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:
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?
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…
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? 🙂
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.
For what it’s worth, I agree with WTF. Faith and science need not be separate entities, providing you know enough about both.
Actually yes, this is the default position taken by evolutionary biologists when offered a chance to “debate” evolution deniers.
Obviously being talented at mathematics doesn’t mean one understands what is going on in the world.
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.
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.
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.
>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/
One: Nagel is not a scientist.
Two: He doesn’t deny evolution occurred.
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
> 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.
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?
Ignorant bully.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says: March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm
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.
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?