A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way?

Some days you have to wonder how supposedly rational and intelligent people who are considered professional scientists allow themselves to behave like this.

From Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed: 

mann_no_spencer

Source: http://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/316260453770723328

A simple “no” would suffice, but Dr. Mann seems determined to denigrate people that have different views than him such as Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. How unprofessional.

It is yet another example of Climate Ugliness that pervades the mindset of AGW proponents.

UPDATE: In comments, “Jimbo” shows how Dr. Mann can easily accept the opinion of one person of faith, while denigrating another.

“Jimbo” Submitted on 2013/03/25 at 3:00 pm

Let me demonstrate now easy it is to denigrate. Care for an ad hominem dessert?

EXHIBIT 1

We have Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. (A climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.)

EXHIBIT 2

We have John Cook’s Christian faith. (Cartoonist & part time fairytale proponent who tinkers with physics. “The second reason is my faith. I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25. I believe in a God who has a heart for the poor and expects Christians to feel the same way”).

I wonder, what would Dr. Mann say about Sir Issac Newton’s religious views were he alive today and question the AGW narrative?

Advertisements

233 thoughts on “A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way?

  1. ” ‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’ ”
    -Ian Plimer

  2. Notice how quickly Mann drew the climataster’s ultimate weapon, the ad hominem?
    I say ‘ultimate,’ because…well, you know.

  3. Right. Agreed. And yet that looks bad for Dr. Roy if he in fact has trouble accepting evolution. Fair or not, it does not reflect well (again if true) on his scientific objectivity. This is not to say the man is not entitled to his beliefs.

  4. Woe be upon us if we engage in ad hominem attacks. I couldn’t possibly be a professional scientist if I did that without toeing the #globalwarming #climatechange line.

  5. Mann really is a small, petty, ugly man. Not ugly in the physical sense, the man’s character is utterly [self-snip].

  6. One would think that if Dr. Mann’s science is as settled and irrefutable as he says, a public debate with someone who disagrees would be an easy victory for him. And yet, all he can provide are insults. Methinks he doth protest too much.

  7. Of course Michael Mann would refuse to debate Dr. Spencer. He knows better than to debate someone who really knows something about weather and climate.

  8. Yup. You’d think if he had such contempt for Dr. Spencer and Fox News and such scientific certainty that he’s correct that he’d be glad to demolish the skeptical position in a debate there; kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Go figure.

  9. Whilst I am one of the last people to ever defend Mr Mann, religious belief is irrational and illogical. To have a ‘religious’ faith is a mental illness or a problem with the brain – temporal lobe epilepsy. I fully realise that many will have a problem with this, but that’s how it actually is. You can believe something is real if you have fact-based evidence, but to believe something is real when you have zero evidence is frankly absurd. We should be progressing on fact-based truth. Instead, we daily have to put up with childish nonsensical statements based on pure belief. I don’t know if Dr Spencer denies evolution, but as an atheist I am very fed up with people (and even some who call themselves scientists) failing to apply science in rational thinking. Religious belief pervades the US – with no Senator able to admit to being an atheist, and even the film based on Charles Darwin’s life not being released in the US as it wouldn’t have gained an audience! Frankly, it’s high time some people grew up and stopped latching onto childish sillyness that has its roots in a time when we were ignorant of explanation.

  10. Just proves what I said over on Bishop Hill in relation to another subject. This bunch of people have spent the last fifteen years avoiding/preventing the possibility of any debate on the issue of climate change.
    They’re not going to change now.

  11. Perhaps it’s a good thing that Isaac Newton is dead as well. Otherwise, Mann would refuse to believe in Gravity.

  12. Roy Spencer is not an “evolution denier”. After two years investigating the question of evolution vs. intelligent design during his PhD studies, he came to the conclusion that, though both theories depend upon belief as opposed to evidence, the latter seemed more plausible than the former.
    He says that, though species adapt to their environment to some extent, there is insufficient evidence in the fossil record (or, for that matter, in living flora and fauna) to demonstrate that fishes could adapt so radically as to become mammals or birds. He points out that theories that try to account for inter-species evolution by positing hitherto-unobserved leaps from one species to another are based not on evidence but on the near-total absence of it.
    So Roy’s approach is strictly that of the questioning scientist, trying to account for gaps in the existing theory of evolution. He says evolution and intelligent design are the only two scientific theories of origins available to us, and that neither of these accounts for the moment of creation – the Big Bang – because the laws of physics by which we are enabled to observe and understand the visible creation only came into effect a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, as Max Planck has pointed out.
    My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.
    Mann, a medieval-warm-period denier, is no doubt grateful that the Attorney-General of Virginia seems not to be actively pursuing his investigation of him under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000. However, is evident that a small and well-connected group of “scientists” (no names, no pack-drill) has been pushing the supposed evidence for catastrophic “global warming” well beyond what the science would support, in much the same way as irredentist evolutionary “scientists” have been claiming certainty where some element of legitimate scientific doubt unquestionably persists.
    If scientific dissent such as that of Dr. Spencer on climate and on evolution is to be sneered at by charlatans such as Mann, and if funding goes only to scientific viewpoints which – however questionable the evidence for them – are politically “correct” and not to other viewpoints for which there is legitimate evidence, then the age of Enlightenment and Reason is dead and we are flung back into the Dark Ages. Mann needs an open mind, not an open mouth.

  13. Does Dr.Spencer really disagree with evolution? If so, he is entitled to a belief as part of his faith in creationism, but I’m afraid I believe that would also impact in other areas of his scientific beliefs into cause and effect. Climate change is a power driver of evolution, so if he did not believe in evolution, what then?

  14. I would doubt Michael Mann has any real understanding of the concept of Evolution. He certainly hasn’t demonstrated much understanding of climate science.
    Like a child he hides his inability with insults.

  15. A professional is one who is payed for what they do. An amateur is one who does something for the love of it. Being a professional tells very little about how much you know or about your actions. It only tells you that the person is doing something because of the money behind it. Much like engaging in the worlds oldest profession who are also at times called professionals.

  16. I’ve posed this question before. Is Michael Mann a buffoon pretending to be a scientist, or a scientist pretending to be a buffoon?

  17. pokerguy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    Right. Agreed. And yet that looks bad for Dr. Roy if he in fact has trouble accepting evolution. Fair or not, it does not reflect well (again if true) on his scientific objectivity. This is not to say the man is not entitled to his beliefs.
    =====================================================================
    Darwin also had problems between the science and his faith. He eventually came to the conclusion that they were not exclusive to each other but still struggled until his death. While not ever denying the existance of God he none the less tried to see science as an extension of his faith. To say that those that believe in Christ can not accept evolution is not entirely true except in some fundamentalist views.
    BTW I am not particularily religious.

  18. pokerguy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    Right. Agreed. And yet that looks bad for Dr. Roy if he in fact has trouble accepting evolution. Fair or not, it does not reflect well (again if true) on his scientific objectivity. This is not to say the man is not entitled to his beliefs.
    ________________________________________________________________________________
    And why exactly should it reflect on scientific objectivity?? Evolution is one of those fields where it’s proponents have shut down debate and yet I see no scientific evidence (via scientific method) that it is a valid theory. It has been riddled with fraud as per CAGW theory, it is full of ad hominems.
    Uhm -funny how CAGW parallels evolution.

  19. As a professional scientist, I take offense that anyone could could consider Michael Mann a professional scientist.
    Of course Mann would never dream of debating a well informed sceptic, as he knows all too well his ‘science’ would just be sliced and diced, thus exposing him for the charlatan he is.

  20. Three years ago I wrote on a national newspaper comment wanting answers to the climate questions. I had just read Ian Plimer’s book.
    My suggestion was that a series of key questions be formulated and sent to the various professors in the local debate in Australia and they have their Phd students answer them.
    This was in the context that a Senator had asked the Australian scientific community, especially at ANU,a series of questions, and had been told he could not understand the answers and should enroll in a number of courses to find understanding and the answer. A sort of intellectual put down.
    Once the answers were published the ‘other side’ would comment,again published. Then both sides would be allowed to publish their summary and rebuttal if any.
    My suggestion did not itself get published.
    Even at this stage a debate, written so there is no rigged audience, could still be worked on.
    This site could ask recognised people to submit answers to a series of questions in this manner and publish the responses.Alternatively it could ask an academic institution eg Oxford, to do so, but in writing.

  21. I believe Dr Spencer doesn’t rule out intelligent design which is the stated position of most ‘enlightened’ religions such as the Catholic Church. Which by the way, does not question evolutionary theory. Rather, it leaves open the possibility of a guiding hand. How could an intelligent religion not take such a position?

  22. My question for Dr. Mann — Is his behavior towards appropriate for an adult human being?
    Follow up: Does Dr. Mann;s behavior indicate some deep emotional and personal issues?

  23. A Sancho PONZI sanchismo for @MichaelEmann; “Al buen callar llaman Sancho.” Literal translation: The good silence is called Sancho.
    Meaning/use: Recommends prudence and moderation in talk.

  24. “News” Network
    Note the inverted commas.
    Mann is a thoroughly political animal. If Fox News takes a different political viewpoint to him, he thinks that makes them wrong.
    That, more than anything else, surely makes his “scientific” judgements extremely suspect.

  25. Science depends upon observations confirming our theories of how the world works. We see micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. It is delivered to us via textbooks, yet a decent, convincing rally of evidence is really quite laborious to go through, and ends up being not very convincing.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
    -There is a fairly succinct summary of the supposed evolutionary tree of the horse.
    Note how the common horse emerges in its present day state right at the dawn of human recorded history. And so it is for all of the animals we see. Nothing has been observed except existing species carrying on, and species going extinct.
    Believing in evolution takes a bit of faith. Hardly any WUWT readers are as familiar with any species familiy tree as this horse tree. I used to keep up with primatology and the human famiyl tree, since the mid-1980s. I took an advanced class, from a guy studying this for his dissertation. At least he was able to declare that hte human family tree of descent as currently perceived was convincing, but sure to be upset and changed as time passed by. As I followed this topic in various science popular press articles, I found out he was correct.
    Am Sci ran a human tree of descent article, and things were quite different fomr my first good look at this topic 20 yrs ago.
    So, evolutionists have it wrong, and know it, but still acknowledge that the macro-evolution view is correct.
    All I see as I get older and wiser is that the Bible keeps coming up roses. Sci Am ran an article in recent years declaring that some cosmologists are thinking that the universe may ultimately be composed of information. To me, just another way of saying God spoke and the universe came into existence.
    A recent Sci Am story reported the idea that reality may be a Matrix-like stimulation – partly resting on th eobservation that at the smallest level, things are quantum, and making the analogy to pixel resolution – the quantum jumps are the pixel resolution. In Revelation, the world as we know it supposedly will eventually disappear and we will be in some new reality. No more earth, stars, etc. So, it is not too surprising for me to learn that cosmologists are finally catching up.
    In Genesis, God declares, at one point, that no one will live past 120 years of age.
    Well, guess what:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people
    Given 2 significant digits, we can allow vairance up to 124 years. One verified claim beyond 120, and many just below.
    In Ecclesiastes, a quip is made abt enjoying our four score and ten on this planet. Not six score.
    Well, guess what the avg life span is? Yep: four score and ten.
    Ecclesiastes also says man will never be able to predict the next day’s weather.
    check.
    It also says we won’t know when a specific human life begins. check. Quite a matter of consternation for couples trying to get pregnant and tracking early morning temps, LH, etc.
    Check.
    Science requires that we accept a uniform, law-driven, unvarying physical universe. There is no definitive proof that the universe is this way. It sure looks it, for the most part. But it is a “given,” otherwise there is no value in studying nature, and science has no appeal. This concept, a uniform, unvarying universe, has to be accepted as a working proposition just to move along a bit, or has to be accepted on faith.
    So, both Christians and scientists have faith as the basis of the world-view.
    If evolution is actually true, evolutionary theory will only be advanced by clever creationists pointing out various little challenges, such as -how do you ADD one gene, one three-base-pair unit, into a strand of DNA? We don’t only accrue errors, we each (each species) has a discreet number of genes, at three base-pairs each. I have not yet heard a convincing explanation.
    How does a new chromosome pair get added? Or subtracted? We are at 23 pairs. Did we have a continuous string, and it broke down into 23 over time?
    This is how science could advance. However, there is a propaganda war against Christianity. It is marxist based. It involves making Christians be perceived as dumb, insensitive, brutish, stingey, uncaring, and uncharitable. From the view in my pew, and when I read my Bible, all of this is patently ridiculous, but I guess you can trot out a few counter-examples here and there.
    So, carry on with laughing at creationists, instead of assuredly firming up the ideas and evidence, and thus making evolutionary science as robust as we can get it to be.
    Because if scientists fail, then they are not worthy, like Nimrod, to stand in for the non-existent god.
    And someone else will get ot play god, what with all of that control-the-weather stuff and all.

