UPDATE: Lubos Motl has a poll running on whether this is the right stance to take or not. Feel free to take it here – Anthony
This is an editorial that I never thought I’d be writing and I expect readers are also surprised to see it. Before you come to a conclusion about my decision, please read the entire essay – there’s a good reason for me to take this position in this particular case. See the event below.
There’s an organization called choosecommonsense.org that is running a letter writing campaign to Penn State to prevent Dr.Mann from speaking. In my opinion, this is the wrong thing to do and the wrong message to send. Let me explain.
First, here is the message the group is pushing:
On February 9th, the Penn State Forum Speaker’s Series is featuring Professor Michael Mann in a speech regarding global warming. This is the same professor who is at the center of the ‘Climategate’ controversy for allegedly manipulating scientific data to align with his extreme political views on global warming.
Join us in calling on the administrators of Penn State to end its support of Michael Mann and his radical agenda.
Now let me be the first to say that I don’t respect Dr. Michael Mann nor do I respect his paleoclimatic work, which I consider to be borderline fraudulent, as do many others. Others have even stronger opinions about the work, especially about the long maligned “hockey stick” and all of its problems.
And, in reading through the Climategate emails, we can see examples where Dr. Mann himself tries to stifle debate. From Tom Nelson:
Email 1335, Nov 2005, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann on the prospect of attending a workshop also attended by a guy who disagrees with him: “If Zorita is in, I am out!’
cc: Phil Jones
, Keith Briffa , Heinz Wanner date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:26:33 -0500 from: “Michael E. Mann” subject: Re: Workshop: Participants/ 1. Circular to: Christoph Kull
Christoph,
Can I please have an explanation of what happened here???? You sent out a list yesterday of partipipants that we had all agreed upon. Today, you sent out emails to a DIFFERENT list, inviting an additional participant (Zorita) who we SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED and decided (as I understood it) would not be invited because of personality conflict issues. At the very least, this needed further discussion, not unilateral overruling without notice.
I’d like an explanation of what happened here. I do not believe that this event will be constructive and amicable with Zorita’s participation. If the recommendaitons of the organizers are not going to be followed, I am unsure I can participate in or endorse this event. If Zorita is in, I am out!
Mike
Email 4862, Keith Briffa to the whining Mann
We simply will not allow you to withdraw . You know perfectly well that you are too important in all this to take such action. If it requires my talking to Eduardo and getting him to withdraw , then so be it.
Of course, skeptics are the complete opposite of Dr. Mann, we wish to engage debate where he does not. He wants to be the only voice in the room.
Therefore, I think the approach of choosecommonsense.org is absolutely wrong. They shouldn’t be trying to muzzle Dr. Mann, but instead should be pushing for open debate in our land of free speech. They should be pushing Penn State to allow a point-counterpoint dialog in the Penn State Forum Speaker Series instead of trying to muzzle him.
Dr. Mann himself supports “robust debate” when he’s tweeting to his friends:
Twitter / @MichaelEMann: Good editorial on #CRUHack …
Good editorial on #CRUHack2 in The Economist: emails actually show science working as it should (robust debate, etc.) econ.st/tteL8L
Though, I suspect that if presented with an open debate in the Penn State Forum Speaker Series, Dr. Mann would say “…if so and so is in, I am OUT!”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now Mann will run with this situation and put all climate skeptics in the same boat. ALL skeptics want to silence him sort of thing… don’t give him ammunitions, let him speak and dig his own scientific grave in the process.
Anthony, as a non scientist maybe I can speak more openly, (I don’t depend on grants), the only thing I question about your editorial is in my opinion Micheal Mann is not borderline fraudulent he is totally fraudulent. His approach to global warming has been insincere at best, worst case he has out right lied.
Micheal Mann would never debate anyone, especially on an equal footing, because all his opponent has to say is show me your back up evidence proving your premise and he would fold like a wrinkled shirt.
He should resign, he has been pushing a political agenda which has a goal of picking the worlds pockets and that is inexcusable.
