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.
Anthony this is why you have been so successful with this blog. Always doing the right (correct) thing. Way to go and keep it up.
Better that Mann should speak and prove himself to be a fool and a charlatan rather than stay silent leaving only the strong suspicion that he is.
Perfectly right. Mr.Mann should be able to say whatever he wants and drag is name and of Penn State to dirt.
Anthony speaks out in defence of Mann when he could easily have just remained silent.
Many scientists across the world remain silent about the poor foundations of climate science, when they should speak out.
I totally agree that the way to disprove CAGW is to let the opposition speak and to disprove it’s points one by one.
The alarmists use of Lysenkoistic methods to silence it’s critics just proves that they fear close inspection of their arguments.
No need to explain in anything words in excess of — It is the right thing to do. Lest the sceptical side has trouble looking itself in the mirror.
Kudos to Anthony for being true to everything WUWT stands for, OPEN investigation and debate and show us your data.
Thank you Anthony.
This softens my discomfort over recent handling of/by Willis.
Freedom of speech is a difficult issue, not nearly as simple as it looks at first sight. Gag one, and another is freed to speak. Free one, and another is gagged from speaking. Make rules, and some are treated unfairly. Make no rules, and one is treated unfairly oneself.
Always, always, it is worth going the extra mile.
thank you again.
@ur momisugly R. Gates
‘Neither side is evil, neither side wants to see the end of humanity.’
Christopher Booker once wrote:
Evil men don’t get up in the morning saying ‘ I’m going to do evil ‘. They say ‘ I’m going to make the world a better place. ‘
IMO Michael Mann falls into the above category.
His work has done untold evil, but I agree with Anthony, let him be condemned out of his own mouth.
[snip over the top – Anthony]
In a perfect world
/ Just having fun.
Several commenters have at least hinted at this, but the thing that should be done IMO is to exercise our own free speech rights by presenting our side, invited or not. Leaflet the lecture. Provide a physical takeaway presenting an alternative viewpoint. It could include some poignant Mann Climategate excerpts and McIntyre quotes, a brief, clear presentation of the reasoning behind skepticism, and links to credible skeptic blogs, including a site where a skeptical response to Dr. Mann’s lecture could be viewed (and Mann offered a chance of rebuttal). It is all but certain that Mann would get his eyeballs on a leaflet, just to see what attendees are seeing; it might even spark the famous Mann charm! And he would be served notice that his misdeeds and misstatements will confront him when and where he takes to the microphones. All with the lofty goal of making an honest Mann of him. ;->
Correct call, Anthony.
You are the one occupying the moral high-ground, and bringing Mike Mann to account is not the most important task.
Aw – come on Moderator. Put it up there. Just a little balance, to keep it real.
You know you want to.
REPLY – Not sure we want to go there. I’ll leave it for the other mods to decide. – Evan
I agree – the bad buys try to muzzle their opponents. The truth shall set you free.
Let him speak, he is very entertaining in an indirect kind of way.
What would happen to WUWT without Dr Mann and his ilk to get hot under the collar about.
He may be costing me a few hundred a year in extra tax but I think I’d miss coming here and reading all about their latest faux pas. Worth every penny.
I also agree that open debate should be encouraged.
I’ll also chip in for a ticket for Burt Rutan to be there to do it.
I think it is totally legitimate to deny a fraudster a forum. You say that “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”
How can you defend his public appearances if he does not publish his data and how he selected the data. Frauds do not have a right to be considered legitimate. It sounds a little like your trying to curry favor from your critics.
Mann is either borderline fraudulent or he is not.
If only Mann is given “free speech”, and the voices of skeptics are frozen out, this is not a “freedom” worth supporting!
An open debate is fine. But if it turns into a slanging match it is not very useful.
Agree 200%. It was only 100%, but I ran it through the Mann-o-matic, and it jogged up to 200% right at the end. 🙂
If nothing else though, this campaign helps expose Mann for the fraud he is…and he IS. Even if they fail in their endeavor at least it puts yet another mark on the beast that is Mann or at least brings some of his shennanigans to light. But I do agree with you Anthony, the more he debates against reputable scientists like Steve M, and a whole host of others the more he will be exposed.
Absolutely!
This debate between Mann and a qualified opponent should replace Madonna as the Super Bowl Halftime entertainment.
The looser gets to suit up for the rest of the game without benefit of helmet or pads–and he must play the whole half, too!
Gosh, I wonder if Mann would man up to that challenge? (He’s been a great cheerleader for policies that have set world civilization back decades by starving countless thousands–maybe some football players would consider that when opposing him.)
I’ll add my (pseudo) name to the roll of those who think Mann should not be stifled. A perusal of the whole thread seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of that notion. That speaks well of the posters, here, I think. And that’s why and how free speech and open debate will ultimately arrive at the truth, and why at least in the U.S.) we are guaranteed the right to speak and oppose orthodoxy.
I disagree with those who say this is a war. This is not a war, this is a contentious debate. War is what happens when we have a critical conflict, and we can no longer debate about it. Let’s not cheapen the word ‘war,’ okay?
R. Gates: “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.”
But one side (Mann’s side, and Mann himself) willfully paints the other as ‘evil’ after having set up the (I believe) false paradigm that the world will have to — and should, essentially as an act of penance — suffer economically in order to save itself ecologically. (You yourself present it as an either/or proposition). And if one doesn’t accept the validity of that, one finds oneself on the ‘evil’ side. Not only that, Mann et al, by suppressing opposing scientific views, attempted with partial success to effectively stampede global elites in order to stampede the global public — all in order to render “the cause” a reality.
Sorry, R. Gates, that strikes me as evil incarnate. And shame on those who provide an uncontested forum for it.