORSES. The world will not disappear in 30 years and by 2050, we will enjoy 70 years of data, which is pretty much a full PDO cycle. It won’t be perfect, but it’ll set the basis for realistic projections, I suspect.
Now if the politicians are realistic, they will do this.
But in their world, other things exist.
1. Getting re-elected.
2. Raising taxes.
3. Pandering to the media.
4. Getting on bandwagons.
5. Seeing their campaign contributors right (which may inlcude setting the energy agenda in their direction).
6. Setting the scene to make serious money when they depart politics.
Ah, the real world.
Doncha just think it’s wonderful, eh?
As a researcher and part of academia for over 4o years, I can empathize with those who feel that the cleansing should be left to the academia itself. At first that was my reaction, let the scientific bodies do the policing.
BUT:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, which is literally translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?
It is evident that the self policing honor system has fallen down on its face on the part of academia having to do with climate.
If this were a discipline, for example archeology, where some clique made up a theory and jiggled the facts to fit it and ignored discordant data, one could say that this has happened in the academic world often enough, and the ridicule of posterity is enough punishment. People do archeology for the intellectual challenge and the posthumous glory, and then acquire academic positions . Archeology will never dictate to the six billion humans how they should live or give incentives to unscrupulous politicians to tax the populace to death, or create pyramid schemes a la cap and trade.
The field of medicine does have strong connections with money and political decisions, so it would be a better example. If one discovered that a false plague was set up by a clique of medical academic people, that led to billions spent and to an improvement of their pocket, what would be my reaction? Would I expect the medical societies to clean up the mess, or would I want the system of justice of the countries to take over and judge the truth of the accusations and apportion blame?
I could make grosser analogies ( WWII type) but I will refrain.
It is scenario B that we have here, and claiming academic freedom, when the outcome involves the whole society is an elitist attitude on the part of the ivory tower that should be avoided, imo of course.
Wren says:
Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.
=========================================
Let’s see the evidence. Demonstrate. You make an assertion like that? Show charts, graphs, and real-world, real-time evidence.
The burden of proof is solely on you. Let’s see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Wren Writes: “Temperatures have caught up with Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections His Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. By the time 2020 rolls around, the B projection may be too conservative.”
Wren: BS! Hansen and all climate modelers have trained the “modeling” to project and adjust to current conditions. The variables are tweeked to mimick near current conditions and then claim they are all good and ther skills are legit. I’ll bet you right here and now because of solar magnetic projections based upon the next Gleissburg minimum that Hansen’s forecasts again will be another disaster by 2020 with global temperatures falling below the 1979 mean, regardless of understanding all the causes. The correlations here beat the CO2 r squared’s by a long mile.
Climate modeling is a disaster to date with NO scientific skill to project future conditions. The reesults from 1988-1990 are all the proof anyone needs. And you are kidding youreslf if you think meteorologists don’t know what sort of parameterizations need to be put into these models to integrate their computations far forward in time.
They are buzzing, blinking, whirring anti factoids of science that belong in castle of the Wizard of Oz under the pretense of polular science whizbang pop culture.
Fred says:
May 30, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“I just want him to find out how Mann went from obscure, wet behind the ears PhD with no background in Climatology to poster boy and senior IPCC dude in such a very, very, very short time frame.”
Its all here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700
Headline Story: Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery? by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Excerpt:
“It’s in 1996 that this story gets very curious. At that time Mann needed help to “defend” his Ph.D work in a documented but unexplained controversy at Yale. Inexplicably, this ‘controversy’ was peremptorily swept aside and between 1996-98 Mann was named as the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE).
Mann’s Ph.D ‘Rushed Through’
All was now well and Yale gave Mann his Ph.D in 1998. One eminent source in my enquiries confirmed Mann’s Ph.D. was, in fact “rushed through.”
Instantly, Mann was then plucked from obscurity and appointed not just a contributing author for Chapters 7,8,12 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (1998-00) but also Lead Author for Chapter 2. And with no track record whatsoever in this field, Mann now with tree ring data thrust into his hand, famously carved out his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.
