Bishop Hill Mann in Time
Feb 28, 2012 Climate: Mann Climate: fakegate Time magazine has a rather toe-curling profile of Michael Mann, although there is considerable discussion of the Gleick affair too, including this:
Scientists are held — and hold themselves to — a higher standard than political groups like the Heartland Institute. That's one of the reasons scientists are trusted by a larger share of the public than most other authority figures — especially politicians. But that trust is fragile, and if scientists stoop to some of the same tactics the other side employs — as Gleick did against Heartland — they risk winning a battle at the cost of losing the climate war. As the British climatologist Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "If people don't trust climate scientists then all the activism counts for nothing."
Reader Comments (37)
Given the peer review his work has been held to and his behaviour, I rather think the opposite is true.
I wasn't aware any prominent sceptics have been accused of forgery and deception?
Exactly when did \"the other side\" employ \"the same tactics\"? The Climategate leaks are still under investigation, and lawful whistleblowing cannot be ruled out. OTOH, Dr. Gleick has admitted acts of identity theft and wire fraud? And the evidence suggests that he may have faked a document, and committed libel as well.
TIME is \"stooping\" to their usual tactics of sloppy research and poor journalism.
Could he be tempted into stating falsifiability criteria for the AGW hypothesis? The question, \"What would it take for you to concede\" seems to turn climatologists into the Terry Gilliam jailer character in Life of Brian, wagging the finger to either side and chuckling darkly as if to say, \"Now, you won't get me on THAT one!\"
Basement? Magma chamber springs to mind.
And what are these tactics that the 'other side' adopts? Don't they understand that lying liars like Gleick are fundamentally dishonest and their assertions can't be trusted?
I would contend that activism itself conducted by scientists marks the end of trust in scientists.
Yes, Gleick was in the frame well before his (strategic?) confession for the rather striking match between the faked memo and his own style of writing.
Convincing proof that he was the author of the faked memo would raise the cast his ilk in an even more unfavourable light.
I have three questions;
1. What has activism got to do with the pursuit of science?
2. Why does climate science in particular need activists?
3. Surely the trust in science is not the same as trusting a particular group of scientists?
We already know the degree of stooping certain scientists stoop too, but what are these tactics that sceptics employ?
You have to laugh, in fact that Time headline raised an immediate chuckle.
To paraphrase Marx , \"From the moment I picked your article up until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it.\" - Groucho Marx that is.
However, in 1997 higher resolution ice core analysis showed that CO2 rose 600 years after T at the end of the last ice age. To keep the CAGW narrative in play, 'The Team' needed an explanation of the amplification of delta tsi from Milankovitch AND to purport that CO2 climate sensitivity could be calibrated from post industrial warming, the MWP had to be buried in the straight handle of the hockey stick.
The rest of the scam is, as they say, history.......
This is the most repetitive and threadbare of the alarmist folk tales.
The "climate scientist death threat" campaigns in Australia and the US both exhibited just two rambling, unpleasant, letters from the same well known green-ink nutcase in Seattle - who was smart enough to keep on the right side of the law by calling for his victims to be "tried and executed" (i.e. not threatening them).
As far as I'm aware - no other climate scientist has ever been able to produce a "death threat" sufficient to trigger a police investigation. If Mann/Jones/Emmanuel etc etc have inboxes brimming with real "death threats" why have we never seen one.
It's not as if they're normally bashful with alarmist PR.
*If* they exist then in all probability they're faked. We've seen how alarmists do this kind of thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a
I posted a few questions. He maintained that McIntyre's analysis of his hockey stick was refuted:
"Hmm. You really need to read the book, since I discuss this in some detail. That claim is been refuted in a number of actual studies in the peer-reviewed literature, by folks like Von Storch, Huybers, Wahl & Ammann, etc. McIntyre engaged in some rather dubious cherry-picking to falsely make this claim. Among other things, he sorted through thousands of random series to eventually find some that had the shape he was looking for. There is a good discussion at the site "DeepClimate".
*Patronising BBC News library SCIENCE shots even when discussing astrophysics... something ELSE to be angry about...
You mean that Bunsen and Beaker were not real scientists after all?
I can't bear it!
If his take on reality is so flawed, then no wonder he frequently spout gibberish about some mega big oil conspiracy out to get him. :p
I trully don't understand why he continues to use outdated tactics, like from 1968. Might it be that it is big green oil that pays his PR people… :-()
===========================
Mann is in an advanced state of denial ... his pals who attempted refute have had their rears well kicked by McIntyre et al. Rather than reading only his own, Mann should thoroughly read the work of opposing views in order to get a worldly view of the real science.
"1. What has activism got to do with the pursuit of science?"
Nothing, except that activists often like to refer to scientific evidence to justify their course. (Of course unfortunately they sometime ignore it too - eg: Greenpeace don't seem to want scientific evidence to actually be built up regarding the GM debate - they trash test crops which prevents scientific study.)
"2. Why does climate science in particular need activists?"
It doesn't!
"3. Surely the trust in science is not the same as trusting a particular group of scientists?"
True, although if a field of science it being carried out by a group who as a whole are not trusted then it's hard to see how the findings of that field could be trusted. Hence the importance of climate scientists maintaining / rebuilding trust.
That tweet was sent as part of a long conversation with someone who thought more scientists should become activists. I disagreed.
your comment raises an interesting question. Many scientists, such as yourself, participate in public discussion on issues of the moment. The question this raises is, where does one draw the line between such participation and activism?
Probably a thread hijack, but worthy of discussion.
Well, they might start by practicing real science. Instead of, 1] holding that very selective "peer review" insures the given truth of whatever is reviewed; 2] not releasing their "materials and methods" which <i>are</i> their science; and 3] not being bothered when <i>none</i> of the relevant predictions from their "hypotheses" eventuate in the real, empirical world.
Well said.
As for Alex's question, I hope there is no implication that your engagement constitutes 'activism'. Rather, it represents an openness to discuss and explain things. You've also clearly seen and reported that sceptics are far from homogenous.
Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
Also you spelt my name wrong.
Al Capone: do we say he did no wrong because, in the beginning, he fought the legal steps to bring him to justice?
We want our heroes. We perhaps need our heroes. Our heroes are ourselves on our best days. As a skeptic I am one of those that is chopping away at the pedestal on which Mann, among others, stands. Of course I/we are not appreciated, but once that pedestal falls wait to see where Mann ends up. We also hate our fallen heroes. They remind us of ourselves most days, and that is unacceptable.
In case readers here might be interested, after receiving my copy of Michael Mann's new book a few weeks ago, I began writing a "running commentary" on Lucia's Blackboard. It turned out to be rather lengthy, and since it was spread across numerous comments in a lengthy thread, it was inconvenient to read. Because of that, I decided to create a document which combined many of the issues I raised into a single spot. A discussion of my efforts began with this comment on Judith Curry's blog, and you can find a link to my original commentary in it.
I also provided a link to the full document in a response. Mind you, I ultimately decided to avoid covering technical issues in that document to make it simpler for the average reader. This means many issues don't get covered (though a number of them can be found in my original commentary).
Even so, I think the document provides insight on the quality of Mann's book, and I figure people here might be interested in it.