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.
I don’t care whether Dr. (what a joke) Mann gives a speech or opens up a Popsicle stand. But to deny him the right to speak in public is wrong. Let climate scientists continue with their dire warnings and have it all on the public record.
So I agree too.
“Join us in calling on the administrators of Penn State to end its support of Michael Mann and his radical agenda.”
OK. I’m all for free speech and the right of any to speak their minds. Therefore, the petitioners have the right to speak their minds. Does anyone really believe the Penn State administrators are going to listen anyways? These are the same people who gave Mann a clean bill of health. The latest news report indicates they are now playing this up as a shameful “Big Coal” vs “free speech” matter.
I say, let the petitioners say what they want to say (I don’t agree with them), and let Mann say what he wants to say (I don’t agree with him). At the moment, with CAGW on the ropes, Mann et al are desperately trying to bolster up their position. They are failing badly according to public opinion. The more open discussion/debate/controversy on the matter the better.
Moral of the story – At this point even bad press is good press.
There’s a lot going on here …
Is the university forum to be one sided, that is, simply allowing him an opportunity to speak, without anyone being able to counter his ‘content’ ?
Is the university going to allow one or more critics to respond and require that he defend ?
Most importantly, if he speaks without any ‘balance’ allowed, then to the extent the media picks this event up, to the general public it will be construed to be more validation of the fraudulent message.
Not good !
Those that would silence him should modify their efforts – to try to ensure that the university allow a speaker to attend and point out, in response, the illogical agenda.
Maybe the issue is turning – when BBC America starts to give coverage to the harsh winter weather of parts of Europe, and American network news covers the snowfall of Japan, it can only be further good.
Subtle points, reinforced, can have an effect upon a rather uninformed and low IQ American public.
At the same time, the far left eco facists will never admit to any wrong. They will simply not respond, in the face of truth. One see’s it here in Seattle, all the time, from the current governor of WA right on down to the Freemont district liberals – it’s deny, deny, deny. They have their ‘majority of climate scientists’ and nothing will change that.
As the great Robert A. Heinlein pointed out through the voice of one of his charterers in “The Number of the Beast”, one can not defeat the devil with the weapons of the devil.
“Anthony,
Are you advocating that government should use some of its people’s tax money to support Mann having a platform to disseminate his religious views under the guise of science to an unsuspecting public, without being required to reply in the same forum to uncomfortable questions about his past work?”
The guy is wasting huge amount tax dollars already. It like complaining about “allowing a congressman” to speak on tax payer’s dime. If tax payer want to remove him from his unelected position, then there would some sense to not using tax funds to allow him to speak- maybe.
If there is no counter to his agenda – no speaker to respond, then to the extent the media pick up this story it will be, yet again, misconstrued by the public as to being ‘fact’. This is not good.
One see’s this phenom in Seattle – the eco facists simply go quiet when forced to defend their positions. It becomes a matter of the ‘vast majority of climate scientists’ on their side – nothing more. They deny, they will never admit being wrong.
Climate science at the U of Washington ? Please, don’t disturb the modelers !
Am I the only one who sees this entire event as nonsensical? The censors are on the other side of the issue. The only useful alternatives I can see are to continue to challenge the bad data and interpretations, and publicly criticize the behaviors of Mann and Penn State.
I do see the point of those that say that “they started it,” because it’s true. Not productive, but true. Also the “dose of their own medicine” position, again valid but won’t really accomplish anything. Also that it isn’t really speaking, it’s comingled with public money. Also true, also not accomplishing anything.
One of the problems is that “they” claimed the high ground coming out of the gate (to mix and match metaphors), and “they” have no self-awareness about things like honesty, censorship, or similar issues. Their position is “correct” and all others are false and *everything* is justified in enforcing that.
I would think that publicizing the errors and alternative interpretations is the only way forward, unless courts actually start recognizing fraud as fraud even when “certain people” are committing it… no real luck there so far. Posters, handouts, alternative media.
The call is understandable but since the “information gatekeepers” are “captured” by the other side, you can’t depend on symbolic gestures subject to interpretation, they *will* be misinterpreted and used against you. We really need unambiguous messages or none at all.
I’m all for free speech. Haven’t the alarmists had their chance? When do we get a turn, other than on the skeptic web sites?
I am interested in the point-counterpoint format in debate mentioned in this posting, for I would like to challenge our most prominent local warmist (and Gore acolyte) to an open debate. There are so many points to discuss that I would not want to employ the usual several minute presentation on both sides followed by a rebuttal on both sides (at least, that’s how I remember it from my high school days!!), for the ideas would get lost with the audience. The idea appeals to me of having one side make a point with the other side being free to dispute, possibly followed by more to-and-fro before moving on to another topic. I’d like to know if there is an established format for this type of debate. (Google yielded no guidance.) Postings here or to me directly, please: imcqueen (at) nbnet.nb.ca
IanM
Full agreement. Let’s not go down the road, followed by many in the “climate” industry, of censoring those who don’t agree with us.
@R. Gates
RE: “both sides want the same thing”
I agree with most of your points above, very sensible approach on your part, But I’ll point out proponents of “man made global warming” are actively involved in a campaign on a massive scale to reduce human energy consumption and have been using an excuse of reducing global temperatures to achieve this goal.
Now that the scientific data being used to back up these claims of AGW are being observed by scientists, It is becoming clear that it falls far sort of the original predictions of catastrophic warming.
