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!”.
If Mann was speaking at a nearby venue (unlikely as I’m in the UK) I would certainly go along to ask a pertinent question afterwards.
All suggestions for pertinent questions gratefully received.
The problem is, I can see him being bundled out straight after his talk by his ‘hired goons’ to avoid any debate. Doesn’t Gore refuse to take Q&A nowadays?
JJ says:
“He should not be invited to speak, because of his persistant attacks on open debate and his egregious denial of free communication to others.”
Do onto others as you would have them do unto you, NOT, do unto others as they have done unto you.
Let’s not become like that which we are opposed.
@ur momisugly R. Gates
Well put, however, let’s remember that it doesn’t take evil intentions to do evil.
Love open debates and free expression of opinion.
But never forget where this is all about.
http://news.yahoo.com/100-countries-back-world-environment-agency-france-154225650.html
And if you’re confused, just replace world environment agency with New World Government.
They tried this at Copenhagen and they’re going to try it again at the Rio Summit.
Just wait for these plans going main stream.
They could effect the upcoming elections.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/when-i-said-agw-was-a-front-for-global-governance/
This is a messy situation.
It is fair to argue against letting Mann have a publicly funded forum to continue with his deceptive ways.
Is it also of importance to allow a high profile ‘advocate’ to continue to be heard? In my opinion, he has brought shame in every endeavour and organization he has been associated with to include Univ of VA, Univ of PA, IPCC, etc. He has been totally discredited from a scientific and ethical point of view. He is being investigated …. (self censured) ….
Univ of PA will be the ultimate looser with his speach as it further shows the political leanings of that institution in the face of evidence against Mann’s ethical and ‘scientific’ undertakings. There are other universities at which one can gain an education in the sciences, physics, etc. without carrying the stigma that will forever be associated with Univ of PA. The Univ of VA now has the same issues, the stigma of Univ of East Anglia suffers the same fate. Once great universities under poor management. In the real world the management would have long ago been restructured.
I would have to subscribe to the “give him enough rope to ….” view. I applaud Anthony for having an open mind with regards to this messy situation yet bringing it to our attention for an open discussion.
What’s that quote? Not evil, just wrong.
I agree that Mann, as long as he is still in his position at the university, should be able to speak, provided that another speaker is brought in later to rebut, which should be the case with all political discourse. The real question is, why does he still have his position? He has adequately demonstrated that he is more political activist than scientist. Move him to the Political Science dept. where he belongs.
Richard Verney says: February 4, 2012 at 10:28 am
They are two seperate issues as to whether Mann should contnue to be funded by the tax payer and whether Mann should be muzzled.
Precisely. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of muzzling my intelectual opponent. So should those who do it, that’s totalitarian. Moreover, that never worked in the long run. The wronger he is, and the more he talks, the better for me.
Debate is debate. Isn’t that what the sceptical side of the argument been asking for all along? Honest, open debate with the emphasis on the science. Examination of the issues. Of course Mann should be allowed to present his work in full. That is only fair.
So long as the debate is open and honest, of course.
MM should permitted the courtesy of being able to speak and the audience, preferably 100% comprised of skeptics, should be allowed to listen to him. If I lived anywhere close to where he is speaking, I would be first in line to hear him. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
@Anthony: Kids are impressionable. Whomever is up front speaking to them from a university platform becomes an authority figure. I have to agree with choosecommonsense.org. Mann should not be an authority figure. This is not a debate among adults we’re talking about. It’s indoctrination. I think you have made a mistake in interpreting how this talk will be received and by whom.
On the other hand, he is faculty at Penn State. There is no way an outside group should get to pick who speaks at faculty seminars. I’m not sure this problem has a right answer.
Your call for free and open debate is absolutely right. It is only the hypocritical that advocate for freedom and close debate to those disagreed with. That is a social/political response. The philosophical resonance in general and the philosophy of science response in specific, demands debate and it demands complete openness and responsive, not passive, decisions or judgments. Free and open debate that examines any and all ideas relating to any question is fundamental to a free and open society. It is only the True Believers that are prepared to mortgage their freedom.
PiperPaul says (February 4, 2012 at 11:11 am)
What’s that quote? Not evil, just wrong.
—————–
Or ” not even wrong”.
Wiki:
An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be “not even wrong” if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase was coined by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls writes that “a friend showed [Pauli] the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, ‘It is not even wrong.’ “[2]
The phrase implies that even a wrong argument would have been better than the argument proposed, because an argument can only be found wrong after meeting the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. Arguments that are not even wrong do not meet these criteria.
The phrase “not even wrong” is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science and is considered derogatory.[3]
The reason there is a moderator is (from their web site) “Following the presentation, a facilitator poses questions that have been submitted by members of the audience to the speaker. Together, the speaker and audience have an opportunity to explore some of the most pertinent issues facing higher education and society today.”
