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!”.
I am for open debate, even with those who are against it.
It’s not a question of “allowing Michael Mann to speak” because this further build-up of warmista filth in the Augean Stables of government thuggery is being undertaken by his employers, the Board of Trustees and other administrative goons of Pennsylvania State University.
They’ve got control of the campus (and the budget), and not even the cluster of drones in Harrisburg pretending to be the state legislature has anything resembling a proper choke hold on the throats of these arrogant cods in Happy Valley.
The way those putzes figure it, no big-time publicity for Michael “We’re All Gonna Die!” Mann, no continuing influx of whacking big federal government “research” grant money. It’s all about the Benjamins, babies.
Okay, with that understood, let’s leave the “freedom of speech” noise aside and consider what can be done to present a scientifically sound countervailing message to the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the rest of the nation.
There are doubtless people reading in this forum who know pretty damned well just what “Hide-the-Decline” is going to be yammering, right?
So set up a highly public “pre-buttal” to hit a couple of days before – and thereby spike Mikey’s little bicycle wheels so he goes on stage sputtering and squealing and twitching – followed by a longer and even more substantive slam-him-in-the-chops rebuttal as soon as humanly possible after he finishes his puking-up all over the stage Penn State’s providing for him.
Dr. Mann is coming out from under his rock. Don’t hinder him.
Nail him.
Michael Mann – Upcoming Lectures and Events:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/index.php
On february 15 at the Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA, the blurb tells us that, “Michael Mann will discuss the “Hockey Stick,” a graph he created with his colleagues to depict changes in Earth’s temperature dating back to 1000 AD. The graph was featured in the Summary for Policy Makers portion of the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and became an icon in the debate over human-caused climate change. He will tell the story behind the Hockey Stick, using it as a vehicle for exploring broader issues regarding the role of skepticism in science and the relationship between science and politics”.
Here is Michael Mann on 17 January 2012 reaffirming the hockey stick and claiming that “every scientific peer reviewed study published since has come to that same conclusion so it is not really a contested conclusion anymore and it isn’t even… a central pillar…that our detractors like to make it out to be”. Apparently now there is a “veritable hockey league”.
The part of the video relevent to Mann’s Hockey Stick is around 26 minutes in.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19828363
100% in agreement: push for open and real debate and watch him hide.
I like this: The Monkey Trial, Global Warming version
http://feet2thefire.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-monkey-trial-global-warming-version/
Your drift to the left over the last few months has been noted.
This campaign is also on local radio in “Happy Valley”. The rock station (WBUS) has frequent ads bashing Mann the last few days. If you want to hear the ads, I think you can do so by going to the web site (thebus.net) and using the “listen live” link at the top of the page. You’ll probably hear one within a half-hour or so.
jonathan frodsham says:
“I like this: The Monkey Trial, Global Warming version
http://feet2thefire.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-monkey-trial-global-warming-version ”
Jonathan, THANK YOU for posting that link! Excellent.
Personally I consider the construction of the hockey stick a scientific fraud. The journals should have withdrawn his papers long ago and he should have lost his job but this did not happen. Why do I say this? Because he did not like the temperature trend of his tree ring data for recent decades so he simply chucked them out and substituted thermometer readings he did like. If you are a scientist and you have just created a set of observations according to a valid protocol you are not allowed to throw out observations that you don’t like to make the rest of your data look good. It does not matter he claims those data were no good. It matters even less that the thermometer data he substituted for tree ring data that he rejected were considered “right” by comparison. It was done to change the conclusion of the paper to conform to a predetermined outcome. This premeditated twisting of data makes it a scientific fraud, period. Beyond that, the temperature curves for the eighties and nineties are themselves also fraudulent. I have proved that the thermometer data for these two decades have been manipulated to show warming where none exists. It is easy to show this by comparing them with satellite temperature measurements. You will find graphical demonstration of how it was done in figures 24, 27 and 29 of my book “What Warming?” available on Amazon. The global warming establishment has shielded him and deflected all investigations so far. [snip. Please, that is a bridge too far. ~dbs, mod.]
Never support the rights of someone to do something he would deny to you. When they get the chance, they will not do anything other than what they have been trying to do. Mann has been after shutting down skeptics for years. He abuses the legal system, he intimidates, and he actively seeks to encourage others to do the same.
Playing nice with him is a waste of time. He does not see you as high minded in this. He sees you as a target that is softer then he thought.
moderator: I said what I meant to say, and clearly. How would it be misinterpreted? Aren’t we grown men here?
Smokey says:
February 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Gates,
They are evil, and we’re not…
——-
Of course. It can be nothing other for the true believers on both sides. They are bad, we are good. We are right they are wrong. They are deluded or misguided and we have seen the light. On on and on it goes…
If 1) professor Mann has a right to speak freely, then, according to the same system of laws and rules, 2) professor Mann must stand trial for misusing public funds and distorting public information.
If 2) doesn’t happen, then 1) is a travesty.
I disagree.
R. Gates says:
February 4, 2012 at 10:23 am
You’re right, Gates, except for the operative word “entire”. If that were the case, they’d have to commit suicide along with the elimination of everybody else, and they’re not willing to go quite that far, obviously.
But just what level of destruction of the human species are they willing to put up with? Indeed, from what I gather, they could see a significant portion of it go and they’d not worry that much about it. Indeed, I believe you’re part of the effort and you pick your words wisely to deflect any criticism.
So I’ll just call you out for blatant propaganda in defense of a movement that is no more concerned with the truly poor of the world than, apparently, you are. I’m sure you’re smart enough to be completely aware of what they’re doing.