And as temperatures globally are beginning to have no statistical value for the original claim of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING the original goal to reduce human energy consumption has continuously been re-branded as Climate Change? Climate Disruption? Anthropologically Induced Climate Shifts? etc…
So what is the real issue?
Is it RIGHT to introduce an aggressive financial burden on people that will only reduce the standard of living for the poorest of families to build hugely inefficient and expensive low energy infrastructures?
I say use the choosecommonsense.org link – but NOT to protest Mann’s speech, but rather to advocate for a real debate …that opposing views be allowed to be presented.
In the event he refuses – as we know is highly likely – then apply to Penn State for time for a presentation immediately after Mann’s.
And when Penn State, as is seemingly equally likely, refused … then go to an alternate nearby site and arrange the same rebuttal presentation.
Counter-programming – to respond and present the climate realist side – is the best way to address pond scum like Mann.
Again – use the http://www.choosecommonsense.org link, not to attack Mann, but rather to promote dialog and debate and note Mann and Penn State’s censoring opposing views.
It seems that a uniform policy – of the realist side, first asking to participate in every public CAGW event such as this, and when being inevitably turned down, then scheduling a response/rebuttal near by immediately after, is the best way to address this. ASK to be included in every such presentation – civilly and professionally – and when turned down make a point of informing the media AND of scheduling rebuttal presentation to counter and present the realist facts.
A physicist says:
February 4, 2012 at 11:45 am
“Those who seek for rationality in the evolution of science often will be disappointed, and those who seek for saints among scientists (or any other profession) always will be disappointed. And that is why there is a saying: “Death by death, science advances!” :)”
Rejoice, the end is near!
He is a spiteful two-bit climate despot but I agree, he should be free to speak however, people who disagree with Mann should be free to express themselves, as well, and if some of them choose to protest at the venue, all the better.
Mann should be allowed to speak; ideally to an empty room…
His POV is scientifically unsound and his attitude to real debate is to ensure the ‘dice’ are always loaded in his favor.
My low regard of him will only change if he engages in an open and balanced debate in a public forum – until then I trust him about as much as a used car salesman…
I applaud this stance from WUWT. In general, the best response to problems of free expression is more speech, not censorship. Yes Michael Mann has proved himself unworthy of public trust, but the proper way to counter his message(s) is with better information and arguments.
This site stands for a highly admirable quality of thought, debate, and comunication.
The best response at Penn State would be if there are any students, staff and townsfolk, etc. motivated to organize some counter-event (I expect it is most unlikely that Penn State will turn a “featured” speaker in their fancy series into a real debate forum or that Mann will agree to any modification of the existing arrangements).
Perhaps Christopher Monckton could give a response address in another room the same night or at some future date. Or Tim Ball, heh heh…
If no one organizes from within PSU then perhaps there could be an event for the town of State College (where the main campus of PSU is located), or even in the Philly area (which is. 150+ miles from PSU but may have more possibilities for venue and audience)…
gbaikie writes,
“The guy is wasting huge amount tax dollars already. It like complaining about “allowing a congressman” to speak on tax payer’s dime. If tax payer want to remove him from his unelected position, then there would some sense to not using tax funds to allow him to speak- maybe.”
This is a First Amendment issue, and one which Commonwealth countries don’t wrestle with, but the U.S. does: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [. . . .]”
Mann’s beliefs are religious in nature. By prohibiting the opposing views access to the same funded platform, this public university will be doing exactly what the First Amendment says should not be done. This principle of the First Amendment has been extended by courts to lower jurisdictions; whether that is valid or not, the fact remains that the principle is an important one.
You may think this group’s actions impractical, but according to the First Amendment, they are eminently justified in taking them.
RTF
You’re a honourable man, Anthony, and your stance doesn’t surprise me at all. You are right – Mann should of course speak and he should not be prevented.
However – I’d go just one step further: I would force him to speak, drag him there so that he for once will have to debate his critics, without leaving the room on a trumped-up excuse.
Anthony, I spent 23 years of my life in a communist country, and any kind of censorship is abhorrent to me, We, the climate realists, are wining now, and any additional ammunition donated to us by the alarmists is very much welcome. So, let “them” speak.
Taras
The problem isn’t in allowing someone to speak; the problem is in whether or not what they say is believed, and by whom.
Problem now is that the alarmists will take the moral stance and claim (quite outrageously) that they are being ‘suppressed’ therefore their evidence is something ‘we don’t want to hear’ – implying their greater authority on the subject. Hypocritical? Of course, but the scales nerver were balanced in this debate.
I agree with the idea, but believe you need to change the title. The title implies that you support Mann. Perhaps it should be “Support Open Debate”.
Mr Watts (and all who post on WUWT.)
The main reason that I visit this site on such a regular basis is that it is such a civilised forum with both side of the divide able to express their disparate views, whether pro or con. Thank you for providing such a platform and thanks to all others for helping a complete non-scientist understand both the scientific and ethical dimensions of the argument.
I see nothing in the CCS post that says they don’t want Mann to speak at a particular place and time. They ask PennState to “stop supporting” Mann. I’m not sure what they mean by that.
Vince says (February 4, 2012 at 11:52 am)
Mann spoke last week at another Penn State Forum:
http://e-education.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=526d1c0752384b8ab2bf8ab4cd47603f1d
ecoGuy says (February 4, 2012 at 1:03 pm)
Mann should be allowed to speak; ideally to an empty room…
———
The room didn’t look very full last week, nor the participants very well informed.
But it doesn’t look from the video as if Mann has any intention of debating anything. He’s just plugging his book. $$$.