From ABC News:
Some of Mann’s main points and charges in include:
– “New McCarthyism” in US legislature directed at US climate scientists; details
– Death threats, dead rats, scientists’ families threatened.
– Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., campaign has aimed to discredit climate scientists…
– Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, misrepresented Mann’s science
– National Science Foundation and other panels have cleared Mann
– Koch Brothers, Scaife Foundation, involved in fossil fuel efforts to discredit the climate science
– Organized email and letter campaigns have intimidated and silenced climate scientists; details
– Believes intimidation campaigns will fail if “exposed to the light of day”
The political war against scientists has been described as the new McCarthyism because scientists have been so bullied and intimidated, many just do their work and keep their mouths shut. This behavior has been going on for over 10 years. Our own attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli sued for Mann’s emails. He was told he didn’t have standing.
The tobacco industry attempted to silence science for years. The attitudes in Europe are quite different than in the United States, for example. There has been a strong attempt to silence the entire science community who researches changes in climate. I wonder who could be trying to silence them? Hmmmmmmm …the fossil fuel industry? Perhaps.
I am simply not willing to bet the ranch on industry being right and the preponderance of scientific findings being wrong. That just makes no sense and there is only one earth. You screw that up, and there is no place else to go. The bullying and McCarthyism must stop. The use of government to thwart distribution of scientific discovery and discussion is a serious violation of trust and use of taxpayer money.
The entire transcript can be seen at ABC News.
Unbelievable. Should I read your opus to suggest that those nasty Republicans are destroying our climate by preventing Obama’s implementation of Dr. Mann’s suggestions even as this tenured Penn State University professor and director of the liberally (Soros) funded Earth System Science Center at Penn State, also known for his discredited hockey stick projections and his infamous contribution to Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” is now to be admired?
Tenure and credentials when combined with Fame is a dangerous thing. It will take years and years of peer reviewed work before his credibility is restored. Of course, among the more than one thousand emails released on the Internet, in which Mann makes rather controversial comments, he also demonstrated efforts in those e-mails to limit dissent and full and open scientific discussion, including other opinions regarding the history, causuality and relationships is also of concern. He actually got caught doing exactly what you accuse Republicans of trying to do. The use of phoney science or incomplete science and the government to limit dissent in order to achieve policy goals and restructure America is equay dangerous and much more near term.
Its not just about climate change, even Dr Mann acknowledges that there have been cycles, its about the extent of human impact, vice a volcano , sun spots and other variables and the idea that we can sufficiently do anything about it. How many industries are you willing to close and how many people are you willing to put into poverty in order to compensate for just one volcano? But hey, lets not do anything to increase the production of natural gas or hydrogen in the meantime. Lets just shut the coal industry and oil industry down
@Blue
Do you really believe the bull crap you just spewed out?
You missed the main idea. go reread my “opus.”
I have no intention of discussing anything other than the content of the thread. I don’t have a degree in science. What is YOUR degree in? Obviously not climatology.
I have very little sympathy for Mann. He and other AGW proponents like to make the point that the numbers of skeptics and skeptical papers are small compared to proponents. But Mann and his ilk squelch opposing viewpoints by getting skeptical scientists/editors fired and their papers rejected. He may not send dead rats, but his intent, which is to suppress opposing viewpoints, is the same as those he accuses.
Bull crap? What part of this guy is another liberal hero and what part of Republicans are hell bent on stiffling this information and supporting the corporate destruction of the global climate did I miss?
I will ask the question again, how much are you willing to pay now to shut down a questionably small part of the much larger climate change and the even more questionable Mann findings that humans have changed the climate. Remember the 1980s methane scare and the recomendation to stop cow farting to save the planet. How many cars need to be taken off the road today to adjust for the forrest fires out west? BTW whatever happened to the OZONE hole over the poles. I am now sure that it was caused by my aerosole can
Galileo challenged the prevailing orthodoxy of his time and was labeled a “heretic.” Skeptical thinkers who challenge modern day orthodoxy are called the “New McCarthyism” I guess. Any harassment directed toward Michael Mann or anyone (i.e., the rats, death threats) are inexcusable and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Mann has a right to express his views just like anyone else. However, skeptics of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) should have just as much right to express their views without being linked to McCarthyism or any other pejorative label.
