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!”.
So much for allowing Mann to speak they have already taken down the pettion facebook page so there you go….Thats why you cannot support Mann in any way
Yes the only way to get at the truth on any subject is by free and open debate.
The subject of man’s contribution to climate change has become terribly polarized on both sides and a completely open debate will awaken people to the incredible complexity of the issues which will help to clear the path to a true understanding of what is really going on in our atmosphere..
I totally agree with Watts. Stifling debate makes it look as if sceptics are suppressing some sort of ‘truth’.
Wrong tactics, choosingcommonsense. Warmists tend to lose most debates anyway.
Of course – let the Mann speak! But do not expect a fair or open debate.
Some suggestions for question period:
1. Do you believe that the Uniformitarian Principle has been especially exempted for your particular brand of global warming science? Why?
2. Do you assume that Occam’s Razor can safely be ignored, just for advocates of dangerous humanmade global warming? Why?
3. Please explain the “Divergence Problem” and “Hide the Decline”.
4. Not one of your scary global warming predictions has materialized. You have demonstrated negative predictive skill. Do you see any problem with your predictive record?
5. What is this week’s explanation for the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century? Is it this aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts, or other?
6. What journal editor are you trying to intimidate this week?
7. What climate realist are you trying to have fired from his university position this week?
8. Will you participate in a fair and open debate, this week, or any other?
Jimbo and others who have agreed with his comment,
Then I guess you would have supported Lysenko having exclusive access to the public microphone and stage?
How about “Cardinal” Richelieu?
How about Madame Blavatsky, with all her “scientific” ideas that were of interest to the Nazis?
The problem with your reasoning is that it assumes that most people are like you: intelligent, very honest, well-informed about the background of an issue, and only interested in the truth or falsehood of a proposition.
People are pretty smart these days, but sorry to say, most are also very concerned with social acceptance and are likely to “go along to get along”, even if the details seem a bit dubious to them. That is how you end up with so many Lenins; Napoleons; Maos; etc., etc., taking over and running roughshod over others in the process.
That is the primary reason why the U.S. First Amendment begins with the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. That is the oft-forgotten, but MOST important clause of the entire First Amendment.
RTF
R. Gates, you completely ignored my point that Mann and Mannistas have consistently smeared their ‘evil’ opposition in order to advance their ’cause’. Why? Seemingly because of your slavish allegiance to Warmist propaganda.
I wholeheartedly agree – for all the reasons others have given.
On the grounds that “Those who are ignorant of history are fated to repeat it” perhaps it would be useful to say a little more about the conflict between the Onsagerists and the Onsager skepticism.
First of all, adequate grounds existed for Truesdell to win the dispute by attacking Onsager personally:
(1) Onsager was fired from every teaching post he ever held … as one of Onsager’s colleagues said: “I won’t say Onsager was the worst lecturer in the world, but he was a contender.”
(2) Onsager was hired by Princeton as a faculty member, and it was then discovered that Onsager had never earned a PhD … a problem that Princeton solved by the simple strategy of awarding Onsager a Princeton PhD.
So why didn’t Truesdale simply attack Onsager for being a proven “academic incompetent and fraud?”
The reason is simple: to Truesdell’s lasting credit, and to the long-term benefit of science, Truesdell scrupulously respected Anthony Watts’ key principle of strong skepticism: “criticize ideas, not persons”.
Following decades of debate and experiment, the predictions of Onsager’s theory were verified, and that is why “Onsagerism” (rightly) won the day, with Onsager (to Truesdell’s lasting chagrin) receiving a Nobel Prize for his theory.
Similarly, today’s “Warmists” are on-record with Seven Key Predictions of Warmism, and if these seven predictions prove correct, then “Climate-Change Warmism” (rightly) will have won the day.
Rational skepticism therefore must scrupulously affirm: “It may possibly happen that Hansen, Mann, and their colleagues are proved right in their climate-change predictions, and if so, that will be a good outcome of the climate-change debate.”
I suspect a comment of mine was censored for the reference to a group of very bad people the mention of whose name is apparently prohibited on this blog.
So I repost it here without the use of that name:
——–
Jimbo and others who have agreed with his comment,
Then I guess you would have supported Lysenko having exclusive access to the public microphone and stage?
How about “Cardinal” Richelieu?
How about Madame Blavatsky, with all her “scientific” ideas that were of interest to the [SELF-CENSORED DUE TO CHILLING EFFECT –RTF]?
The problem with your reasoning is that it assumes that most people are like you: intelligent, very honest, well-informed about the background of an issue, and only interested in the truth or falsehood of a proposition.
People are pretty smart these days, but sorry to say, most are also very concerned with social acceptance and are likely to “go along to get along”, even if the details seem a bit dubious to them. That is how you end up with so many Lenins; Napoleons; Maos; etc., etc., taking over and running roughshod over others in the process.
That is the primary reason why the U.S. First Amendment begins with the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. That is the oft-forgotten, but MOST important clause of the entire First Amendment.
RTF
——–
Allan MacRae says:
February 5, 2012 at 6:36 am
5. What is this week’s explanation for the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century? Is it this aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts, or other?
