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.
If you read carefully, it uses words like ‘likelihood’ and so on instead of terms like “probability” that might have some defined meaning. The ‘90%’ figures are “experts’ ” ratings, by its own inhouse staff–the only experts they recognize.
one denying that is a bank-robber or a rapist; doesn’t make him a Holocaust denier. Warmist are playing extreme political correctness and any trick they can think off, against the gullible, apologetic Skeptic.
The best is; to confront the accuser or accusation with: what’s your real problem? That’s how I got my name. If you dance on their tune – they will always look for new inspiration, to restrict and silence you.
I don’t deny that the climate is constantly changing – I, and everybody with eyes can see / prove that climatic changes are constant. I DENY that is any GLOBAL warming – and I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, that will NOT be any GLOBAL warming in 100y – localized warmings / coolings are constant – GLOBAL warming will be zero, ZERO!!! Not little bit, not 0,5C. as the phony skeptics are saying, but ZERO! Same laws of physics will be in 100y, as they are today. Anybody is got a problem with ”denial of the phony GLOBAL warmings; inform yourself on my blog. (I have mustaches also; should I shave, to make the Swindlers happy?) You cannot make one happy, if he / she is after taking people’s happiness away; don’rt bother even trying. If Michael Mann likes to know where to shove up his cheap tricks, he should buy me a 6pack first, for me to give him the advice
@ur momisugly Brian H (May 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm): re: likelihood vs. probability
From the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Ch. 2.4 Attribution of Climate Change (p 39):
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
If you read the introduction, you will see that the IPCC does use the term “probability”; from AR4 Synthesis Report Introduction, Treatment of uncertainty (p 27):
“Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence:
virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%;
very likely >90%;
likely >66%;
more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%;
unlikely <33%;
very unlikely <10%;
extremely unlikely <5%;
exceptionally unlikely 90%) that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y can be attributed to mankind (specifically the increase in GHG concentration due to human activity). This is somewhat odd, since we are not discussing the probability of a future occurrence, but correlation of the record to supposed drivers (“…based on expert judgement and statistical analysis of a body of evidence”). The text of the report even goes on to underline that the confidence level (of the IPCC gate-keepers) has grown since AR3.
What is apparently not obvious to the authors is that there could be an as yet poorly-understood or poorly-modeled climate forcing responsible for said warming. The conclusion that since their models (using “natural forcing” alone) do not account for the warming measured, “there must be a strong human component” is thus flawed. The “expert judgement and statistical analysis” is nothing more than an exercise in self-aggrandizement and hand-waving.
Kurt in Switzerland
Follow-on to previous post: I think something got inadvertently shortened:
It should have read something like this:
“…exceptionally unlikely 90%) that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
Happened again! Must be due to quotation marks, parentheses or other punctuation.
One more try:
… exceptionally unlikely 90%] that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
Wow. Still getting clipped in the middle after exceptionally unlikely.
Final effort:
exceptionally unlikely = less than one percent.
So the IPCC expert consensus is a probability assessment of attribution – greater than 90 percent – that most of the earth’s warming from the past 50 y…
Kurt in Switzerland
As the author of ClimateBites, I appreciate the accuracy of the excerpt in your post and the relatively civil tone. However, I find the post title misleading. My disagreement with Michael Mann over use of the term “denier” has nothing whatsoever to do with integrity. It is simply a difference of views on the best terminology for effective communication, and on that score there is plenty of room for honest differences (even among WUWT readers, as witnessed in comments above). In fact, my own view changed only recently, after discussions at the December 2011 AGU meeting.
To be clear: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity. No climate scientist’s work has undergone more scrutiny by multiple, independent investigative bodies. Their findings: Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.
A final point: Disagreement over use of the term “denier” was a relatively minor, secondary point in my ClimateBites post. My main point was in the headline and opening passage, pasted below so WUWT can see the full context and judge for themselves. Posted 2/24/12:
“‘One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.’”
“Many defenders of science have tried to clarify the difference between skepticism and denial, but nobody has nailed it as succinctly as Dr. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars, in a recent interview in Slate:
‘When it comes to climate change, true skepticism is two-sided. One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.’
“Bravo! It’s long past time to reclaim the term “skeptic” from true-believers who are only skeptical about things that conflict with their pre-existing beliefs.
“One-sided skeptics scrutinize climate science for the tiniest flaw or uncertainty, but usually swallow whole any cherry-picked fact, anecdotal “evidence,” logical fallacy or wild conspiracy theory that supports their worldview.
“True skepticism — questioning all claims, consciously putting aside one’s biases, insisting upon seeing all the evidence, and subjecting it all to equal scrutiny — is too central to scientific inquiry to let it be hijacked.
[see next two paragraphs excerpted in WUWT post above.]
“And whenever possible, it’s usually wiser to avoid labeling people altogether, and focus instead on the psychological process of denial — to which we are all susceptible. Since we all do it, we can even find some common ground there.”
Tom Smerling
Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.
====================================================
So the UVa files have been released and examined? I hadn’t heard.
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:19 am
When I read that, I first burst out laughing, literally rolling on the floor. But when I settled down I realised there are people out there who believe that. That made me sad, a tear rolled down my cheek.
