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
@climatebites says: May 19, 2012 at 9:40 am
Why lie about a matter that is public record? 2 courts did not throw it out because it was a fishing expedition, and it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. One court remanded it back for more specificity, the second said he was using the wrong statute. But both were based upon the VIRGINIA laws and State Constitution, not the US Constitution.
I am totally astounded that someone – who obviously agrees with the Mann defense – still must lie about the court outcome. Do you hope to fool some people here who perhaps have not followed the case? Are you trying to create a talking point meme? Or are you just lying for the fun of it? I am curious – why lie when the truth is both easy to obtain and agreeable to your side of the debate?
Tom Smerling, can you please answer a few questions …
(1) Do you have evidence that Cuccinelli was spying on Mann?
(2) Are you breaking news here that Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts?
(3) The available information says Cuccinelli is looking for access to Virginia TAXPAYER OWNED equipment and emails. Are you obfuscating these differences intentionally or out of ignorance?
If Cuccinelli were doing the above, no-one here would be backing him, believe that because it is true. The government would be out of line doing such things although it certainly *is* done from time to time, ironically at the probable urging of Mann’s sycophants. Perhaps you have heard of Tallbloke? Shouldn’t you be fretting over this ACTUAL case rather than your complete fictional account of the events in Virginia?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/23/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
The Tallbloke case actually is a useful distinction. In that case, there’s much obvious evidence that a crime was committed, hence the justification for a search warrant (whether the police were justified in targeting those individuals, and whether they went too far in their search-and-seizure are separate questions. I haven’t followed it closely; but its very possible they they violated those other limits, in which case I would oppose that action.
But in Mann’s case there is no evidence — not a shred — that Cuccinelli could show the judges, to suggest a crime had been committed, and to justify a search warrant in the first place.
that’s the difference, not “who’s side are they on.”
On your other questions, let’s set the record state since you misquoted me twice:
1) I never said “Cuccinelli was spying on Mann.” I simply suggested that anybody concerned about “government spying on its citizens,” should oppose this, because that’s where I believe over-zealousness by ideological government investigators leads. Indeed, spying already goes on for many citizens, but I have no reason to believe Mann is among them.
2) I never claimed “Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts” I simply asked a rhetorical question: “Do you want any government prosecutor who doesn’t like your views to be able to go fishing through your emails and personal records?”
Again, actually believe that once your breach the Constitutional protections against search and seizure, that’s where it leads. However, you have a valid point about the word “personal;” if I were to write that sentence again, I would delete the word “personal.”
—
PS thanks for shouting in UPPER CASE. That’s always enlightening in online communication, and helps inculcate receptivity among your readers.
Ah, so we’re to believe that in the midst of your diatribe against Cuccinelli, the highlighted phrase in your sentence …
… actually had nothing to do with Cuccinelli at all! Very slippery Tom. Sounds like classic propaganda design, blending two mutually exclusive subjects by proximity in a single text, leaving it to the reader to make the intended incorrect association.
Ironically, that is your response to my own patently obvious (and rather funny) rhetorical question: “Are you breaking news here that Cuccinelli subpoenaed Mann’s personal computers and private email accounts?”! Miss the point much? You could have just said no. Then, instead of simply admitting your mistake of attacking Cuccinelli for things he has not done (things he or someone else might do in the future perhaps?), you choose to battle the phantom strawman of ‘you misquoted me’ …
Well, a point of fact here: that is false. It is either a reading error or a deliberate lie. You were not misquoted. The only quoting of you at all was very clearly double-quoted in HTML BLOCKQUOTE in indented italics. Scroll up and read it again, there is no excuse for sloppiness in both reading and writing, especially when you are pimping your blog link in your user handle to millions of readers on this site.
Throwing everything up against the wall there but nothing sticks. The Fourth Amendment?!? I’ll tell you something. You better hope that a precedent isn’t set that federal or state employees have immunity or expectations of privacy at work on the public dole. The meaning of oversight will have been flushed right down the toilet. Assuming you are a USA taxpayer I cannot imagine you hoping for Mann and UVA to be successful in thwarting taxpayer scrutiny and accountability.
Lol! Two words were in caps. Two! Two words that you somehow managed to leave out of all your comments and innuendo. Those two words were “TAXPAYER OWNED“. There was a good reason for writing it like that. That reason is that you chose simply to *not* mention “TAXPAYER OWNED” in your diatribe. You see, the Attorney General for the great State of Virginia is concerned about the use of “TAXPAYER OWNED” property. He doesn’t care a wit about Mann’s Facebook or Twitter or eHarmony or iPhone or iPad or anything else not connected to UVA and taxpayer dollars. That is unless Mann was stupid enough to mingle devices in an attempt to be clever. Then all bets are off.
Finally, I guess we really know the answer for that ‘shouted’ question which shocked you so much that you completely dodged it: “(3) The available information says Cuccinelli is looking for access to Virginia TAXPAYER OWNED equipment and emails. Are you obfuscating these differences intentionally or out of ignorance?”, clearly the answer looks to me like intentional obfuscation. I know this because your are still doing it, even as you replied back. Why don’t you just come clean and admit it was a sloppy hit piece on Cuccinelli, smearing him with things he has not done? Has it even occurred to you that you yourself are doing exactly what you Mann defenders always cry about: smearing a public servant. Now that is ironic.
P.S. to moderators, if I screw up the HTML again it is because of the stupid little WordPress form box. It is 2 sentences tall and the scroll bar scrolls like 3 sentences at a time. What on Earth are those idiots doing over there? Tell them to stop messing up the software!
[Reply: I’ll tell them. But they won’t listen. ~dbs, mod.]
Blade —
Lol! Two words were in caps. Two! Two words that you somehow managed to leave out of all your comments and innuendo. Those two words were “TAXPAYER OWNED“.
For the record, since quantitative analysis is so central to evaluation of climate studies, the number of upper case words in your initial comment was three, not two. Check “…ACTUAL case?”