6. What journal editor are you trying to intimidate this week?
7. What climate realist are you trying to have fired from his university position this week?
Allan: Excellent questions, you made me laugh too 🙂
neill says:
February 5, 2012 at 6:53 am
R. Gates, you completely ignored my point that Mann and Mannistas have consistently smeared their ‘evil’ opposition in order to advance their ’cause’. Why? Seemingly because of your slavish allegiance to Warmist propaganda.
———-
I didn’t miss your point at all, but you have apparently missed mine. Both sides view the other sides actions as “evil” or at the minimum grossly misguided, and honestly believe that it is their own perspective that is the honorable and noble one and the correct path forward that is likely to lead to the better future. The true believer warmists would view the entire Climatgate 1 & 2 episode as a smear campaign by the skeptical side. Furthermore, your ad hominem on me in your last sentence (“slavish allegiance”) simply indicates that your skeptical position is so strong that you can’t possibly accept the notion that the two sides both want a better future and are equally noble in this regard, but simply disagree on the best path forward.
R. Gates: “Furthermore, your ad hominem on me in your last sentence (“slavish allegiance”) simply indicates that your skeptical position is so strong that you can’t possibly accept the notion that the two sides both want a better future and are equally noble in this regard, but simply disagree on the best path forward.”
I don’t find smearing one’s opposition as ‘evil’, nor cooking data, to achieve one’s political aims to be “equally noble”. But you do.
That is some free and open exchange of ideas we supposedly have here… Sort of like belief in AGW: belief is not supported by the facts.
jonathan frodsham says: February 5, 2012 at 7:30 am
Allan MacRae says:
February 5, 2012 at 6:36 am
5. What is this week’s explanation for the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century? Is it aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts, or other?
6. What journal editor are you trying to intimidate this week?
7. What climate realist are you trying to have fired from his university position this week?
Allan: Excellent questions, you made me laugh too 🙂
Thank you Jonathan, you also drew my attention to a typo.
Moderator,
Please delete the third occurance of the word “this” in my point 5 in the 6:36am post (corrected in
this post). Should read “Is it aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity…”
Thank you.
Although Mann has the right to express his views, “choosecommonsense” has an equal right to demand otherwise. To deny this is to abandon the right of free speech when it least suits us – I disagree with choosecommonsense, but defend their right to say it.
Now on to the specifics. Mann is being invited to speak at the university – a public body – and everyone bar a few outliers, support this. But is your support one of degree or is it absolute, I wonder? I mean, imagine a scenario where Mann was invited to preach his AGW alarmism at the Whitehouse, president Obama at his side. How many of you would still be defending his right then?
From
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword
——–
Robert Burton, in 1621, in The Anatomy of Melancholy, stated: “It is an old saying, A blow with a word strikes deeper than a blow with a sword: and many men are as much galled with a calumny, a scurrilous and bitter jest, a libel, a pasquil, satire, apologue, epigram, stage-play or the like, as with any misfortune whatsoever.”[23] After listing several historical examples he concludes: “Hinc quam sit calamus saevior ense patet”,[23] which translates as “From this it is clear how much more cruel the pen may be than the sword.”[9]
——–
And, further on:
——–
The French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), known to history for his military conquests, also left this oft-quoted remark: “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
——–
Hopefully from the above, it should be clear that:
1) Despots are very concerned to control the presentation and styling of the message that the people hear and read about a subject.
2) It is not without reason that they have this attitude.
3) We, the opponents of despotism and would-be despotism in our time, would be fools to believe that it simply doesn’t matter how much control is exercised by our opponents over publicly owned outlets of information — regardless that we may have the majority of the facts on our side.
RTF
Vince Causey writes, “Although Mann has the right to express his views, “choosecommonsense” has an equal right to demand otherwise. ”
Vince, this appears to me to be a false statement about “choosecommosense”. As far as I can tell, they have not called for revoking Mann’s general right to express his views — merely for the revokation of the special and exclusive privilege he and his friends have enjoyed to do so on the people’s dime.
Please note that the invitation to speak at the publicly funded event is a privilege that is being voluntary extended by an agency of government; it is not a fundamental human right.
I would disagree with the group “choosecommonsense” if they or an ally of theirs had been invited to speak alongside Mann, and if Mann were required to reply to at least a few questions from critics as a condition of speaking free-of-charge to him.
The public purse is an extremely powerful tool, and if allowed to be monopolized by any one political party or interest group, can become an extremely dangerous weapon in their hands. If we would allow this to pass unchallenged due to fear of demagoguery or any other reason, we do so at our own peril and that of everyone else.
To all who disagree who have read the comments on this page: if and when your “tactic” of appeasement blows up in your face, you cannot say you weren’t warned.
RTF
Vince says
‘I mean, imagine a scenario where Mann was invited to preach his AGW alarmism at the Whitehouse, president Obama at his side. How many of you would still be defending his right then?’
I would Vince. Scientists are usually good at spotting outliers, politicians are just as good at spotting out-and-out-liars
I beg to disagree.
While I cherish the freedom of speech, this is not about the freedom of speech. It is not about *whether* he can speak but *where* he does.