  26. To be a bit sympathetic with Mann, by now he sees himself as a victim of the evil forces of reaction and himself as hero battling these forces. He has come to this state over the past 10 years or so, during which he has been vilified as the symbol of all that is wrong with the climate movement. Even some of his collaborators clearly don’t like dealing with him, as we see from the ClimateGate emails. No doubt he has brought much of this on himself, but not all of it. Nevertheless the bottom line is that he has become an embarassment for the climate community and continues to reduce its already low level of prestige.

  27. For those saying that Spencer’s beliefs on evolution may also impact his judgement regarding climate change, I really don’t think that one thing has impact on the other. Someone has already cited Newton, which was a deeply religious man *and* one of the greatest scientific minds in all History; and I would also cite the personal experience regarding my advisor from my graduate student times, who was a genius in his field (Robotics), with many, many published papers, and clearly way more intelligent than myself, and at the same time questioned evolution and tended to believe in Intelligent Design.

  28. @tanstaafl : I can vouch for that, I was cured. Same as tectonic plates which were ignored when I was reading geology in the ’60s. At that time too, Science was settled and Wegener was a maverick.

  29. WTF wrote of Darwin “While not ever denying the existence of God he none the less tried to see science as an extension of his faith. ” But of course he didn’t turn away from his own brilliant insight because it seemed to called the Old Testament into question. And I applaud Darwin’s effort to come to some sort of synthesis. It seems reasonable to me to say, well yes, there is evolution but it was set in motion by God.
    But to deny overwhelming scientific evidence on the basis of nothing but fundamentalist theology does not look good for a scientist. Mann has a point here, for one of the few times in his detestable life. Of course, I have my own point of view (basically I’m a wise guy, agnostic Jew), and I realize others think differently.

  30. Oh Jesus, I’m not actually religious (see what I did there?) but I know that the theory of evolution is just that: a THEORY.
    But why would I waste my breath explaining to an AGW’er why one cannot “deny” a theory? Or waste my breath explaining why putting one’s FAITH into one single unproven theory is as much a religion as Christianity?

  31. Richard Sharpe says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    Perhaps it’s a good thing that Isaac Newton is dead as well. Otherwise, Mann would refuse to believe in Gravity.
    Gravity? Are you crazy? Of course it doesn’t exist. Newton was an alchemist. He was also an alumnus of my university college so what the hell do I know either!

  32. Keep him twittering, he is so successful an agent of scepticism, that if he did not exist, we would need to invent him.
    But observe how successfully the, ” bash the christian idiot” ploy works even here.
    A scientists opinion amounts to squat. What can we verify and replicate?
    One of these Drs uses the scientific method, the other uses slander, slime and evasion.
    Dr Spencer is a scientist, The mann is someone who offends all who search for truth.
    As such he promotes the spreading scepticism over the teams conjecture/fantasy that manmadeCO2 = Warming world.

  33. Yeah but if you can’t answer the questions or debate the issues you can at least shoot the messenger. Guess that is as professional as some can get.

  34. So belief in evolution is a threshold requirement is it. Pity that so few fields – scientific or otherwise – are really dependent on that belief. BTW, I also believe in evolution but it makes me wild that so many people are so damned rigid about something that really has very little impact on most of human accomplishment and knowledge.

  35. Well, as much as I despise Mann, I have no time for people who deny the scientific evidence for evolution (just as Mann may deny the scientific evidence for non-catastrophic global warming).

  36. Dear Mr. Mann only a nasty person could produce such a constant flow of in the gutter remarks as your emails and twitty little tweets show, but we have been privileged to witness that since you first invented that wonderful piece of adjusted fiction the Hockeystick – You and your fellow CAGW climate crowd do not pass the science based stink test of today think how the History books of tomorrow will judge you. Well done Mike hope you have enjoyed your 12 pieces of silver!
    To Dr. Spencer. Thank you sir for your noble contribution to truth and science.

  37. Michael Mann has no reason to debate any opponent. The Team has nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by exposing the absurdity of their “science” to the light of day. It will take a jury trial with an enlightened prosecutor and a truly neutral judge before CAGW can be refuted. EPA is getting closer to such a trial, and Mann’s own lawsuit against Mark Steyn could conceivably do this, if Mann is the egomaniac he appears to be, and his advisors the idiots they appear to be.
    Academics such as the editors of “Science” Magazine typically have the leftist belief that profit is theft, hence hate oil, gas, and coal companies. Mainstream Media bosses share this belief. This is the entire basis of CAGW, not going away anytime soon…

  38. For those thinking that questioning evolution necessarily impairs all scientific judgement, I really don’t think that is the case. Someone here already mentioned Newton, who was a deeply religious man *and* perhaps the greatest scientific mind in History. I would also add my personal experience with my advisor from my old times as a graduate student: he was a genius in his field (Robotics), with many, many published papers, and clearly way more intelligent than myself, and nevertheless he was rather skeptical with evolution and believed in Intelligent Design.
    Anyhow, Mann is pulling the strings of his own fans, which probably think that this kind of ad hominem fallacy and political association bias suffice for refusing to debate. Oh yes, and “the science is settled”, so why discuss the subject anyway? 🙂

  39. Forgive me but yes, I too raise my eyebrow when someone denies evolution. It definitely does make me wonder whether or not their other opinions are formed in the same way. There’s something seriously wrong with your antenna if you can’t see how axiomatic it is to the entire field of biology.

  40. Actually yes, this is the default position taken by evolutionary biologists when offered a chance to “debate” evolution deniers.

  41. Obviously being talented at mathematics doesn’t mean one understands what is going on in the world.

  42. pokerguy said
    “And yet that looks bad for Dr. Roy if he in fact has trouble accepting evolution. Fair or not, it does not reflect well (again if true) on his scientific objectivity. ”
    If that were the case then you would have to say that Max Planck, Sir Frances Bacon (who established the scientific method), Robert Penrose, Wernher von Braun, Robert Boyle, Johann Kepler and Rene Descartes all suffered from a lack of scientific objectivity. It appears that many scientists have the ability to separate out scientific studies from faith based analysis and apparently feel comfortable that the two are not incongruous.

  43. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    “Whilst I am one of the last people to ever defend Mr Mann, religious belief is irrational and illogical.”
    You say it is illogical – so it should be easy for you to demonstrate the logical contradiction. Please do.

  44. Evolution denial too…huh?
    Well…As it happens recent study of 10,000 individual gene sequences has revealed that ~0.5 to ~4% of our genes are neanderthal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
    Turns out that the genetic differences between homo sapiens and neanderthal are too vast to be accounted for my normal mutation rates given the assumed timeline. Therefore, current scientific thinking (within the past couple of years) is that Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthal and incorporated their genetic make-up into modern man.
    This implies that neanderthal appeared much earlier than thought AND that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal cohabited in western Europe.
    Michael Mann’s small mind would not allow this kind of new and revolutionary thinking. He is so closed minded. He is easily indoctrinated and susceptible to group-think pressures, That is why he is bad scientist. He does not know where facts and theory depart.
    To pursue such unorthodox investigation into the human genome data is tantamount to evolution denial. Yet here we are, a mix of Homo Sapien and Neanderthal despite the close-minded Michael-Mannesque Procrustean view of the world.
    Message to Michael Mann… the big Bang theory was conceived by Father George Henri LeMatire, PhD, a priest and physicist and he was mocked by another Michael-Mannesque, closed minded fool by the name of Fred Hoyle. Like you Michael-Mann, Fred Hoyle was wrong and like Fred Hoyle who went to his grave denying the big bang theory, you with meet a sorry and pathetic end also denying reality, just to protect your ego.

  45. Medical Dictionary substance n. That which has mass and occupies space; matter
    Hebrews 11:1 Now faithis the ‘substance’ of things hoped for,the ‘evidence’ of things not seen.
    Alfred

  46. > WTF says:
    > Darwin also had problems between the science and his faith. He eventually came to the
    > conclusion that they were not exclusive to each other but still struggled until his death. While not > ever denying the existance of God he none the less tried to see science as an extension of his > faith. To say that those that believe in Christ can not accept evolution is not entirely true except > in some fundamentalist views.
    But that’s what Spencer is. A religious fundamentalist.

  47. Arthur Smith the physicist is a firm believer in the Christian Faith and is also an IPCC advocatete – So what!
    Says any reasonable rational person.!
    Michael Mann on the other hand to defend his bogus hockey-stick attacks Roy Spencer’s religious opinions.
    Whats new?

  48. Not sure, but I believe Roy Spencer is an “Old Earth” , as opposed to a “New Earth”, creationist. Many scientists, except those who follow Hawking, are Old Earthers. Hawking believes at a time just before the singularity, there is no “cause and effect” because there was no time. Others, not so sure.

  49. My reading is the Dr Spencer doesn’t “deny” evolution, he “questions” it.
    This is the absolute correct position for any real scientist.
    Blind acceptance is non-science. ie Mann and his mob.

  50. Thanks Big Jim
    Your pithy statement has cured my wrong-thinking. Just give me a sec and I’ll tell the other billions of idiots in the world how right you have it.

