NASA has to hope that Curiosity doesn’t find any. This is part of a broader issue. People who want to settle Mars had better hope we don’t find life there, or the biologists and greens will be decrying the “genocide” we might cause by contaminating the planet.
Category Archives: Science And Society
Science Policy
Some thoughts on the Obama/Romney debate.
Michael Mann And Skeptical Science
I wish that this sort of behavior were surprising, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from this gang.
The Upcoming (Non?) Law Suit
Mark Steyn has an amusing update over at The Corner. I find it amusing that some people really think that if it goes forward, it will be like the Scopes trial. I guess that’s how these people really think. It’s of a piece with the nuttiness that skepticism about AGW is on a par with creationism.
One Soul Mate
While it’s a nice romantic notion, the idea that there is just one person for you always struck me as nonsense, because the chances of finding them would be infinitesimal. But the indispensable XKCD actually runs the numbers.
Some Actual Romney Space Policy
Here’s an interesting discussion. I’ll doubtless have a lot more to say about this (I’m pitching Popular Mechanics to do a piece) but for now I’ll just note this:
Focusing NASA
A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs.
If I were an SLS supporter, I’d read those words and mess my pants. There are actually a lot of other interesting, and encouraging tea leaves in it. I think that our educational effort may be starting to pay off.
[Early evening update]
For whatever reason, the link to the “debate” is FUBAR. I hope they’ll fix it, but I have it on another machine, and I’ll repost if I can. But the above is a cut’n’paste from it.
Science As An Ideology
Here’s an excellent example of the lack of self-awareness or irony on the part of social scientists. Unfortunately, too many in the climate “science” community are more social scientists than real ones.
More Thoughts On Mann’s Quixotic Lawsuits
…from James Delingpole:
Mann is going to face similar problems in his legal action against NRO. (Not to mention the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which he is also now threatening to sue). NRO’s defence lawyers are going to demand full disclosure of any number of hitherto private documents which Mann would probably have preferred to remain private. Furthermore, they are going to have the fish-in-a-barrel-style target of Mann’s Hockey Stick which has been so thoroughly rebutted so many times that there is no way on God’s earth Mann will be able to claim, straightfaced, that it retains the merest scintilla of scientific credibility. Ditto the various sham enquiries supposedly clearing the Climategate scientists of wrong-doing: an even half-way decent lawyer is going to make mincemeat of their verdicts.
So why, against all logic and reason, is Mann planning to go ahead with his defamation action?
My bet is that he won’t. But in the unlikely event that he does it will be because:
1. As I argue in Watermelons, the climate alarmist industry is so richly funded that it can easily afford to pursue cases like this.
2. Because this is what happens when you live in a bubble. And the “Climate Science” community is a bubble in much the same way that the Westminster and Washington DC villages are bubbles: these people spend so little time living in the real world that they lose the plot completely. In the weird, weird world of Michael Mann and his fellow climate “scientists”, Climategate was just a case of ordinary decent scientists doing their job, the IPCC remains the gold standard of international climate science, the Hockey Stick is not a standing joke and man-made global warming remains the greatest threat to the planet ever. The facts speak otherwise. But when you’re working in a business as awash with cash as the Climate Change industry, why would you ever let facts get in the way of a good story?
Why indeed? The irony, as always, is that it is the climate scientists, not the skeptics, who are well endowed, financially, and engaged in internal discussions of how to fight their perceived enemies.
On The Mannsuits
Want to split a gut? Read this insane comment over at Judy Curry’s place:
Mann’s strategic rational for the parallel lawsuit is evident, and is based upon the observation CEI and NR published startlingly similar, startlingly abusive, startling ill-judged editorials.
——————-
Mann’s Objective Publicly expose the command-and-control structure of climate-change denialism.
Mann’s Strategy Call witnesses to testify, under oath, regarding the parallel origins of their libelous assertions.
Mann’s Tactics Offer each of CEI and NR a plea-bargain, providing each “peaches” upon the other, regarding denialist marching-orders and astro-turfing operations.
Mann’s Guidance The Code of Omertà is robust at the institutional level of climate-change denialism, yet notoriously flimsy at the individual level. To exploit this weak point, Mann’s legal team will therefore focus legal pressure upon the individuals under whose name the libels were published. In particular, what services has CEI’s staff of 40 provided to denialist bloggers, and to sister institutions such as Heartland?
——————-
Predictions (1) CEI and NR will do all they can to ensure that individuals named in Mann’s suit do not testify under oath … or if they do, that their testimonies are well-rehearsed and carefully coordinated. (2) Conversely, Mann’s team will do all they can to exert pressure upon individual witnesses, in particular by calling multiple witnesses to the stand, and by deposing CEI and NR employees in separate discovery processes.
Question What portion of climate-change denialist prose, nominally originating from private citizens, in fact originates from CEI professional operatives?
I can’t really comment, other than to wonder if Mann himself believes lunacy like this?
The Other Shoe Drops
A press release from CEI:
Penn State Climate Scientist Michael Mann Demands Apology From CEI CEI Refuses to Retract Commentary Washington, D.C., August 24, 2012 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a letter on August 21 from an attorney representing Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann that demands that CEI retract and apologize for a post on CEI’s blog, Openmarket.org, written by CEI adjunct scholar Rand Simberg. The letter also threatens that they “intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”
“The Other Scandal in Unhappy Valley,” the July 13, 2012 blog post at issue, criticized Professor Mann, a climate scientist who is recent years has become a leading advocate in the public debate for global warming alarmism. Mann was the lead author of research that fabricated the infamous hockey stick temperature graph. The hockey stick was featured in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but was dropped in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). E-mails from and to Professor Mann featured prominently in what became known as the Climategate scandal.
In response to the letter from Mann’s attorney, CEI offered the following statements.
Statement by CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:
This week CEI received a letter from Michael Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor, demanding that CEI fully retract and apologize for a July 13th OpenMarket blog post concerning Mann’s work. Shortly after that post was published in mid-July, CEI removed two sentences that it regarded as inappropriate. However, we view the post as a valid commentary on Michael Mann’s research. We reject the claim that this research was closely examined, let alone exonerated, by any of the proceedings listed in Mr. Williams’s letter.
National Review, which earlier got a similar letter from Mann’s attorney, has expertly summed up the matter in a response by the editor and the publication’s attorney.
And regardless of how one views Mann’s work, his threatened lawsuit is directly contrary to First Amendment law regarding public debate over controversial issues. Michael Mann may believe we face a global warming threat, but his actions represent an unfounded attempt to freeze discussion of his views.
In short, we’re not retracting the piece, and we’re not apologizing for it.
Statement by Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment:
Penn State Professor Michael Mann’s lawyer claims that nine investigations of academic fraud have all exonerated Professor Mann. Most of these investigations did not examine Professor Mann’s conduct or even mention him, and Penn State University’s investigation was typical of that institution’s unfortunate tendencies.
The fact that Professor Mann’s hockey stick research is still taken seriously in the public debate is an indication that people haven’t read the Wegman Report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the National Research Council’s report, or the analysis of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Professor Mann’s political advocacy is no more reliable than his scientific research. His recent book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, repeats numerous factual errors, some of them about CEI.
> View the Michael Mann attorney letter.pdf
CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org. Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.
As this is now a legal matter directly involving me, I will have no further comment.