This week on Nuclear Green, there has been some discussion of allegations of criminal wrongdoing against climate scientists Michael Man, following a couple of posts this week. In comments, "Charles H." has alleged that Mann, at the very least, was guilty of bad science, but there would appear to be no law against bad science in the State of Virginia, where Mann is being investigated. Further the research that Virginia authorities are investigating is not the same research in which "Charles H." and others including Steve McIntyre allege the bad science occurred. Steve McIntyre has indicated that although he challenges the validity of Mann's scientific research, he does not believe that Mann is guilty of a crime for which he should be prosecuted.
Unless you are interested in climate change policy issues, you might want to skip the Cannon-Johnson discussion.
Posts
7 comments:
Thanks for the video. Too often ideas and findings that are contrary to the well-funded mainstream are kep out of the public eye.
It appears that busy-body prosecutors are jumping into this circus because science publishers and the media in general are failing to provide an open forum for argument and ideas. Anything that clashes with the pre-determined outcome favoured by the orthodoxy, tends to be censored from mainstream outlets for both science and the public.
al fin,
As a Virginia resident, I can tell you the witch hunt against Mann is not about shoddy science. Our AG is a tea bag wingnut. He has national and/or gubernatorial aspirations and his persecution of Mann is blatantly political grandstanding.
Bill
@Anon -- Interesting that you use the sexual connotation "tea bag(er)" to describe your AG. Why do you need to reduce your disagreement with him or his rationale for pursuing this action by using such terms?
Why not keep the discussion above the level of gutter language? This is part of the problem with the entire debate on AGW - those who find inconsistencies in the data are smeared with the Holocaust-evoking "denier" moniker. Even McIntyre, who may have the most reason to denigrate the "hockey stick" findings, doesn't appear to want a 'pound of flesh'.
Can we agree on a truce with the juvenile language?
Doc, if allegedly invidious language is in deed a problem as you maintain, there is a far more serious problem on the skeptical side. AGW skeptics frequently accuse climate scientists of perpetrating a hoax, and flaims of criminal fuaud are being leveled against climate scientists like Michael man, despite repeated investigations which have cleared him of wrong doing. As Jesus once said, before you talk about the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye, you need to get the beam out of your own eye.
Charles, I appreciate the reference to Jesus' admonition, which had to do with personal conduct as it related to the Law of Moses. The criminal fraud accusation against Mann has to do with using taxpayer funds to advance a theory - one which many credentialed scientists disagree.
If Mann is indeed innocent of fraud or even the less damning but no less concerning "inconvenient manipulation of scientific data" (i.e. the MWP disappearing despite it being well-accepted as a global event, just like the Little Ice Age), then fine. Let's move on.
I do not use those derisive terms to describe those with whom I disagree and simply expect others to act in similar fashion. That ought not be too much to ask.
Doc Your view of Mann is not shared by a large majority of climate scientists who hold Michael Mann in high regard, and say that steve NcIntyre criticisms of Mann have been debunked.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
"Dressler and Lindzen Debate Climate Change Science" is the title of this piece. But it talks about Dr. Andrew Dessler.
Can we asked that this be straightened out?
Post a Comment