  51. I find it difficult to understand why people argue about creation vs evolution when both expond the same things realistically speaking. The only real difference is that creationism attributes tha act itself to an entity that existed prior to the event.
    Creationism
    God existed prior
    God created the heavens
    God created the planed in darkness
    Let their be light (god created the Sun)
    Plants, animals, and finally man followed.
    Science
    Big bang created the heavens.
    Stellar evolution created the density that brought about the Sun & Earth (the earth had to exist in some form prior to the onset of the stellar fusion process as the pressure would begin to sweep out the material necessary to complete planetary formation
    Plants, Animals and Man evantually followed
    Seems to me that all science proves is the how the mechanism operated

  52. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Few things here.
    1. Atheists are/is a religion.
    2. Atheism is an anti-science religion as the basis of their belief system is that their is not god and they have proven such thing. This is called a logical fallacy of the “proving a negative”/”a lack of proof means its wrong”.
    3. Atheists are by far the most fanatical and dangerous of all religious groups as they have themselves a god complex among other disorders.
    Few other points… evolution has of course been proven wrong at least twice as far as i know. Nothing wrong with that as thats science. However human caused global warming gets disproved almost as soon as its rewritten.
    Add in also 99% of believers in human caused global warming are creationist. They believe because of the short recent warming this is a big deal. To them the last millions/billions of years simply don’t exist. Many believe that the world only existed post 1970.

  53. Mann’s record shows he is an arrogant chump, but on this occasion I have to agree with him – it’s hard to take someone who believes in the supernatural seriously. I find such irrational beliefs hard to understand – even offensive, but I live with it.
    Mann is guilty of bad manners, nothing more.

  54. As a Christian I find evolution a complex subject. There are aspects that I can readily accept and other aspects that seem scientifically unproven. It is still a theory and not a law. I am also a scientist and my evaluation comes from a scientific view not a religious one. It so happens that the two in general coincide. If God is the creator, I would expect them to coincide.

  55. Whether Dr. Spencer believes in evolution or not is not the issue. The issue is whether his science is better than Mann’s science when it comes to Climage Change. In that debate I’ll go with Dr. Spencer every time.

  56. Why bother? We have all seen quite enough of Mann to know that he has absolutely no class. This is just yet more of the same.
    Nobel prize winner my arse.

  57. Why would Mann Decline a debate with Roy Spencer?
    Is Mann subconsciously admitting that facts and science are not on his side?
    Perhaps Mann has something to Hide?
    Is Mann worried about explaining he isn’t as Nobel as he has claimed?

  58. Oh I don’t know. I can see how some people might think that scientific knowledge and understanding advances through the clash of ideas, and the openness of the process to falsification.

  59. I’m sure that Mann doesn’t want to debate anyone who is a professional in the field. His work is so porous that even I could point out the flaws. But with another climate Phd he wouldn’t be able to use the “from authority” argument.
    I did see Roy debate Kevin Trenberth in front of a congressional committee. It was the same kind of thing. Trenberth had nothing but personal attacks.
    I wonder if people realize how much integrity it takes to follow the path that Roy has taken when there is so much pressure in his peer group to follow the political line. Both he and John Christy at UAH deserve our appreciation. We need to remember that for those months when Roy brings us data points that we don’t necessarily like.

  60. I mean the, er, ‘evolution’ of Mann has ceased. Let us revisit the paleoclimatehockeystick era, for example.

  61. Let me demonstrate now easy it is to denigrate. Care for an ad hominem dessert?
    EXHIBIT 1
    We have Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. (A climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.)
    EXHIBIT 2
    We have John Cook’s Christian faith. (Cartoonist & part time fairytale proponent who tinkers with physics. “The second reason is my faith. I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25. I believe in a God who has a heart for the poor and expects Christians to feel the same way”).

  62. Anthony, what makes you thing that Mann is either rational, intelligent or a professional scientist?
    I have not yet seen any evidence of these.
    Perhaps you can explain this theory? Is it based on a model?

  63. Colin Gartner says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    “Mann really is a small, petty, ugly man.”
    In addition, he is downright mean.

  64. You know, it is just too bad that faith so inhibited the brains of people like Pascal and Newton that they were never able to do any cogent work in math or science. After all it is unthinkable that someone might have faith and be really good at something else. Just can’t happen.
    The arrogance, the blind spots that exceed the scope of vision and the utter contempt for people of faith is just amazing from some who visit and comment here. The scope of people who believe in some kind of creative force runs the gamut from the 6,000 year old earth crew to those who, like Thomas Jefferson believe in the ‘something that spun the top and walked away’. Oh! And Jefferson is another one of those who couldn’t possibly had a rational thought in regard to science.
    Are some of you, in the Mannley spirit of the Ghost of Big Jim Cooley, so sure of what you have never seen and cannot reproduce in a laboratory, that you have elevated yourself to godlike status, sitting in judgement of your fellow humans. That you would not even have the courtesy to speak civilly to Newton, or Pascal, or Jefferson. Are your manners so lacking, your upbringing so poor, and your self confidence so lacking that you can say with a straight face about Dr. Spencer’s faith that “it does not reflect well on his scientific objectivity” and put yourself in the Mann Camp to turn up your nose against those who don’t see the world as you do?
    There is only one question to answer in regards to origins. By what means did matter come into existence from nothing? Until we get that answer, why not respect the work and stop attacking the worker. Unless of course you have achieved perfection, in which case you would be god and the argument would be settled. Not just that you think you are god, because we’ve had way too much of that already.

  65. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    I’ve said it before that this site should focus on scientific work and try to refrain from politics and religion. I understand that both of these realms some times come into play in policy-making but this site operates best when based on scientific principles. With that said, I find it ironic that The Ghost argues against a not insignificant scientific body that holds up scientific conclusions which are often based on theory and modeling – the very thing a lot of us question here, and yet insists that scientific beliefs/conclusions as the only sure way to make one’s way through life. It is fruitless to denigrate religious value here when the criteria of faith and science are two different fruits entirely. One man’s existentialism is another man’s free will and who’s to say the empirical results should be observable within an expected time frame or one’s expectations. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley I’m afraid falls victim to the same type of closed-mindedness that pervades the AGW crowd.

  66. When Mann falls we will surprised to see how many on his own side line up to kick him on the way down , such is the ‘quality’ of the man .

  67. Colin Gartner says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    Mann really is a small, petty, ugly man. Not ugly in the physical sense, the man’s character is utterly [self-snip]
    It really is a shame that you feel a need to self-snip…but without a doubt, you are correct. Mann really takes the cake. Here is someone, touted as being the top in his field, secretly pleading for more validation. Something tells me that he recognizes his inadequacy but is dearth to expose it in truth…and, takes the easiest, cheapest flight of fancy: ad hominem for the lowest common denominator. Bleccch.

  68. Whatever they believed about how the Moon got there had (and has) nothing to do with the application of the known scientific principles that enabled us to land a man on the Moon or send Curiosity to Mars.
    Whatever Dr. Spenser believes about our Beginning has nothing to do with his application of the known scientific principles that enable us to understand “Climate” (to the extent we can) or, at least, to see where someone else who claims to understand it is full sh*t.

  69. No one should ever have the luxury of being on permanent sabbatical. Mr. Mann should be forced to do janitorial services to earn his fair share of Climate spoils.

  70. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Whilst I am one of the last people to ever defend Mr Mann, religious belief is irrational and illogical. To have a ‘religious’ faith is a mental illness or a problem with the brain – temporal lobe epilepsy. I fully realise that many will have a problem with this, but that’s how it actually is.

    I’m agnostic and have a really hard time with this comment.
    First, I don’t think Big Jim has any support that being religious or having faith is a mental illness. In fact, it’s likely that “having faith” is a hard-wired evolutionary trait accompanying our big brain. When early man, at the dawn of human consciousness, first started to question things and the world around him, he created Gods to explain what he didn’t understand. Over thousands of years, that propensity may very well be hard-wired into the brain. It’s not easy to prove, but considering that almost every known culture past and present seems to have two things in common, religion and some sort of music, I suspect that both have some inherited component of some sort.
    Second, Big Jim needs to do some reading on epilepsy. My sister has temporal lobe epilepsy. There may be a few people who have “Seen God” as a result of the condition, but the experience varies. My sister just kind of experienced what we used to call trances.
    Third, And Then There Were Three was a good album… But Duke was better!!! 🙂
    On Mann…. He just has to get his little digs in. The most important aspect of climate science is not whether this or that person subscribes to evolution and denies God, it’s whether or not the numbers add up. Period.

  71. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says (March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm): “You can believe something is real if you have fact-based evidence, but to believe something is real when you have zero evidence is frankly absurd. We should be progressing on fact-based truth. Instead, we daily have to put up with childish nonsensical statements based on pure belief. ”
    ============================================================
    Well put, and this fully applies both to evolution and global warming.
    I suggest you read Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” and then explain, what it has to do with science. Can be easily found on the internet, you do not need to pay for it.
    Or you can start just with the title and realize that he mixed up species and races. You know, you can create a new dog race by selection, but never another species. This idea of his was simply unscientific crap, and it was known for thousands of years.

  72. Anthony, seeing you have put my comment as an UPDATE can you make a typo correction
    “Let me demonstrate how easy it is to denigrate. Care for an ad hominem dessert?”

  73. Gareth: Do you know who Erwin Shrodinger is? Real dummy right? Here are a couple of quotes from him:
    “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity.
    Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”
    “Whence came I, whither go I? Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears.
    Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity – the One of Parmenides – of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God – with a capital ‘G’.
    Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.”
    I have no religion myself, but my point here is that there is no connection between religion and the ability to do science. Shroedinger was certainly a spiritual man, and his intelligence was far beyond that of Michael Mann.

  74. P Wilson says: March 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm wrote:
    I’ve posed this question before. Is Michael Mann a buffoon pretending to be a scientist, or a scientist pretending to be a buffoon?
    My answer is: neither. Mann is a buffoon pretending (and doing a very good job) to be a bigger buffoon.

  75. YFNWG says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    “It’s not only creationist Christians who have doubts about Darwinistic evolution:
    http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/23/what-has-gotten-into-thomas-nagel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism/
    Thomas Nagel is just one of many first-rate philosophers who criticize Darwin’s account of human evolution. Sounds like Nagel is being bullied by Dennett who has his own very unscientific account of Darwin. Criticizing Darwin is not the same thing as criticizing Mendel or Crick and Watson. And Darwin can be criticized on purely scientific grounds without appeal to creationism.

  76. Scientists debate in the peer-reviewed literature–not sure what the point would be to an oral debate. Many Christians, including the Pope, believe in evolution. Anyone who rejects evolution is denying the best supported most important science known to man. As a biologist, I know that evolution has stood the test of time over the last 160 years in literally 100s of thousands of scientific studies and every important test. On the other hand, intelligent design and creationism have zero scientific support.

  77. Talking of John Cook’s Christian faith and “heart for the poor” how does his heart feel towards the over 1BILLION people without access to electricity? Does John Cook have access to electricity? Does he have a “heart” towards the 75% of Kenyans who have no access to electricity despite there wonderful sunshine for solar? Great mountains for wind. BLOODY F’ING HYPOCRITE.
    It’s actually worse than we thought.
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS

  78. I am surprised Michael Mann didn’t accuse Roy Spenser of being an @racist or an @misogynist or an @homophobe etc etc etc….
    Michael Mann lives in a coward’s castle built of stones made of adhominem.

  79. You buried the lede.
    Michael Mann hikes skirt and runs like frightened girl when confronted by spector of global warming debate.
    – should have been the headline.

  80. I really think that the assumption that an unquestioning approach to evolution is the only way to demonstrate scientific veritas is seriously wrong and it is entirely inappropriate to try and undermine a persons scientific credibility in one field of science simply because they question the consensus in another. Here speaks a scientist who questions everything.