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
Cuccinelli had to show the judges that he had some evidence that suggested wrongdoing. He failed. Why? Because he had nothing to show.
My quesiton for you: Shouldn’t all of us who don’t want government spying on its citizens, who are suspicious of over-zealous prosecutors, and who cherish our freedom from search-and-seizure without due cause, applaud this decision? Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?
Anthony Watts:
Did you see the e-mail I sent you in March? I never heard a response. That’s ok. After engaging with Tom Smerling and others at AGU, I have stopped using the term denier also, since you do find it to be so offensive. Just trying to find a way that those of us that disagree about climate change can engage each other without being disagreeable and resorting to name calling. I cannot speak for Dr. Michael Mann, but I can speak for myself.
However, I was very intrigued by your quote in the May 12, 2011 Slate article by Brian Merchant, “Do Climate Skeptics change their mind?” Merchant asked you could lead him to accept climate science. A “starting point for the process,” he said, wouldn’t begin with more facts but instead with a public apology from the high profile scientists who have labeled him and his colleagues “deniers.”
I saw this as an opening for dialogue and I immediately tried to e-mail you on this website. I never heard back from you. No problem. I did try to blog about the experience: http://begreenstartingnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/extending-olive-branch-to-climate.html with my e-mail to you copied in the blog posting.
Frankly, I was more shocked at the response of people who agree with me about climate change, but yet refused to give up the term “denier.” I found their responses to be discouraging to say the least. Apparently, there are offensive statements being made by both sides.
I have been in contact with Dr. Mann in the past. I do have a lot of respect for him and his science. He has been very gracious in his correspondence with me also. Any chance if I could contact Dr. Mann and encourage him to drop the term “denier,” you would still be start the process of listening to the science and engaging directly with Dr. Mann? My offer still stands.
I am still very concerned about the impact of human caused climate change for my nieces & nephews, future generations, indigenous peoples across the world, poor people in coastal areas, etc. It is so important for me to do what I can to communicate my concerns about climate change, including engaging you.
Just want to wish you peace.
Sincerely,
Brian Ettling
@ur momisugly@ Tclimatebites
May 19, 2012 at 8:19 says: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity
Tom Smerling, that is the biggest overstatement you produced,since Homo Sapiens invented the language. Everything I say – I can prove; so here are only 2 small examples:
1] just using / attempting to use tree rings, to discover what was the temp on the WHOLE planet = is admission of person with NO INTEGRITY / zero, zilch integrity!!! A] 2/3 of the planet’s surface area is water – where trees don’t grow. B] agronomist, even a lumberjack can tell that; 101 factors affect the thickness of the tree rings. C] if you and Mann did know the things that effects tree rings – you would have known that: the tree rings from an individual tree, cannot tell the temp correctly in the 10feet radious around itself – Man was talking GLOBAL temp – you believe Mann – he should have taken your temperature – you must be halucinating
2] a month ago, Mann said on the Australian ABC: ”now the temp is one degree warmer than 1000y ago” (the clowns in Melbourne university picked on it, to indirectly support Mann’s lies)
A] nobody knows what was the planet’s correct temp for last year; to save his / her life – one cannot compare one unknown with another unknown. B] 1000y ago, people were scared to sail more than 50miles west of Portugal – not to fall off the planet. Who was monitoring the temp for you and him 1000y ago on Patagonia, Oceania / over 650y before the thermometer was invented. At that time the planet was flat and 2/3 of the surface area didn’t exist
Mann is not ashamed of being one of the biggest liar, why should I be ashamed off being a denier?! I deny that is any GLOBAL warming – I never denied that the climate is constantly changing. Mann making connection between the constant big / small climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warming; is the precursor of the biggest organized crime… I’m PROUD TO BE A DENIER!!! Gullible Apologetnics as you, Mann is targeting. Would you let me; on your blog, to present some truth, for your visitors?
Only 2 weeks ago my sister innocently called me a denier, in my kitchen when she was round for dinner. I explained that its offensive in so many ways, to call me a denier. She countered that she’d found out that the deniers cherry pick data and make false claims.
I need to explain that this is from a sister who “alerted” me to the danger of global warming in the early 2000’s, and had me scared witless about the claims. It was in early 2009, when I found various sceptical sites that I discovered the Phil Jones excuses for not releasing data. I was amazed that these people had gotten away with it for so long without their claims being scrutinised!
Now these people get to somehow define terms so we can be neatly pidgeon-holed for their convenience! Am I a sceptic? Can I hope to live up to Dr Mann’s lofty definition of a sceptic? Will I pass the test? Or am I a denier in my kitchen, cherrypicking data?
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
They can and do — they’re not supposed to, but they do. Remember the happy chirping coming from the port side of the aisle in 2005 when the Palm Beach County sheriff’s office confiscated Rush Limbaugh’s medical records from his doctor without any evidence of wrongdoing?
