Mann: Skeptics are ‘a few marginal individuals largely affiliated with special interests’

Well, we seem to have done pretty well… the few, the proud, the brave… the skeptics.

Michael Mann on NPR:

But unfortunately, scientists are ill-equipped to deal with those who, like I said, don’t play by the rules. They are more than happy to make disingenuous and sometimes, frankly, quite dishonest allegations and arguments against the scientists.

And we can’t play by the rules of knife-fighting ourselves, because, you know, science is about being honest, about following the data and your hypotheses, where they lead you, by changing your, you know, conclusions when led to do so by the data.

So we can’t engage in the dishonest tactics that those looking to discredit us may be willing to engage in. But we can try to become better communicators of the science, try to find novel ways to explain to the public the fact that the science is solid, that this is a real problem. We can’t just bury our heads in the sands and pretend it doesn’t exist. And there is a good-faith debate to be had about what to do about this problem.

But there can no longer be a good-faith debate about the reality of the problem, and unfortunately, there are still those who are trying to have that debate.

And so I think we have to get away from this idea that in matters of science, it’s, you know, that we should treat discussions of climate change as if there are two equal sides, like we often do in the political discourse. In matters of science, there is an equal merit to those who are denying the reality of climate change who are a few marginal individuals largely affiliated with special interests versus the, you know, thousands of scientists around the world. U.S. National Academy of Sciences founded by Abraham Lincoln back in the 19th century, all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.

[h/t The New Nostradamus of the North]

8 thoughts on “Mann: Skeptics are ‘a few marginal individuals largely affiliated with special interests’”

  1. Michael Mann might want to clean up his own act first. As he said “isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations”
    27/10/2009, 16:54:
    “As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.” (1256735067.txt)

    And Tom Wigley said this:
    Oct 14, 2009: …there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. (1255553034.txt)


  2. Michael Mann in Lincoln’s tophat !!!

    Again, these are not arguments. These are ad hominem attacks against
    people who disagree with him. In the fields of philosophy and science,
    these are egregious sins.

  3. Mann thinks he will just walk away from this fraud unscathed, a rock star. Has he considered what happens when the ’cause’ no longer needs him and he becomes a liability? I’ll let you in on a secret comrade, you’re the plausible deniability for the people above you. Come clean or leave dirty, it’s your choice. Hope you like orange jump suits.

  4. It’s correct, J Greenfraud, the “warmist-scientists” provide deniability for the next Globalist apparacheks up the Globalist chain of Command, and, imo, Mann KNOWs this, but I don’t think any of them will see themselves in orange jumpsuits. Even WITH the Fraud/Lies, they THINK, THEY…are the “good-guys”,–just like the Commu-Nazis thought, but as “Liberalism is a Mental disease”(–Dr Savage), they are MAD…and, WRONG. Just think, even if the Republicrats “win” this time, –IF…he’s charged, tried, found guilty, and then imprisoned, a Demon-crat will release/pardon him in 8 years or less, –bet me money that it won’t, PLEASE…

  5. We can take down frauds like Glieck, Mann and Gore one by one. We could take down one of their ilk once a week, every week for a year. But the science academies that signed off on CAGW? Taking them down is another thing entirely. They have institutional reputations at stake, institutions with hundreds or more scientists on the rolls — most of whose work is not not involved in climate predictions. Nonetheless, each member will personally be invested in the prestige of the institution. What do we do about that?

  6. They need to be challenged now! If they committed crimes they need to be charged with crimes! If charged with crimes they need to face their accusers in court; and not the media court of public opinion, or the self serving investigations performed by the universities and/or their allies! If found guilty they need to be sentenced to prison, fined or both. To quote the EPA from days gone by; there is no training quite as good as a civil penalty.

    If the institution suffers and causes legitimate scientists reputations to suffer; then so be it. This will give the honest scientists the opportunity to take a stand against this kind of corruption and resign as a public act of integrity and repudiation for what has gone on, and then move on. They won’t though. Why? Because scientific corruption is rampant, and they have gone along with it for years; and it is my opinion those who were the most responsible rose to the highest levels of authority.

    Everyone in the media and the left hates WalMart, yet WalMart is what Sears was fifty years ago. Fifty years from now someone else will be WalMart. Why? Because they lose sight of the founders vision! This has come into being at the research centers of the universities. The holy grail of science is no longer truth, it is grant money. When science became rich it became political; when it became political it became corrupt; that corruption was followed by the natural fruitage of corruption – arrogance. That arrogance permeates the whole system, whether it is involving climate science or chemistry. Take a look at the thousands of bogus studies that have been conducted to try and prove that DDT is the monster the Rachel Carson claimed. Take a look at research presented on Alar, Atrazine or for that matter second hand smoke. There is an unending list of studies that are conclusions in search of data. Those all weren’t involving climate science.

    There is nothing like a good civil or criminal penalty to fix arrogance and put things into their proper perspective. And then someone else in research will fill that void, just like WalMart! We need to get this. Nothing or no one is too big to fail, or be replaced…..we really do need to get that!

    Ask Elliot Spitzer.

  7. Interesting comment Eric B. It’s my hope that we can keep the pressure on, let individuals like Gleik make mistakes. Use Alinsky tactics, isolate and target. Once culled from the herd, a lack of morals values pushes them to rat out other scum in the pack. Slow but effective. Legitimate organisations should eject these opportunists, for self preservation, once the funding is cut. Political winds change, let’s hope the winds blow these clowns off a cliff.

  8. We both know that the real question is our national sovereignty, global warming is just the subterfuge globalists currently use. Sustainable development and water are next up, the weather didn’t cooperate with the global warming lie (thank God!). They have offered these same solutions for a litany of supposed problems over the last 100 years. They will never give up, see the history of the progressive movement, they will just change tactics/names and continue on. Will we remain a constitutional republic? The question has never been so relevant.
    Orange jump suits? Dare to dream brother, dare to dream. Keep the faith, good luck.

Comments are closed.