  81. So based on the above comments, the accusation, “He’s a witch”. AKA He denies evolution, is powerful enough to derail otherwise sensible people?
    I’m assuming its denial of evolution, cause god help us all is just being accused of ‘Questioning’ evolution, produces this knee jerk.
    What does that “belief” have to do with science?
    Also our technology would not exist but for individuals with “not normal” points of view.

  82. If I was Mann, I wouldn’t be worried about Spencer. I’d be worried about Marcott. I think his backers (Those who pay his legal bills.) may be hunting for someone to replace him.

  83. Horizontally the cross reminds us of our duty to try and bring heaven to earth. Vertically the cross shows that there is a way from earth to heaven. A commitment to the Truth and faith in Him will get u there.

  84. It would be interesting to ask Dr Mann to name one or more front-line scientists who disagree with CAGW with whom he would be prepared to debate the issue.
    Silence, no doubt…..

  85. Oh goodie, I see Big Jim Cooley is an Evangelical Atheist, those who attack others beliefs with a religious fervor.

  86. I really don’t care if Roy Spencer believes mankind was dropped by the flying spaghetti monster, it does not change the facts, and the facts are that the earth is showing a far lower sensitivity to CO2 than the team has been preaching. In their furvor, the alarmists have made predictions, but the data goes against their gospel. Mann is using an unrelated matter to dodge the debate.

  87. Will Nitschke @ 2:15 pm:
    That’s pretty much the gist of what I feel. I don’t see that creation precludes evolution or vice versa.

  88. I am not a believer in intelligent design partly because it does not answer the question about the origins of the intelligent designer.
    However, I also have problems with evolution. If you look at a family tree of life forms there are various branching points and nodes but the longest spaces are between these points. So why do we not find more transitional fossils than non-transitional ones?
    Putting it another way, if life is constantly evolving then surely most examples in the wild must be in a partially evolved state not in an easily defined category.
    In summary, the theory of evolution is still evolving 🙂

  89. I hope this post from WUWT teaches the climate fairytale teller, Michael Mann, a lesson. Keep to the science and keep religion out of the debate. If not, I will flood him with religion and climate change references and quotes. Give it up Mr. Mann.

  90. Here is a list of Nobel Laureates, all of whom are quoted to believe in God.
    Note: Michael Mann is neither a Nobel Laureate (snicker) nor is he quoted to have said that he believes in God.
    Must be lonely in Michael Mann, unimaginative, puny, and dull cranium.
    ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe)
    MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
    CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
    SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
    JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
    SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
    GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism)
    SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
    CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
    WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
    Michael… you don’t have a Nobel prize, especially in physics. hehehe

  91. Taking a shot at people’s religious beliefs when they are irrelevant to the subject under discussion is rude, ignorant and unprofessional. If it was two biologists having the argument, it would still be rude, but perhaps might be relevant in some way.
    I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, but anyone who claims that Darwinian “evolution” is a fact misunderstands the science. Contemporary debates about the origin and evolution of species have moved a long way since Darwin’s time. The science is far from settled. This is a good thing, surely. It is proper science – we keep debating and researching and improving our knowledge.
    You don’t have to believe in the supernatural to accept that our understanding of these matters is far from complete. Dr Spencer’s views are tinged with his religious beliefs, but they are far from unscientific. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists are practising Christians, and see no contradiction between studying evolutionary theory and their faith. Apart from the lieralist “the world was made in six days” crowd, there is no reason why they should.

  92. This is exactly how a professional – scientist or other type, MAY behave.
    They are as cranky and egocentric as the rest of us. Except for me, of course.
    If professionalism were natural in people, lawyers wouldn’t be required to sign ethics agreements before they took the bar exam.

  93. I do not understand why Michael did not want debate Roy, he could easily win.
    He could successfully challenge Roy’s fictional “Virginia” story by pointing out that he can not prove that colder bodies can warm warmer bodies just by claiming that they can or by drawing a picture where they do. Or that Roy can not prove “greenhouse effect” by an IR-thermometer, because the atmosphere does not have a lens. And that he can not just ignore the R.W.Wood experiment. And that he can not just claim anything about changes in “global temperature” probably knowing that the thermometer network has never been proven representative and temperature reconstructions and homogenizations are BS.
    Michael, come on, if you read this, go ahead, do it. Do not be afraid of Roy. OK, maybe Roy can say something about that tree ring thing, but you can easily counter that by referring to the “skeptiks” general acceptance of other proxies. E.g. Christopher Monckton’s favorite is Central England’s temperature record allegedly representative for the whole world, it is not really better than trees. So, Michael, call the Fox News and stand up and fight, make me proud.

  94. Peter Miller says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    As a professional scientist, I take offense that anyone could could consider Michael Mann a professional scientist.
    Of course Mann would never dream of debating a well informed sceptic, as he knows all too well his ‘science’ would just be sliced and diced, thus exposing him for the charlatan he is.

    “Shredded” comes to mind. I hear that the pompous don’t like to have their buffoonery ridiculed.

  95. Oops -“literalist” – bad typo there in second last line. If mod has time, grateful if you could fix – thanks – J

  96. Mann is in need of an optirectomy … a delicate surgical procedure to sever the optical nerve to his ‘posterical’ blind eye in the hope that it my diminish his shitty outlook.

  97. RE: The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Jim, science is based upon those truths which we can replicate. It is possible to be objective about such things.
    However there is a part of life which flows by every day, quite steadily and regularly, which happens once and will never happen again. Think about that. It cannot be replicated. Does that mean it is not scientific? Does that mean it didn’t happen?
    Welcome to the world of subjectivity. You are correct to say it includes madness. What could be more crazy than a deaf man writing the 9th symphony?

  98. Frankly believing that all the known and unknown matter in the universe once fit into an infinitely small point and then exploded exponentially beyond the speed of light to billions of miles across in a fraction of a second sounds pretty fantastic to me, possibly even requiring a great leap of faith, lord/gaia forbid. But maybe that’s just me.

  99. “No @FoxNews, I’m not interested in “debating” #climatechange & #evolution denier Roy Spencer”
    I see no mention of religion. Is it is some other post?
    If someone believes that a invisible magic man or aliens started life on earth, it is clear that the person does not look at data in a clear unbiased manner. Why would someone debate such a person?

  100. Richards in Vancouver says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Dr. Spencer would surely agree that Dr. Mann is not very highly evolved.

    Indeed. The very existence of Mann should call into question Dr. Spencer’s realiance on “Intelligent Design” as the modus operandi. Of course, there’s an exception to every rule, and Mann may be the most obvious example.

  101. Hey Mr Mann, you were invited to debate Climate Science, not religion. What’s next? Not debating vegetarians? Or wheelchair users? Or chess players? Or Indians? Or capitalists? Or, whatever people may do, have or are, different from what you yourself do, have or are?
    You don’t have to be like or to agree with someone to challenge the ideas of someone on a completely different issue. And NO, climate science is NOT a sacred issue. It’s just a science, it’s just hypotheses. Nothing more, nothing less.
    You are starting to be a disgrace to your science, just like Al Gore, who also didn’t want to debate. The debate was over. No, it was just inconvenient. And he wasn’t even a scientist. You should be ashamed of the fact that you don’t want to debate your science. If it is all so rock solid, what do you fear? You don’t want to debate because you know the science is not settled (as it NEVER is). CAGW is an unproven idea with unproven assumptions.
    In the mean time, the facts start to show that the catastrophe is indeed manmade, but in one’s mind that is, not in the real world. And apparently you know it, but you take shelter behind a pose of disdain, made possible by a complete hijacked MSM. One day you will hav to face the music.

  102. As McComber boy says,
    I can only say thank sir, you thank you,
    I read most of the posts but yours is the most rational of the lot! (your name isn’t Willis btw ??)

  103. P Wilson says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    I’ve posed this question before. Is Michael Mann a buffoon pretending to be a scientist, or a scientist pretending to be a buffoon?

    I feel this remark should be removed from WUWT since it is an insult to buffoons everywhere.

  104. It’s okay to admit we (humans) don’t know things presently. We currently know far more than our predecessors, but we shall all be gone, long gone, and humans will still be sorting things out, arguing, not knowing things. I would suggest we all be ‘okay’ with that, seeing there is zilch we can do about it. There will always be, have always been, Pied Pipers and their followers. Most of us are able to step around them and move on down the walkway. For those that stay behind, by all means, shout out your theories, proffer your proof, enjoy your perch – Mann-style, even Darwin-style – before it all crashes back to earth. Hey, at least leave open the possibility that neither science nor religion has yet offered up ‘the truth’ about the origin of species; that perhaps the time for that, the knowledge for that, is in the future. Simples.

  105. 1 A professional scientist would not make personal attacks on a fellow professional.
    2 Mann makes a personal attack on a professional scientist.
    3 Mann is not a professional scientist.

  106. pokerguy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    Right. Agreed. And yet that looks bad for Dr. Roy if he in fact has trouble accepting evolution. Fair or not, it does not reflect well (again if true) on his scientific objectivity. This is not to say the man is not entitled to his beliefs.

    Tell that to some of the giants of science of the past.
    Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
    Nicholas Copernicus
    Sir Francis Bacon
    Johannes Kepler
    Galileo Galilei
    Rene Descartes
    Blaise Pascal
    ………………………………………..
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

  107. I love the nice, neat charts that show the evolution of a horse from a critter with five toes to a critter running about on its middle finger. (politically incorrect, if you think of it.)
    But what I want to see is the nice, neat chart that shows the evolution of the orchid that looks like a certain wasp, smells like that wasp, and can only be pollinated by that wasp. That is so cool!
    Nature fills me with wonder. I don’t like the dirt of religion and politics getting smeared on it.
    If it is true only the fit survive, religion and politics will both go extinct.

  108. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley said on March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm: “Whilst I am one of the last people to ever defend Mr Mann, religious belief is irrational and illogical. To have a ‘religious’ faith is a mental illness or a problem with the brain – temporal lobe epilepsy.
    …but as an atheist I am very fed up with people (and even some who call themselves scientists) failing to apply science in rational thinking.”
    I was taught that atheism was the ‘belief in the non-existence of a deity or supreme being’ and as much of an irrational and illogical belief as you accuse people of religious faith of having. To be truly rational one must be an agnostic since you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an deity. In fact, I would think that to be a true scientist one must only accept things based on their probability of being correct, where these probabilities are subjective and the probability of zero nor one exists (except the probability of one existing is zero).

  109. He didn’t attack his Christian faith. He attacked his rejection of the Theory of Natural Selection. Even the pope has accepted that. Is the pope not Christian?

  110. thelastdemocrat says March 25, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Believing in evolution takes a bit of faith. Hardly any WUWT readers are as familiar with any species familiy tree as this horse tree. I used to keep up with primatology and the human famiyl tree, since the mid-1980s. I took an advanced class, from a guy studying this for his dissertation. At least he was able to declare that hte human family tree of descent as currently perceived was convincing, but sure to be upset and changed as time passed by

    One question and one question only: how much DNA do we share (have in common with) ‘the apes’? (The ‘closest’ relative in terms of DNA anyway)
    I’ve always wondered why that was … /mild sarc
    .