None of us commenting on this blog are climate scientists. However, I’ve found that Moonhowlings contributors on many sides of many issues tend to be intelligent people who state their views well. We don’t need a Ph.D. in climatology to raise questions and look for conflicts in the positions people advocate.
As we discussed in a recent thread, skeptics of AGW do not deny that climate is changing. As we discussed earlier, climate has always and will always change. The science is indisputable on that point. The concern arises when someone with a political agenda (anti-capitalists) or profit-seeking agenda (Al Gore and his investment firm) state unequivocally that the change is largely or entirely because of human activity. I do dispute that claim and demand more solid proof before signing on to dramatic changes in how our economy functions. Changes that would make most Americans poorer, while enriching Gore and those in power in countries like China who are exempt from carbon emissions targets.
“The political war against scientists”
Scientists have been bullied and intimidated by Republicans?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Riiiiggghht.
These are the same scientists that get federal funding, have the political backing and power of the EPA, refuse to peer review counter arguments, lie, get political backing from Democrats AND Republicans (McCain? Romney? Gingrich?) There’s been NO attempt to silence them. There HAS been attempts to refute them and make them prove their theories before advocating government programs that will damage the economy and bankrupt industries….and if SUCCESSFUL, will impoverish millions because of slowed economies.
But, the scientists that disagree with the orthodox view get slapped with “denier” and ridicule. Those scientists see funding dry up. Those scientists that speak at universities encounter violent protests and their talks cancelled. Those scientists don’t get published because the journals and magazines know where the money comes from.
Of course Mann is going to feel persecuted. HE’S one of the lying scientists that worked to hide his work. Attempts to get any raw data from him has been treated as either a joke, ignored, or as persecution. Mann’s email history has proven that he distorts science for political gain. That’s why Cuccinelli wanted the emails. Mann was using Virginia money. Cuccinelli wanted to make sure that Mann was not defrauding Virginia like he did elsewhere. Cuccinelli lost and moved on. One lawsuit for emails is NOT political persecution.
This is how Mann reacted to data requests. The man is paranoid about the energy industry. If you disagree with him, you MUST be financed by the oil industry.
Forgot the link, sorry: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/mannhandled-from-data-to-demonization/#more-66886
They don’t seem to like any sort of transparency
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-collusion-of-the-climate-crowd/#more-66980
@kelly_3406
Do you have proof that Mann bullies other scientists? Are you saying he is the bullier trather than the bullee?
Does it matter that most of the science community has evidence of the existence of global warming?
Kelly, do you have a degree in the science field?
It s not about science. It would be nice if it was about science. Rather it is about equality and fairness. Now deep down in your socialist/maoist heart you know this is true. Untill everyone can enjoy the fruits of our planet together – equally, that is — we all have AC, we all have GM produced Volts, we all have clean efficent mass transit, and a chicken in every pot, we need to level the playing field and we do that by rationalizing the equitable distribution of misory. Climate warming is a rational to tax the wealthy by mandating non consumption in order to transfer that wealth to those who have been denied the opportunity to use those resources. Wait, that sounds too familiar.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-collusion-of-the-climate-crowd/#more-66980
It’s not just Mann, personally. It’s the entire, group think, cult like environment of AGW. They’ve hid data, deleted data, and lied to restrict access to their data. They’ve restricted access to journals and magazines.
The “climategate” emails HAVE NOT been discredited and continue to provide evidence of collusion to hide and distort science.
@Need to Know
NTK,
I think it is great that people express their point of view. NO one is arguing that. Scientists don’t all agree. they never have and they never will. However, what is being called McCarthyism is how politians and private citizens have bullied, threatened and harassed those whose discoveries have led them to support some form of global warming. Those who have been outspoken, like Mann, have had their families threatened and other extremist behavior.
