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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I guess Lysenko would have accused real scientists of being too Mannish in trying to criticize Lyesenko’s disastrous pseudoscience, and that would have been sufficient justification to have his detractors censored, sued, imprisoned and executed. Perhaps the creator of the hokey stick is simply channelling his own secret inner Stalinism.
Half of the political terms “Left” and “Right” is archaic.
This was valid in the first part of the 1900s when the struggle was between International Socialists and National Socialists.
Today’s authoritarians can’t take criticism and OK with being called “Left” accuse their critics as being “Right Wing”.
Not so.
The “Left” can be criticized in an academic or apolitical way.
The best is Murray Gell-Mann’s definition of a totalitarian system.
That which is not prohibited is compulsory.
It describes every political movement from Communism to today’s Political Correctness.
The term “Right Wing” in politics is archaic.
Michael Mann has just provided proof that he is a fraud and ignorant as hell and one whohasn’t a clue as to how science works. The closest thing to the scientific method is our judicial system,in which evidence is proferred by opposed sides and judged as to which side has the advantage. However, science requires very pursuasive evidence to make firm conclusions.
Except in science, evidence is not “judged”. You may form a hypothesis of how something works. You may run numerous experiments to confirm your hypothesis but this doesn’t PROVE anything. It only show that your hypothesis MAY be true. The real science starts when you and others try to DISPROVE your hypothesis. After enough time and failure of enough disproving experiments, your hypothesis may become a Theory. But, only when you can mathematically derive a proof of your Theory will it become a Law.
So now we have Mann on record opposing “peer review”. That is as long as he can’t choose the reviewers?
Mann wouldn’t know what a peer review is. He’s too long used to Pal review.
I just put myself through a refresher course of reading all the ClimateGate emails. This coming from Mann? Please.
He is a perfect fit for Penn State though.
Is that Pen State Prison?a
Watch it, a comment like that got Mark Steyn in a lot of ongoing hot water. (Though I must say I agree with the sentiment.)
Penn State, State Pen. what’s the difference? 😉
There’s a spooky, empty blackness in those eyes…..
You mean like a doll’s eyes?
Quint:
The thing about a shark, it’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes.
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/48485
The problem is that climate change is so extremely expensive. Above all, reducing CO2 is extremely expensive and brings practically nothing to the warming! It would be so much better to use the money for developing thied world countries, education and infrastructure and supplying the population with food and medicines.
Everyone above has nailed it. If the ‘science is settled’ then the ‘consensus’ should just sit back and watch Happer et al make fools of themselves. Calmly.
Mann’s piece in the Guardian included a link to https://cei.org/content/cei-leads-coalition-letter-commission-climate-security. Giving casual readers a window into AGW desent who may never have heard about it. Good job MM, thanks.
Let me explain the absurdity that even the “GHE” is in simple words.
Since humans do not descent from apes, god must have created them. Thus the existence of god is proven.
You may find this “logic” somewhat lacking, but you still believe in the GHE. So let us see how it is defined.
Since Earth has an emissivity of 1 and clouds are not interfering with LWIR emissions, only GHGs can hold back IR emissions. Thus the GHE is proven.
First you rule out reality, then you come up with an arbitrary alternative explanation which allows you to argue anything you like, regardless how absurd it is. The flat Earth is derived in a very similar fashion.
Since Earth surface does have an emissivity which is substantially lower than 1, that is about 0.91, and since we all know how clouds massively reflect and thus block LWIR from emitting (just look at night time cooling rates relative to cloudiness), we already do now what is holding back IR emissions.
Taking a closer, educated look at these factors, we can tell that the surface is not emitting 390W/m2, but rather just 355W/m2. Cloud forcing on the other side is responsible for another 80-100W/m2, which is a little bit more than the cloud albedo effect, meaning that clouds over all have a slight warming effect (not a cooling!).
Both combined make up for 115-135W/m2, which is the biggest part of the so called “GHE” of 150W/m2.
here some work in detail..
https://de.scribd.com/document/369953233/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2
Classic Alinsky Tactic of a Fraud:
Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/
Amazing, a 100 carat Stalinist in steroids, moans and complains against Stalinist tactics.
Incredible.
Gosh, this guy is so lost, that he has no any clue any more, where ever he stands anymore.
Oh, or maybe he is trying to get help, desperately!?
Hopefully that happens to be it, hopefully.
Hilarious.
Maybe the Stalinist tactics may hopefully give this guy another chance, if he be really counting on it all…. Maybe!… A big maybe… but hey, you never really know…until trying!
cheers
I’m amazed that he brings up Lysenkoism, which is very similar to the climate change policy of the previous administration.
YES! Exactly! Their side was pushing execution and prison. I’ll never forget it.
It’s a classic Mannian tactic, and those of his brethren Warmunists to pose “climate science” as the victim, and the underdog. Thus, the whining and the passive aggressive behavior. They like to pretend that they are heroic martyrs, taking unfair and evil blows from the Goliathan “Deniers”, while they, lowly Davids are left taking potshots with slingshots. They do appear to suffer from some sort of mental illness. Telling lies for so long that they actually believe them will do that.
Reverse the roles and we’d have another Mikey Fraudpants lawsuit.
Not surprising that all of his objections to reviewing “CAGW” are compared to past political policies that had supported failed “science” for political purposes.
He seems to be cowering in a corner waving his Hackey Stick to keep the real adults at bay.
If Man is the cause, why weren’t CO2 levels during the ice ages lower, or during the Jurassic higher? The so-called “proof” of CO2 conveniently ignores past Earth history, and the absence of the strong correlation of CO2 to temperature.
“but Michael is an honorable Mann “
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from examination.”
—Ton Paine
“As far as I know President Trump doesn’t plan to allow Will Happer to execute anyone”
Nope – but there were sure plenty on THEIR side that wanted us imprisoned, executed, etc. for disagreeing. He has it backwards. They were (still are) the Lysenkoists.
Mann oh Mann!
wasted life.
What a waste of lifetime.
MannoMann!
what a wasted life.
what a waste of lifetime.
He is not just wasting his lifetime, but that of others, who take their time to refute his>/b> bad science of which, I am certain, he knows its fraudulent and misleading character.