Penn State scientist threatens legal action over Sandusky comparison

[donsutherland1]

Politico.com reported:

Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”

The charged reference to Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former assistant coach, originated with a July 13 post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog, OpenMarket.org. The National Review Online post quoted from a now-deleted line by CEI’s Rand Simberg, who wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

The full Politico.com article can be found at: http://www.politico....l#ixzz21XyALj00

IMO, the attacks on the character of climate scientists by some of the blogosphere's loudest critics of the scientific basis for AGW are revealing. They highlight the lack credible and sufficient evidence available to undermine the scientific understanding of climate change. The critics have no mechanism or explanation for the observed changes in climate, particularly the divergence of global temperatures from the natural forcings and oceanic cycles. Their hypotheses are little more than superficial speculation. Hence, they evade and even attack the time-honored and rigorous peer review process. Absent such a mechanism or explanation, the basis of their counterarguments is in shambles.

Now, it appears that some of those critics have embarked on a path of last resort in an "ends justify the means" scorched earth campaign. Blog posts such as Mr. Simberg's and Mr. Steyn's seek to delegitimize the scientific understanding of climate change, not through evidence that those bloggers lack, but through delegitimization in the form of diversions such as name-calling, labeling, guilt-by-association, and attacks on the personal character of those engaged in the climate research field.

Dr. Mann's willingness to combat those efforts aimed at his character are both welcome and necessary. They are welcome, as their success would increase prospects of shifting the discussion back to the science. They are necessary, as an unwillingness or inability to combat the delegitimization efforts would only invite more such efforts.

[WeatherRusty]

This type of slander is nothing new. it has been going on for decades as part of the denier's playbook. Defamation of climate scientists is the tactic represented by 'climategate'. The very reason climate scientists have been reluctant to fork over research details to skeptics, is they know who they are dealing with and how they will try to use the information to carry out a premeditated attack.

The skeptic don't ask for detail in an effort to advance the science. They ask for it in order to facilitate the destruction of public confidence in the science.

The scientists can't win however, if they deny access to the skeptics, they are accused of covering up a scandal.

[ben4vols]

Politico.com reported:“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Geez. While the analogy may fit this persons view of Mann's work, it is a crude way to portray it. I agree though, Mann has done a disservice to the scientific field.

[ben4vols]

This type of slander is nothing new. it has been going on for decades as part of the denier's playbook. Defamation of climate scientists is the tactic represented by 'climategate'. The very reason climate scientists have been reluctant to fork over research details to skeptics, is they know who they are dealing with and how they will try to use the information to carry out a premeditated attack.

The skeptic don't ask for detail in an effort to advance the science. They ask for it in order to facilitate the destruction of public confidence in the science.

The scientists can't win however, if they deny access to the skeptics, they are accused of covering up a scandal.

Really? So the opposite cannot be said of the other side? People from both sides of this debate have done what you describe. It's akin to one political party accusing the other of slinging mud.

[LocoAko]

Really? So the opposite cannot be said of the other side? People from both sides of this debate have done what you describe. It's akin to one political party accusing the other of slinging mud.

Name climate scientists who have made slanderous comments about others akin to this or issued death threats against skeptics. Thanks.

[tamarack]

This type of slander is nothing new. it has been going on for decades as part of the denier's playbook. Defamation of climate scientists is the tactic represented by 'climategate'. The very reason climate scientists have been reluctant to fork over research details to skeptics, is they know who they are dealing with and how they will try to use the information to carry out a premeditated attack.

The skeptic don't ask for detail in an effort to advance the science. They ask for it in order to facilitate the destruction of public confidence in the science.

The scientists can't win however, if they deny access to the skeptics, they are accused of covering up a scandal.

These two terms are often conflated, unfortunately IMO, thus tarring some people who may not deserve it. To me, a skeptic is one who accepts the physics, but who has some issues with how that is applied to climate science, positive/negative feedbacks, and so forth. More than that, the "honest" skeptic usually thinks that our knowledge of AGW (and of other warming or cooling influences) remains fairly imprecise, that we're a lot more sure of trends than we are of magnitudes.

