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.
At 1:07 PM on 4 February, Skiphil had suggested:
I support this idea, even if the gathering should be undertaken in the Philadelphia or Pittsburgh areas.
Perhaps especially if that’s done.
I’ve been up to Centre County (the location of Penn State), and it’s a helluva hike from just about any population center on the eastern seaboard. Insofar as I can recall, also, the town of State College isn’t overloaded with the sorts of convention-center venues at which to host such a gathering of global climate realists.
in the southeastern corner of the Keystone State, however, there are suitable places a-plenty, there’s no need to do it within the taxing jurisdiction of those thugs down at City Hall, and there are media root-weevils literally crawling up out of the storm drains.
For the same reason that Dr. Mann does not want to crawl too far out into the sunlight – too far from the protection of the PSU Board of Trustees and the oh-so-hospitable townies in Happy Valley, that is – our advocacy might most effectively be served by a counterblast mounted from a place where the Nittany Lions are just another semi-pro football team (Yawn!).
LazyTeenager says:
February 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“Slanging”?? Oh, you mean the type of pronouncements that come from Mann himself, don’t you? (Twitter, Climategate I, Climategate II, various articles, etc. etc.)
You’d require that Mann be speechless? That’s not a very fair rule to apply to Mann in a debate.
Mann is the guy that sued Minnesotans for Global Warming for their viral video hit “Hide the Decline”.
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/
Doing anything at all to make this man’s life easier is the wrong thing to do. An especially loathsome thing to do is help secure for him the very rights he seeks to take from others. Therefore this article was the wrong thing to do. Mann deserves punishment not compassion.
I support and encourage choosecommonsense.org. It’s their right to protest Mann’s appearnce if they so choose. What Anthony should be doing if he chooses common sense himself would be to take up a collection so that Minnesotan’s for Global Warming could be playing outside the lecture hall where Mann is speaking.
Defend his right to free speech while he stifles everyone else.
We should never choose to muzzle freedom of speech. In this case people have a right to protest his presence and he has a right to say what he believes to be true. Of course if he says something that he knows not to be true then that is Fraud and eventually the truth will out. Following which he would presumably lose his credibility. Until such time we must also afford Presumption of Innocence.
Anthony-
While I certainly agree with you on the free speech issue. I’m not sure I agree with on the purpose of Common Sense. Org’s letter campaign. IMO there is not a snowballs chance in hell that Penn State’s administration would cancel a lecture by such a senior faculty member, and Common Sense knows that.
It seems to me that they are using the occasion of the lecture as chance for people to express their opinion of Mann in Pennsylvania newspapers. Their specific request is :” Join us in calling on the administrators of Penn State to end its support of Michael Mann and his radical agenda.”. IMO this mean calling for firing him.
Common Sense is apparently sponsored by the coal industry. Their argument seems to be that many in Pennsylvania depend on coal for their livelihood. The state (and by extension Penn State) is therefore dependent on coal for much of their taxes. Why should the state of Pennsylvania support a person who is directly antagonistic to the industry that many Pennsylvanians depend on for their livelihood.? Makes sense to me.
Don says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm
“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 ……….”
===============
I think this would be an excellent and realistic approach. Provide links to sites and relevant issues that the uninformed could investigate. Include ‘the names that cannot be spoken’. Anthony Watts / WUWT comes to mind.
Occupy Mann?
Frankly given the size of the guys ego and given his likes to BS and bully. I think we should encourage Mann to speak in public , particularly in debates . How sweet would it be if his own mouth brings him down?
I suspect those behind choosecommonsense.com have some emotional attachment to Penn State, and wish to save the college a little of the humiliation it will endure in the historical record. Despite stiff competition from the likes of Hansen, Mann might be remembered as the Lysenko of the USA.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion here. This isn’t about Mann having a right to speak. This is about Penn State’s choice of who gets to speak. That lecture hall isn’t a soap box on a public street corner where everyone has equal access. Penn State administrators choose who gets to use this particular public soap box. In the opinion of Choose Common Sense in Mann they’ve chosen poorly and as taxpayers (ostensibly Pennsylvania taxpayers) have a right to voice their disapproval of the speakers chosen.
On a more personal note [SNIP: That’s a bit over the top. Sorry. -REP]
Well said AW.
Stay happy in your own skin.
I have read all the comments above, and I note the overwhelming consensus to let Mann speak. Naturally, I note consensus, but then I examine it. What is it? What are people saying? The highly dominant point is to protect free speech, free debate, and not to go low like Mann does. Open up every view.
That’s good, I think we all instinctively agree about that.
But hold on people, actually, I think that’s what the notoriously thin-skinned Mann relies on you to do. I think that he assumes that all those opponents he has are diehard constitutionalists that will defend his right to free speech while meanwhile he does his very best to disallow others the same right.
He has already shown that he has no respect for free speech, or for other people’s professional values. What about Chris de Freitas, who he tried to have fired?
We need, in my view, to recognise the incredible value of Michael Mann being denied a public platform as a direct rebuke to his behavior.
Sorry, no, I’m happy to go against the consensus here. No free speech to Mann on a publicly-funded platform until he learns what civilised discourse is.