Try telling the people freezing to death in Europe and Asia about global warming, I’m sure they would love to hear that right about now.
Given Penn States actions in the past, the protest is a wasted effort IMHO. The question is not should Mann be allowed to speak, but have those he disagrees with been denied the chance to speak. My guess is that they are perfectly happy with denying the right to speak as long as it’s someone they disagree with. That should be the point of any protest.
oMan,
Thank you, I agree, and I take it further, as my comment shows. It’s not censorship for government to require religious proponents to fund their own messaging — even in a university setting. Unless of course there is a requirement for alternative viewpoints to get equal time, and for the professor(s) to make an honest reply to questions posed by critics.
The First Amendment addresses not just freedom of speech and of the press, but also the concept of government “respecting” an “establishment of religion.” That part is also extremely important.
RTF
Ah life is irony, affording Mr. Mann the rights and privileges of robust debate that he so nefariously denied to others under the rubric of doing good consensual science in the cause of crackpot realism. Makes one want to puke [snip] Hopefully the boy will do some time for defrauding the state while enjoying the academic freedom to stifle the free flow of ideas.
I agree with Anthony that stopping people from speaking is wrong. But I can’t help feel that this is the greens and climate activists falling on their own sword. After all it was the people from this group that started the whole idea of creating backlash against speakers to get them cancelled. If this is going to be the standard operating proceedure from the left to censor sceptics, then I see no reason why others should not be allowed to do as they do.
The shrill alarmists are their own worst enemy. Let them talk.
Of course let him speak, that’s his right, and others have the right to hear (or jeer) him.
Ulterior motive: apart from A. Gore, no-one has done more to polarise opinion, cast doubt on AGW and mobilise the forces of scepticism more than Mann. Given his past record in trying to stifle debate and remove anyone who disagrees with him, the ultimate irony would be for him to be able to claim some sort of intellectual martyrdom.
I agree. Let him speak. Worst case he is only helping to further build the case against him as a scientist and a human being by opening his mouth in public.
Just curious. Am I right that the organization isn’t suggesting that Mann shouldn’t have a general right to free speech to espouse his views? They seem to be concerned about the forum and the university’s support. What they seem to be suggesting is that the university shouldn’t give Mann a center stage to spout his views, when he has been engaging in activities that bring the university into disrepute. Are there individuals other than Mann who might better represent the university in the Forum Speaker Series? Also they seem to be suggesting that the university should stop supporting his activities, which have brought a black eye on the university.
Sure, a debate would be better, but not sure I’m too offended by the group’s suggestion that the university should stop putting its own weight and reputation behind Mann.
The truth is messy business. Rarely in human experience does a collective process proceed without battles. Even in science matters where, ostensibly, the debates are supposed to be based on fact… facts ate the product of egos and agenda and inspiration.
Here are a couple of my favorite messy science ruckuses:
(Lemaitre and Gamow) vs (Fred Hoyle)….. Hoyle lost even though he had widespread popular support…he died denying the Big Bang Theory.
((Bohr vs Heisenberg) VS Einstein) …Solvay Conference in 1927….now we have quantum mechanics….
So let the messy debate continue. The truth will prevail.
Anthony is providing the forum for this climate debate. It is important that you know where you are and when you are in relation to history. Anthony is smack dab in the middle and is hosting the discourse right here, right now. The institutions have dropped the ball on the scientific process yet it lives in it ugly messy manifestation here. Thanks, Anthony. This blog will produce the definitive answer and will reign as the judicial authority on the outcome.
Agree.
Let’s hope there is a Q&A after his talk so people can ask him why Climatologists have been so very, very wrong in their predictions . . . those answers will be where the hilarity meets road.
In my collage of Josh’s cartoons (over 1200 web-page hits up to date)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm
I’ve let Dr. Mann speak ( I think he is the seated one holding notepad).
