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?
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?
“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.
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.
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.
ack.. than an end.. fingers dont always behave.
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”.
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?
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monckton of Brenchley asks:
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.
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.
As I understand it, Roy Spencer does deny evolution, advocating instead for intelligent design. That being the case, why is stating it denigration?
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.
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.
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.
In a just Universe, he will be proven correct and have a Place of Honor in a certain corner of the Hereafter.
belief in evolution is an act of faith just as lacking in evidence as a belief in God … maybe more so …
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.
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.
There isn’t a professional scientist within 100 miles of Michael Mann.