Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon – Michael Mann thinks President Trump’s new climate advisory panel is equivalent to Lysenko’s murderous efforts to suppress genetics.
Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science
Michael Mann and Bob Ward
Wed 20 Mar 2019 21.00 AEDTA panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous. Yet that’s what White House officials want.
Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.
The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programmes.
Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organising a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.
The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts.
…
The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.
Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/donald-trump-stalinist-techniques-climate-science
There are some differences between Lysenko and Will Happer. Lysenko didn’t just criticise his opponents, he had his opponents executed, or had them deported to socialist death camps.
As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone, though some people might suffer acute public embarrassment when Will Happer finds mistakes in their work.
Climategate is full of climate scientists expressing outrage at having their work reviewed, and discussing strategies to evade freedom of information requests for data and method, but the sums of money expected for addressing the climate “crisis” – billions, even trillions of dollars – in my opinion make opposition to review utterly unacceptable.
Update (EW): Fixed a typo
The only detractor from Mann’s work is Mann… because it definitely isn’t science by any definition. Actual science can stand up to scrutiny… and actually invites it in order to demonstrate it’s accuracy.
Then is climate change not a real danger? Maybe Idai cyclone can wake up the skeptics of climate change.
Climate is always a real danger. It just isn´t worse than it has been. Sleep well and have bad climate dreams, and don´t wake up. Maybe reality is finally waking up.
malkom700
By that metric, the 12 years the East coast of the USA went without a major landfall hurricane would mean climate change isn’t happening, wouldn’t it?
“One swallow does not make a summer” – Aristotle
It depends upon what you are swallowing…
Sorry Idai is Weather NOT Climate.
Have you forgotten the Definition of Climate ie it is based on at least 30 years of Weather?
malkom700… Idai was not the strongest tropical cyclone to hit Mozambique in the last 30 years, which averages almost 1 tropical system per year. Good records don’t seem to go back very far, so it is impossible to determine if there is any trend in Indian Ocean cyclones, but we do no that there is no trend in total cyclone energy around the planet.
Where longer records exist in other basins, we find all kinds of trends, up and down, that last maybe 10 to 15 years, but no trend over the length of the entire record, so even if there is an upward trend in the frequency or intensity of Indian Ocean tropical cyclones, It doesn’t say anything about climate change, because such trends naturally occur without climate change.
Whenever bad weather happens anywhere, alarmists are quick to call it the result of man-made climate change, but they always make the claim emotionally. They may point to one scientific paper to support their claim, but ignore all science that says otherwise.
The media has an addiction to sensationalism, and alarmists have a powerful agenda. The two play off each other very well to present a fiction for the benefit of both.
Climate crisis skeptics are very much awake and more knowledgeable than most about the full body of scientific evidence. The actual science does not support the notion of a man-made climate crisis! The science does support a slight man-made warming that is almost entirely beneficial, but indiscernible from natural climate variation. Everyone I know who has taken the time to understand the full body of science around climate change, has come to a very similar conclusion quite independently.
There have been bad storms in the past.
Why do you believe that this bad storm is proof of climate change?
Then is climate change not a real danger?
Oh yes, it’s going to kill us all in 12 yrs! We’re all doomed, so might as well party, eh?
Then is climate change not a real danger?
The climate changes, it always has always will. some times it changes for the better, sometimes for the worse, as it’s always been. “Man made climate change”, on the other hand is only a danger in the sense that misguided policies to fight the chimera of Man made climate change can ruin economies and destroy lives.
Maybe Idai cyclone can wake up the skeptics of climate change.
if you knew anything about climate, you’d know that one weather event is not climate. if you knew anything about climate history, you’d know Idai was not the first cyclone to hit that part of the world and you’d know that it won’t be the last regardless of what nighmares you wish to subject the world to in an effort to control the weather. And if you weren’t a troll, you’d actually read the responses everyone has given you and learn a little something.
What does Idai tell us about climate, malkom 700?
Nothing. But it does tell us that malkom 700 doesn’t know and/or doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
Cyclones haven’t awakened the IPCC. They claim no apparent association with the recent minimal warming.
Those are the sceptics you’re referring to, right?
Things that hide under rocks, do so for a reason.
Eric
“or had them deported them to socialist death camps.” ?
