Pope Francis has declared that climate science is settled. Galileo could not be reached for comment.
Maybe these will make an appearance in Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession, Vol 2.“
NOAA METEOROLOGIST: POLITICS AND MONEY DRIVE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA
Volume 1 went on sale today at Amazon.
Highly recommended: Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession“, to anyone interested in the genesis of Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick. Steyn’s book is not an attack on the idea of AGW, it’s an exposé of, arguably, the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown; and, indisputably, the most consequential.
Using the words of scientists who strongly believe AGW is true and of those who are more skeptical, it lays out a convincing case that there are differences of opinion among scientists on AGW, if not so much about Michael Mann.
If you (mistakenly) conflate Mann’s agenda with the discipline of climate science, you will like the book still less than even Mann’s “allies” like him. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read it: If you are concerned about erosion of public support for “doing something” about AGW, you should read it so you can help climate science regain a modicum of respectability. As long as Mann is left to hijack the discussion, threaten the careers of distinguished scientists and subvert the peer review process, it is unlikely reasonable people will find any common ground on the topic.
Mann has been able to force the entire discipline of climate science into a corner where failure to defend his work is equated with failure to defend, in Mann’s words, “the cause.” A strange way for a scientist to think. If there is a single principle that distinguishes science from religion it is that scientific theories are falsifiable. Mann is pushing the religion of Mann, not the science of climate study.
The damage to science itself is profound. The damage to freedom of speech is, perhaps, even worse – which is how Steyn got involved in a lawsuit. And came to write this book. The First Amendment is as much subject to Mann’s attack as is the scientific method.
I consider myself well informed on the AGW debate, but I learned quite a bit from this book. You probably will too. This book does not deny AGW, it denies Michael Mann’s devious, unprincipled, ad-hominem attacks on those who dare ask a single question.
We’re being asked to restructure the world economy because of a drawing based on misrepresentation, willful hyperbole and astounding arrogance. You should read “A Disgrace to the Profession” in order to understand what that means, whatever your position on AGW. You should buy “A Disgrace to the Profession” (also at Amazon) because doing so helps defend free speech. Even if Mann were right, it is long past time his bullying lawfare was stopped.
You could make many worse decisions about how to use your resources to defend free speech, promote open scientific inquiry and oppose the petty fascists in the White House and EPA, than by buying copies of Mark Steyn’s latest book and giving them to the warm mongers with whose acquaintance you may be afflicted.
A review by Professor Judith Curry.
“A Disgrace To The Profession” is also available at Amazon, but buying an autographed copy directly from Steyn better helps him defray the costs of Michael Mann’s lawfare.
Time to wake up.
Mark Steyn has put more on the line more to protect the fundamental principle of free speech than any other living writer. In Canada, his long battle over an article published in Maclean’s magazine greatly increased Canadians’ freedom by contributing to the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Now, Mr. Steyn is going to court in the United States, having been sued by warmist poster-child Dr. Michael Mann, over an article Steyn wrote in National Review. Dr. Mann created the debunked “hockey stick” (see also), and was one recipient of the “hide the decline” email in the Climategate email scandal.
Forbes had this to say about Dr. Mann:
Mann’s career is dependent on taxpayer handouts. He draws his salary from a public university, Penn State. He solicits government grant money to carry out special research projects. Government officials, who are accountable to voters for how they spend the tax money they collect, occasionally follow up on taxpayer concerns that government funding recipients appear to be misusing government funds. This, apparently, makes Mann furious.
Steyn’s legal expenses are, naturally, large. You could help defray them and score some of Steyn’s writings at the same time. However you may feel about prevaricating climate ‘scientists’ who decline to share their methods, or account for their expenditures, it’s your freedom of speech, too.
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.”
-John Stuart Mill
Summary of IPCC AR5 Summary: One man’s best estimate is that same man’s refusal to believe his own data. Emphasis mine:
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. (page 11)
Translation: Our climate models have failed to even approximate the key element for which they were designed.
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. (page 12)
Translation: In spite of the failure of our models, our best estimate (we’re 95% confident) is that humanity is going to fry if we don’t spend trillions to stop this horrible catastrophe. Stop Keystone, destroy the coal industry, increase “green” subsidies and fund my study, or we all die.
John Horgan, @johnhorgan at the Scientific American @sciam blog, poses a moral question regarding Dr. Peter Gleick’s recent ethical lapse:
Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?
When, if ever, is lying justified? I talked about this conundrum this week in a freshmen humanities class, in which we were reading Immanuel Kant on morality. Kant proposed that we judge the rightness or wrongness of an act, such as breaking a promise, by considering what happens if everyone does it. If you don’t want to live in a world in which everyone routinely breaks promises, then you shouldn’t do so.
That’s a fine principle, in the abstract, but my students and I agreed that in certain situations lying is excusable. Shouldn’t you lie if your girlfriend asks you if you like her new haircut? If your boss, who’s a vindictive bastard, asks your opinion of his new business plan? What about lying in order to reveal a plot that you believe imperils all of humanity?
That brings me to the latest scandal to emerge from the debate over global warming…
Let’s examine the three questions to which Mr. Horgan and his freshman humanities students agreed it was OK to lie:
1- Shouldn’t you lie if your girlfriend asks you if you like her new haircut?
No, you shouldn’t lie. She’ll keep getting it cut in ways you don’t like, making her less attractive to you. That wasn’t her objective.
2- If your boss, who’s a vindictive bastard, asks your opinion of his new business plan?
No, you shouldn’t lie. He’ll think he has a good plan (the author appears to assume it’s not). Toadyism might be his preference, but maybe he is just vindictive, not stupid. In any case, your lie will probably damage you and everyone else in the organization.
3- What about lying in order to reveal a plot that you believe imperils all of humanity?
Yes, you should lie. You and everyone else will die if you don’t. Revealing a plot that imperils all of humanity (Wink, wink. Nod, nod: What Gleick did.) assumes that you lie by telling the would-be humanicidal maniacs that “I promise never to reveal your plot to kill everyone in the world.”
But this hypothetical is not like the others: You lie to reveal, not conceal; And you lie about an existential threat. And it’s the wrong lie. In the case at hand, Gleick’s, your lie would have to be phrased, “I promise not to fabricate evidence that you have a plot to kill everybody.”
Mr. Horgan is obfuscating his way into an alternate reality where Peter Gleick lied for our sins. Woe, woe to science when this slippery conflation of ethical situations is its defense of the unethical behavior of the former Chairman of the Ethics Committee Task Force for the American Geophysical Union.
Woe to freshman humanities students who have such an instructor.
Finally, the fact that the headline can even pass editorial muster is telling. They couldn’t get to, “Are scientists still scientists when they fabricate evidence to protect a
cultish mythology pet theory?”