Of course, that's only my opinion. I also think that conflating Mann with Sandusky is a slimeball tactic.

[WeatherRusty]

These two terms are often conflated, unfortunately IMO, thus tarring some people who may not deserve it. To me, a skeptic is one who accepts the physics, but who has some issues with how that is applied to climate science, positive/negative feedbacks, and so forth. More than that, the "honest" skeptic usually thinks that our knowledge of AGW (and of other warming or cooling influences) remains fairly imprecise, that we're a lot more sure of trends than we are of magnitudes.

Of course, that's only my opinion. I also think that conflating Mann with Sandusky is a slimeball tactic.

The skeptics and denier's I am speaking of are not honest folk like you. You are intellectally curious and ask only that the science be understood as clearly and accurately as possible.

The people I speak of are ideologically motivated more so than they are seeking scientific accuracy and integrity. They work their influence at the professional level and seek to drive the public discourse.

Be skeptical for reasons of scientific completeness, that's fine and is a necessary quality to hold if the goal is the advancement of science. We are dealing with a high order of denialism which which seeks only to obfuscate.

[ben4vols]

he hasn't done anything of the sort. please keep your crap out of this thread. thanks.

Of course he hasn't in your eyes. He has done many good things for the politics of AGW but at what cost?

[ben4vols]

Name climate scientists who have made slanderous comments about others akin to this or issued death threats against skeptics. Thanks.

I don't think Simberg was a climate scientist. In the past I've gone through the list of insults and attacks from those that support AGW. It happens on both sides and for one side to cry foul is laughable.

[WxMidwest]

It's a lame comment. You can't compare Mann to "Sandusky", but one cannot also compare AGW deniers to "Holocaust Deniers".

Neither of these polarized political comments should be consideered as logical arguments.

[ben4vols]

this has nothing to do with this topic. take your political nonsense to AP, please.

Why didn't you say the same to LocoAko? "Which couldn't possibly be because the Republican mainstream has completely isolated them with anti-science beliefs, right?" Your hypocrisy is not surprising.

[bluewave]

A typical lefty answer if they don't like what you say they say go away. The fact remains thet 80% of these people are liberal democrats and they want to limit our energy production and have government telling us what to do and what is best for us. How many of us want to pay alot more for heating oil gasoline etc. There's got to be a better solution then just limit our energy use and prodution which will send us into a full scale depression!

I think that you are talking about two different things. The science of AGW isn't political but the policy response

debate has certainly become politicized. I think it's reasonable for people to disagree on what the best steps

should be to reduce emissions but not on the basic science. Even Hansen came out against cap and trade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html

[WxMidwest]

straw man alert: no one is considering this to be a "logical argument".

It's called pointing out the fallacy of extremes. Pretty straight forward for most... straw man, not so much..

[easternsnowman]

I think that you are talking about two different things. The science of AGW isn't political but the policy response

debate has certainly become politicized. I think it's reasonable for people to disagree on what the best steps

should be to reduce emissions but not on the basic science. Even Hansen came out against cap and trade.

http://www.nytimes.c...n/07hansen.html

You seem quite reasonable on this I'm only saying that if it's as bad as they say then we must come up with a way to cool off the atmosphere and oceans to to balance out the greenhouse gases.

[QVectorman]

Remember libs can't back up there assertions they just want to deny their agenda and tell us to shut up.

Agreed! And AGW has become political. If you deny that then you are blind to the obvious. There is no way you can look at the research done and say that either side hasn't been influence at some level or another.

[nflwxman]

Agreed! And AGW has become political. If you deny that then you are blind to the obvious. There is no way you can look at the research done and say that either side hasn't been influence at some level or another.

Yes, this issue is political. However, it's the POLICY of AGW that is political in this county, NOT the science. That being said, this is a board created for science minded people. Science minded people should know better than to spout off generalizations; "liberal this! conservative that." Really, who cares!?! We all know politics is not black and white. I hope I don't come off sounding demeaning by stating we should all be smarter than resorting to nonsensical political talking points.

[QVectorman]

show me where the research is tainted--links to specific pieces of science.