I invite Dr. Mann to make a short statement, but no abuse please, I guaranty it will be added to the text of the webpage, and I am confident that Anthony will not censor it.
I agree with Anthony. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in preventing Mr. Mann from speaking.
The only surprise here for me is that Anthony expects us to be surprised. His position is the only honorable one and entirely of a piece with his usual approach to open debate.
I agree, let Mann say what he wants.
I applaud Anthony for his stance here. The support open dialog is an important feature of a free and open society. Mann’s refusal to attend an event with Zorita of course reflects their conflict over the validity of the Hockey Stick (see: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.9579&rep=rep1&type=pdf). But regardless of whether Mann was justified in that refusal, it’s nice to see Anthony continue to be a champion of open discussion. (just one more reason I think he’ll do well with the 2012 Weblog Bloggies).
I had the same thought when I read of the attempt to muzzle Dr. Mann. Thank you for your editorial.
Why did you think readers would be surprised?
You have taken exactly the position I expected. I would have done the same, and for the simple reason that it’s the Right Thing (TM) to do.
Censorship doesn’t help anyone in the long run.
Kudos to Anthony.
When I was young my father wisely counseled me to be honest for the practical reason that a dishonest person is soon found out simply because he loses track of the truth while others do not. If what Professor Mann is claiming is not borne out (and it has not been and is unlikely to be) then he is simply poking holes in his own credibility every time he repeats a false claim. Why would anyone want to stop him from doing that?
Nope. Wrong. This is a war, and they started it. Unilateral disarmament loses a war. Niceness doesn’t work when you’re dealing with people who EXPLICITLY WANT TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES.
Actually niceness doesn’t work at all. Not in any circumstance. Never.
Unless a prominent skeptic is also slated to speak in these forums, Mann should not be given a free ride. Without dissenting views being presented, this forum is merely another opportunity for Mann to spout his propaganda unopposed.
I disagree.
Mann should not be invited to speak in a public forum. Not because of his unscientific “work”, or because of his political views, or because of his pissy, condescending attitude, or because of the things he is likely to say about “global warming”. Those are all objectionable, but airing out the objectionable is what open debate and free communication is about. He should not be invited to speak, because of his persistant attacks on open debate and his egregious denial of free communication to others.
This is the guy who, if he doesn’t like what you say, tries to get you fired from your job. This is the guy who parrots his involvement at RealClimate, which purports to be a forum but is instead a one sided propaganda tool where dissenting opinion is rigorously censored. This is the guy who brings illegitimate and frivolous libel lawsuits against those who disagree with him, attempting to use the police power of the state to censor others and punish them for open debate and free communication. This is the guy who actively resists legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests – coopting millions of dollars of other people’s money to do so. This is the guy who participates in conspiracies to destroy records open to Freedom of Information Act Requests.
Until such time as he is convicted for crimes, Mann has the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not in dispute, and I am not suggesting that the state muzzle him unless and until that time comes. But the Constitutional right to freedom of speech is the freedom from government censorship. The Constitutional right to freedom of speech does not obligate other people to provide you a forum. Invitation to such fora are instead governed by the public’s commitment to the principle of open debate and free communication. It is an appropriate demonstration of commitment to that principle to sanction those, like Mann, who actively deny the benefits of that principle to others.
There are plenty of people who can stand up in front of a crowd and tell whoppers about treemometers and the lack of a Medieval Warm Period. There are plenty of people who can hide a decline. If the organizers of this debate believe that presenting such nonsense is necessary to free communication and open debate, then they should invite an effective advocate for those positions. But it should be someone who has not acted so egregiously against open debate and sought to deny the free comunication of others. Mann’s opinions may deserve the opportunity to be heard in a forum provided by others. He does not.
I agree.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lead by example.
Where does the right to free speech end?
[SNIP on this blog it ends with the published site policy, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion about who Penn State might allow to speak, this sort of comment will do nothing but create an off-topic flame-fest not directly related to the issue at hand, so while it pains me to have to snip it, I must. – Anthony]