Quote of the Week – dogmatic 'mannerisms' of science


Judith Curry is featuring a report by Emil Røyrvik of Norwegian organization SINTEF, which has taken a semi critical look at the “climate wars”. Dr. Curry highlighted this passage: 

In open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large. Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.

Bishop Hill points out The silence of the Manns in the same report.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Mann is only comfortable in a room full of sycophantic admirers screaming out his name. When they disappear, so does he.


Thanks for that. I am glad others acknowledge you don’t need to be a ‘scientist’ to be observant, discerning, critical and able to judge the facts at hand. The idea that we are too stupid to grasp the ‘science’ is offensive.


In case any alarmists are tempted to disparage SINTEF as just some kind of right wing think tank:

SINTEF (Norwegian: Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning), headquartered in Trondheim, Norway, is the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia. Every year, SINTEF supports research and development at 2,000 or so Norwegian and overseas companies via its research and development activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINTEF

They sound plenty credible to me.

Our dear King Barry is again admonishing the curiosity of our graduating college students with calls this week to ignore the unfiltered, ‘government might be the problem’ message. In May of 2010, this oligarch knew there was a ‘problem’ with the alternative internet ‘new’ media. He called in Erich Shultz, CEO of Google, for an Oval Office visit. This meeting was followed by a Rose Garden press event where the teleprompter said…”too much information is dangerous for our democracy”. I was one of those voices to be silenced as my Google cross-link footprint dropped from 250,000 that day, to 10,000 the next day, and to 900 by the third day.
The man who claimed, “would restore science to it’s proper place”, then made similar statements at college commencements at Howard, Hampton and East Michigan State Universities, ALL DURING THAT SAME WEEK. There were dozens of student posted versions of this anti-free speech outrage from each location online that have now been scrubbed. Still remaining is the youtube version under the heading “too much media is ruining our democracy” at Hampton University, May 9, 2010. All of the many science lies that we are dealing with, including AGW, are the result of a cartel directed, Ponzi banking fraud, see “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality”. Demand a Modern Magna Carta…and eternal solitary confinement for the “Lesterland” creators of these many frauds.
[see “Lesterland” youtube video by Prof Lawrence Lessig….and realize, unfiltered WUWT has no place in the “proper place” of controlled future science]

Tom J

In medicine everybody tells you to get a second opinion before proceeding with an operation. A long term friend actually told me to get a second opinion after I had already received three. He’s a fervent believer in CAGW so we’ve agreed to disagree. Interestingly however, he’s never thought about a second opinion concerning the societal changes proposed to combat CAGW.
That’s the whole issue. The proponents of the CAGW ‘theory’ are calling for a truly massive and potentially risky operation on the body of society (along with all the consequential side effects that will ensue) without the least consideration that maybe society should get a second opinion.

quote of the week from Henry
However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).

Hampton University, May 9, 2010 commencement speech:

“Too much media is dangerous for our democracy”….
depends on what your definition of….”our”….is….


commieBob says:
May 7, 2013 at 8:08 am
“In case any alarmists are tempted to disparage SINTEF as just some kind of right wing think tank:”
I right wing tink tank? In Norway?…….bwahahaha.
A right wing’er in Norway, is far, far to the left of any left-wing’er in the US. Don’t worry.

Kurt in Switzerland

SINTEF isnt just “an organi[z]ation” — SINTEF is the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia, employing 2100 individuals from 68 different countries.
Kurt in Switzerland

Reblogged this on Mayanktaker.

Which would make SINTEF a critical component of the Nordic countries dirigiste approach to economies. And if a critical component of Industrial Policy is squawking publicly it must be that the Clean Energy pushes are commercially and financially not viable. The equivalent of lighting dollars afire to keep pursuing. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2013/05/06-clean-energy-manufacturing-andes-muro is from yesterday on pushing the US to an official Industrial Policy. But Norway and the other Nordics are already there and know when something makes no sense to keep pursuing.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/future-common-communicative-competence-with-regional-economies-focused-on-effective-social-relationshipsd/ is what the desired global political and economic vision looks like with US examples and the ties to education policies to help get there. What are called Living Cities in the US are called Global Cities or Learning Cities elsewhere but this is a global template to try to base the national economy around propping up the urban areas. In big part because that is where the votes are and also local politicians of every party tend to be amenable to state direction of virtually anything if there are federal dollars attached.
The Clean Energy aspect comes in because it is not viable where there are free markets. Since government money is what it takes to make the costs go down, politicians get to call the shots on where plants are located and who gets hired. Very alluring to the planning class. But a huge waste of money if you belong to the paying class and not the beneficiary.
If SINTEF’s rebelling, my concerns about the extent that all this amounts to consuming our seed corn are apparently shared elsewhere. In the name of power and a different future, we are truly pushing ridiculous public policy.


“ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.”
Now that was a well placed conjunctive. A pronoun would also have worked: ‘science as politics’.

Politics, as it is currently practiced, has no place in a free society. It is he who wins, by hook or crook, gets the gold and sets the rules which the remainder must follow. It is the remainder who actually produce the gold and who must follow the new rules without comment or objection. It is all to be mandated by an invisible and unsigned social contract that is continually rewritten by the so called winners of the political contest. We, the remainder (aka losers), are supposed to feel guilty for not following its terms even though we are said to have accepted its terms by being born alive and saying alive.
Tyranny? I have a very hard time seeing that it isn’t.