Rupp/Mote et al. is the first one that comes to mind. with the quote

“extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s" That statement and data has been refuted multiple times in the past several weeks since being posted on the NOAA site. It's a obvious error and using data manipulation. What other purpose would it serve to make such a claim when scientifically it's not supported by the actual data.

[WeatherRusty]

Agreed! And AGW has become political. If you deny that then you are blind to the obvious. There is no way you can look at the research done and say that either side hasn't been influence at some level or another.

What is political about recognizing the threat for globally averaged temperature to rise several degrees? If we do recognize that threat should we just ignore it?

[QVectorman]

What is political about recognizing the threat for globally averaged temperature to rise several degrees? If we do recognize that threat should we just ignore it?

Umm...media creating mass hysteria attributing everything to AGW...rain funnels on CBS , drought, warm winter. All this can be explained by teleconnections. Creating public demand for carbon taxes, higher gas prices, promoting electric cars and energy efficient light bulbs all pushed for by large corporations with lobbying groups.

[WeatherRusty]

Umm...media creating mass hysteria attributing everything to AGW...rain funnels on CBS , drought, warm winter. All this can be explained by teleconnections. Creating public demand for carbon taxes, higher gas prices, promoting electric cars and energy efficient light bulbs all pushed for by large corporations with lobbying groups.

Nice deflection, but you did not answer my questions? I am asking you what is political in the scientific recognition of the threat posed by AGW? The media do not do scientific research. Are you implying the science is corrupt or that the media gets the story wrong?

[beneficii]

Geez. While the analogy may fit this persons view of Mann's work, it is a crude way to portray it. I agree though, Mann has done a disservice to the scientific field.

In other words, you agree with the substance of the comparison.

[donsutherland1]

Here's the way I see the delineation between science and politics:

Science:

World is warming; observed warming is increasingly the result of anthropogenic forcings; evidence for such a conclusion; levels of uncertainty exist e.g., feebacks.

Politics/Policy:

- Given the science, what should be done?

- Factors such as the national interest, competing political interests (economic, social, national security), fiscal constraints, long-and short-term tradeoffs and considerations, domestic sentiment, etc. would shape the policy response

- Policy approaches could include a wide range of alternatives (taxes and not necessarily a carbon tax? cap-and-trade modeled after the initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide? investment? public-private strategic partnerships? Apollo- or Manhattan-style project? Joint effort with other sovereign states? Carbon emissions reductions rules leaving it to energy providers to innovate or find ways to meet declining emissions allowances? geoengineering R&D? other?)

Given the above, my view is that an honest political argument would include one that favors policy action or one that opposes it. Any honest opposing argument would be based on some articulation of other priorities/interests/calculations/lack of public support, etc. In contrast, a policy argument that states that nothing should be done, because either no AGW is taking place or scientific understanding is poor, is not an honest one. The general scientific understanding is both broad and good, even as some more modest uncertainties remain to be resolved.

Unfortunately, in the public discourse (especially in the blogosphere), the delineation between climate science and politics related to responding to climate change have all too frequently been erased.

[QVectorman]

Nice deflection, but you did not answer my questions? I am asking you what is political in the scientific recognition of the threat posed by AGW? The media do not do scientific research. Are you implying the science is corrupt or that the media gets the story wrong?

I just gave you an example in my post to wx trix. Misconstruging data to back up/generate an alarming statement

[PhillipS]

Rupp/Mote et al. is the first one that comes to mind. with the quote

“extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s" That statement and data has been refuted multiple times in the past several weeks since being posted on the NOAA site. It's a obvious error and using data manipulation. What other purpose would it serve to make such a claim when scientifically it's not supported by the actual data.

Where was it refuted? Links please, not just unsupported claims.

[phlwx]

Where was it refuted? Links please, not just unsupported claims.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/07/texas-tall-tales-and-global-warming.html

I guess Cliff, who isn't exactly a AGW skeptic, is unsupported.

[PhillipS]

http://cliffmass.blo...al-warming.html

I guess Cliff, who isn't exactly a AGW skeptic, is unsupported.

That's not a refutation - that's a blog post. As we've all seen with WUWT, bloggers can make things up to their heart's content and post it without consequence. Even if he's honest that doesn't mean he's right and NOAA's wrong.

