Dec
Michael Mann’s WSJ Letter to the Editor:
Science Must Be Unpolluted by Politics
A Letter to the Editor appears in the Wall Street Journal today, from none other than the infamous Michael “Climategate” Mann. We especially like the Editors note at the bottom.
In his Dec. 18 op-ed “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus,” Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute falsely claims that work by him (and other fossil-fuel-funded climate change contrarians) has been unfairly blocked by me and others from appearing in mainstream science journals because the peer review process is supposedly biased against climate science deniers.
In truth, the only bias that exists at such publications is for well-reasoned writing that is buttressed by facts.
That is why climate skeptics such as Richard Lindzen of MIT or John Christy of the University of Alabama—who are widely regarded as credible and whose work contributes meaningfully to the scientific discourse—have no problem publishing their work in mainstream scientific journals.
And what about those who are not being published? Every scientist dealing with a major public issue must decide if he or she is going to be a scientist or a de facto politician.
Mr. Michaels and many climate science deniers have opted for the latter course of action. For example, presidential science adviser John Holdren notes that Mr. Michaels “has published little if anything of distinction . . . being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” This makes Mr. Michaels a perfect candidate for a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a decidedly poor submitter to a serious scientific journal.
Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated claims and distortions.
The good news is that it is not happening today in relation to either climate scientists or the deniers of climate science. Men and women who have dedicated their lives to advancing science need not apologize for keeping their rigorous professional journals free of the pollution of what is purely politics.
Michael E. Mann
Professor, Meteorology Department
Penn State University
Director, Penn State Earth System Science Center
University Park, Pa.Editor’s note: Several weeks ago, we invited Mr. Mann to write a feature explaining his email exchanges that were revealed as part of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s document disclosure. He declined.
Well, that’s good news! We believe him completely. How about you?
Source: WSJ
Possibly related posts:
sure, he is such a credible man
By the definition that I was taught — back in the 1940′s; only suns could generate heat. Planets, (as PLANET Earth), had LOST the ability togenerate heat and were, over a long, long time … longer than most people could even visualiize, had become cooling and the original gaseous form of the planet condensed with the cooling and hardened causing a “crust” or, more corectly, a “mantle”. The mantle acts as an insulator and keeps the center of the Earth — which is thousandss of degrees HOT, from reaching the surface except through volcanism. IF it were not for radiation from its nearby SUN the planet would be so cold that it would be encased in ice. Indeed, the Yosemite Valley, in Central California, USA, which is some 2,000 + feet deep, was carved out of solid granite by a gkacier. Itr melted and left the valley as testimony to its presence a few millions of years earlier.
I wonder how people can get hired by the universities when they have such a hard time understanding this simple fact? Now they are head of the departments?
John..believe it or not, the world has moved on since you were in school ‘back in 1940′s’…
Steve Mennie January 14, 2010 at 1:27 pm
John..believe it or not, the world has moved on since you were in school ‘back in 1940’s’
————————————-
OH! So what you are saying is that 2 + 2 now + FIVE!? Or? Are you recognizing the “fact” that the definigion of a planet is still not fully agreed upon? A Google search reveals…
2006: IAU classification
Main article: 2006 definition of planet
The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term “planet”. According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a ‘planet’:
The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
It must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.[112][113]
((John here: It appears to be a “given” that only PLANETS orbit around SUNS snd, also a “given” that planets ONLY do not create heat.
These “givens” are similar to the “given” that 2+2 = FOUR.))
Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth’s mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[114][115] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.[116]
On September 13, 2006, the IAU included Pluto, Eris, and the Eridian moon Dysnomia in their Minor Planet Catalogue, giving them the official minor planet designations “(134340) Pluto”, “(136199) Eris”, and “(136199) Eris I Dysnomia”.[117] If Pluto had been given a minor planet name upon its discovery, the number would have been a little over a thousand rather than over 100,000.
There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification.[118][119][120] Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, has publicly derided the IAU resolution, stating that >>>>> “the definition stinks, for technical reasons.” [121] Stern’s contention is that by the terms of the new definition Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune, all of which share their orbits with asteroids, would be excluded.[122] His other claim is that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community.[122] Marc W. Buie of the Lowell observatory has voiced his opinion on the new definition on his website and is one of the petitioners against the definition.[123] Others have supported the IAU. Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered Eris, said “through this whole crazy circus-like procedure, somehow the right answer was stumbled on. It’s been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved.”[124]
Researchers on both sides of the debate gathered on August 14–16, 2008 at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for a conference that included back-to-back talks on the current IAU definition of a planet.[125] Entitled “The Great Planet Debate”,[126] the conference published a post-conference press release indicating that scientists could not come to a consensus about the definition of a planet.[127] Just before the conference, on June 11, 2008, the IAU announced in a press release that the term “plutoid” would henceforth be used to describe Pluto and other objects similar to Pluto which have an orbital semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune and enough mass to be of near-spherical shape.[128][129][130]
Public reaction to the change
and your point would be….?
Mann pretends to be apolitical while repeatedly using the pejorative term “denier.” How about using “scientist” instead? That term apparently is reserved for AGW devotees.
The good news is that it is not happening today in relation to either climate scientists or the deniers of climate science.
So they are either scientists or deniers. Through his use of language, Mann demonstrates what a political animal he truly is. He quite effectively makes the case against his point.