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?
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.
I wonder if Mickey Mann is as irreverent regarding Sir John Houghton’s religiosity.
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 ??)
wow that is some bad spelling there, thanks any way
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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?
And no @MichaelMann, you are neither #professional nor a #scientist.
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
.
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.
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????
Greg House says:
March 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm
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.
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.
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?
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?
.
Be glad to debate MM on evolution instead, since he seems to either be an expert or blindly accept the consensus.
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.
Pull my Finger says:
……
==============================
My thoughts exactly.
Maybe Mann is just worried he won’t get his $10k fee if it’s a debate…not that money means anything to him…
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?
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.