“So what miracle turned this problematic researcher’s life around?
If miracles happened for Mann, they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D adviser. Only after Saltzman applied his influence were Mann’s lofty credentials “rushed through.” Mann then turned himself into a makeshift tree ring counter, and overnight became the iconic figure in the IPCC Third Report (2001). The rest is history, as they say.”
Phil. says:
May 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Such audits are routinely carried out, however the Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG.
=================================
As much as I disagree with my own commonwealth [ugh…yes we are still one] AG, nobody really cares whether or not the “Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG”…Phil.
Nobody cares really what you think or about the “vested authority.”
States have their own rights and they certainly have the ability to assert them and they bloody well don’t have to accede to such just because the “Federal Government has not vested such authority in the Virginia AG”.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I see several postings critical of Ross McKitrick and it seems that some of the animosity may be a carry over from recent statements made by Steve McIntyre recently. In regards to his post here; Ross has said nothing other than stating clarifications and facts. It seems some take objection to this portion of his post…
With that, Ross McKitrick has not stated anything either outlandish or untrue. We live in a society where success in legal challenges requires significant proof. A preponderance of evidence resting in the challengers favor. As much dislike as I have for Mann, his methods, and what I consider poor ethic; proving intentional wrongdoings in court is not a matter of opinion. Hence, as Ross pointed out, a great deal of time and effort would have to be dedicated to the case combined with a thorough knowledge of course of events, the science itself, and Mann’s intent, etc. Not a minor undertaking. That is the reality.
Do I reject the concept of the challenge? Not in the least. If nothing else it serves to highlight the items I previously posted about. A general lack of trust in most climate scientists. Frustration in the public regarding an apparent lack of ethic and accountability. The damage to science generated by the antics of a few. And…. Al Gore.
If the message of how damage is being done to science is heard perhaps, just perhaps, necessary corrections can be implemented. The climate is not broken… but science (some of it) is.
BTW …..
I am suggesting a new treatment for hypothermia cases. Low cost, quickly administered. … .
Step 1)
Calibrate thermometer until reading is slightly more than 98.6
Step 2)
Document low-grade fever and discharge patient
Step 3)
Lose any trace / notation of original reading
I too like Anna V thought this VA fishing expedition was a bit overkill, but now see that it is indeed necessary to bleed this charlatan as a lesson to all those who take my money and produce political fiction under the guise of science.
I don’t expect to see charges at the end of the process, but I do hope to see better behavior from the climate cabal. If not? Then perhaps it will be time for torches and pitch forks (or maybe tar and feathers). – you can’t fool all the people for long and get away unscathed.
Wren has made his assertion that temps are validating Hansen; failing some evidence from him Hansen must get a fail:
http://landshape.org/enm/more-climate-illogic/
Jeff C. says:
May 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.”
While I fully agree Dr. Mann should be investigated, please provide links and quotes to back up the potentially libelous statement regarding Dr. Wakefield quoted above from the article. It has never been shown Dr. Wakefield “falsified studies”; the GMC charges regarding Wakefield involved allegedly unethical practices in his recruitment of subjects for the study.
See here.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/07/did-the-founder-of-the-antivax-movement-fake-autism-vaccine-link/
Also see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
Before the paywall goes up.
Certainly you’ve all heard of the term ‘Blowing smoke’, and I shant say where the smoke is blown, but there’s a bit of fact behind the old saying.
With that, I introduce you to Michael Mann’s favorite tool for dealing with ‘deniers’:
http://www.assholesamongus.com/PDF/Tobacco%20Smoke%20Enema.pdf
Icarus and anu, I admire your tenacity. For those baying for blood over supposed wrong-doings by climate scientists please note that two separate inquiries have exonerated Jones (CRU) on both scientific method AND conclusions, noting that his results have been replicated by independent studies. This “replicated by independent studies” aspect is critical to robustness in science. It means different groups using different approaches and/or data sets have arrived at essentially the same conclusions. A single study may be fundamentally flawed, biased, prefaced on bad data, poor assumptions and so forth. A cluster of studies with variations in approach that produce similar end results provide increased confidence.