When the threats involve government and threaten someone’s livelihood, then it gets pretty much like McCarthyism. However, if you are more conmfortable with calling it the Inquisition, Ok, a rose by any other name.
Studies of climate change are not new. They have been going on for decades. The findings are just getting more serious and more consistent. I think my problem is people with limited knowledge in science have all of a sudden become experts, in their own minds.
I am far from an expert. It is important to hear everyone, including those who propose that the moon is made of green cheese. We can immediately file those people away for future reference as nuts.
@Moon-howler
Please don’t link AGW skeptics to McCarthyism or the green cheese moon crowd. Many, many people of limited knowledge buy into AGW, largely because it’s the politically-correct dogma of the day. Many, many intelligent, well-informed people are skeptics. I’m not an expert on this matter either, in the sense of having a Ph.D. or something. However, I’ve studied it and am not convinced the evidence is strong enough to enact the policies often proposed that would cause considerable harm to the economy and people’s livlihoods.
Let’s make the distinction clear. I am not skeptical that climate change is occurring. Facts are facts. Recall the example I cited in the previous thread about sea level change at Ostia Antica, which anyone can visit and see for themselves. What is not so clear is that all of sudden climate change, that has taken place since the earth’s creation, is mostly or completely attributable to human activity.
Agree completely with you on the harassment regardless of which side it’s coming from and toward whomever it’s directed.
@blue
Blue, all is not equal. Let me prove that point–I do not run a blog for you to come here and call me names like maoist and socialist. I am of an age where those terms are very insulting. In case you don’t understand what I just said, let me put it more blunty:
If you come here and call me or Elena names, or any of our contributors, I will throw your ass off here so fast you will need a wheel barrow to haul it away.
Here’s something that does show man’s effect on the globe AND may be a reason for the apparent AGW. Here’s a good question: Do we leave the temperature gauges where they were first located and are now surrounded by concrete, hot air exhausts, etc., or move them? In either case, how do we use them for accurate measurements for anything other than strictly local and immediate measurements? Is it even possible to extrapolate to a larger area from single position measurements?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/impact-on-temperature-measurement-cities-expand-by-area-equal-to-france-germany-and-spain-combined-in-less-than-20-years/
That is a lot of expansion.
@Need to Know
Many thinking rational people who have not had multiple science courses in high school or college know that the weather and climate have changed. They notice more extreme weather and they notice things like leaves changing 3 weeks later than several decades ago. They know that the last frost day is much earlier. They notice their zone has changed on the back of seed packages.
I most certainly will talk about bullying scientists in terms of McCarthyism. I will also refer to the green cheese crowd that somehow are proud of the fact that they are anti-intellectual. I have dealt with many of those over the years.
I am amazed at how many people have turned the thread into support of specific theory rather than being about bullying scientists. It really is an attempt to silence people who have dedicated years of their lives to scientific endeavors, simply because some don’t want to agree. It is no different than the Inquisition–the Church was the real government back in those days.
Politicians do not have the right to use my money to bully. I don’t care who publishes an opinion. I glanced over a serious paper on dinosaur extinction because of their dino gas. You know, those people had as much right to speak as the next guy. They didn’t have the right bully or be bullied. That is the problem.
I have a right to go listen to a lecture on climate change, or stand in line to go see Gore’s movie without being bullied, being called a maoist, a communist or snickered at. I have never done those things but I have a right to do them if I want.
Not everything has to be political. It could be something as simple as whether you have to wear a coat on Halloween or not. 30 years ago you did. Now you don’t.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, I have never seen proof of that. All scientists are competitive. Frankly, Even if Mann personally did those things, how about the other 1000 studies that pretty much bear out the same results?
I am not going to debate the science. You and I neither one have the credentials. We do have the credentials to discuss appropriate behavior though. Sending dead rats and threatening people isn’t appropriate either.
NTW regarding the sea level change at Ostia Antica–refresh my memory why is this important to the issue of climate change. I just don’t remember what you said.
I don’t necessarily want to adopt life altering changes either. I don’t mind incremental changes over time that help the planet sustain attributes.
