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.
Let him speak – with very few exceptions, everybody has a right to speak freely and then let him answer his critics
[SNIP 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]
There has been no “trial” (well maybe a review) for Mann. There is not even an admission by “authority” that his tricky math has harmed many physically as well as financially. So is it said that it is OK to do harm and continue to do harm until one is proven by authority to be doing harm? Mann has been cleared by his peers and has the continued support of government and grants. It must be OK.
There are Pros and Cons for every action. I understand you want dishonest folks to continue the evidence trail, and that’s logical. You have to know that most persons are uneducated about the most mundane things. Those that attempt to be educated, aren’t always able to understand the science that you and your collegues put out there, nor are they able to use it as a defense except to say that ‘so and so said it’. You want him to speak because you are able to refute his models and/or data. The rest of us want to do something, we are left with the usual paths of protest, petition, politicking, and assembly. They’ll never shut out a Gore’ian, so no need to worry about that.
It’s so difficult to get past the conformity bubble. No matter all the effort you all have put forth, the same people, state the same things constantly unchallenged. Sometimes you have to yell to be heard. You have to let them know you will not be steamrolled. Fighting back is not mutually exclusive with being honest or being fair. Sometimes you have to kick the bully in the sack, and say you’ve had enough.
on a side note, it looks like that Org is from, coal basically, Storm Technologies (imo I followed the links.) Also here’s Revkin http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/a-shameful-attack-on-free-speech-by-a-group-claiming-to-speak-for-coal-dependent-workers/
polistra says:
February 4, 2012 at 10:07 am
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.
_______
And here, I can disagree with you completely. I’ve not met one climate scientist who in any way wants to destroy the entire human species. In stating this, you highlight the common tendency to want to demonize your opponent…to make the evil. The “warmists” are equally guilty of this in making such claims as “the skeptics are in bed with the evil oil companies” and other such nonsense. The truth is, both sides are believe they are right, and are passionate about their position, but few (if any) from either side wants to “destroy the entire human speciies”. I’ve listened to many talks given by the “Team”, and read even more of their papers. I’ve also listened to and read much that the other side has said and written. Neither side is evil, neither side wants to see the end of humanity. Both, in fact, would like to see a world that is fit (either ecologically or economically) for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. This desire makes them even more committed to their positions. In the end, both sides want the same thing, but simply see a completely different way the future could unfold, and thus differ on what ought to (or ought not to) be done. In demonizing the other side, no true dialog can be had, as you’ll always suspect they have an “evil” motive behind their actions, when in fact, they really do want the same bright and healthy future for their grandchildren, but simply see reality and how to get to that bright future much differently.
They are two seperate issues as to whether Mann should contnue to be funded by the tax payer and whether Mann should be muzzled.
I am all for free speech and he clearly should be allowed to espouse his views and opinions. On the other hand, what is now known about Mann ought to cause the Penn State to carry out a rigorous investigation as to whether it is appropriate to still be funding this guy.
Mann should not be censored. Censorship is never a good idea. But, he should be fired from his job for corrupt, incompetent science. Let him speak all he wants on his own dime. Stop funding this clown !
I entirely agree with Anthony. Free speech, and an opportunity to air your views, outlandish and insulting as they might be, is to be encouraged. Let the people decide.
On the other hand, and from a more cynical viewpoint, the more Mann speaks, the worse is the result for his “cause”. Let the man (the Mann) speak, by all means, and let him keep speaking as long as he wishes.
If Mann’s there, I’m not.
Giving Dr. Mann a chance to correct his mistakes through open debate would be the higher ground, and the better choice. If he changed his mind and teachings as a result of open debate, then perhaps the lie that been told the world concerning Global Warming could be corrected. Censorship is the low ground and should be avoided at all cost. We all deserve a second chance.
Mann shouldn’t be censored; he should be fired.
Anthony’s logic is sound, Don’t muzzle the village Idiot, let him speak, let him defend his scientifically discredited Charts. Let him explain why he wants to see people who are struggling to survive some of the harshest winters since records began and pay higher fuel bills and more for their energy so that it will reduce global temperatures.