  111. I am a PSU meteo student…and I was embarrassed that MY MONEY goes to paying someone with an attitude as poor as Dr. Mann’s. In person, he’s very nice and affable…but on Twitter, it seems he has a completely different attitude. It’s disappointing. MSNBC to him apparently is a fair and balance network though.

  112. Amazing that so many doesn’t question whether Mann is right at all. Mann, a persistent lier and a man with infinitsemal integrity, says Spencer is denying evolution (as opposed to e.g. Questioning it) and you believe him????

  113. Greg House says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm


    Michael, come on, if you read this, go ahead, do it. Do not be afraid of Roy. OK, maybe Roy can say something about that tree ring thing, but you can easily counter that by referring to the “skeptiks” general acceptance of other proxies. E.g. Christopher Monckton’s favorite is Central England’s temperature record allegedly representative for the whole world, it is not really better than trees.

    You’re kidding, right? You’d accept tree rings over a thermometer??
    (You know–the device that, by definition (thermo-meter) is designed to actually measure temperature. And a specific one that’s been in one place and hasn’t had any air conditioning or pavement placed next to it for several centuries? And one that doesn’t respond to different levels of nutrients (including CO2) and sunlight, and wind, and clouds, and etc. etc.? That one?)
    I’ve heard some daft comparisons, Mr. House, but that one takes the cake. Or instead of the “temperature”, would you rather we substitute “tree response” (tresp-ometers?) as the metric we should all be worried about?–Especially since trees are growing ~30% faster now than they were 50 years ago simply from the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. That metric?
    I’ll stick with thermometers–you go and enjoy your “trespometer” Tree House, if you must.

  114. If I were Fox News, Id have the spot anyways with just Dr Christy. Bring up all the important AGW points for Dr Christy to comment on and then point out that Mikey was invited to present the CAGW proponents case but declined. And I would then add the comment that AGW proponents are always invited to discuss this topic but almost ALWAYS decline when they have a knowledgeable person with whom to debate the topic.
    This would eventually FORCE the AGW proponents to debate if all networks did this. We would finally have the debates that should have already occurred before imposing carbon taxes and other draconian measures that are in the process of destroying our economy and impoverishing millions of people.

  115. 2007
    Global Warming: Scientific Basis and Christian Responses
    …………….Shifts in the poleward migration of birds and insects in the northern hemisphere toward earlier dates in the spring……………….
    http://jisao.washington.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Ackerman_files/p250-264Ackerman.pdf
    [pdf]

    Haaaaaaaaa, haaaaaa, haaaaa. What a joke. A few misguided birds which migrated into Germany for the Spring headed back SOUTH due to the cold and ice. Read about it here.
    We have been told that the cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the melting Arctic. Fine. Can these idiots now tell me whether plants and animals are still moving uphill?

  116. Greg House says March 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    He could successfully challenge Roy’s fictional “Virginia” story by pointing out that he can not prove that colder bodies can warm warmer bodies just by …

    Hmmm … the same way an RF-inactive (i.e. passive) or ‘cold’ reflector (like a parabolic reflector antenna) can actually “reflect” or concentrate RF energy?
    .

  117. Be glad to debate MM on evolution instead, since he seems to either be an expert or blindly accept the consensus.

  118. I suspect Mann would debate Spencer on CNN where he could control the dialog. He knows that’s not going to happen on Fox so he comes up with the evolution red herring. He is scared spitless to debate Spencer or any reasonable skeptic when he can’t control the process.
    As for evolution I’ll repeat what others have stated. It is not one theory. It is a combination of theories and Spencer only has a problem with macro evolution as far as I know. Good for him, the evidence is very debatable. Questioning macro evolution does not mean the person thinks genetics is bunk.
    It’s kind of like AGW. There are those who question the greenhouse effect despite the evidence. Of course, the GHE itself does not have to lead to a warming via CO2 increases. It’s the little things like this that knowledgeable skeptics understand. The same holds for evolution.

  119. Maybe Mann is just worried he won’t get his $10k fee if it’s a debate…not that money means anything to him…

  120. Has Michael Mann ever debated, publicly? I looked for a reference and could not find a single debate. There was one weird thing I found on climate depot that described essentially a BBC personality questioning Mann while Morano watched.
    Can anyone verify his utter silence?

  121. I haven’t a lot of time tonight, so can’t confirm. I assume (and really, really hope) that Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith does NOT encompass creationism. It has been a long time since a Pope has held this belief, so I don’t think it is anti-christian to say this. Reading Monckton’s rant, I really hope Dr. Spencer does not share such idiocy.
    Lord Monckton:
    Evolution is predictive. As such it is science. It says “If you do X, then Y will happen”. And when you do X (for instance, indiscriminate use of antibiotics), Y happens (resistant bacteria evolve). Creationism is as unpredictive as Mann’s climate “science”. Both are religion, not science.
    It is possible that God created the world 6,000 years ago. If he did he sure did a good job of creating a world that could have formed 14 billion years ago out of a singularity without any assitance from a devine being. Those who believe that God did this have faith. Faith is not science.

  122. “My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.”
    Because it’s crap. Or because no credible scientist would want to embarrass himself that way. Or because there’s no chance of demonstrating intelligent design in all but the most speculative way, just as there’s no chance in demonstrating the existence of God. Take your pick.
    Climate skeptics do themselves no favors when they leave themselves open, however unfairly, to charges of being sympathetic to fundamentalist beliefs.

  123. I don’t understand why creationism seems to be the one tenet of religion that draws derision. Why not all the other beliefs uncorroborated by science, such as divinity, heaven, soul, etc.? Is Mann saying that he won’t debate with anyone of religious faith or just not those with faith who also believe in creationism? I could understand the logic with the former position but not the latter. Of course, Mann wouldn’t dare say he wiil only debate with atheists.

  124. Greg House says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    “I do not understand why Michael did not want debate Roy, he could easily win.
    He could successfully challenge Roy’s fictional “Virginia” story by pointing out that he can not prove that colder bodies can warm warmer bodies just by claiming that they can or by drawing a picture where they do.”
    Greg, perhaps you meant to put “sarc” after your contribution. Roy doesn’t have to do any of this. All he has to do is ask Mike to explain why temps have flattened out for 16-17 years despite CO2. Why the stick is broken off? Why HadCrut and IPCC are even backpedaling on CO2 as the most significant player and, “…okay, yeah, there was a MWP and LIA and for good measure, 1936 was the record warm year so far….and hey we don’t have a clue about the effect of clouds…and er,,, we think it will be cold until 2017, so it will be a 20 year pause in warming…. and gee your colleagues in the tree ring circus are now saying your work was crap..,.,,”

  125. “Here is a list of Nobel Laureates, all of whom are quoted to believe in God.
    Note: Michael Mann is neither a Nobel Laureate (snicker) nor is he quoted to have said that he believes in God.”
    So what’s your point? That there’s something about believing in God that leads to doing good science? I’m beginning to wish Anthony hadn’t put up this post. It’s getting nuttier and nuttier.

  126. Michael Mann does not realise the amount of suffering he has helped to cause with his FABRICATED hockey stick. He thinks he is really clever but he is not. In the decades ahead his children and grandchildren will hang their heads in shame at the mere mention of his name. Shame too on Dr. James Runaway Venus Warming Hansen. I guess they are just after money and fame.
    Religion has at least taught us one thing: money is the root of all evil. May God have mercy on their souls. 🙁 /sarc

  127. Actually, the question for Mike Mann should be:
    ‘Ok, won’t debate Spencer. Will you debate Richard Lindzen?’.

  128. It really shouldn’t be necessary to get all worked up about an innocuous tweet from an obviously thin-skinned individual. Mann would not be at ease in a debate forum, as this would be well outside his comfort zone, which is speaking to compliant audiences in an echo chamber. His behavior is merely demonstrating solidarity with “the team”. The ad hominem comments are merely echoes from the likes of Joe Romm’s blog; they are petulant & trivial, thus they will eventually backfire.
    Climate skeptics / realists really can and should take the higher ground on this one. Eventually the general public will wake up and the mainstream media will follow. Keep the offers going for an informed debate.
    Regarding his outright rejection of a debate with Roy Spencer, Mann has set his criteria: he refuses to debate Roy Spencer, whom he labels a denier of climate change and a denier of evolution, nor does he plan to debate the matter on Fox News. So use this!
    He should therefore be approached by another broadcaster wherein MANN himself can set the minimum standards for his debate opponent (and/or list a few names). If he can only come up with a softball “adversary”, he would run the risk of being roasted for not being Mann enough.
    The other alternative would be for Fox News and Timothy Ball to approach another mainstream climate scientist to debate. Keep trying! There are plenty of worthy adversaries. Each and every rejection can and should be broadcast loud and clear (together with the ostensible “justification”).
    Eventually this will become embarrassing to the Warmist Camp and a debate will happen. Seriously.
    Kurt in Switzerland

  129. Dr. Mann is one of the “High Priests” of the CAGW movement having help write and canonize the IPPC bible. We should expect him to declare anyone that isn’t a “true believer” and writes and preaches otherwise, to be an heretic. So he is really not much different from “fundamentalist” Christians that take the Biblical story of creation literally.

  130. Smart for a bunch of sceptics, making fun of Mann not having a Nobel. With the way that organization has behaved lately, we may be tempting fate to grant him one.

  131. A bit of personal history.
    When I was about ten, I was getting really wound up about infinity, curved Universes & the like don’t address this, it’s still infinite, there is no end. What’s outside the curve etc.? My father told me it was probably best not to dwell too closely on this.
    This is fifty years ago.
    For a while, I got into Christianity, my father was an excommunicated Catholic & non-believer.
    I got into the same sort of recursive thinking. OK, so God created everything but what created God?
    Somewhere along the line you have to just believe, it’s currently beyond us.
    Creative design makes as much sense as infinity or random evolution.
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to find out just we’re nowhere near yet.
    DaveE.

  132. “the film based on Charles Darwin’s life not being released in the US as it wouldn’t have gained an audience!”
    And yet US troops are going to be stationed near a city named after him. The city has a university named after him. http://www.cdu.edu.au/ How will the poor things manage?

  133. I am stunned at the sheer number of people posting here in acceptance of Mr. Mann’s red herring~ logical fallacy over the religious views of Dr. Spencer. It is just a cheap shot meant to distract and detract from the real issue at hand- and for those who are mulling it over as some sort of legitimate argument I am a bit disappointed. Dr.Spencer’s Christian views are irrelevant in the context of the science of climate.
    Mr.Mann is a child trapped in an adults body, like most narcissistic folks with a tyrannical bent, ie progressive liberals. And like most of them he is a spoiled brat, with no regard for honesty or accountability. He will lie whenever he feels like it and he will engage in other unethical behavior whenever he feels like it because that is who he is. Nothing new.