If not, I suggest you look at the documents that were circulated at the last COP gathering in S. Africa–there was quite an expose` here at WUWT if you didn’t catch it. And if that doesn’t wake you up, nothing will.
Why does this post, and many of the comments make me feel vaguely ill?
Firstly, no one should even be suggesting that Mann, or Monckton not be permitted to speak. Defending this is a no brainer.
Secondly, I’d like a genuine debate, but we can’t have one, can we? To have a real debate, the “skeptics” and the scientists would first have to decide what they agreed on. If you want to find out why you differ, surely you need to identify the bits you agree on? But this is impossible. The “skeptics” don’t agree on anything. CO2 is increasing? Nope, some “skeptic” out there thinks that it was higher in the 1800’s. The CO2 increase (if you accept it) is man made? Nope, Murray Salby says its not, and Ian Plimer thinks its undersea volcanoes. The temperature is increasing? No! It all stopped in 1998 and we are heading straight into an ice age. There is a greenhouse effect? No, the second law of thermodynamics precludes it, and it all depends on atmospheric pressure and the ideal gas law anyway.
It doesn’t matter which piece of AGW you look at, the “skeptics” have a counter position. And mostly it is a dishonest counter position – one that is convenient for now, but will be discarded once its discredited, but then recycled at a later date.
Of course he should not be muzzled! He is the best weapon we have!
I quite agree: of course he should be allowed to speak. As we old ‘uns used to say when we were young ‘uns, let him damn himself out of his own mouth.
Equally, if Penn State want this beano to be seen as being in any way relevant to learning, they’ll make sure there is at least one other person present who can ask telling questions of Dr. Mann. We know there are 31,000-odd of them in the US alone. Anything less and it’s just another propaganda fest which we evil skeptics will shred, like any other.
hunter says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Playing nice with him is a waste of time. He does not see you as high minded in this. He sees you as a target that is softer then he thought.
I agree with Anthony.
It does not matter what Mann thinks thought or will think. It is a matter of personal integrity and consistency, and collective integrity on the skeptical side.
Who said “I disagree with what you say , but I will fight to death that you can have your say”.
This is what democracy and free people should mean.
Mr Watts
Agreed
Is there no speaker that PSU could schedule who would offer an alternative perspective to Mann’s? I see no one scheduled. Haven’t the alarmists controlled the establishment institutions most effectively to date already? Anthony offers a very good idealistic argument however, as presentation opportunities have been minimized for Alarmist counterpoint and the consequences so catastrophically high with any successful Alarmist political influence fairness is out of place. The Alarmists have known this from the outset. The Alarmist political/economic/ideological war against any alternative, opposition and/or Science has been real where perhaps even the most obvious evidence of non-human cycles and causes dominance over climate will not succeed in overcoming the criminally megalomaniacal Alarmist forces. A debate between climate Alarmist and realist is never fair on merit as the realist argument can only be lost through insufficient defense, as no superior Alarmist “factual” rigidity allows for Scientific rigor. As an illegitimate consequence of Alarmism many lives have and will be lost, legitimate fortunes lost while fraudulent ones made, whole nations and societies damaged, if not destroyed, and Science itself disgraced. The only “fairness” that can be acceptable is the success of the Method, not the sacrifice of it. Open debate is proper, but not capitulation through continued unchallenged Alarmist control of medium. All fraudulent Alarmist claims must be immediately quashed. Absolutely all due respect to you Anthony, but confuse losing with situational decorum. I ma greatly pained by this, but this great Scientific Fraud cannot be condoned – in any regard.
Let us carry on in this war by defending Science and never allowing Alarmism to be presented without immediate debunking.
Let the Mann speak – that is Democracy.
He might with luck, hang himself [Academically] as a result.
Some of the commenters here who think that ‘playing nice is a waste of time’ and that you should not ‘support the rights of someone to do something he would deny to you’, etc, are missing something.
The bottom line is that this isn’t about Michael Mann.
This is about everyone else.
The one thing that matters more than anything else is to get the public, the politicians, and the world’s scientists to recognise that climate science is fatally flawed. You don’t do that by engaging in activity that you complain about in others. You don’t do that by trying to prevent your opponents being heard. You do it by arguing the case wherever and whenever you can. Over time, if your case is sound, you persuade more and more people until eventually your arguments prevail. As you gain ground, the last thing you need is the other side being able to deploy yet another diversion – that you have tried to suppress free speech. Yes, I know you think it’s unfair that they can do it and get away with it while you can’t – but that perception is really an illusion because they can only fool some of the people some of the time.
Long after you have won, Michael Mann will still be telling an empty room that he was a genius.
John Brookes says:
February 4, 2012 at 11:14 pm
“It doesn’t matter which piece of AGW you look at, the “skeptics” have a counter position. And mostly it is a dishonest counter position – one that is convenient for now, but will be discarded once its discredited, but then recycled at a later date.”
Hi jonnyboy, that counter position of which you speak is the Authority of the Philosophy of Science.
Now if you want to discredit all scientists that have gone before, just keep locking away your theory of Co2 non-science.
The central question in the philosophy of science is distinguishing science from non-science. Sorry, jonnyboy Co2 theory didn’t make it past the gatekeepers of scepticism.
Now, how about going back to Jo Novas so I can call you some more names.
Should be a priority post here
http://www.real-science.com/giss-temperature-trend-complete-garbage
and then you should reconsider this posting
Johnny brookes~ go back to [self-snipped] 79-year-old old men (Dr Ball). michael mann gets more respect from me than you ever shall. And he gets very little.
For myself, I could hope that a great many skeptics will be in the crowd, for the Q&A afterwards.