I don’t know why anyone things that burning fossil fuels won’t eventually impact the earth. Just look at what a volcanic erruption does to the weather patterns.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, I have a problem with you providing same source all the time. I don’t mean I mind if you put it on the blog…I just don’t consider it a very reliable source. It hasn’t convinced me.
We all know that dude has a goal of disputing climate change. It isn’t like he makes a new discovery.
I hate science going political.
“Just look at what a volcanic erruption does to the weather patterns.”
Then we need only to have the Government regulate volcanoes to save us.
Speak to the Lord or Mother Earth about the volcanoes.
Thanks for your help today.
Moon,
I wonder what it will take to convince people global warming is real. I wonder if a study funded by a well know uber conservative would be sufficient? Oh, wait, there IS such a study.
Now, I know the “scientists” on this blog like Blue, will claim the CS monitor is a liberal rag, but alas, it is not.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
Marinm,
Do you really think you are smarter than an astrophysicist or a nobel peace prize winner? Don’t you think that those variables (i.e. volcanos and solar sun flares) are taken into consideration when they study the complexity of global warming? Seriously, do you believe there is a global conspiracy?
Blue,
Let me enlighten you for a brief moment. We can all make small changes in our lives that DO make a difference. We can improve our air conditioning units to be more efficient. My mom did, and although she initially invest a few thousand dollars above the cheapest fix, she has more than made her money back in conservation. See, you don’t spend what you don’t use, I know, you may not understand this idea, being the only true capitalist on the blog, but it is food for thought.
When a power line was coming through the western end of the county, it was truly striking to me how uber conservative republicans were suddenly up PEC’s butt trying, working with them to stop Dominion Power from destroying their neighborhoods with giant power lines. Then conservation was a solution to “evil greedy” power companies! I wonder if you remember that event.
Elena, it sounds like you may know Blue.
@Moon-howler
I use Watt’s because he is a good aggregate. And he uses science to back up his statements. AND has open comments so if someone disagrees..they can refute his statements. And has links to supporting AND refuting data.
The other works are based on the same premises, use the same computer models, and a lot of them, all use Mann’s data and others like him. Since they are working with the same premises, they come to the same interpretation and conclusions. It doesn’t mean that they are right or that their “solutions” have any basis in reality. In this case, THEY are the Church and the skeptics are Galileo.
Any source that I use would not meet your approval since those sources would “have an agenda” to disprove AGW. Instead of dismissing it as political, how much time have you spend actually reading the posts there?
The discussions in the comments are priceless in developing the topics, providing more links and data, and refuting not just AGW, but other anti-AGW statements.
I’m done with this topic since, in order to discuss this so-called McCarthyism, I would have to cover the entire controversy surrounding who has been doing what to whom, and when, and the links. All without using sources that you don’t find credible because they might be “politically motivated,” unlike, of course, the AGW warmists that don’t have a political bone in their bodies….pay no attention to the government funding behind the curtain.
Have there been threats? Perhaps. If so, I hope those people get pounded. But I think that this is an example of Mann, in front of a sympathetic interviewer, for a sympathetic audience, pushing book sales. Mann whines about persecution if he’s asked to document his SCIENTIFIC findings, much less anything else.
But if you know what “side” he is on why bother to go. I know what “side” he is on. So why bother to read.
It is like hunting for someone to tell me what I want to hear.
It really is about appropriate behavior. You sound like you have drunken the kool aid, Cargo. I know how I have felt even mentioning global warming and man contributing to it. It shouldn’t be silenced by bullies.
It isn’t about agreeing with Mann. He is but one person–one person in ten thousand or so. If we disagree with someone, it seems to be the order of the day to go bullying them into stopping the behavior. It doesn’t take many. Look at abortion providers. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Eric Cantor. That behavior is unacceptable.
@Elena
The reason that we are skeptics is because some of the “climate scientists” are NOT taking things into effect and ARE making pronouncement based only upon CO2. Scientists can’t agree on the degree of effect that CO2 has on the environment, whether it caused previous global warming or tracked it, or whether the “greenhouse” effect actually works on a planetary scale. They can’t agree on the cause, effect, or role of clouds on warming or whether clouds counteract any increased warming through greenhouse gases. Now, there’s disagreement on whether the planet is warming at all. The Sun’s activity has changed. How does that affect things?