He has the right to say anything but in a healthy society, people should be naturally led to say things at appropriate places for them – innocent confused and intellectually mediocre people at home or in the street; and thieves and life-long liars like Michael Mann in the jail.
It seems as a sign of a somewhat dysfunctional American society today that Michael Mann still isn’t giving these talks for his inmates in the State Pen while his inmates would also have the right to say something to Mr Mann. A speech by Mr Mann in Pennsylvania’s most sophisticated hotel is an insult to tens of millions of Americans who are much more competent to give such a talk but who won’t be invited to do so.
I also disagree that the more similar people speak, the more it hurts alarmism. Alarmism peaked 3-5 years ago and peaked exactly *because* some extremely nasty and dishonest people have been saying some extremely absurd and untrue things. Some people think that the more often lies are said, the more people understand that they’re lies. But the world doesn’t work like that. The more liars speak and the more prominent positions they are given to say their lies, the more powerful these lies become. It’s as simple as that.
Gates says:
“It can be nothing other for the true believers on both sides. They are bad, we are good. We are right they are wrong.”
Naturally you would say something like that, because admitting that you are part of the problem is admitting that you’re as evil as Phil Jones, who would prefer towipe out millions just so he can claim he was right. Disgusting.
And ‘a physicist’ thinks someone elected him to decide that CAGW is proven. He says: “if these seven predictions prove correct, then “Climate-Change Warmism” (rightly) will have won the day.” So ‘a physicist’ has failed miserably. As Allen MacRae writes: “Not one of [Mann’s] scary global warming predictions has materialized.”
‘a physicist’s’ “Seven Key Predictions of Warmism” is a hoot, because three of the seven have alrteady been debunked [nothing is “accelerating”], one is arguable, and three are highly questionable.
A monstrous conjecture has been erected, claiming that rising CO2 will bring about runaway global warming and climate disruption. Since the planet itself refutes that conjecture, why do people like ‘a physicist’ continue to believe their lying eyes? George Orwell provided the answer: they are engaged in “doublethink”, the ability to believe two or more contradictory ideas at the same time.
Skeptics are nothing if not rational, and so we cannot accept two contradictory conjectures. The planet is warming naturally along the same long term trend line since the LIA. The trend is the same, both before and after [harmless, beneficial] CO2 began to rise. Therefore, the effect of CO2 must be too minuscule to measure; there is no ‘fingerprint’.
So people like ‘a physicist’ construct an elaborate fictional universe in their minds to try and explain that irrefutible fact, like medieval scholars constructing elaborate explanations to explain the retrograde motion of planets. They were as mistaken as ‘a physicist’, but it sounded good until Kepler came along.
The planet itself is falsifying the CAGW [and even the AGW] conjectures. That is clear to anyone who understands the scientific method, Occam’s Razor, and the null hypothesis. And Orwell explains lemmings like ‘a physicist’, who has nailed his flag to the mast and refuses to believe what the planet is clearly telling him.
That leaves Michal Mann and his ilk. They are in it entirely for the money and the status. They are not stupid. As Trenberth famously wrote in his email, where’s the predicted heat?? And that’s why Mann will never debate unless the deck is completely stacked his way. He’s not doing science, he’s selling snake oil. Too bad ‘a physicist can’t understand that.
Yes Smokey, some decent points. However, you still haven’t said whether you agree with “choosecommonsense.org” on the matter of Mann’s talk or not.
I agree with Anthony. But the pressure should still be kept on to get Mann to agree to a real debate, with a mutually agreed moderator and debate venue, and with each side choosing its own participants.
One debate like that would destroy Mann’s credibility, so he will never agree, any more than Algore would agree to a fair debate. But the constant demands and public challenges will show the world that the emperor is naked. And maybe an interviewer can get in a question: “Dr Mann, why are you afraid to debate Dr Lindzen?”
R. Gates says:
February 5, 2012 at 7:35 am
________________________________
R., excuse me if I am piling on, but IMHO there oughta be a Godwin’s Law for “children and grandchildren.” I have never presumed to lecture a warmista regarding the welfare of his family, but on several occasions have not had the courtesy reciprocated.
R Taylor,
So to make sure I understand … are you saying that you would agree that, when someone is a guest in someone else’s place, it is sometimes appropriate for the host (that is, the owner of the place) to impose certain limits on the range of speech that is acceptable, since the would-be speaker has the right and the power to go get his own place from which to share the things that the host finds objectionable?
And are you saying that you agree that, if such limits are imposed carefully and sparingly and with a view toward preserving an environment that is maximally conducive to discourse, that it is unfair to characterize such limits as “censorship”?
Thank you for your consideration of these questions.
RTF
The Freedom of Speech is a Right given under your Constitution. It matters naught whether or not you agree with what is being said, the speaker has the right to make their opinion known.
Likewise, those who disagree with that which has been said have the equal right to make their opinions known and to be heard in the same forum.
Let both sides of this Right of Freedom of Speech be exercised without any attempt at gagging either side.
Then let us see how the discussion evolves.
It will be a case of “Put your cards on the table” and let us see who holds the winning hand.