Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen – 10 December 2021
Some people just seem to have a distorted view of their proper place in the Universe. In what should have been seen as a joke has been taken seriously by David Vetter a “Senior Contributor” at FORBES. Note that the magazine gives a disclaimer that “Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors [like David Vetter] are their own.”
David Vetter is one of the many so-called journalists associated with Columbia University’s climate news cabal: Covering Climate Now. They trumpet Vetter’s Forbes piece in their weekly newsletter emailed to thousands of activists journalist as “Media responsibility. Leading climate scientist Professor Michael Mann is urging YouTube to take down climate denial and misinformation videos the way it removes Covid-19 misinformation videos. By David Vetter for Forbes…”. Covering Climate Now provides the opportunity for other news outlets to reproduce these stories across the world.
YouTube Is Serving Up Climate Misinformation. This Top Scientist Says Google Should Ban It
“A leading U.S. climate scientist has called on video sharing platform YouTube to treat climate science denial videos in the same way it treats content containing Covid-19 misinformation—by removing them.”
“On Twitter, Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said: “Hey @Youtube. It’s good you’re taking down COVID denial videos. Now it’s time for you to remove climate denial videos. They pose an even greater threat to humanity in the long term.”
“Mann wrote the tweet in response to a post from a fellow Twitter user regarding a 2013 video titled “Why Has Global Warming Paused?” featuring William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton appointed to the National Security Council under the tenure of President Donald Trump, himself an avid climate denier. In the video, Happer, who is not a climate scientist, claims that global warming appeared to have halted in 1998—a claim that subsequent research has disproved and which NOAA has deconstructed in a Q&A.” [ source ]
Now, Michael Mann is certainly a well-known name – but not for any primary advances in his own field. The joke is that Vetter calls Mann a “leading U.S. climate scientist”. Mann is a leading voice of Climate Alarmism but, in my opinion, not really much of a scientist. The majority of his output is self-promotion and attacks on other scientists who don’t agree with his brand of radical Climate Alarmism – he attacks anyone who even slightly disagrees with the political statements and solutions promulgated by the IPCC.
Mann complains that a video featuring William Happer, made in 2013, is available on YouTube. Vetter (writing on Forbes) says “Happer, who is not a climate scientist, claims that global warming appeared to have halted in 1998—a claim that subsequent research has disproved and which NOAA has deconstructed in a Q&A”. A clever piece of obfuscation. The NOAA “deconstruction” states explicitly “the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended.” Happer, in the video, was speaking in 2013 about that very slowdown acknowledged by NOAA in the supposed deconstruction – information, not misinformation – that neither Mann or Vetter apparently ever actually read, or, in my opinion, prefer to ignore.
Who is Mann accusing of misinformation?
William Happer:
“…the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics and one of the pioneers in the field of optically polarized atoms, is transferring to emeritus status at the end of this academic year. Will is known for developing rigorous theories to analyze his elegant atomic physics experiments as well as for extensive service to Princeton and the U.S. government. His research has initiated several vibrant fields outside of atomic physics.”
“Will is also known for his extensive government service. Since 1976, he has been a member of JASON, a group of scientists and engineers who advise the federal government on matters of defense, intelligence, energy policy, and other technical problems. While participating in the 1982 JASON summer study, he proposed to use a thin sodium layer in the upper atmosphere as a source of an artificial guide star to correct the “seeing” distortions in optical telescopes due to the effects of atmospheric turbulence. The sodium layer is excited from the ground with a laser and adaptive optics are used with real-time feedback to cancel the distortions. Today, most large optical telescopes use such laser guide-star systems. From 1987 to 1990, Will served as chair of the steering committee of JASON.
From 1991 to 1993, Will served in President George H. W. Bush’s administration as the director of energy research in the Department of Energy, where he oversaw a basic research budget of roughly $3 billion. His responsibilities included directing much of the federal funding for high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion, environmental science, the human genome project, and other areas. More recently, he chaired the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Nuclear and Radiological Issues and the National Research Council’s standing committee on improvised explosive devices.” [ source .pdf ]
William Happer has been a leading star in the world of practical physics and, when not working for the United States government in various advisory positions, such as the director of energy research in the Department of Energy from 1991-1993, has been a professor of physics, now Emeritus, at Princeton.