  134. SteveB. says:
    March 25, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    You can sum Mann up in two words. No class.
    ——-
    Steve, I was thinking similar two words. Class Less
    cn

  135. I’ve skimmed down through the comments, and would like to thank all the people who expressed their views. I was feeling grey and dull, like the local weather, but you’ve all got me thinking.
    I would like to add one somewhat funny personal story, to jar the thinking of those who do not feel we were created by a Creator. It won’t convince them, but might strike them as an interesting thought.
    Years ago I’d been through a string of bad days, and it made me ugly. I knew I was behaving badly, but was pissed off at everyone. I was disagreeable, so of course no one would agree. I had even managed to offend my best friend, (my wife,) and was receiving a well-earned cold shoulder. However I knew I was right, and everyone else was wrong, ( in a way.) However being right was just getting me in trouble, which made my mood worse.
    To top it off, we were in a drought, quite unusual for New England, so I had to water the garden. To have this extra chore on top of everything else seemed really unfair. Here I was, growing all this excellent food, but did I get a lick of thanks? Why the bleep bother?
    I must have looked really funny, glowering at my flourishing garden with a pout. I was thinking that my garden was an expression of love for others, (because I grew food for others besides myself,) and the fact I made an extra effort for others made even vegetation teased upwards from dirt and manure like a symbolic kiss. But what did I get for my kiss? Just a slap in the face! Never any sort of kiss in return! (I know these are melodramatic thoughts, but I get that way when I’m in a foul mood,)
    Right as I was thinking this a bright orange, passing Monarch Butterfly paused before my face, kissed me, and continued on.
    I immediately got all scientific, and decided it saw a reflection of itself in my eyeglasses, and then had been attracted to the moisture on my pouting lip because of the drought. The fact it “kissed” me just as I was griping that nobody kissed me was sheer coincidence.
    I think that response is the best and most scientific attitude to have, when confronted by an outrageous coincidence. I can’t imagine being any more scientific, because I can’t imagine replicating such a coincidental event, in a scientific experiment.
    I was detached and objective, like Dr. Spock on “Star Trek,” as I noted that butterfly had done a damn fine job of utterly smashing a carefully cultivated bad mood. My mood was as big as the dinosaurs, but that little butterfly was like an asteroid paying a visit.
    Science will never be truly scientific until it respects the “butterfly effect.”

    Mann will never comprehend the butterfly effect, because to comprehend involves having a sense of humor about yourself and your own misconceptions

  136. Hey pokerguy! (March 25, 2013 at 2:27 pm )
    “But to deny overwhelming scientific evidence on the basis of nothing but fundamentalist theology does not look good for a scientist.”
    I call that bluff. Show us that “overwhelming scientific evidence” of evolution.

  137. MoBr, “My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.
    I wrote a peer-reviewed paper assessing “Intelligent Design Theory,” published in 2004 in the journal “Theology and Science.” The online abstract is here. Anyone wanting a pdf reprint can email me at pfrank_eight_three_zero AT earth_link_dot_net.
    Others have also written science-based papers critical of the notion of intelligent design. One need only search for them, for example in Google Scholar. Alternatively, try Talk Origins. There is zero science in the assumption of intelligent design.

  138. Although I’m a staunch atheist I have lots of friends who have religious beliefs based on many faiths.
    That doesn’t give me any problems just like the fact that some of them like different things to me. To despise someone who has different beliefs marks out the fanatic.
    To denigrate all aspects of another person because they are not like you is the hallmark of a bigotted, fundamentalist zealot.
    To shove your opinions down somebody elses throat and preach Hellfire and Damnation is not a trait that I admire in anyone.
    I find it hard to warm to Dr Mann; I have no such difficulty with liking Dr Spencer.

  139. “Dr.” Mann, “Wisdom is what you acquire after you know everything” – John Wooden
    You sir, have a lot left to learn.

  140. I believe that Dr Mann has finally shown his true stripes. He is of the MSNBC/Occupy/leftist/atheist variety. I have no issues with most atheists, some are my friends. I have been agnostic in my life. When you mix progressivism and atheism you get a very dangerous political animal. I now understand where his lies come from.

  141. Peter Miller says:
    “As a professional scientist, I take offense that anyone could consider Michael Mann a professional scientist. “
    Amen! (no sarcasm intended) Scientists follow the scientific method. To my knowledge, Michael Mann has NEVER followed the scientific method. He is NOT a scientist and no one should ever mistake him for one. He’s simply an illusionist skilled at performing magic tricks with climate data. His algorithm in MBH 98, creates indistinguishable paleo-temperature reconstructions from both tree ring data and random phone numbers. His algorithm in Steig, et al., 2009, spreads warming across West Antarctica, when Antarctic peninsula weather data are warmed AND cooled. In his GSA presentation: “Relationships Between Basin-Wide and Landfalling Atlantic Tropical Cyclones: Comparing Long-Term Simulations with Paleoevidence”, Mann generates 1000 years worth of artificial climate model data, plugs that into a into a hurricane model to generate ‘double artificial’ hurricane data, then uses that to assess the actual stratigraphic record.
    Got it? The fact that his papers are “as clear as mud” is a testament to Dr. Mann’s skill as a climastrology illusionist.
    Dr. Roy Spencer on the other hand, is a true climatologist (not to be confused with a ‘Real Climastrologist’), who lets data speak for itself. My firm belief in evolution is based on what I observe in both the fossil record and living organisms. However, I’m fairly certain I would enjoy discussing evolution / intelligent design with Dr. Spencer. I believe a similar discussion with Dr. Mann on Climatology would be as enjoyable as a hemorrhoidectomy sans anesthesia.

  142. The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Whilst I am one of the last people to ever defend Mr Mann, religious belief is irrational and illogical.

    That didn’t take long to get an ad hom attack on religion. The irony is that atheists and evolutionists treat those who believe in God in the same way Michael Mann treats those who disagree with him. You did it with your first sentence.
    Examine the evidence for yourself. If you do not, you are just as bad as Michael Mann who pushes a belief without evidence. One thing you should research is the Cambrian Explosion. Me personally, I look at the order of the universe. Part of the second law of thermodynamics is entropy. That is to say things tend to disorder not order. The universe is very complex and very precise, so precise that we can land on the moon even though it takes days to get there, so precise that we can land on Mars even though it takes years to get there. And that is just this solar system. The stars in a galaxy orbit in the galaxy, and the galaxies themselves orbit around each other. How can an orderly universe appear without violating the second law of thermodynamics?
    You don’t want to believe in God. Fair enough. Do not act like I’m stupid, uneducated, and brain-washed because I do. I have thought this through, I have researched. Just because there have been atrocities committed in the name of a religion does not mean religion is bad. Atrocities have been committed in the name of a government, does that mean governments are something we can do without?

  143. My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.” ~Monckton
    Probably because it’s not scientific is the most honest answer. A theory must be falsifiable and testable, intelligent design is neither. Evolution on the other hand is not a theory, it is an observed process, theories are proposed to explain evolution, and those can be tested and doubted.
    Doubting that lifeforms evolve is rather like doubting that objects fall in a gravity well, doubting relativity is not the same as doubting gravity.
    I’m hoping Roy is doubting a particular theory, rather than the observable process itself.

  144. MinB says:
    March 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
    “I don’t understand why creationism seems to be the one tenet of religion that draws derision.”
    Thats pretty simple in that we have huge sums of evidence to disprove it. On the other hand counter the the nutty atheists beliefs their is no evidence to disprove god, heaven or a host of other religious beliefs. Most religious beliefs would fall under “hypotheses” in science. One should also point out that some forms of creationism are based in some attempt to match reality to the argument but global warming creationism is not one of them.

  145. Why is it you can’t believe in a higher power and evolution at the same time? Wouldn’t you think a consummate creator would give creations the ability to change and adapt to their environment? Evolution is just that. We can see it happen in creatures with short life spans. I personally think that is the brilliance of the plan:) Adapt or die its the ultimate freedom of choice. As for Mann, he is appearing most unadaptable to his new cooling environment. At this time I see him as little more then and end of the world cult leader.. that doesn’t always end well.

  146. RockyRoad says (March 25, 2013 at 4:28 pm): “I’ll stick with thermometers–you go and enjoy your “trespometer” Tree House, if you must.”
    =======================================================
    Yeah, if I had known you would read my comment, I would have made it much much more simple so that you could understand it. OK, let me clarify it for you now. My point is that they are not so very different. Get it? As for thermometers, in case you are in Central England, please, make Cristopher proud: take your thermometer, go outside and measure the “global temperature”.

  147. I suggest that Dr.Mann can be considered a professional scientist since he takes money for being a scientist.
    Would it also be appropriate to suggest that a woman can be considered a professional woman if she takes money for being a woman?

  148. Lee L. says:
    March 25, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    Actually, the question for Mike Mann should be:
    ‘Ok, won’t debate Spencer. Will you debate Richard Lindzen?’.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    I’m not sure what replacing an observant Christian with an observant Jew would accomplish.
    Now if we could find a skeptic Muslim scientist for Fox to offer up to Mickey to ridicule in the same way, we’d get to see how big Mann’s kahonies really are….

  149. Mike G says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    He’s in definite need of a character infusion.
    he has already had a personality implant… it was done by a proctologist.

  150. John Eggert: “It is possible that God created the world 6,000 years ago. If he did he sure did a good job of creating a world that could have formed 14 billion years ago out of a singularity without any assitance from a devine being.”
    Genesis is highly metaphorical. 6000 years doesn’t mean anything. For example, what is a “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. Can Mann count the tree rings on one of those?
    14 billion years doesn’t mean anything either. We can see far off galactic clusters that have within them very different red shifts. But the theory says that all galaxies that are a certain distance from us should have similar red shifts. There are several such problems with the big bang theory. In fact, if those problems are not answered they will disprove the big bang theory. And until they are answered we should not assume that the big bang theory is correct – or that the universe is 14 billion years old.
    The existence of certain elements on earth requires that a star had lived out it’s entire life and gone supernova in our neighborhood before our solar system was formed. If our solar system is 9 billion years old and the universe is only 14 billion years old, when was there time for this to happen?
    “Faith is not science.”
    And yet all that you believe and all that you know are only accessible through the subjective you. If it is a datum or an equation or an emperical experience, your only access to it is through the subjective you.
    And is not the existence of this wonderful singularity that formed the entire universe a problem for you. What is the source of such a singularity? And why is saying that it always existed any more intelligent than saying that it was created?
    Other than making us more comfortable, what has science achieved. Practically nothing. We want to know the meaning, purpose, destination of our existence. Science answers none of those questions. All that science can do is done through reductionism. It can never tell us anything about the subjective side of the subject object duality because the subjective is wholly outside of it’s domain. As such, it tries to make the subject an object and it reduces life to meaninglessness. Hardly worth the price of a little more comfort.

  151. This thread should shame Mann.
    On the other hand, Spencer was (is still?) a leading proponent of ID. Intelligent Design is as crazy as Mann’s hockey stick, IMHO.
    Proving only that humans are complex, contradictory animals.
    Which true science is supposed to transcend.
    Regards to all.