I agree with you, Anthony; allowing Michael Mann to speak is the right thing to do. I also agree with those who point out the 1st Amendment’s vital role in protecting everyone, especially dissidents and skeptics of all kinds, from governmental attempts to limit debate.
Along the lines of Voltaire.
I may detest what you say but I will die defending your right to say it.
Well done Anthony. The high road wins in the long run.
cheers
I agree Anthony. The best disinfectant is sunlight.
Anthony,
Your are quite wrong here.
You are conflating the right of free speech with the right to a stage.
No one has the right to a stage. Conflating the two is a source of mischief that weakens the true fundamental right of speech.
Throughout civil life there are constantly valid efforts to deny vile and fraudulent ideas a stage that enhances the standing of those ideas.
A stage elevates the speech of one over the speech of many. Free speech will propagate good ideas because those ideas become widely accepted and adopted by their inherent correctness and resonance. They earn a stage eventually by rectitude, not force of authority. Fraud and propaganda turn the tables on free speech and require a stage to acquire credibility against their true nature.
Mann is under investigation in Virginia. His work product has been demonstrated to range from flawed to fraudulent. The evidence in the public domain of Mann’s duplicity is greater than the evidence against OJ.
I too object to any body, public or private, attempting to provide an amplified voice, which diminishes the free speech of those unrepresented on stage, to demonstrable dishonesty and propaganda.
The government should be out of the stage business entirely. Private citizens can collectively create stages for their ideas. If a private group wants to invite a fraudster or propagandist to a stage, yes they may do so and no one can stop them. However, it is completely legitimate for other groups to exercise their free speech and attempt to convince that private group that providing a stage for fraud and propaganda is wrong and should be stopped. They are right to proclaim that offering a forum for unchecked propaganda can harm others.
That is part of the process where fraud is ostracized and demoted by good people. To deny the validity of honest folks attempting to delegitimize fraud by pulling the stage out from under it is a bigger assault on the exercise of free speech than to oppose Mann’s presence on a stage that offers credibility.
If the private group then proceeds with offering a stage to fraudulent propaganda, the group’s standing is then diminished in the eyes of many, but only because others have pointed out in advance the vileness of giving that stage to such person.
It is not wrong in the least for people to oppose his place on stage. It would be wrong for the government to decide who gets to be on private stages. But it is a fundamental component of free speech and effective discourse to debate who private groups should allow on stage.
May the most honest ideas win, but only when propaganda and fraud are vocally resisted. Otherwise, lies and malevolence win, as history has proven.
Congratulations…..good to read…..just perfect…
JS
I don’t think anybody here is really willing to die so that Michael Mann can continue to peddle his BS and gather accolades from his Ivory Tower brethren. All this high-minded stuff is just posturing. I say gag the clown. We don’t owe him anything. Of course he will be allowed to speak , and he will get an honorarium and plaque of appreciation for showing up. You know the game. This smacks of grandstanding. Save your free speech concerns for those folks that have actually been denied the opportunity to speak.
neill says:
February 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm
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.”
Sorry, R. Gates, that strikes me as evil incarnate. And shame on those who provide an uncontested forum for it.
_____
It is a prerequisite that the opposition always be seen as “evil”. If you even allowed for a moment the possibility that they might be just like you, only with a different perspective on things, then it is harder to despise them. Of course, in acts of actual war, the opposition must not just be seen as evil and bad, etc. but as hardly human, as it makes it so much easier to kill them.
John Billings says:
February 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“He has already shown that he has no respect for free speech, or for other people’s professional values. What about Chris de Freitas, who he tried to have fired?
We need, in my view, to recognise the incredible value of Michael Mann being denied a public platform as a direct rebuke to his behavior.
Sorry, no, I’m happy to go against the consensus here. No free speech to Mann on a publicly-funded platform until he learns what civilised discourse is.”
=====================
Mazel ! At this juncture the only public platform Mann should be allowed is the stand in a court of law. There he can espouse his anti-science views and be accordingly cross-examined in full public view.
[Moderator’s Note: Don, this is going to be taken the wrong way. Do you suppose you could re-work it a bit and make it a little less liable to misinterpretation? -REP]
Gates,
They are evil, and we’re not:
“I’d like the world to warm up quicker, but if it did, I know that the sensitivity is much higher and humanity would be in a real mess!”
~ Phil Jones, email 3408
Mass extermination is A-OK with Phil Jones, so long as he wins the argument. And Michael Mann is no different. If anything, he’s probably worse.
I wish the protest had been an attempt to compel a debate (ah, to see Mann face the
“non-credentialed” Steve McIntyre! Be still my heart!), not silence Mann.
(Mann’s “TedTalk” lecture was weak, vulnerable. Man is, slowly, deflating, on his own.)
But, you are correct, and you are getting even taller, Anthony. smile…. ….Lady in Red
Anthony is not protecting Dr. Mann’s right to speak. He is reminding the skeptic community that we must protect everyone’s right to speak.
Well done Anthony.
For reasons I needn’t explain here, having my book sit one above Michael Mann’s on Kindle’s Weather list is pleasant. Anyone who’d like to help keep it there is encouraged to do so:
http://amzn.to/yLN0Zm
“”[Moderator’s Note: Don, this is going to be taken the wrong way. Do you suppose you could re-work it a bit and make it a little less liable to misinterpretation? -REP]””
You don”t know Don very well then-REP].