Michael Mann is taking a stand for science.
| Mar/Apr 2013
Excerpt: But to critics like Morano, Mann is a glaring example of someone whose politics have shaped his research and who is spearheading a massive effort to dupe the American people. “The ‘climate con’ to which I refer is a lavishly funded climate machine that is lobbying for laws and uses every bit of data or new study to proclaim ‘it’s worse than we thought’ or we must act now,” Morano wrote in an e-mail. “Man-made global warming fears are a grand political narrative, not science.” Morano, the communications director of the advocacy group CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), has a BA in political science and has worked as a journalist and national television reporter and producer. He continued: “Mann is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with climate science today. He is a hardcore political activist, very thin skinned, does not take criticism well at all, and he surrounds himself within his own little world of supportive warmist activists.”
Mann doesn’t like the word “skeptic” to describe Morano and others campaigning against him. He and other scientists point out that science encourages skepticism, asking pointed questions and looking for evidence again and again. “So much of climate denial comes from ideology,” Mann says, his voice hardening. “If you’re only voicing skepticism about science that goes against your ideology, then that’s not true skepticism.”
Below is reprint of Climate Depot’s publisher Marc Morano’s full written statement sent January 8, 2013 to reporter for Yale article:
Question 1. In reading your climate change comments and blog, I get the sense you consider the theory of climate change as a hoax. Would that be an accurate characterization of your views? If so, who is perpetrating the hoax and to what end?
Morano: No. the “theory of climate change” is not a hoax. The theory is based on the CO2’s greenhouse effect. But studies and data are showing rising Co2’s impact to be dwarfed by the hundreds of of other factors that impact climate. The “climate con” to which I refer to a lavishly funded (through govts, foundations, etc.) climate machine that is lobbying for laws and uses every bit of data or new study to proclaim “it’s worse than we thought” or we must act now. No organization better exemplifies this con than the IPCC itself. It is a purely political organization masquerading as a science body. Man-made global warming fears are a grand political narrative, not science.
When global warming scientists reduce themselves to claiming every weather event, cold, heat, drought, flood, tornado, hurricane, is some sort of ‘new normal’ or ‘consistent with’ their predictions, they cross a line in science and move closer to interpretations of Nostradamus.
Question 2. What role would you say Mike Mann plays in all that?
Morano: Mann is nothing short of one of the key leaders of this movement. As the promoter of his embarrassing “hockey stick” graph and a key leader in the UN IPCC, Mann is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with climate science today. He is a hardcore political activist, very thin skinned, does not take criticism well at all and he surrounds himself within his own little world of supportive warmist activists.
Question 3. What role, if any, do you think politics plays in Mann’s research or any other scientists’ work?
Morano: Politics has a huge role in climate science today. The upper echelon of the UN IPCC includes Kevin Trenberth, Mann, Oppenheimer, Phil Jones, Ben Santer. They all have a vested interest in promoting the cause of climate fears. They support studies that help craft their narrative and denigrate studies and scientists who do not support their climate views. http://testclimate.wpengine.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
Money is also very influential and tied to politics. If a scientist studies butterflies, he may choose to do a modeling “if/then” study on how warmer temps 100 years from now may impact butterflies. His results would most likely have a range of projected temperatures and thus impacts. This butterfly scientist may never even look at the probability temps may rise a certain amount, only on how rising temps could theoretically impact butterflies. The high end of the butterfly impacts would be heralded by his university and a press release may proclaim: ‘Butterflies to face doom in 100 years due to global warming.’ The media would lead with stores about how butterflies are seriously threatened and the University would seek out more grant funding for these types of high profile media enhanced studies.
Now the butterfly scientist did nothing wrong. He did not cook his book, he did not alter data, but he merely engaged in speculation of the climate 100 years out. He took advantage of the state sponsored science of his day, man-made global warming. This butterfly scientist would then be heralded as another member of the alleged ‘consensus’ of scientists despite the fact the he never once would have looked at how CO2 impacts temps.
More on funding here:
Report: Michael Mann has received ‘almost $6 million for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years’: ‘Note also the generally escalating grant amounts in recent years. A lot of that is from the government’s National Science Foundation and NOAA teats’
(End Morano’s complete written statement)