This is a well written report.
Though, the AGW-loonies are just going to refute it – because it is funded by “big oil”.. Namely Det Norske AS, which is a Norwegian oil company.

“Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.”
What “undermines the role of science and politics” in “open democracies” are the constant efforts of scientists and politicians to use both for the destruction of the open society. The behavior modification, remaking of economies, collectivising, and global initiatives are still the goals of these scientists and politicians. We can see this clearly because they are only concerned about “opposition” and “inaction.” This belies the fact that the intent of this writer is to overcome opposition and get the desired action.
I suggest what this writer may be hinting at is that in the pursuit of the same behavior modifications and political goals (ie “action”, the rules of an open society must be used – scientists and politicians will now attempt to use a top-down, highly funded method of infiltrating all folk religions, alternative science, pseudo-science, grassroots movements, and even jet contr’l’s/aliens cyber-ghettos, so that each is allowed to function as a popular movement, as long as the economic and political goals of world governance are still advanced within the structure and paradigm of the movement.
Each movement will be pleased to have finally been “discovered,” to have received flattery and funding from fancy players behind the scenes, but all this really is is a new approach at focus groups and audience targeting by NGOs. Without seeing the context of this statement, one possibility is that this quote is advancing the method of “manipulative populism.”

Tom J

‘Joseph A Olson on May 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
Hampton University, May 9, 2010 commencement speech:’
Thank you for the video. After watching it I wondered what it was that he was saying. Then I realized he was saying everything and, as a result, absolutely nothing at the same time. But he still felt compelled to give advice.


When you have the facts are on your side, who cares about consensus. The only reason to emphasize consensus is when you can’t point to facts to support your argument.

Margaret Hardman

Are you really suggesting Anders Breivik is a commie rat? If so, perhaps you should try finding out about that man’s obnoxious views.
Some of those views I think you would find personally abhorrent.

Margaret Hardman

Sorry, wikeroy, not wickedly. Think autocorrection snuck in.

I worked with SINTEF on an arduous chemistry problem years ago, they were a classy outfit full of brainy people.


In the real world of public policy, the public and politicians are often unequipped to fully analyze the problem and issues in a critical manner. decisions are often made following the “garbage can” model commonly used in the applying the multiple stream framework. TomJ’s observation is just application of the garbage can model as to how politicians influence public opinion and come up with some public policy. Nothing unusual.

Greg Cavanagh

jbutzi says: “Thanks for that. I am glad others acknowledge you don’t need to be a ‘scientist’ to be observant, discerning, critical and able to judge the facts at hand.”
A case in point; Jurors are made of members of the general public, and are asked to judge guilt or innocence in important cases. The judge dispenses the sentence, but common people are trusted enough to judge guilt. Think about that for a bit.


Some commenters are mentioning “Big Oil”.
Regarding Norway, this is not that relevant. LinkText Here

“Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to almost 50% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. Norway is the fifth largest oil exporter and third largest gas exporter in the world.”

“Big Oil” is financing more or less the whole country, including the governments official “climate policy”.

Gail Combs

Greg Cavanagh says: @ May 7, 2013 at 5:04 pm
A case in point; Jurors are made of members of the general public, and are asked to judge guilt or innocence in important cases. The judge dispenses the sentence, but common people are trusted enough to judge guilt. Think about that for a bit.
In the USA they are doing away with Jury trials bit by bit and no longer inform the public of their right to judge not only the person but the law.

“Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”
The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….

Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …
The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.
In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,”

So little by little bureaucrats have taken over the role of determining whether or not a person is guilty or innocent with no recourse to trial.

Steve C

There’s a very easy way to remove the authority of science. This was outlined in a presentation by Edzard Ernst, professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter at the time, in ‘Focus on Alternative and Complementary Medicine’ (FACT) in 2001. The article was called ‘In Praise of the Data-Free Discussion: Towards a New Paradigm’, it can be read here, and it should make the blood of anyone with an idea of science run cold. I’ve never been entirely sure whether he is having a good laugh or seriously proposing ‘data-free discussions’, because what he proposes sounds so much like a lot of stuff that’s turned up in recent years.
Sample quotes:
“I have … realised the true value and enlightened bliss of data-free discussions, meetings and other debates.”
“Who on earth would dare to disagree with a consensus?”
“Where there are no data, there can be no disagreement”
“The last thing we want is the slaying of our beautiful hypotheses by some nasty, ugly facts.”


I commented at Bishop Hill, regarding “The Silence Of Manns,”
Michael Mann’s behavior has been rude from the start. His refusals to share data with people who were interested, and his constant accusations that anyone who differed with him was a “lackey of Big Oil,” were obvious even before Climategate. All Climategate did was reaffirm that his character was as bad as it appeared.
The fact his science was suspect has long been known. What is amazing is that his torpedoed ship is taking so long to sink.
Little wonder he is silent about the large hole in the side of his science. He is quite aware he would have sunk long ago, were it not for the fact he is propped up on all sides.
Michael Mann is actually starting to bore me. His recent attempt to resurrect his hockey stick was mildly interesting, as would be the attempt to re-float both pieces of the Titanic. However the fact he has sunk very low is plain to see. Watching the sunken sink even lower is not all that inspiring.
What I’m more interested in is: Who backed him? He is actually a small potato, a minor character in a fraud so huge that future historians are likely to call it an “atrocity.”

Good post. Mann is a parody of himself, always accusing others of being in the pay of Big Oil.
Me, I’m still waiting for my first Big Oil royalty check.