Thursday
Dec312009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mann in the WSJ
Dec 31, 2009 Climate: Mann Journals Michael Mann has an article in the Wall Street Journal in which he describes the accusation that he plotted to keep sceptics out of the scientific literature as "false".
Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated claims and distortions. The good news is that it is not happening today in relation to either climate scientists or the deniers of climate science.
His case is seriously undermined by his failure to explain the contradictory evidence in the emails.
Reader Comments (16)
Denialists. Who can figure em.
Mannifestly false.
If one needed any more proof that Mann and consorts are political activists with a side line in climate science, then this article would provide it.
Just savour sentences like this one:
'Patrick J. Michaels ... falsely claims that work by him (and other fossil-fuel-funded climate change contrarians) has been unfairly blocked by me and others ...',
noting the shift from 'deniers' to 'contrarians', which Mann now tops with an augmented 'denier' label:
'Mr. Michaels and many climate science deniers...'
Expect more in this vein - this is a prime example of political propaganda, reminiscent of the language of totalitarian regimes in the 1930s in Europe.
This article, its author and his supporters are not interested in climate science or science generally. They are political activists hiding under the cloak of science.
I
I believe it's known (in the UK anyway) as "The Mandy Rice-Davies Defence"... "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he...".
Just to clarify my earlier post in case of misunderstanding - the denialist is Prof Mann who denies the evidence of climategate with respect tot he issue above he attempts to address.
Let the damage control begin. So it's taken 6 weeks for these CRU, Mann et al folks to refine their talking points? All of a sudden Mann is an idealist preaching how science and the peer-review process should be done. He's had years to practice good method and failed or at least failed in the perception.
No big deal...his credibility is shot. With every communique that rejects, denies or attempts to minimize what happened only further digs a hole for these guys. The jig is up.
Well what's one more lie.
Phew, TSIF. For a minute, there, I thought you had 'crossed the floor!'
For the benefit of those not resident in the UK 'crossing the floor' refers to MP's who change their political allegiance.
I'd say his case is also undermined by his own use of the phrase 'climate science deniers' - a term chosen to stifle dissent and shut sceptical views out of the debate. If Mann had the manners to use words like 'sceptics' or 'unconvinced scientists' he might be slightly more persuasive, but by reaching instinctively for the tired old denier label he shoots himself in the foot.
or Mannifest Destiny
How do you spell chutzpah Mr Mann?
the comments to that letter in the wsj are pretty amusing, and appear to be completely stacked against Mann.
"Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy."
Society doesn't, politicians do. That is the problem. At best society relies (too much IMO) on the integrity of the media interpretations of scientific literature. What we have been subjected to is the minimisation/exclusion of contrarian science to remove uncertainties so policy makers can make decisions. It does not matter to the scientists or politicians involved whether the decisions are the right ones or not - making decisions has become an end rather than just the means to an end.
Looks like the count is 2 comments in favor of Mann, 25 against. About the same result that he got in the Washington Post. Apparently nothing gets through to Mann. He seems to believe that he is so brilliant that he can always fool the public, and he will not be influenced by evidence to the contrary. It's much like the way that he approached erasing the MWP. The gap between Mann and reality is so large that I'm tempted to consider him as mentally imbalanced.
How Clintonesque to use the term 'today'!
AJStrata got there before me. Here in the UK, thanks to our politicians, we are now sensitised to legal twists, turns and evasions. If someone like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown said "The good news is that it is not happening today..." even the man in the street would immediately spot that this meant that it *had* been happening until yesterday!