When we see these experts make ludicrous predictions that fail time after time after time, and are told that those making the predictions are experts, only to find out later that said experts don’t even have credentials in the physical sciences, much less climate.
And yet, we’re supposed to implement their solutions that would drastically affect our current world in bad ways to fix a problem that a) may not be solvable B) may not be a problem or c) said solution does not do anything anyway…even if its 100% successfully implemented.
Its not that we think that we are “smarter” or more informed that scientists. Its that we’ve been fed BS by these scientists for two decades and are tired of the taste.
Cargo, you realize that scientific theory is always being tweaked. That’s just the nature of science, to build on new information.
This is all an outgrowth of the negativity towards environmentalists and environmental studies.
Tell me, do you think that running your car in a garage for hours is a good idea? Of course you don’t. You know from warnings since childhood that you will die if you stay in the garage.Why do you think running millions of cars and coal plants would be a good idea them, taking it to a macro level? It just sounds like a bad idea.
Why did our athletes have to get off the plane with oxygen masks when they went to Bejhing for the last Olympics? The Chinese don’t give a rat’s ass about pollution or the atmosphere and never have. Many countries don’t care at all. Our job is to make them care. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
I really don’t care what people believe in. You know you can’t breath smog. I don’t really see what the argument is.
@Elena
I think if you spent less time writing and more time listening to what were saying you’d find that we actually agree more than you think.
I read what you write. thus the subsequent responses. Where do we agree? I love agreement, agreement makes me happy.
Yeah Cargo, who wants to SAVE money AND have cleaner air and water. What a bunch of “tools” we are to fall for that stupidity!
See…this is exactly what I’ve been saying.
You are implying that we are against conserving energy and a clean environment when I said EXACTLY the opposite in no uncertain terms. Nowhere in my reply to you mentioned pollution. Nowhere did I imply or state that we should not examine science. We were discussion global warming…not pollution. Please, tell me more about how any of the AGW policies will SAVE money. Will it save money by making energy more expensive and raising taxes? Will they save money by making 3rd world development less likely? Upgrading technology is not the same thing. Penalizing the oil industry for not mixing their fuel with NON-EXISTENT additives is supposed to save money? To quote Obama, “it will make energy costs necessarily skyrocket.”
The policies that I was talking about are such things like the idiotic Kyoto Protocol and the Carbon Market, and carbon taxes. The restriction of development of gas energy sources. Which, actually, if those efforts had been successful, we’d have MORE CO2…US output of CO2 has dropped to 1992 levels due to our poor economy and the use of natural gas instead of coal. But the environmentalists want to stop the gas development too.
So, I agree with you. We should save money and clean the environment.
Global warming comes from pollution, if global warming exists, which I think it probably does.
At this point I dont care why we reduce pollution, green house gases, or whatever you want to call it. Lt’s just do it becaue it makes for a better environment. I don’t want to start driving big V8 engines on cars again just to prove global warming doesn’t exist. I don’t want to go back to coal based plants now. Yes, we will have some but let’s not think it is a good thing. Who has ever been in a house that was coal heated? Anyone who ever lived in one knows why its a bad idea.
How many times do I have to say here that I agree that the climate is changing? I thought I was clear in this thread and the earlier one on that matter. Again – I do not disagree that the earth’s climate is changing, as it always has and always will. Frost is coming earlier, etc., etc. A is A, day is day; objective reality can’t be disputed.
My skepticism is of AGW, not the fact that climate is changing.
I think one very interesting fact to consider is that many of the records being broken are from the 1930s, in particular 1930. At that time, strings of 100+ degree days were occuring as they are now. We experienced severe drought, which combined with removing top soil during farming led to the dust bowl. The agricultural crisis was one of the factors causing the Great Depression. We’re experiencing similar conditions now. That, and many other facts often ignored by AGW scientists argue for climate change being driven more by cyclical factors than single ones such as human activity.