Giving Dr. Mann a chance to correct his mistakes through open debate would be the higher ground, and the better choice. If he changed his mind and teachings as a result of open debate, then perhaps the lie that has been told the world concerning Global Warming could be corrected. Censorship is the low ground and should be avoided at all cost. We all deserve a second chance.
I completely agree. To try to silence Dr. Mann is to stoop to the level of the propagandists who fear dissenting opinions.
Have to disagree slightly.
Of course we should all support the idea of “open debate”, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Giving Dr. Mann a chance to correct his mistakes through open debate would be the higher ground, and the better choice. If he changed his mind and teachings as a result of open debate, then perhaps the lie that has been told the world concerning Global Warming could be corrected in time. Censorship is the low ground and should be avoided at all cost. We all deserve a second chance.
I hope he comes down to OZ and brings his mate Greg Laden with him.
Wouldn’t that make an interesting lecture.
We landed on the beaches weeks ago and the front is gathering speed, not long now comrades, none will be left to speak.
And none will be left to speak of.
It is encouraging to see how far up into the world’s zeitgeist WUWT has gone.
We now have the astonishing situation of the CAGW leadership trying for credibility on the “deniers” website. WUWT has covered a lot of very important ground to bring things to this point.
No matter what the outcome of any debate we will all learn something and how can that be bad?
I agree. Science is furthered by inquiry and rigorous debate even if you don’t agree with some of the personalities. If no skeptics are invited to the debate then this will be just another of many hand holding sessions that fade quickly into obscurity for lack of any real purpose – nothing changes. If, on the other hand, skeptical scientists are permitted to debate, then Dr. Mann and company set a precedence that has been their worst nightmare – elevate the skeptical viewpoint to being worthy of true scientific debate and even worse, allow skeptical scientists to sit at the same table.
Isn’t Mann a party to the SLAPP launched by Andrew Weaver against Dr. Tim Ball? As a result., Weaver and Mann have managed to shut down any possibility of the Canadian media asking uncomfortable questions about their models or their use of taxpayer funding for public lobbying activities. If Mann gets shut down by this letter-writing campaign, that is just fine by me because he won’t let his critics speak.
Now please excuse me. I live out here on the left coast. Unless I make my thrice daily homage to Saint Suzuki I might get SLAPPed.
What Voltaire is reported to have said is very appropriate here: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. (It was actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, but everyone thinks it was Voltiare and it certainly captured his spirit of belief in the power of free speech and open debate.)
Let him debate providing the format is totally fair to both sides. However he should not have the right to choose his opponent nor should he be allowed to opt out should he find out that his opponent may be Christopher Monckton. Remember what Monckton wrote about someone else: “Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.”
Tickets are $18. How much of that goes to Mann?
R. Gates says:
February 4, 2012 at 10:23 am
“‘In demonizing the other side, no true dialog can be had, as you’ll always suspect they have an “evil” motive behind their actions, when in fact, they really do want the same bright and healthy future for their grandchildren, but simply see reality and how to get to that bright future much differently.””
You reside in as much a fantasy as Mann Et el.
These clowns are a bunch of misanthropists, they are so small minded. It’s not about “hating humans” so much as it is about impressing the chick (or boy) next door. A kind of competition to get to snob-land first: ‘I look down on humans more than you do.” (Which translates loosely as: I, the exalted one, speaks from a greater height, fellow misanthropist).
No matter how much they now try to confront the climate change challenge, the change of climate is confronting them.
Frightening, don’t you think R Gates.
I like the idea of getting him to speak more. Firstly , consorship is never welcome
Secondly, if being a decent person or a good scientist were against the law
there wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict him
A well-chosen stance and well written piece, Anthony. Using Mann’ own Climategate email 1335 was a nice touch.
On a practical matter, I do not think it fair to force Mann into a debate format. Oh, give him the option, yes! But should he decline to alter his prepared stump speech, then the leaders of the Forum need to stipulate, “If you do not choose to debate Dr. X, then Dr. X will be the scheduled speaker next after you.”