Skip to comments.The Compliance of Science
Posted on 02/23/2014 12:16:19 PM PST by Valpal1
n 2002 Richard Warman appointed himself Canada's Hatefinder General and went around the Internet hunting down so-called haters and turning them in for lucrative tax-free sums amounting to many thousands of dollars. Hatefinder Warman and his enablers at the Commission abused the extremely narrow constitutional approval given to Section 13 by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision and instead turned it into a personal inquisition for himself and his pals.
Parliament took my advice and abolished Section 13. Now it's déjà vu all over again: Michael Mann turns out to be the Richard Warman of climate science, a man who believes l'état du climat, c'est moi; a man who has appointed himself Denierfinder-General with the powers to determine whether Judith Curry is an "#antiscience" witch or not. In my responses to his discovery requests a week or so back, I politely pointed out that Dr Mann is not sole proprietor of Global Warming, Inc and that (anticipating Dr Curry) this case is only about him, his stick and his corrupt employer.
It's clear that many scientists and statisticians are not comfortable defending the hockey stick, as one can well understand. But they seem to think they have to do so in order to defend "science". They don't. Richard Muller and others are right about that. Just as Canada's self-appointed Hatefinder-General was entirely irrelevant to the Queen's Peace, so the planet's self-appointed Denierfinder-General is entirely irrelevant to the cause of science. Let Michael Mann speak for Michael Mann, and scientists speak for science, wherever (as Judith Curry says) it leads them.
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the war on science and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Manns science, critical of Manns professional and personal behavior, and critical of Manns behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.
The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.
I only recently became aware of the Mann/UVA suit that is nearing a final ruling.
I wonder how many scientists are thinking "STFU Mann" as he increasingly because a parody and an object lesson on how not to behave on the interwebs.
Is Mark a poet?
Even if the “hockey stick” is wrong, it doesn’t mean climate is not changing. Having paid attention to climate and weather for 60 years, there definitely seem to be clear changes causing serious problems in some areas.
The climate is always changing.
The arguments of the global-warming cargo cult revolve around the idea that human activity is what's causing the climate to change. Specifically, highly-scaled human economic activity. Otherwise known as "capitalism."
climate by definition changes... our big blue marble has many differing regions, deftly affected by many variables... the least of which is man made.
1. THE SUN
2. WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere ... clouds,precipitation... see number one for effect on water vaporization
3. OCEAN TEMPS ... see number one for effect on 3
4. VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS ... spewing of matter and gases ... minimal effect of 1 on 4
5. WIND ... see number one for more affect on wind currents
6. POLAR ICE CAPS ... accumulation and dissipation of glacial areas affecting patters of number 5 with a nod to number 1
7. OCEAN CURRENTS mixing and moderating temperatures see numbers 65and3 as relating to number 1
8. MAN ... little or no effect on anything glogal... not even taking up too much space.
So, based on your 60 years of observation, you are noting that climate is changing.
Can you point to any 60 year period in earth’s history when the climate was NOT changing?
Did the Vikings drive SUVs to cause the medieval warming period?
What caused the ice ages, before man was around?
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, fluctuations in solar output have SOMETHING to do with it????
Man has about as much ability to control “climate change” as he does the location of magnetic north, which is also changing and will someday flip completely.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
The hockey stick diagram did not purport to show that climate changes.
Nobody I am aware of has ever even asserted that climate has remained stagnant for any length of time.
The hockey stick diagram purported to demonstrate that increases in human created carbon dioxide emissions (as opposed to natural emmissions from things like forrest fires or volcanic erruptions) correlate to upward movement in average temperature. The notion that human burning of fossil fuels and wood, or great herds of ruminating livestock exert a causal force on weather trends.
Now that you have been properly corrected in your understanding of what the hockey stick was presented as, do you still wish to insist that it was not a bunch of hokey horse hockey?
You left out slight variations in the axial tilt of the planet.
Another factor far outstripping anything humanity can do.
“Climate change” is a convenient fall-back position for global warming alarmists, because the concept is totally elastic.
As many have noted here, global climate changes continuously, over both short term (decades) and long term (eons) time scales.
Nobody espouses “climate stasis” as a description of either reality or an ideal state of affairs climate-wise, but those former warmists who’ve been frustrated by a decade-and-a-half of no discernible global warming can use any dramatic natural phenomenon as an example of “climate change”, and then employ it as a rhetorical stick to beat anyone who doesn’t blame human activity for destroying the natural course of events.
“... definitely seem to be ...”
Pretty sure, then, are you?
Someone should turn in Warman for hate speech.
He's the little Nazi who went after Free Dominion.
Global warming is a hoax.
Open statement to Michael Mann - search for “Trofim Lysenko”.
Its like the difference between qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis.
For Steyn though, it seems to be about calling Mann names.
It makes no difference whether Steyn calls him Warman or Sandusky, calling someone names means you are losing the argument.
I beg to differ -- hoaxes are, generally speaking, harmless pranks intended for laughs. Global Warming/Climate Change (or whatever they call it next) is a scam and a fraud, perpetrated for the purpose of increasing government power and enriching a few well-connected people.
Pic is of a supportive "academic".
It's possible. We have a coloring book that shows, among other things, how Vikings fought dinosaurs.
How many times a day do you post this?
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
THanks for the ping Slings and Arrows.
Having paid attention to climate and weather for 60 years, there definitely seem to be clear changes causing serious problems in some areas.Those must be the areas with the most SUVs, incandescent light bulbs and cow farts.
I was well aware that the “hockey stick” refers to the idea of anthropogentic global warming causing a recent uptic in temperatures which showed up on the graphs as a hockey stick shape. I didn’t think I needed to define it for all the knowledgeable people here. On the other hand there have been some interesting possible anthropogenic effects. For a number of years the particulate air pollution in Europe was drifting down over Africa and was ultimately deemed to be the cause of the major “Sahel” droughts. After Europe cleaned up their chimney stacks, the problem seems to have abated. There was also an interesting effect noted when air traffic was stopped for 3 days after 9/11. A change was noted in evaporation rates in pans used by agricultural scientists. I forget what the implications were, but the affect of missing air traffice pollution was noticed with some surprise.
ping ping ping again
Particulates are heavy so settle to ground and are done. So cleaning-this up is nothing.
CO2 rises and gives up global warming. It is much more insidious. (lulz) There are millions of hi-IQ people here who are complacently lo-IQ when it comes to AlGore style global warming. You can chalk this up to emotions and an emotions-intelligence disconnect
As often as necessary.
However, we do not live in such a universe. We live in a universe where the effect that an increase in man-made CO2 emission can be shown, through rigorous experiment, to have on climate, temperature, or any such thing, is roughly equivalent to the effect a tarot throw has on Michael Mann getting run over by a bus tomorrow.