I would like to see:
1. audience members who can frame a question succinct enough to make Mann squirm in his response
2. the list of questions given to the moderator (it reads as if they are not taking questions from the floor but rather pre-submitted questions).
3. the questions that the moderator asks of Mann so that we can compare these with the submissions to see what the filtering process was
4. references to Mann sharing the Nobel Prize to state that it was the Nobel PEACE Prize awarded to the IPCC. It was not, necessarily, for good science.
Dr Mann should be provided with ‘enough rope’ !
Anthony
Sorry for the vitriol but why is the perpetration of a $ trillion dollar shell game seen as a minor offense to the world public. Its OK and no one will say otherwise? I very cautiously suggest that history has shown otherwise.
I agree with this part:
but the linked site requires cookies to be able to read the statement so I don’t know if they are calling for Penn State to silence Dr. Mann. Not supporting him because of his serious misbehavior is not at all the same as muzzling him. It is patently wrong to seek to block someone from presenting their ideas and it is also patently wrong to enable a serial offender to continue offending. Two problems, two solutions.
I agree with Anthony. But Penn State should also allow a skeptical speaker to speak.
Mann spoke last week at another Penn State Forum:
http://e-education.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=526d1c0752384b8ab2bf8ab4cd47603f1d
University of Osnabrück’s Disinvitation Of Professor Vahrenholt Camouflaged True Motives
By P Gosselin on 3. Februar 2012
The above from http://www.notrickszone.com about yet another ‘disinvitation’ of a sceptic. This is by no means uncommon.
I agree with Anthony about censorship. However, it might be interesting to have a list of the ‘disinvited’, just for the record.
John West says:
JJ says:
“He should not be invited to speak, because of his persistant attacks on open debate and his egregious denial of free communication to others.”
Do onto others as you would have them do unto you, NOT, do unto others as they have done unto you.
Sloppy thinking. The two circumstances are not equivalent. What Mann has done is actively attack others for open debate, and actively prevent others from free communication. He does this because he wants to stifle what they had to say. I dont think that Mann’s opinions should be kept from a public forum, though I would disagree with nearly all of it. I think that it is appropriate to not invite him to present those opinions. Not because of what he has to say, but because of his efforts to deny others the benefit of the principle that would thus be extended to him. He does not deserve the privilige. He deserves to be sanctioned by those who wish to preserve the principle that he actively attacks.
Let’s not become like that which we are opposed.
Don’t be silly. When someone steals or defrauds others, we may levy punitive fines on them. When someone kidnaps others, we may incarcerate them. When someone violates the rights of others, they lose their claim to what were their own rights – ask any convict. Similarly, when someone violates a principle of social convention, they may lose the benefit of that same principle. Do not confuse irony with contradiction.
It is not a contravention of the principles of open debate and free communication to sanction those who violate those principles.
According to the warmists, 97% of all people qualified to have an opinion on climate science are in lockstep agreement with Mann. Thus, it should not be difficult to locate an effective advocate for Mann’s warmist positions: one who has not acted to deny free communication of others, and thus deserves the invite.
Yes, I see. Not so much in support of Dr Mann, as in support of letting him make a complete pratt of himself, in front of an un-selected audience. I’m sure go for that.
I don’t know what the format of this program is and whether or not questions are allowed. If they are, it would be especially good to have some pointed ones prepared based on the title: Confronting the Climate Change Challenge. Something like “Dr. Mann, so far the temperature change record on the climate consists mainly of one ~30 year rise in global temperature of about .9deg C from 1970-2000, in a 150 year instrumental record and thousands of years of paleo records showing many similar changes. Why do you see a 0.003 deg change in absolute temperature of the earth as a challenge?”
I fully agree. Open debate is needed with everyone able to contribute.
The answer is simple. The Penn State group should instead organize donations to pay for the expense of inviting Steve McIntyre to make a presentation immediately following Michael Mann’s. After that, they can sponsor an open discussion with both speakers. I’d donate for that.
I have no doubt but that Steve will agree to participate. And Michael Mann . . . .?
I’ve sent choosecommonsense.org an email about this and suggesting they organize web-donations to support Steve’s participation.
In America we should support the freedom for people to make fools of themselves in public. Thus if Dr. (or perhaps that is doctored of data) Mann wishes to do so, he should be supported in his effort.
The freedom of speech in America, however, has an end…..and what is the end?: The end,
which should not be permitted is ALARMISM, shouting FIRE in public, cinema or other
locations….. alarmism is not to be allowed according the principle of free speech…. and
alarmism is the “C” in “C”AGW – therefore, shouting “Catastrophy” is not permitted in free speech
principles…. this is a democratic principle, check with the Federalist Papers or “On Freedom”
from the famous liberal John Stuart Mill…..
JS