Slashdot Mirror
Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science
Lasrick writes: Michael Mann writes about the ad hominem attacks on scientists, especially climate scientists, that have become much more frequent over the last few decades. Mann should know: his work as a postdoc on the famed "hockey stick" graph led him to be vilified by Fox News and in the Wall Street Journal. Wealthy interests such as the Scaife Foundation and Koch Industries pressured Penn State University to fire him (they didn't). Right-wing elected officials attempted to have Mann's personal records and emails (and those of other climate scientists) subpoenaed and tried to have the "hockey stick" discredited in the media, despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences reaffirmed the work, and that subsequent reports of the IPCC and the most recent peerreviewed research corroborates it.
Even worse, Mann and his family were targets of death threats. Despite (or perhaps because of) the well-funded and ubiquitous attacks, Mann believes that flat-out climate change denialism is losing favor with the public, and he lays out how and why scientists should engage and not retreat to their labs to conduct research far from the public eye. "We scientists must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the deniers-for-hire. We must be honest as we convey the threat posed by climate change to the public. But we must also be effective. The stakes are simply too great for us to fail to communicate the risks of inaction. The good news is that scientists have truth on their side, and truth will ultimately win out."
Even worse, Mann and his family were targets of death threats. Despite (or perhaps because of) the well-funded and ubiquitous attacks, Mann believes that flat-out climate change denialism is losing favor with the public, and he lays out how and why scientists should engage and not retreat to their labs to conduct research far from the public eye. "We scientists must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the deniers-for-hire. We must be honest as we convey the threat posed by climate change to the public. But we must also be effective. The stakes are simply too great for us to fail to communicate the risks of inaction. The good news is that scientists have truth on their side, and truth will ultimately win out."
Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.
Except they weren't true, as almost all of his cremates have said.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Because people in the know are smart enough to know that 'faux' rhymes with 'know'... not 'fox'.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Stop listening to failed politicians to structure your political arguments.
Now that's some good advice.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Who are these crew mates?
http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/08/05/submerging-the-truth-about-swift-boat-vets-on-h/131593
If you want to talk about science, then show me a tested climate model that has been subjected to an empirical test of its validity.
There are plenty of climate models that have been subjected to an empirical test of validity.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That is interesting, since all of his crew mates I have heard say they are true.
I think you're full of shit. The people who made the accusations were either not part of his crew, or were not present on the missions for which they disputed Kerry's accounts and questioned the basis for the medals he received.
Some of those who did make the accusations flip flopped - they actually praised him, and one officer submitted his name for a Silver Star, before joining the Swiftboat political action group.
I think it's more likely that you just never bothered to get the facts, rather than that you are outright lying, but by all means, post a single shred of evidence for what you claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth
When Arrhenius predicted global warming over 100 years ago, he was not looking at past data. He began with a reasoned hypothesis (burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, therefore burning fossil fuels will cause warming), made his prediction, and we've observed the warming which proves the prediction correct. It's a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You can, oh I dunno, gather more data... Which they do. What the fuxk do you think researchers actually do? They gather data, they refine models, they compare to the data, repeat and rinse.
Not all theories are built as monolithic constructs, and nowhere in science is it a requirement that a theory must be complete (whatever that means) to have utility.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He served for two and half years. How is that "ridiculously short"?
He was also awarded a Bronze Star, Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts.
Are you really denigrating his service? Are you nuts?
Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately.
And, surprise! It does. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction.
Correct. The hypothesis dates back to Arrhenius 1896 http://www.lenntech.com/greenh... The numerical calculation of greenhouse warming due to carbon dioxide was first accurately done using measured value for infrared absorption and numerical integration of the profile was done in 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald-- it's summarized in any reasonable book about atmospheric science (such as the one on my desk at the moment, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, by Liou (1980), p. 188). Calculating the greenhouse effect alone (that is, assuming no change in cloudiness, and constant relative humidity), Manabe and Wetherald showed "a ten percent increase in CO2 concentration (from 300 to 330 ppm) would lead to a warming of 0.3 K." It's a logarithmic response function (Arrhenius calculated that much back in 1895, although he didn't have the data to do the complete numerical integration), so it's easy to extrapolate this to the current carbon dioxide of about 400 ppm. It comes to about 0.8 K increase by their model.
Comparing it to the data, from 1967 on... looks like the experimental result matches the prediction.
Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis.
Nope. The hypothesis dates back to Arrhenius. The detailed calculation dates to Manabe and Wetherald.
In any case, while the measured temperatures are a nice validation that the models are in the right ballpark, there's plenty of other data. You seem to be unaware that there is is a lot of measurements of the atmosphere.
That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.
That's a description of deniers. That's not the way climate science is done.
The reason we believe that the model is more or less accurate is that there are terabytes of data confirming it. The reason we don't believe that alternative models are accurate is that there aren't any. All of the alternative models proposed so far fail when compared against the evidence.
When there's an alternative model that fits the data, believe me, people will pay attention. Many people have looked very hard to come up with an alternative model. So far, no success.
You don't seem to know much about the subject, but this is not one or two scientists doing questionable work and then everybody else saying "oh, they must be right". There are thousands of scientists working on it; supercomputer models built on five different continents; ground, balloon, and satellite measurements, terabytes of data.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1) They have a ton of integrity.
Scientists have as much (or as little) integrity as the next guy. Fortunately the scientific method yields tools for outing the ones who acted with little integrity. Unfortunately, scientists with little integrity tend to move the discussion into into politics before the integrity problem can catch up with them, after which science kinda goes out the window.
Manning stands accused of the latter. Some of his emails focused on how to discredit folks who dispute his findings suggest those accusations have some merit. If you want to keep politics out of science, you simply can't engage on a political level.
The culture determines integrity, and the scientific culture has a ton of integrity.
As for Manning your narrative would imply that he's moved away from the science, but the reality is that he's still heavily involved in the science. Note that people are experts at compartmentalizing, if Manning has in fact shown less integrity in his public relations work (a point I don't concede) there's no reason to believe that's bled over into his research.
2) They're succeed by finding new things and changing the established thinking.
No. Just no. Finding a new way to confirm an old theory is just as successful science as testing a new theory. Finding a way to refute an established theory is highly successful science which rarely happens, and finding the new theory that fits all the data -and- whose predictions survive the test of time is rare genius.
Test of time is important. If you have to incrementally revise the theory as new data comes in, it's not a very solid theory.
That's not quite right.
Incremental revisions to theories are how science happens. You need to read the relativity of wrong.
3) They use the peer review system to enforce rigorous standards.
A theory which, sadly, has been discredited in the past decade or so.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Is it perfect? No.
Do we have a better alternative? No.
I stole this Sig
He was NOT in Vietnam for two and a half years. He was in Vietnam for four months. An typical tour of duty in Vietnam was 1 year.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's ice surface area, which tells you only how spread out the ice is, not how much there is. You need to look at the ice mass, which is declining at an accelerating rate.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Political strategist? His "strategy" is to communicate with the public about science. It's not like he is planning out press releases and talking points and media buys. This is not some Karl Rove or David Plouff.
He's advocating scientists not remain silent. He is standing up for the right for scientists to be part of the conversation. And about how to spot disingenuous arguments. So yeah, this is the wrong time for the "oh stop the politics" argument. Trotting out and attacking Al Gore (as the GP poster did) is exactly the kind of bullshit arguments Mann is warning about.
I think that it is indeed our responsibility collectively, as scientists, to convey the societal implications of our work (Mann, 2014a). Just because we are scientists does not mean that we should check our citizenship at the door of a public meeting. There is nothing inappropriate about drawing on our scientific know-ledge to speak out about the very real implications of our research. As Stephen Schneider used to say, being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. If scientists choose not to engage on matters of policy-relevant science, then we leave a void that will be filled by industry-funded disinformation.
meep
But if you actually saw Climate Change or more specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change as a valid threat, it would appear the answers would be to create a working group with the goals of developing the technology to make existing energy sources cleaner as well as clean alternatives and to make this information available to all parties concerned so they could implement it as it becomes reliable and economically feasible.
Huh? Haven't you noticed all the research that's been put into alternatives like wind and solar that has brought them or will in a short while bring them to grid parity with fossil fuel sources of energy? Also, all the work on battery technology? There's a ton of work going into alternatives and at the rate it's going it's just a matter of time ( 10 years) before they are easily the most cost effective way to produce most energy.
He's suing people that libeled him.
FTFY. Let us know when you denialist trolls are ready to provide superior science, and not the same warmed over rhetorical bullshit you've been serving up by hand for a couple of decades.