  152. I do not know Roy Spencer’s specific views on evolution, but I suspect that we have much in common both in our faith and in our philosophy and practice of science. As a reasonably well-published scientist and one who also has taken the effort to be well educated in my own faith (Christianity), I take the view that as we discover more about how the world works, we discover more and more about our creator. One of my heroes and the architect of modern electromagnetic theory (James Clerk Maxwell) held views very similar to my own.
    I have also observed this: Of those scientists who criticize people of faith, few have more than the equivalent of an elementary education in serious religious thinking and teaching. Most of their arguments against faith and people of faith end up as the same kind of ad hominem argument used above by Michael Mann. In other words, not intended for any kind of dialog. The challenge for all of us in this day and age is to do our science honestly and diligently while taking whatever time and effort we can (if we are really interested 🙂 to find out why that particular person (who seems otherwise so intelligent) actually believes the Bible has something worthwhile to say.
    Everyone comes to their scientific pursuit with a framework–a world view, if you like–and that framework often defines the particular ‘null hypothesis’ with which they approach unanswered scientific questions. And we all have a slightly different burden of proof that we apply to results that challenge our null hypothesis. Take ten scientists who are all Christian believers and you will find widely differing opinions on the relationship of the evolution we observe (a phenomenon that is scientifically measurable) to that of the distant past (something that requires a little more conjecture) and how the creator designed the details. I know people from the full spectrum of convictions and would never label any of them with the ugliness of ‘denier’.
    Thanks to Anthony and the moderators of WUWT for including this kind of discussion–even though it sprang from an ugly online comment, I do appreciate some of the more thoughtful voices in the discussion thread.

  153. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and to live their life guided by faith. But at the point where someone claims there is *scientific evidence* supporting what they believe, it is fair game to question this if the evidence says otherwise.
    And when we don’t have answers to questions because they surpass our understanding (maybe temporarily, maybe forever), we should be humble and simply admit we don’t know rather than view this as evidence of higher powers:
    Roy Spencer – “Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science — because the “Big Bang” can’t be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics — or both. So, is this science? Or faith?”
    If you humbly admit we don’t know what started the “Big Bang”, it is an unanswered question of science. If you believe it was a higher power, it is a question of faith. If you take it one step further and think being unable to explain how it started is *evidence* of a higher power, it is faith trying to masquerade as science.

  154. In no way does Dr. Spencer’s belief in Intelligent Design, invalidate the outstanding work he has done in climatology. Mann is a petty, vindictive, small-minded, bigoted disgrace of a “scientist” who is too much of coward to debate with a knowledgeable opponent. He is an embarrassement to Penn State, and a bigger embarrassment to real scientists on both sides of the debate.

  155. Monckton of Brenchley asks:

    “My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature.”

    Primarily from intense fear of the consequences – which are far more severe than skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.
    Paraphrasing: “We must not let the foot of an intelligent agent in the door.”
    Consequently, ID deniers have exercised intense gate keeping to keep out even its mention.
    See the saga of Granville Sewell’s accepted paper A second look at the second Law
    Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article
    Double Censorship: Granville Sewell Can’t Publish Article, Now Denied the Right to Publish His Rebuttal to Critics
    Thus papers demonstrating intelligent design usually cannot mention it to get published. ID discussions must distributed by Samizdat
    For ID supportive papers, see:
    Discovery Institute – Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) & Readings
    Evolutionary Informatics Lab.Publications & Resources
    Intelligent Design Science
    On quantifying evolution see Mendel’s Accountant . Note the hard reality that harmful mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones using any combination of realistic parameters.
    Such is the hard evidence evaluated by Roy Spencer in comparing evolution and Intelligent Design. I do not believe those espousing evolution have not addressed the hard facts of the probabilities of stochastic chemistry – or else refuse to even allow discussion of intelligent agents by insisting that such be excluded a priori.

  156. Pokerguy…
    When you have to explain a joke then it loses some of its humor.
    1) Mann notoriously and publicly claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, It is a noteworthy piece of evidence in an ongoing defamation suit involving the National Review and is also a frequent thread on this blog.
    2) Mann tried to diminish Roy Spencer, a distinguished scientist for his personal religious adherence, rather than debate him publicly on the merits of climate science by implying that Spencer’s beliefs disqualified his reasoning by alluding that all Christians are poor scientists because all Christian’s don’t accept evolution.
    3) Many of the most accomplished of all scientists, recognized by Nobel with a prize, are also theists, accept evolution in some form or another, and are not given to lying.
    4) Michael Mann in humorous contrast, lied about being a Nobel Prize winner, practices terrible science and makes fun of good people for their personal beliefs while refusing to engage in a professional manner, and lies about the so-called science-religion conflict, which only exists in the minds of antagonists.
    I thought it very funny that many of the most recognizable men of science are theists, men whom Mann lied about being in the company of, and men, like Roy Spencer, had personal beliefs that in no way diminished their scientific prowess.
    The irony was dense…. too dense to ignore.
    Thanks for the opportunity to say it better and all over again.
    Hat tip to Juan Slayton re: Francis Collins.

  157. As I understand it, Roy Spencer does deny evolution, advocating instead for intelligent design. That being the case, why is stating it denigration?

  158. Jimbo,
    My favorite scientist of all time is the guy who came up with the big bang theory:
    Georges Henri LeMaitre Look him up.
    For 40 years he was mocked by MichaelMannesque haters.
    Wilson and Penzias got a Nobel prize (1978) for discovering the background radiation of the BIG Bang in 1962 and told LeMaitre just before he died in 1963.

  159. Is Dr. Spencer even publicly weighing-in on the topic of evolution? As far as I am aware, he is not. Hence his views on such should not be brought into the discussion of climate science. He could be sticking pins in voodoo dolls for all I care. This wouldn’t cause me dismiss his analysis of the climate.

  160. MinB says:
    March 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    “I don’t understand why creationism seems to be the one tenet of religion that draws derision. Why not all the other beliefs uncorroborated by science, such as divinity, heaven, soul, etc.?”

    Divinity, heaven, the soul are absolute articles of faith with no analogue in science, creationism and intelligent design contradict a rather large body of evidence.

  161. In a just Universe, he will be proven correct and have a Place of Honor in a certain corner of the Hereafter.

  162. belief in evolution is an act of faith just as lacking in evidence as a belief in God … maybe more so …

  163. Believe or not. You have to ask yourself-What if I’m wrong? Same question you can ask yourself about many things almost every day.

  164. I am trying to figure out exactly what a belief in evolution or otherwise has to do with climate science, when the person who espouses a belief is a climate scientist. My equine vet is a staunch creationist, but he’s an exceptional horse vet and that is ok because all I want from him is exceptional veterinary services. I really don’t care too much how Roy Spencer feels about evolution, so long as he can explain it cogently, and I expect that he can, because he usually explains things well. I don’t expect that Michael Mann could explain his positions or answer pointed questions coherently, because he has not done so in the past.

  165. DUDES!
    Seriously, given the sate of the economy, education, science and the media… i’m inclined to think Devolution is the only real science left (and evolution is the undocumented instruction manual of how to avoid it.)
    Nigeria called, you can have the manual if you deposit 1,000,000 Mexi-Canadian peso-euro’s into a charity bank account @ 760 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York 10017, formerly United States.
    Its not the transition fossils absence that irks, its the standard ones we have are so boring, wheres the fish with helicopter wings, or the elephant trunked tree shrews, and nothing has two heads neither.
    Just throwing it out there Nature, if you’re gonna practice with biology, why not a dodecapus?, or a magnetic cat?, seriously Gaia call marvel comics, they have great ideas for one off, bespoke biology.

  166. Jimbo says:
    March 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    “Tell that to some of the giants of science of the past.
    Famous Scientists Who Believed in God”

    As above; belief in God and rejection of evolution are not analogous, the former does not require the rejection of a vast body of evidence.

  167. Evolution is to biology as the Newtonian Universe is to physics. The Newtonian view was not entirely ‘wrong’, just insufficient. New evidence in cell biology and in quantum physics indicates that the Darwinian world view is also insufficient, and that there is much more to understand on the subject.
    I find it interesting that so many WUWT readers defend evolution like Christians defend the Bible (or at least their interpretation of it). Why would anyone with an inquisitive mind believe that a 19th Century Naturalist discovered all that can be known about the development of life on this planet? Closing the book on the science of biological growth and change is a great disservice to the science.
    Mann is at least being consistent with his ‘head in the sand’ perspective on both climate change and Evolution. I expect more from WUWT readers.

  168. My votes go with Monckton of Brenchley and Scarface:
    Who knows, about evolution? Darwin’s the beginning, and the end of the answer? I don’t think so…
    Sad Michael Mann does not debate because he cannot, is too stupid, intellectually flat-footed. He knows it, as do we all. “Religion” or “Darwin’s evolution” is a red herring.
    ….Lady in Red
    PS: Although I’ll be damned if I’ve an answer, the older I get the more I believe that Darwin’s got only a small piece of the puzzle.

  169. Paul Westhaver says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    “Here is a list of Nobel Laureates, all of whom are quoted to believe in God.”

    And here is a list of Michael Mann’s tweets where he denigrated a belief in God:

  170. Graeme Wayne asks:

    “How can a rational mind like Cook’s – a solar physicist by training – also embrace the non-rationality of religion, if indeed he even accepts the premise?”

    Wayne apparently has swallowed this liberal meme without question.
    Nancy Pearcey documents the history of this fallacy in Total Truth.
    Wayne appears ignorant of the historical evidence that Christianity was based on first person eye witness evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. E.g., see:
    Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
    For the exhaustive analysis, see William Craig Lane’s dissertation Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Mellen, 1989 – 442 pages
    Comments like those of Mann and Wayne evidence a lack of understanding of the evidence, the science and the logic underlying the issues they pontificate on.

  171. graphicconception says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    “However, I also have problems with evolution. If you look at a family tree of life forms there are various branching points and nodes but the longest spaces are between these points. So why do we not find more transitional fossils than non-transitional ones?

    All fossils are transitional, evolution is constant and ongoing. The reason there are so many gaps in the fossil record is because fossilisation is a very rare occurrence.

  172. ” My reading is that Dr Spencer doesn’t “deny” evolution, he “questions” it.
    This is the absolute correct position for any real scientist. ”
    Anyone using the ‘denier’ word is demeaning the argument to the level of a personal attack of the lowest kind, and leaves himself open to contempt. It’s really time for the sceptic faction to go on the attack about this. Any true scientist is by definition a sceptic, whatever his or her field.
    To accuse any scientist – indeed, any thinking person – of being a ‘denier’ in any context is worse than childish, worse than grossly offensive: it’s libellous.
    To call climate modellers who fudge the data to get a pre-determined result ‘scientists’ is to mangle the language.
    It’s time we took the reclamation of language in this debate seriously.
    Its misuse is seriously degrading the debate, and obfuscating the issues

  173. McComber Boy says:
    March 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    **********************
    Thank you so very much, McComber Boy. So many commenters need to be reminded to mind their manners. And, of course, to open their minds. So arrogant seeming in their ever-so-modish atheism, denying the great and deep oceans of thought, faith, and fancy that have preceded them and still surround them, unaware as they are.
    Perhaps there is no God, but the greatest experiences of my life tell me otherwise, just as similar ones have done for so many billions, in so many places, and at so many times. Yet, I don’t condemn those who lack my belief, nor do I despise their efforts in other fields merely because their theology is so deficient.

  174. @Davidmhoffer
    I wrote:
    Actually, the question for Mike Mann should be:
    ‘Ok, won’t debate Spencer. Will you debate Richard Lindzen?’.
    Your comment>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    I’m not sure what replacing an observant Christian with an observant Jew would accomplish.
    >>>>>>>>
    Continuing with Mann’s train of thought, I suppose it would replace an observant Jew with a Messiah denier.
    I guess the intent of my original comment was to keep eyes on the refusal to debate rather than the ‘denier’ smear.