By the way, I own a copy of Gore’s film and have watched it carefully. I’m not going to criticize someone’s views without giving them a fair hearing first. That’s why I’ve not commented directly on Dr. Mann’s views. I’ve not studied anything he has to say. I do oppose vehemently the harassment he has suffered.
Sorry, correction, frost is coming later in the fall and ending sooner in the spring.
@Moon-howler
1. Yes. Mann is a bully.
2. Yes. There is modest warming, but the big question is attribution. Natural variability is likely to dominate over AGW for decades, providing ample time to develop a better understanding of feedbacks which are necessary to get large warming.
3. Yes.
@Moon-howler
Ostia Antica is an area of Roman ruins in Italy. It was Rome’s main seaport. It now lies three kilometers from the sea. It’s a fascinating place to visit and I urge anyone with an interest in history and/or climate change to visit.
That fact is that global climate change (freezing of water into ice packs, the poles, etc.) has caused sea level to recede three kilometers from where it was in Roman times. In geological time, that’s just a blink of an eye. There is no way possible that human activity could have had anything to do with this because most of the sea level change occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution.
The fact is that climate is in constant flux. No debate, no argument. Evidence that human factors, which could have only played even a minor role beginning with the Industrial Revolution, is not conclusive. From what I see, natural, cyclical factors are much more likely causes – Ostia Antica, global warming in the 1930s, etc.
We agree that there is something called “global warming” and that man MAY be a factor in it. Where we disagree is to the extent that we should do something about it, if anything, and how we measure success or failure.
Again, not too long ago people said the Earth would be uninhabitable because of “global warming” in 2006. That has not come to pass. Those were some of the same scientests that you pose full faith in. So, what happened?
No one here says they are pro-pollution but the one question y’all can’t answer — and it ought to be a simple question if the science is settled – is how much pollution is too much? If Earth can only maintain the lives of (example) 5 billion people — whats the remedy? So, even if we concede that pumping oil into the oceans is a “bad” thing.. How much is too much? What does the data tell us?
NTK, you are more travelled than I. Are you familiar with this area?
http://www.sciencecodex.com/earth_karakoram_glaciers_buck_global_regional_trends-94638
Alexandria, VA – Resting in the Karakoram Range between northern Pakistan and western China, the Karakoram glaciers are stumping climate scientists and Associated Press journalists declaring a localized heat wave is proof of global warming.
Unlike many mountain glaciers, the Karakoram glaciers, which account for 3 percent of the total ice-covered area in the world outside Greenland and Antarctica, are not shrinking.
@marinm
I’m not familiar with that, but your link is interesting. I have never been to the Middle East and have no desire to go, except maybe Israel and the Holy Land at some point – too much craziness going on there. Most of my travel has been in Europe and Africa, with a few visits to Latin America and Asia.
Marinm, who said the Earth would be uninhabitable by 2006?
@Elena
Good question. The Mayans said we have until this December 21!!! Who tried to short-change us by six years? 🙂
Also, I have copies of “2012,” which I plan to watch on December 21 while drinking a glass of good Bourbon, “The Day After Tomorrow,” and Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” which borrowed (stole?) special effects scenes from the aforementioned “The Day After Tomorrow.”
I’ve always enjoyed fictional disaster movies like these three, and others.
Ok, STOP WITH THE AGW STUFF. We aren’t talking about that. AGW is now a trigger. It has become conservative speak for shutting down conversation about a serious subject. The minute its out there, all thinking seems to vanish and minds go on auto pilot and start quoting the party line.
Not one of you all told your buddy in thought that it is unacceptable to come on here and call me a communist and a maoist. Not a single one of you! Shame on you! I have 60,000 of my generation lying in graves somewhere because of slime bags like Mao. Yes, its offensive.
There is a perfect example of bullying right there. Blue, you made my point.
And not one of you all took offense on my behalf.
I take it I have to throw my education out the window and stop all rational thought to not get called names on my own blog? Names I find highly offensive.
