ClimateBites Tom Smerling writes:
…I would have preferred that Mann had stopped with the quote above, but he added
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term and no doubt that just endears me to them further. It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.”
And he adds his own opinion:
While sharing Mann’s frustration, we now avoid using the term “denier” at ClimateBites. Though accurate and concise, labeling people “deniers” simply shuts many more doors — and minds — than it opens. I have heard several anecdotes about partially open-minded skeptics, including meteorologists, taking offense at the label, which they associated with Holocaust denial. No doubt, at least some undecided onlookers feel the same way, and that’s our real audience. Bottom line: In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.
He’s right, the label is offensive, and I believe Dr. Mann uses it for spite and to denigrate his opponents. Dr. Mann doesn’t want debate at all, and that’s not the behavior of a scientist, but rather, an advocate.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2012 at 6:14 am
I am skeptical of today’s research methods, and a complete denier of anthropogenic global warming. Who’s bad.
But Guess Who was cool back when they were hot.
klem says:
May 18, 2012 at 5:47 am
Exactly!
There is a large number of people that make a very good living from Dendro-Thermology. Of course they will take offense to anyone that shows the holes in their “science”.
What is being “denied” is that the “science” of Dendro-Thermology is science.
Dendro-Thermology maintains that “selecting” trees that correspond to modern temperatures from a larger sample provide a reliable proxy for historical temperatures. This is the “science” behind much of modern climate science.
While this may on the surface appear reasonable, Lucia shows why it is not.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
In trying to select trees that are good proxies for temperature, the selection process itself creates statistical bias. It is a subtle form of cherry picking that leads to type I errors. It makes trees appear to be reliable proxies when they are not. It makes Dendro-Thermology appear to be valid science when it is not.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
When will people stop questioning the claims I refuse to substantiate so they can be reproduced and start talking about the trillions of dollars that need to be spent? This is how science works- I make a claim and you do what I say.
The problem with Dendro-Thermology is that if trees were good proxies for temperature, there would be no need to select only those samples that correspond with modern temperatures. You could simply use the larger sample and filter for noise.
However, when you select a small sample out of a large sample (as is done routinely in Dendro-Thermology), because only the small sample shows correlation, this indicates what you are selecting is those samples that correlate by chance. This will lead to erroneous conclusions. the appearance of statistical significance where no significance exists.
As science is based upon observed and measured facts, not hypothesis, then the person denying the science is Michael Mann, as he ignores those facts. Welcome to the “Denier” club, Mike!
There is no correlation between CO2 and warming for the last 13 years
because CO2 went up considerably and warming stagnated, at best.
correlation is a prerequisite to causality, so the premise FAILS.
warmistas back to the design boards, with a demotion on top.
Learning to accept the term “denier”.
In recognizing that:
1) No one denies climate exists.
2) No one denies that climate changes.
3) No one denies that man has influenced the climate to some degree.
4) No one denies that climate science is a valid discipline.
It then stands; incorporation of term “denier” suggests the user fits one of these categories or combination of.
1) Uninformed.
2) Ignorant / Illiterate
3) Has a propensity for being untruthful.
4) Emotional rather than logical / scientific.
Hence to me, when “denier” is used, the term will more accurately describe the user rather than me.
( NOTE: I do NOT suggest that Mann fits into category 1 or 2. )
Somebody should ask dr Mann if and where there is any room for skepticism wrt the AGW hypothesis and if so, whom he considers to be legitimate skeptics. If he cannot allow for any doubt, then clearly he is an anti-science fanatic.
Mann’s admittedly ready use of ad hominem slurs, combined with his reluctance to debate, draws a picture of a man unwilling to put his dearly held doctrine at risk.
This is NOT a sign of a man with empirically verifiable evidence on his side, or faith in the infallibility of his theory.
To the true scientist, *all* ideas are at risk, and the only way to discriminate good from bad ideas is trial by fire in the empirical universe.
Even General Relativity is still being tested, despite the fact it has never failed.
A bad theory only needs to fail once.
Dr Mann, following John Cook of Skeptical Science, believes that mastery of climate science also gives mastery of the English language. The reason that he no longer uses the term “skeptics” is because they have redefined the word differently to a consensus of the world’s leading experts.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/
I share Mann’s sentiment.
“It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.”
Yes Mr. Mann we need to have the debate about what to do about the great fraud that you and the IPCC have committed. Should we file criminal charges or should we handle this via class action civil law suits for damages and the recovery of costs incurred? That is the real question that needs to be answered now.
I think what we are seeing is the defense mechanism called “Projection” in psychology.
It is also quite obvious when the Climate Collaborators (great term) keep insisting skeptics are receiving big bucks from evil oil when the opposite is the actual truth.
The climate industry wall of money: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/
Big Oil fund Warmists confusing attack machine: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/big-oil-money-fund-warmists-confusing-attack-machine/
Skeptics Handbook II
Exile for non-believers http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers/
It is far better to be truthfully called a Denier than truthfully called a Liar.
To the tune of The Monkees’
“I’m a Believer”
Mann’s Hockey Stick’s just a fairy tale,
Fooled a bunch of folks, but not me
“CO2 was out to get me”,
S’what he made it seem,
Hard-baked farmlands, rising seas.
Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
He thought cores would add to his lone tree ring,
Almost pulled it off but he got caught.
What’s the use in trying?
All you get is pain.
Honest science scrutiny still remains.
Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
SOLO
Ah, “CO2 was out to get me”,
That’s what he made it seem,
Hard-baked farmlands, rising seas.
Ah, Then Climategate!
Now I’m a “Denier”
Not a trace of doubt in my mind,
He made it up
I’m a “Denier”
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
Then Climategate!
Oh, I’m a “Denier”,
He couldn’t fool me if he tried.
Then Climategate!
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Said, I’m a “Denier”
scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny
Well I personally have never denied, and still do not deny, that those loosely termed GHGs; greenhouse gases, of which, H2O, O3, and CO2 can be considered typical examples, do in fact, and have for eons , while in the earth atmosphere, absorb(ed) some electromagnetic radiation energy propagating through the atmosphere.
That is true of so called long wave radiation, in the region from 5.0 to 80 microns wavelength, corresponding to the general nature of so-called black body (thermal) radiation, characteristic of a source Temperature of about 288 K (15 deg C), with a spectral peak at about 10.1 microns, that is generally sourced by the earth surface, due to its Temperature, and also to resonant spectra from atmospheric molecules, including those GHGs. It is argued that this is a “warming” effect, or at least a slowing of cooling.
It is equally true of shorter wavelengths typically in the range of 0.25 microns, to 4.0 microns wavelength, corresponding to an approximate 6,000 K black body thermal radiation source, such as the sun, which constantly bombards the earth’s atmosphere and surface. Absorption of this radiant energy, whose spectral peak is at about 0.5 microns wavelength, by those very same GHG molecules in earth’s atmosphere, is generally regarded as a net cooling process; because about half of that absorbed energy is subsequently lost to planet earth, instead of getting stored in either rocks or the deep oceans. More of these GHGs in the atmosphere results in less energy captured by earth from that source.
I have never even thought that these demonstrably observable phenomena were even controversial, let alone deserving of the label of “denier” of the science.
I haven’t read the other comments so apologies if this has been posted.
If some are beginning to doubt the “denier” term then maybe we could also start to reduce the term watermellon, of the left and alarmist ? People on both sides of the debate have genuine views, name calling just means they (we – me) ignore you.
in an earlier age, michael mann would wear a feathered headdress and dance around with rattles or a bullroarer.
he is a witchdoctor. his function is to justify the predation by his masters.
“The consequence of the epistemology of religion is the politics of
tyranny. If you cannot reach the truth by your own mental powers, but must
maintain obedient faith in a cognitive authority, then you are not your own
intellectual master; in such a case you cannot guide your behavior by your
own judgment either but must be submissive in action as well. This is the
reason why, historically, faith and force are always corollaries; each
requires the other. ”
it’s not about climate science and never was.
chrismorph says:
May 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I haven’t read the other comments so apologies if this has been posted.
If some are beginning to doubt the “denier” term then maybe we could also start to reduce the term watermellon, of the left and alarmist ? People on both sides of the debate have genuine views, name calling just means they (we – me) ignore you.
=================================================================
“Denier” implies someone is refusing to believe proven science. It does not fit.
“Watermellon” implies someone who isn’t so much concerned about the environment but will use environmental issues (or any issue for that matter) to further their socialist agenda. “Green on the outside, red on the inside” does fit.
There are many on both sides who are genuinely concerned about “the environment”, whether their concerns are groundless or a real issue. The “deniers” of CAGW just want to keep the facts straight.
Gunga Din says:
“Denier” implies someone is refusing to believe proven science.”
———
No, it’s WAY more than that. The term denier is association to holocaust deniers. Skeptics have almost unanimously rejected the Heartland Institute’s use of billboards associating alarmists with terrorists, yet people like Mann still insist on associating skeptics with holocaust deniers. The Left’s hypocrisy shows a clear political agenda where they don’t care about the facts.
Since Mann chooses to call people who disagree with him such things, there is no reason to not return the favor. He has chosen not to be civil, fine, return the favor.
Since his hockey stick has been conclusively disproven, the fact that he has presented these to congress and is thus guilty of lying to congress, further shown by his emails, and his deliberate violation of FOI laws, I suggest the simple, one word title, FELON.
Considering all that, the best way to greet him should you see him is to say “you are under citizens arrest”. Perhaps if he keeps hearing that wherever he goes, he will get the hint, shut up, and go away (preferable to prison).
Should we call Michael Mann, “Michael Yamal” and all warmists then become Yamallers. That sums up their cherry picking, fear mongering, post normal, magazine blurb in 1 word.
Warmists gives them some credence, when in fact everyone accepts the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age finished.
Further if, Yamaller was acceptable, it would immediately signal that post normal science was not open for discussion but true climate and environmental issues are not only open for discussion/debate but desirably so. Too much time and energy -renewable lol- has been wasted on climate alarmism and not enough on understanding climate to feed the world.
B.S. Nothing to do with “integrity”. Just a tactical decision: “In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.”
Cost-benefit analysis and ethics have very little overlap. Purely coincidental that they align here.
Nah. ‘Watermelon’, ‘left’, and ‘alarmist’ are all accurate, whereas ‘denier’ is not. Not a fair exchange.