One too many “them” in there….. : )
Surely sticking two graphs together (cut and paste) and hope nobody notices is the epitome of advanced science!
Sometimes called the ‘trick’.
Anyone who questions this is a reactionary troublemaker with a political agenda.
The pig is squealing at the very thought of the trough being removed.
Michael Mann juggles. Stalinism is just a ban on the revision of the “dominant theory.” Who is afraid of its revision? I guess, only those scientists who feel they have lied to people and soon their deception will be revealed and put on public display.
Mann lives on the other side of the mirror. It is he who is the Lysenkoist, not Happer.
Here at WUWT we all are well aware that the UNIPCC reports are political documents and that the underlying science has been politically massaged to to forecast the worst outcomes for the world.
Will Happer and his team hopefully will bring some sanity to this whole mess that has infected climate science.
I could only guess how many activist scientists believe the crackpot theories that they are predicting and the end of the world if drastic steps are not undertaken.
If politicians had their way and cut the use of fossil fuels the whole world would be in crisis and the world would plunge into a recession that would be much worse than most of them could ever imagine .
I know that they have absolutely no idea where the food comes from to feed 7 billion people and how that it gets to the supermarket and market stalls.
Then there is clothing and housing and heating during the winter and cooling during the summer.
So many people now live their lives completely in cities and they cannot imagine how the real cost of food has fallen in the last hundred years with mechanization, fertilizers and agricultural science .
Fossil fuel feeds the world .
Processing,refrigeration ,and transport from the farms to every corner of the globe is dependent on fossil fuels .
The whole planet relies on fossil fuel to grow food and clothing which is the very first requirement of every human being.
I have farmed for over 60 years and have seen major changes .
Electricity came to my fathers farm in 1948 , tractors replaced horses ,combine harvesters and all other machinery such as hydraulic diggers can do the work of many men and it all requires fossil fuel .
I hope that Will Happer and his team can change the way that people perceive CO2 and open up the discussion to bring about real change in the coming decade.
Activist science -Bottom of the pile: Ignorance and Ineptitude
Top of the pile: Influence and Income
I could only guess how many activist scientists believe the crackpot theories that they are predicting
“activist scientists” is an oxymoron. You are either an activist (someone who takes a side and works to achieve a preconceived outcome) or you are a scientist (someone who doesn’t take a side or have a preconceived outcome that they work to achieve but instead follows the data to wherever it leads) it’s impossible to be both as the goals of each are mutually exclusive.
I know that they have absolutely no idea where the food comes from to feed 7 billion people and how that it gets to the supermarket and market stalls.
Indeed. It’s easy to say “the food will be grown locally”. Tell that to a city like New York. Even if they knocked down every tree in central park and turned it into farmland, they wouldn’t be able to grow enough food to feed the entire population of the city. On the other hand, it would do the liberal elites in those cities a world of good to be forced into doing a honest days labor for once in their pampered lives by farming for food to survive.
I’m afraid that your hope is premature. The “elite” will live in ghettos and get all the necessities of life provided free of charge by the government. Inclusive apartment, heating,energy, food and clothes and what else is needed. For this, the army of the underprivileged will be charged accordingly. That’s how it is in socialism.
I think that’s the first time I’ve seen the words “the elite” and “live in ghettos” in the same sentence.
There is plenty of stuff for Happer to draw on. He needn’t do any research. Should be all over pretty quickly. The MSM will give it the front page – oh, sorry
“As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone,”
As compared to the warming alarmists who have called for the execution of skeptics…
“Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science”
No, President Donald Trump is going to discredit Michael Mann. That’s what Mann is worried about.
I can’t imagine this will take much effort from Donald Trump.
So Prof. Mann also knows nothing about Stalinism.
I would think that a review of Climate Science and in particular, Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick, would have a negative impact on his lawsuits.
In his favor, should negative outcomes in the courts reduce Dr. Mann to penury, I’d suppose he has a lot of tree cores and cross sections lying around to burn to keep warm.
The Climate Change cadre should welcome normal scientific review.
If Climate Change data, falsifiable hypotheses, and predictions stand up to scrutiny, the position becomes stronger and defensible. That would get most everyone “on board”…to save civilization.
If Climate Change cannot, it becomes indefensible. That’s how it works.