  175. Oops… typing error
    Continuing with Mann’s train of thought, I suppose it would replace an observant Christian with a Messiah denier.

  176. Just in case Mann changes his mind about a debate. The extreme AGW paradigm pushers do not want a debate as analysis and observation does not support the extreme AGW paradigm.
    The extreme AGW warming Hot Spot is missing. (There is no hot spot as clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to regulate planetary temperature. i.e. Negative feedback (planet resists forcing changes) as opposed to positive feedback (planet amplifies forcing changes). There has been no warming for roughly 16 years.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-20N-20S.png
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
    Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes
    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper…. ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). … ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/who-actually-took-notice-of-the-kyoto-protocol-coal-fired-plants-going-up-everywhere/
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
    “Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.” … ….Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  177. This is the only science website blog thingie I know of where people can actually have a respectful, civil discussion of theism.

  178. “Divinity, heaven, the soul are absolute articles of faith with no analogue in science, creationism and intelligent design contradict a rather large body of evidence.”
    Good point. If only we could find where this body is buried.

  179. Interesting all this religious talk. Frankly, if human apes were not so extremely gullible as to believe all kinds of nonsense then perhaps we would never have fallen for CAGW in the first place!
    Anyone who thinks rationally about it should easily conclude that “God” is just a word or “moniker” for all that what we don’t understand and cannot explain. It isn’t a tangible thing but just a concept or a place holder.
    The simplified “God” as described and marketed by various competing religions is complete hogwash and only provides a psychological crutch for those who are (understandably) quite terrified by both the reality of an infinite unknown and their own finite mortality.

  180. The climate is changing has always changed and will always change. It is a driver for evolution.
    Creationists droan on ad nauseam about Darwinian evolution merely being a “theory” and therefore lacking credibility.
    This simply due to them being unable to draw the distinction between theory and conjecture and conflating the meaning of one with the other.
    The Higgs Boson was conjectural until one turned up and the God of the gaps was left with nowhere to hide.
    Electro-magnetism is a “theory” in precisely the same, tight scientific contextural meaning as evolution, but try stuffing your pudgy little fingers in a light socket and then telling me that it doesnt exist.

  181. Can anyone explain to me why insulting people of faith is somehow necessary to the discussion at hand?
    As a person of faith, I readily admit there are many questions I cannot answer. That’s why we call it faith, right?
    However, for those of you who contend the current working theories of our origins are fully proven and settled science, I respectfully submit the following two questions:
    1. Can you describe the nature and origin of the primordial singularity that theoretically existed just prior to the big bang? Just where did that bad boy come from and why was it there?
    2. Can you point me to the compelling scientific evidence that the first living, reproducing cell spontaneously came to exist out of that famous primordial stew? (Sorry, but the argument “since we know there is not a creator, it had to happen that way” is not proof – its just argument.)
    Can you offer me anything more than pure speculation? Anyone? Take your time…
    I ask because the above events are necessary in explaining the origin of our natural world in the absence of an intelligent creator. These questions cannot be answered, much less proven, so they must be assumed. And that, my friend, requires faith.
    Neither creationism nor evolution have all the answers. So everyone can just get on down off their high horses and relax, OK?

  182. Perhaps Michael Mann is expressing what has been a common practice in “science” and academia for many decades now, and that is to use a litmus test which can systematically exclude or greatly inhibit some people (non progressives) from participating in the scientific process or in the Universities.
    Definition of shibboleth (n)
    bing.com · Bing Dictionary
    shib·bo·leth
    [ shíbbə lèth ]
    catchword or slogan: a word or phrase frequently used, or a belief strongly held, by members of a group that is usually regarded by outsiders as meaningless, unimportant, or misguided
    common saying or belief: a saying that is widely used or a belief that is widely held, especially one that interferes with somebody’s ability to speak or think about things without preconception
    identifying word or custom: a unique pronunciation, word, behavior, or practice used to distinguish one group of people from another and to identify somebody as either a member of the group or an outsider
    Shibboleth – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
    A shibboleth is a word, sound, or custom that a person unfamiliar with its significance may not pronounce or perform correctly relative to those who are familiar with it.

  183. Anthony,
    Is there a reason why you would permit another comment containing the phrase “Intelligent Design” on here?
    4.5 billion years is longer than any of us could possibly imagine with any sort of intuition, so, let us not speculate about the veracity of the gigantic fossil record. We should just observe it, appreciate it for what it is.
    None of this concerns CO2…

  184. Greg House says:
    March 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    RockyRoad says (March 25, 2013 at 4:28 pm): “I’ll stick with thermometers–you go and enjoy your “trespometer” Tree House, if you must.”
    =======================================================
    Yeah, if I had known you would read my comment, I would have made it much much more simple so that you could understand it. OK, let me clarify it for you now. My point is that they are not so very different. Get it? As for thermometers, in case you are in Central England, please, make Cristopher proud: take your thermometer, go outside and measure the “global temperature”.

    Much to my dismay, I DID understand what you wrote, and I “get” your evil hypocricy, Mr. House. But really, you crack me up! To think anybody believes a single thermometer in Central England represents the global average is really stretching it–the importance of that record is that it’s pretty much flat-lining over a period of time Earth is supposed to be warming up–or at least that’s what the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas would want/force us to believe.
    But to think you can get a global average temperature from trees is simply ludicrous–since they only grow part of the year. Or do you have any idea why trees are no longer the preferred “indicator” for the past several decades, as in “Hide the Decline”? The divergence demonstrates why you might be confused about things being “not so very different” whereas they certainly are, Mr. House.
    But let me further clarify so even YOU can understand something very simple: I step outside into my own yard and read the thermometer posted there accurately to within a tenth of a degree, or I can look at the dozen or so trees in the same yard and even with the most sophisticated Mannian cogitations, agitations and speculations, guess what the temperature is or was.
    Furthermore, have you never heard of Yamal?? You’re not saying you prefer a different tree or perhaps set of trees to approximate which global temperature you wish to believe? Of course you do; it’s all so cut and dried; those tree-mometers have been all the rage!
    That you can claim to get a global temperature from a bunch of trees and prefer that over a very lengthy thermometer record of (admittedly) a single location shows you’re not thinking straight, Mr. House, unless you believe for some strange reason that the trend in Central England wouldn’t indicate global trends (not averages). Maybe you’re confused; maybe you’re misaligned. But then, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (and this should be easy if you’re right):
    Based only on tree rings (with global distribution, of course), pray tell, what has been the global annual average temperatures for each of the past 30 years? Could you please include a link or two so we can see what you use as references? And to make it more interesting, compare your tree-mometer numbers to the global temp measurement based on annual satellite and thermometer averages just for kicks and grins.
    Thanks!
    Oh, and if you can’t do it or if you come up with something less than convincing, I win the argument–hands down. This should be fun! Humbling a member of the CAGW is always a pleasure!

  185. I suspect that many of my Christian brothers and sisters who read this blog, maybe Dr. Spencer as well, would generally agree with the great Christian apologist William Lane Craig quoted below:
    “Why is the theory of evolution so widely accepted in mainstream science? I think the short answer is that it’s the best naturalistic theory we’ve got. If, as a result of methodological naturalism, the pool of live explanatory options is limited to naturalistic hypotheses, then, at least until recently, the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution driven by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection was, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, the only game in town. Rival naturalistic hypotheses could not equal its explanatory power, scope, and plausibility. No matter how improbable it seems, no matter how enormously far the explanatory power of its mechanisms must be extrapolated beyond the testable evidence, no matter the lack of evidence for many of its tenets, it has to be true because there isn’t any other naturalistic theory that comes close.”
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed#ixzz2ObhOB1rN

  186. Steve B says: March 25, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    “…Evolution is one of those fields where it’s proponents have shut down debate and yet I see no scientific evidence (via scientific method) that it is a valid theory…”
    I suggest you read Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, examine a little the later discoveries relating to genetics and DNA, and have a good look at some modern breeding programs … chickens, pigs, dogs and all their breeds, grain crops..
    Read about the experiments of Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set up in 1959… domesticating fur foxes using behavior towards humans as the selection factor (yes, he kept a control group). The end result was marked behavioral, developmental and physical changes … He ran the trial for the last 26 years f his life, and it was still running 14 years after his death (article below is 1999)
    American Scientist
    March-April 1999 Volume 87, Number 2 Page: 160 DOI: 10.1511/1999.2.160
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1

    Belyaev’s Hypothesis
    Belyaev began his experiment in 1959, a time when Soviet genetics was starting to recover from the anti-Darwinian ideology of Trofim Lysenko. Belyaev’s own career had suffered. In 1948 his commitment to orthodox genetics had cost him his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow. During the 1950s he continued to conduct genetic research under the guise of studying animal physiology. He moved to Novosibirsk, where he helped found the Siberian Department of the Soviet (now Russian) Academy of Sciences and became the director of the Department’s Institute of Cytology and Genetics, a post he held from 1959 until his death in 1985. Under his leadership the institute became a center of basic and applied research in both classical genetics and modern molecular genetics. His own work included ground-breaking investigations of evolutionary change in animals under extreme conditions (including domestication) and of the evolutionary roles of factors such as stress, selection for behavioral traits and the environmental photoperiod, or duration of natural daylight. Animal domestication was his lifelong project, and fur bearers were his favorite subjects.
    [….]
    Now, 40 years and 45,000 foxes after Belyaev began, our experiment has achieved an array of concrete results. The most obvious of them is a unique population of 100 foxes (at latest count), each of them the product of between 30 and 35 generations of selection. They are unusual animals, docile, eager to please and unmistakably domesticated. When tested in groups in an enclosure, pups compete for attention, snarling fiercely at one another as they seek the favor of their human handler. Over the years several of our domesticated foxes have escaped from the fur farm for days. All of them eventually returned. Probably they would have been unable to survive in the wild.
    Physically, the foxes differ markedly from their wild relatives. Some of the differences have obvious links to the changes in their social behavior. In dogs, for example, it is well known that the first weeks of life are crucial for forming primary social bonds with human beings. The “window” of bonding opens when a puppy becomes able to sense and explore its surroundings, and it closes when the pup starts to fear unknown stimuli. According to our studies, nondomesticated fox pups start responding to auditory stimuli on day 16 after birth, and their eyes are completely open by day 18 or 19. On average, our domesticated fox pups respond to sounds two days earlier and open their eyes a day earlier than their nondomesticated cousins. Nondomesticated foxes first show the fear response at 6 weeks of age; domesticated ones show it after 9 weeks or even later. (Dogs show it at 8 to 12 weeks, depending on the breed.) As a result, domesticated pups have more time to become incorporated into a human social environment.

  187. …enter the mindnumbingly narrow and monolithic troll…
    see ya in the next thread guys!

  188. I’m always amazed that, when this subject breaks out, and given the plethora of smart scientists and engineers here, no one comments on Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity or the Age of Spiritual Machines (unless I’ve missed such comments). The importance of time stopping should not be underestimated in the grand scheme of science and religion, and yet it is only one scientific event (albeit not an easy one) away now, namely the downloading of the human brain to a hard drive.

    • Thread closed, too many people going off topic into unrelated things, and it is a waste of time.

Comments are closed.