Bill Tuttle — I don’t recall the Limbaugh case, but no doubt you are right that it happens on all sides. And all of us who care about personal freedom — whether “port” or “starboard” (as a boater, I like the nautical reference!) — should loudly condemn all these intrusions, regardless of who’s being targetted. Because next time, it could be us! Hey, maybe this is something that “port” and “starboard” could actually agree on.
climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm
@ur momisugly me: Bill Tuttle — I don’t recall the Limbaugh case, but no doubt you are right that it happens on all sides. And all of us who care about personal freedom — whether “port” or “starboard” (as a boater, I like the nautical reference!) — should loudly condemn all these intrusions, regardless of who’s being targetted. Because next time, it could be us! Hey, maybe this is something that “port” and “starboard” could actually agree on.
There are probably more things than you’d imagine. I have friends who firmly believe that FDR pulled us out of the depression with his own two hands and that voting for a Republican would condemn them to an eternity of hellfire and brimstone, but who also send boxes of goodies and toiletries to troops over here and agree with me that Nancy Pelosi is proof that botox destroys brain cells.
[SNIP: Oh, a justification for using the term “denier” from a real holocaust survivor. Not impressed and not giving it exposure. Take the hate speech elsewhere. -REP]
from Stefanthedenier — “Tom Smerling, that is the biggest overstatement you produced,since Homo Sapiens invented the language.”
Wow. Now that’s a keeper. Like the old bumper sticker that declares: “Eschew obfuscation.”
What do I deny Dr. Mann?
Do I deny it’s ok to hide declines? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to invert data in order to support a preconceived outcome? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to slander your critics while avoiding debate? Yes.
Do I deny it’s ok to engage in Zohnerism in order to advance a political goal? Yes.
Do I deny the possibility that a 0.6% increase in heat flux could result in a 0.9% increase in temperature that in turn will be catastrophic? No, but I’m
veryextremely skeptical.climatebites says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Gunga Din —
Two courts have thrown out Cuccinelli’s subpeona, because — fortunately — we still are a country under the Constitution, where law enforcement officials cannot go on fishing expeditions through your records with out showing evidence to suspect criminal activity.
Cuccinelli had to show the judges that he had some evidence that suggested wrongdoing. He failed. Why? Because he had nothing to show.
My quesiton for you: Shouldn’t all of us who don’t want government spying on its citizens, who are suspicious of over-zealous prosecutors, and who cherish our freedom from search-and-seizure without due cause, applaud this decision? Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?
=======================================================================
You had said this implying that evidence, the UVa emails and files, had been examined and there was nothing found, when in fact they had NOT been examined.
“To be clear: Michael Mann is an accomplished scientist of the highest integrity. No climate scientist’s work has undergone more scrutiny by multiple, independent investigative bodies. Their findings: Even those most eager to find wrongdoing — such as Attorney General Cuccinelli — have failed to produce the slightest shred of evidence for deception or unprofessionalism. Case closed.”
Not the “slightest thread of evidence” was produced. That alone is evidence of deception and unprofessionalism. I work for the government. It wouldn’t take more than a Freedom of Information Act to see them. FOIA request HAVE been made. They’ve been fought tooth and nail. Motives, data, schemes to silence valid scientitic scrutiny of this novel and costly hypothesis were in the Climategate releases. Were those files compiled to comply with or fight an FOIA request? Mann’s work was not in the private sector. It was and still is on the taxpayer’s dime.
“Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?”
Why would he keep his “personal records” on a government computer? But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public. Should someone representing the taxpayers look at them and the emails and make public those things related to the hypothesis were expected to spend trillions of dollars on? H*** Yes!
We’re supposed to be talking about SCIENCE! All this legal cloak and dagger stuff on his part certainly looks like he’s trying to hide something.
(Please give me some credit here. I resisted the temptation to end that last sentence “hide the decline”.)
The Constitution. Yes, it was a governemnt set up by men who believed that the the only just purpose of any Government is to secure the rights of the individual that come from a higher authority. That’s why I despise those who use CAGW to try and usurp those rights and hide behind the Constituion as they try to do so.
“But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
I should proof read my comments before I psost them.
That should read, “But, no, his records are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
Gunga Din says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“But, no, hies records are are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
I should proof read my comments before I psost them.
That should read, “But, no, his records that are truly “personal records” should not be made public.”
Kurt;
Notice the paired words/phrase: “likelihood” and “probability assessment“. Pure opinion, with little or no substantiation. It’s a travesty!!
Brian H –
Yet such sloppily-formulated statements get a free pass as “thoughtful science” or “expert opinion” arrived at through painstaking analysis of reams of data, without the slightest hint of bias of course / sarc. — and are passed on as such by a compliant media. And believers follow like rodents in tow of the pied piper.
Any detractors, “false skeptics” / “deniers” / “denialists” are subject to ridicule, moralizing, etc. Meanwhile, the silent majority (in free societies), afraid of personal attacks, pliantly allows valuable public funds to be wasted chasing the Sisyphuian task of somehow reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to 350 ppm. However, the de-facto majority (emerging economies in Asia) continues to increase its GHG emissions year on year.
One can only hope that citizens will come to their senses and demand of their leaders to demonstrate some effectivity in the billions spent thus far (which would result in a massive reduction in subsidies).
Kurt in Switzerland