@Moon-howler
Moon, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are not a communist or Maoist. That’s an absurd allegation and I didn’t give it a second thought, much less feel the need to comment. Moreover, of all the people I know, you are one of those least in need my help to defend themself.
Now, about the AGW . . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17701677
Very interesting research on the Karakoram Range. It sounds as though the ability to study all these areas is quite challenging. The article I found was very informative and made no conclusions except that this particular area, unlike others, has gained a nominal amount of ice while others have lost.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-3.html
I stood up for you Moon 🙂
@kelly_3406
Kelly, why do you say Mann is a bully? Is it because he has sent dead rats to himself? Has he said something you don’t like?
Why is he your personal enemy?
Do you suppose you would have felt the same way about Pete Seeger during the McCarthy rein of terror? I think he might have really been a communist at one time and then drifted away from it. Should he have been blackballed and bullied?
Did you see my question asking if you had a science degree? I do not.
@Need to Know
The fact that I own “the keys to the church” is irrelevant. There should be a principle involved here. Why is it that Elena is the only one who came to my defense? You all had to know that I would find that horribly offensive. Knowing that I can defend myself isn’t the issue. You conservatives need to start policing your own ranks. When someone pretends like they don’t hear or see bad behavior, then they get covered with the stench. It is what I have been talking about with the mistreatment of certain women on the dark screen. If you don’t speak out against that behavior, then you have a real stench in your own political party.
I recall defending Cargo over the weekend. It wasn’t even something I agreed with him.
AGW is now a trigger word. Let’s talk about what’s actually going on, not the conservative talking points. Let’s talk about pollution and what it does to the planet.
Let’s talk about bullying and how we treat those with whom we disagree. Can we all agree that sending them dead rats is probably a little on the crass side?
I am waitiing to hear why Kelly feels Mann is a bully and anxiously await the proof.
I don’t have a political party. I have that up a long time ago.
@Cargosquid
Suing UVA for his emails is pretty much persecution in my book. It didn’t work either. That should tell you right off the bat something wasn’t right.
Why should any scientist be sued? Why should any scientist be required to turn over his email or private mail.
I am appalled listening to you all. You are circling in the water like sharks drawn to blood.
This is off the point of the post, but it hasn’t stopped anyone else!
Even if you don’t believe consuming fossil fuels harm the plant, you have to believe that the fuel isn’t unlimited and will eventually be depleted. With that in mind why not concentrate on developing alternatives like solar solutions. When the sun burns out, we’ve pretty much had it anyway! So get off who’s right or wrong and get behind alternatives.
@Bear, eventually this will have to be done. So much for the idea of renewable energy here on this blog. You make an excellent point. What will they do when it runs out.
What do you deniers think happens to all the fossil fuel emissions? What do they do? Ar ethey sucked up by the clouds or what?
Welcome Spider! Good question.
Spider, you’re a breath of fresh air (sorry for the pun!
We don’t have enough plants to convert co2 from burning fossil fuel to oxygen so
According to the theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun’s energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum.
Bear, How are things up your way? Much opposition to the concept that climate change might be a real thing?
How do they feel about pollution up there? I was thinking “plants” meant like buildings that process stuff rather than meaning not animal or mineral. LOL. Oopps.
Thanks for your input.
@Moon-howler
I doubt that he sent dead rats to anyone, but he tries to suppress opposing research. You can see this from his emails that were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. Plus I know some people familiar with the IPCC process.
Yes. I do have a science degree.
@Kelly
In which field and do you work in the field?
ie–I never worked a day in the field of my major, although I pulled on it if that makes sense.
I am not sure how a person can try to suppress other research on a wide scale basis. At what point do we cross the line between normal competition and bullying?
I think I would have to see a few examples.
Here is my problem…Mann might be a nasty little POS to work for/with/around/near. There are 10,000 other studies that pretty much support the same ideas Mann does. Mann is but one tiny piece in a puzzle. I am saying Mann the person is really irrelevant. He is just more vocal, has won more awards and generally has more notoriety.
People probably felt the same way about Einstein and Oppenheimer had his own set of detractors, just to name a few.