“The Princeton Department of Physics is often ranked high in national and international rankings. According to US News, Princeton is ranked as No. 3 in Physics.[9] In the World University Rankings 2019, Princeton was ranked as No. 1 in physical sciences.” [ source ]
Will Happer probably knows more about the physics of the atmosphere and energy transfer through it than any other man alive. Will Happer joined the U.S. federal government‘s super-elite JASON scientific advisory group in 1976, when Michael E. Mann was 12 years old and just starting junior high school.
Summary: Michael Mann vs. Will Happer? – field mouse squeaks at the alpha-male lion of physics.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
That’s it, above.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since lies are his specialty (the bigger the better), Micky Mann is a Lieentist.
Micky Mann he’s such a liar
So many lies his pants are on fire
Hey Micky! Hey Micky!
Which, if any, of the following options indicates a “scientific” approach to opinions that differ from your own ?
1) Produce a thoughtful and well-reasoned “rebuttal” or “(thorough) debunking” of the video (/ blog post / newspaper article) you disagree with.
See also : “Fisking”.
2) Produce a list of references (preferably with links) to a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers that provide either direct contradictions and/or concrete counter-examples to the specific issues you most object to.
3) Call for :
– the video (/ blog post / article) to be summarily deleted … with no additional discussion or analysis
– the author(s) to be fired by (/ lose tenure from) their current employer(s)
– the author(s) to be “blacklisted / blackballed” by all potential future employers
– the author(s) to be “shunned” by society in general
– – – – –
Disclaimer : I am not now, and nor have I ever been, a (practising / professional) scientist, but I do have a STEM degree.
Mark ==> Being a “a (practising / professional) scientist” may be a disadvantage today. Your job is at risk if you speak out of turn or fail to agree — even at top-flight universities.
Me (and you) can speak out without fear of losing our employment.
From the article: “Will Happer probably knows more about the physics of the atmosphere and energy transfer through it than any other man alive.”
Thanks for that wonderful defense of Dr. Happer.
It seems to me that opposition to his views is not breaking any of the Ten Commandments. If he wants to silence others how can we believe anything he says.
Ironic: no one does climate science denial better than Michael Mann.
Mickey Mouth
(That is “Mouse” with a lisp.)
Professor Mann and those that agree with him has every opportunity to argue his corner with those who disagree with him by using these columns and others like it. Genuine scientists and those with opposing viewpoints can register their differences freely here, and they will get well considered alternative responses for all to ponder and come up with a wide selection of conclusions. Yet Mann, who chooses never to respond to his critics through these columns and use the art of persuasion, only tries to argue his point by demanding that those who disagree with him should not be listened to. Why I wonder does he not see that open argument is by far the better way to get his point across rather than getting upset that the World does not accept without question what he has singularly been advocating over the past 20 years?
Michael Mann can’t defend his position. The National Academy of Sciences has said Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature chart is science fiction.
Skeptics would love it if Michael Mann or any of his cronies were to come here and try to defend their positions.
If Mann of any of them had any evidence for their postions, they would be here every day scolding the skeptics. Of course, if they had evidence, there wouldn’t be any rational skeptics of climate change left.
Currently, there are plenty of climate change skeptics. What does that tell you? Hint: No Evidence.
The term “climate scientist” is meaningless. Climate is very multidisciplinary including atmospheric science, hydro dynamics, economics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, oceonography, and on and on. Meanwhile, even a five year old can refute an expert’s theory if the expert’s conclusion depends on 2+2=5.
Mickey Mann outs himself as a NAZ!, am I surprised?
All this certainly helps people move to other platforms so go ahead.
Good point! Alternatives are good. Alarmists’ monopolies are going away.
Authoritarians don’t like others having freedom of speech. They try to squelch free speech at every opportunity, because free speech exposes lies, and authoritarians lie a lot. They don’t like being exposed as liars.
Alternatives allow lies to continue to be exposed.
Calling Michael Mann a “Leading Scientist” is proof that science has nothing to do with climatology.
Scientists use the scientific method to determine if hypothesis can be falsified. End of function.
There is no “leading” involved. When scientists lead something, its an agenda they are promoting which has nothing to do with science.
There is a 97% consensus of real climate scientists that Michael Lying Mann is a disgrace to the profession.
This from a man who falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate. I think I can safely speak for many, many Penn State meteo grads when I say “MM, you should get your facist arse out of Happy Valley ASAP!”
“William Happer has been a leading star in the world of practical physics”
aha!
so you openly admit he’s completely out of his depth when discussing climate change, which is firmly rooted in impractical physics
at any rate, as with global cooling, by 2050 studies will prove Happer was just a spurious artifact of time of day bias and does not actually exist, and the YouTube record should reflect that as well