[QVectorman]

That's not a refutation - that's a blog post. As we've all seen with WUWT, bloggers can make things up to their heart's content and post it without consequence. Even if he's honest that doesn't mean he's right and NOAA's wrong.

Actual observations show the temperatures over Texas have warmed by a few tenths of a degree C since the mid-1960s, while the GCM model used by Rupp/Mote et al had major warming (1.5-2 C)....the model is inaccurate. Pretty simple argument. Plus, the GCM couldn't account for cooling that has taken place at several points in time. And they did not factor in AMO and PDO into their year selection. There is nothing "made up" in any of those statements.

[ben4vols]

first, plenty of scientists get money from coal/oil/gas companies. why don't you people ever rail against their influence? they control the agenda of the GSA meeting to the point that only a few panels on AGW are permitted. where is all of the complaining about the suppression of science at those meetings.

second, facts don't have politics. AGW is not a political issues--it is a scientific issue.

again, if you have nothing factual or sensible to add to this discussion, please go away.

AGW is not a political issue? Who is paying for all of these 'non-biased' studies?

LINK

Physiology: “Abrupt environmental changes can put natural populations at risk of extinction. The project will show to what extent individuals can compensate for temperature changes and thereby render populations resilient to climate change. This research will make theoretical advances and improve the power to predict impacts of future climate change.” ($370,000)

Civil Engineering: “This project will develop innovative light gauge steel roofing systems with considerably increased wind resistance and reliable design rules for cold-formed steel codes worldwide. It will contribute to the Australian government’s goal of increasing building resilience against future extreme and more frequent wind events caused byclimate change.” ($320,000)

Public Health and Health Sciences: “This study will investigate the effects of extreme heat, increasing temperatures and consequences of climate change, on the population health of rural communities in South Australia. Findings will inform adaptation strategies to prevent an increase in heat-associated and climate change-associated morbidity and mortality in rural areas.” ($122,000 – 2 years)

Political Science: “Commonsense says that claims about how social and political life ought to be arranged must not make infeasible demands. This project will investigate this piece of commonsense and explore its implications for a number of pressing issues, such asclimate change, multiculturalism, political participation, inequality, historical justice, and the rules of war.” ($408,587)

Sociology: “We know very little about the ways food security is governed in Australia. This study – the first social-science based study of food security in the nation -will allow us to understand how a multiplicity of agencies come together to ensure the delivery of food, especially at a time of climate change impacts.” ($100,000 – 2 years)

Psychology: “Climate change represents a moral challenge to humanity, and one that elicits high levels of emotion. This project examines how emotions and morality influence how people send and receive messages about climate change, and does so with an eye to developing concrete and do-able strategies for positive change.” ($197,302)

Journalism and Professional Writing: “This project will examine the use of news management or ‘spin’ by Australian governments. Is it a legitimate tool of government in the face of a hyper-adversarial news media or a technique which undermines democracy? It will examine ‘spin’ in connection with policies on climate change, economic policy, indigenous policy and asylum seekers policy.” ($95,000)

Literary Studies: “The project will devise and develop a new ‘cultural materialist’ paradigm for science fiction studies and apply it to a case study of science fictional representations of catastrophe, especially nuclear war, plague and extreme climate change.” ($239,000)

Historical Studies: “This project will produce a comprehensive new biography of H.V. Evatt, High Court judge, minister in the 1940s, President of the United Nations General Assembly and leader of the Australian Labor Party opposition during the 1950s. Evatt’s life resonates with modern challenges both of liberty in a time of terror, and of internationalism in a time of global warming.” ($185,000)

[winterymix]

...All this can be explained by teleconnections...

If so, why have the recent La Ninas failed to have the expected global cooling effects?

[donsutherland1]

AGW is not a political issue? Who is paying for all of these 'non-biased' studies?

LINK

[/size][/font][/color]

Providing funding to study the various impacts of climate change on human society is not necessarily political, unless financing human efforts to adapt to change in general is solely a political exercise. What would be political is if governmental bodies were dictating the conclusions to climate scientists. Instead, the funding for impacts is based on the conclusions already reached by climate scientists.