ClimateGate and the Big Lie

I'm cynical. I think I'm even more cynical than most of you, and that's saying something.

So when I read that a Penn State investigation had "cleared" Michael Mann of wrongdoing, I assumed, of course, it was a whitewash, but I also assumed that they at least, you know, claimed things like "while the evidence is provocative, there is not enough to prove a case against Professor Mann..." That is, I thought they'd at least dress it up in that sort of judicial language, and rest their claims on the case not being established beyond a reasonable doubt, and so on.

Well, that's what I assumed.

Have you read this?

This, my dear friends, is amazing.

Recall that one of the biggest knocks on climate "science" is that it never makes a prediction that can be verified (actually, it does, but they're always wrong), but that "proof" of its veracity comes from the fact that everyone's models agree with everyone else's.

So, in other words, we know the theory is true because people who believe in the theory agree with other people who believe in the theory that the theory is true.

Look, the models they make, based on the same assumptions they agree on, all say about the same thing! Q.E.D. That's Latin for "How my ass taste, bitch?"

Right? So that's a big problem right there. There is no proof of this except that the people pushing it all agree with each other.

Now, if you can believe it (and I still can't; this is stunning) this is precisely the reason they claim that Michael Mann cannot possibly be guilty of scientific malfeasance.

Honestly, if you haven't read this, get ready to catch your falling jaw.

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

You think I exaggerate?

[Quoting the "investigation's" conclusions; emphasis added:]

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...

Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...

Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Once more, with feeling: We know Michael Mann couldn't be guilty of scientific misrepresentation because the same people he conspired with to misrepresent science gave him awards for misrepresenting science.

Also, that crap about people in the field being in disagreement with Mann and there opinions therefore absolving him? Mann and his cronies conspired specifically to keep dissenters out of the field by denying them publication in scientific journals.

Via Instapundit.

[Here's where the clip of the Orang-Utan Priest/Scientist/Tyrants doing the see no evil/hear no evil/speak no evil thing when confronted with "blasphemy" would go, but frickin' people don't load important clips like this on YouTube]

Question: Is this really at the beginning of Planet of the Apes?

I have no memory of this scene at all. My first memory is of the ship landing in the lake, and then the apes chasing them.

Is this a deleted scene? Or do I just never actually see the beginning of the movie?

posted by Ace at 06:57 PM

| Access Comments