Claims for a scientific “position” are just claims until they are put to the test…according to the rules of science.
Any group that asserts that others should sacrifice freedoms and treasure (on the order of $100s of Billions to $Trillions) on the basis of untested claims is despotic if the power is there to enforce the sacrifices and deprivations.
Unfortunately, the press can preach propagandize otherwise to anyone who is still listening to them. ( I turned them off decades ago)
Climate Change is a political battle not a scientific one so far. And since earth’s climate is so complex, the debate will be messy and complicated.
But for starters, it sure would be nice if just 1 contested Climate Change prediction came true before a verdict is handed out in their favor.
Before any real science reviewing begins, I’d love to see Happer commission a professional pollster (or pollsters) to do a real in depth poll on the views of scientists and engineers and statisticians on global warming and climate change. At the least asking to what degree humans are responsible and then asking if it is a serious problem requiring $Trillions. Measure opinions of how much warming would be abated under the UN Plan since China and India get a free pass.
It’s essential this polling be done right at the start because the established rule in the climate debate is that scientific consensus is what matters. And the 97% thing was not a scientific poll…just some selective advocacy work done by a cartoonist.
In would be interesting to see whether the findings of “mainstream cimate science” would start changing if significant research funding were directed toward:
1) investigation of positive effects of increased atmospheric CO2
2) investigation of the reliability and robustness (or lack thereof) of tree-ring based paleoclimate reconstructions
When billions of dollars worth of research funding were made available explicitly for research into ways increased atmospheric CO2 might be harmful, it was inevitable that that “mainstream” researchers would conclude that increased CO2 is harmful.
If billions of dollars were to be made available now to investigate the positive impacts of CO2 fertilization, the possibility of increased CO2 forestalling or even preventing the next ice age, or such similar topics, it’s inevitable that “mainstream climate science” will form a consensus as to the benefits of CO2.
While conducting a “Red Team” review of the science is a very good idea, making significant research funding available for investigation of the possible positive effects of increased CO2 will have a much bigger impact on “mainstream climate science”, and the administration can and should do both.
Better to get the government out of funding scientific research altogether, except perhaps for any necessary to the strategic security of the country. Like many others, you have pointed out the hugely corrupting influence such funding has had. I don’t support using the same technique to get a pre-desired result just because it may better comport with my own beliefs.
Point well made. Thanks.
Mann is Lysenko reincarnate.
Michael Mann wants what he’s always wanted; his word on climate taken as “gospel” not to be questioned, his data and methods never reviewed, and a whole lot of money with no strings attached.
I think those of a Freudian bent might call this projection (of a different type).
Without being disrespectful, I want to help point out how Mann and Ward are grossly misrepresenting Trump and his action of forming the Presidential Committee on Climate Security:
The purpose of the panel is NOT to “promote” anything, let alone promote “an alternative explanation”. The purpose of the panel is to REVIEW the SCIENCE being put forth as the very basis for drastically altering major policies that challenge the foundations of society as we know it in the United States.
“Disastrous”? — this is an unnecessarily loaded term that grossly misrepresents good judgment of rational people trying to take practical measures to insure that national policies are based on legitimate facts.
“Discredit?” — again, this term misrepresents the effort. It speaks more to fear of being proven wrong than to concern for maintaining integrity.
“Purged”? “Gagged”? — more loaded terms, chosen to create dramatic effect to support a mistaken idea of administrative wrongdoing.
“Attempted to end funding”? — one more time, this misrepresents a thorough review as an evil act.
“Hardcore climate change deniers”? “Contrarians”? — even more use of loaded terms, NOT becoming of someone who is scientific minded.
“Alternative official explanation”? — still misrepresenting the effort as a plan to purposely alter the very facts being reviewed. A review of the facts is NOT and effort to promote. If another explanation is arrived at, then it is because the facts were found, upon REVIEW, to be faulty.
But they are scientists, right? — people who understand how science works? — and they disagree with what is being put forth as “overwhelming evidence”, and, AGAIN, they are SCIENTISTS, which means that the evidence must NOT be overwhelming to some SCIENTISTS.
This entire sentence is littered with political terminology that pushes a ridiculous false comparison of Stalin with Trump and Lysenko with Happer. It conveys an air of transparent hysteria, rather than an air of intelligent analysis by supposedly competent “scientists”.