Also note that Jones results hold with and without the inclusion of tree ring data (the source of the oft misconstrued “hide the decline” comment). Perhaps some are barking up the wrong tree!?
Taking account of the veritable flood of warmist scary junk science CAGW “tomato sauce” served up to us each day, the only thing that will make these alarmist promoters and the journals really think hard about what they are doing, and the part they are playing, is the possibility that they could be held to account for the misuse of funds in the production of that sloppy concoction.
Dr Mann who I believe bought all this attention on himself with the degree of his engagement with others to further protect his hockey stick, his rapid rise in the Climatology new found hall of flame, his lead status with the UN IPCC, his access to research grants and membership of an exclusive inner circle dedicated to squashing any dissent, (revealed in CRU “released” emails) and ultimately, in not being Mann enough to prove his data by allowing other scientists access, so as they say here in Australia “stiff cheddar” Michael.
Of course In the Cucinelli matters he will have all the academic support, and as much “official” funding that can be channeled or diverted to explore every legal “trick” and subterfuge in the book and every advantage living in a liberal democracy can bestow. For the rest of us, there are some disturbing shadows on the Horizon with subtle attacks on personal liberties courtesy of the skewed thinking and threats of some of his fellow travellers.
Just a small indication, the tip of the iceberg so to speak, can be found on Jo Nova’s site
http://joannenova.com.au/
Article “Throwing the hate grenade”
Quote from Ben “E” on Jo Nova’s blog site.
“Sad, but scarcely surprising. Sites like this one will eventually be shut down in future updates to hate crime legislation, as they are well on the way to inciting violence and hatred towards scientists and science communicators.”
Fortunately both Jo and Willis Eishenbach set Ben E straight on where the true hate and vicious comments were coming from, courtesy, of the genre of Mann and his CAGW fellow travellers, they dish it out, then scream Wolf! Wolf! when someone merely dares to question the flaws in their science.
Not only do we have to put up with that, but the same Australian ABC crowd of left wingers that promulgate hate towards us who dare to question the religion of CAGW arejust like Ben E, panting to get laws to suppress our dissenting voices, especially the pesky qualified (hence villified) scientists among us they want to censor the internet under any pretext, but really to deny us climate deniers the means to communicate and ask questions, then that is fair game (to them).
Hmmn changing the laws to suit their own ends sounds familiar. Miranda rights for terrorists, but then we might need to suppress rights of US citizens… err…. to sell you a bill of nothing?
So for mine, Michael Mann is a lucky guy to have all his rights intact. The rest of us might not be so lucky if his fellow travellers silence our voices. Good luck Cucinelli, if you win the day, we won’t be drowning in all that red hot climate sauce.
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr…..
The problem, to my eyes, is that we have seen “Academia” close ranks and make use of whitewash brushes on both sides of the pond. I get the feeling that Steve M. seems to stand with Carr on it though. Its an opinion and we all have those and are free to state them.
Nice post Paul.
According to the comments in the CGate emails, Mann behaves arrogantly and ignorantly towards his co-workers and peers, not to mention his opponents. Shed no tears over this duplicitous incompetent.
Politicians have their set of rules to play by. The legal system (in the US) has it’s set of rules. Those two are Just close enough to confuse everybody. Industry sets up self governing codes of conduct and so does the practice of Science in academia claim to self-regulate itself.
Unless they don’t self regulate like they promised. Mann and Hansen went way past detached scientific observers and the self regulating science community didn’t correct them. They chose to play in the world of politics and didn’t see the circling wolf of legal action or even consider that blogosphere blowback is something to deal with. That would be ignorant, would it not?
It’s all post-normal, so don’t worry. The stakes are high and the certainty is low. Go bold!
Excerpted from: savethesharks on May 30, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Speaking from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, what’s the problem?
From Wikipedia(!):
You got a problem with “government based on the common consent of the people”?
😉