This is irrelevant, because it further forces an absurd comparison of people and events that have very little in common. Again, it speaks more to hysterical panic than to informed analysis. And it raises the question, “Why would scientists panic over a thorough review, when scientists typically understand such a process?”
Mann is no longer a scientist if he ever truly was one. He is an egomaniac defending his turf by all means necessary. He has done more harm to the scientific community than anyone in modern times. Rather than be canonized he should be exposed for the pompous power hungry fool he is.
If Happer merely puts out a statement that Mann’s study is wrong with no backup or evidence, then maybe Mann’s claim could be understood. I suspect there will be sufficient backup to show how and where the study went off track. Mann will then have a chance to factually and with evidence dispute the finding. He probably won’t get paid for defending his work, but tough cookies. It should operate much like a doctoral review and he can defend his work. All the whining beforehand is just that, whining.
Well said! That was the first thing I noticed when I read this. Complete misdirection and fabrication showing his own narcissistic rage and projecting his own ‘way of the world’ onto others. He projects this onto others because it’s the only way he can see the world, so therefore everyone must think and act the same way as him.
Here are the 9 traits of a narcissist.. see how many you think Mr Mann displays
Arrogance and Domineering. …
Grandiosity. …
Preoccupation with Success and Power. …
Lack of Empathy. …
Belief of Being Unique. …
Sense of Entitlement. …
Requires Excessive Admiration. …
Exploitative.
And the definition of Narcissistic Rage
1.The narcissist doesn’t get his or her way, even when it’s unreasonable.
2. The narcissist is criticized in some way, even when the critique is made diplomatically, reasonably, and constructively.
3. The narcissist isn’t treated as the center of attention, even when there are other priorities.
4. The narcissist is caught breaking rules, violating social norms, or disregarding boundaries. i.e.
“How dare you talk to me this way in front of my son!” —Angry customer being called out for blatantly cutting in line
5. The narcissist is asked to be accountable for his or her actions.
6. The narcissist suffers a blow to his or her idealized, egotistical self-image (such as when being told he will not be given “exception to the rule”, or be granted “special treatment”).
7. The narcissist is reminded of his or her charade, manipulation, exploitation, inadequacy, shame, or self-loathing.
8. The narcissist feels (fears) not in control of their relational or physical surroundings.
Me thinks he could be close to 100% score…
I do hope the science community is seeing those comments by Mann. They need an ear full.
As always, these guys dance around the truth and project it on opponents.
Warmism IS Stalinism.
It’s on purpose.
[Dr. Michael Mann continues to communicate his point of view, with the confidence of the morally righteous. After hearing him testify at the Hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in March, I thought he is uncivil and anti-intellectual.
First, he isn’t self-conscious enough to realize that he has all of the symptoms of a bias for the “noble cause” of climate change science. Also, he repeatedly uses ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, but yet he doesn’t like being the subject of wit or humor.
Historically, Mann has tried to sue several people and media for “defamation” over the years: Anyone who was unkind to the science of his “Hockey Stick” graph or to him. In fact, Mann has been quote saying “it is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.” And yet, Mann wouldn’t turn over the data he used for the basis of his famous study to a British Columbia Supreme Court, claiming the data was his intellectual property in spite of the fact that the U.S. Taxpayer paid for his “Hockey Stick” Study.
Also, this withholding of data isn’t new for Mann and it fits a pattern used by the last EPA: If one has the noble cause of climate change, they don’t have to provide access to their data; Although, if the loyal opposition withholds data, they are accused of denying history.
Speaking of assault on science, Michael Mann continues his own.
I am always glad to see that so many here on WUWT express healthy, SCIENTIFIC skepticism about climate change, especially when the “consensus” in the media and the “scientific” literature always implies or flat-out states that anything bad is Man-caused.
It is high time that facts and evidence and observations are to be taken seriously, and computer models not so much. And also that we realize that we don’t really understand everything about the Earth’s climate and its trends, not even close, especially when the climatistas like to take 10 years or 30 years or even 100 years and extrapolate to doomsday predictions – when both recorded human history and geologic history show us that CO2 has been up and down, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler, and there does not seem to be any causative effect by CO2 and hardly any correlation either.
I welcome a more open and honest discussion! No more business as usual the way Mann et al conduct it!