Rules for Climate Radicals: Whenever Possible, Go Outside the Expertise of the Enemy
In real science, you make an observation, make a hypothesis, collect the data, test the data and reach a conclusion. In other words, you stay focused on the issue. In politics, you deflect, pivot, change the subject and obfuscate.
Which sounds more like the climate change debate? Clearly, climate change is a political issue, not a scientific issue.
I’ve watched plenty of climate change debates and testimonies, and I’ve never once heard Michael Mann refer to the scientific method, or demonstrate its application to climate science.
Applying the scientific method to ice core data results in accepting the null that climate change is natural and that there is nothing abnormal about the past 150 and 50 years of temperature variation when compared to the entire Holocene. The construction of the “Hockeystick” is a scientific joke. Science isn’t Michael Mann’s strong point, propaganda and politics are.
Michael Mann can recite the left-wing climate change talking points in his sleep. Allowing him to have a monolog reciting his lines is a huge mistake for people opposing him. This allows him to choose the field of battle and plays to his strengths. To defeat the propagandist and get the truth out, the opposition must get him to leave his position of strength, and focus on his weaknesses.
My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”
Michael Mann in the most recent congressional testimony exposed many of his weaknesses. Michael Mann is much like the Wizard of Oz, where his power-base and support is totally dependent upon the perception of credibility. Michael Mann wants people to believe he is a credible scientist. He has that perception in the public’s eye, that is why he is chosen by the Democrats as their champion for congressional testimony.
He has the added benefit of having the support of organizations that can literally alter the data to get the results that they want, so no matter what scientific claim is made against climate change, Michael Mann will always be able to counter those claims with his own set of data and “peer-reviewed” research.
Climate science is a rigged “science,” and it is rigged in favor of Michael Mann’s position. The government isn’t spending all this money to implicate CO2 expecting the conclusion to be CO2 isn’t to blame. There is no money to gained if CO2 isn’t the cause.
To win the scientific debate you have to not only discredit Michael Mann, you have to discredit NASA, NOAA, the EPA, the Democratic Party, Big Bird, Bill Nye, Al Gore and countless NGOs and scientific and professional organizations. That is a tall and most likely unachievable task. In politics the good guys don’t always win, in fact, I would argue they most likely lose. That is what the real scientists must understand, and change their tactics accordingly.
Michael Mann is trying to maintain a facade of scientific credibility, he is an emperor with no clothes, and he knows it. The general public has an image of what a real scientist is and Michael Mann knows he doesn’t fit that image. Michael Mann knows he has to keep the truth of his unprofessional, unethical, and unscientific behavior hidden from the public. He knows that if the public ever knows the truth, the entire global warming fraud will collapse. Addressing these issues, not the scientific arguments, are the best way to win this battle for the truth.
Proof of this was demonstrated in the recent congressional hearings. Once Michael Mann was off his talking points he demonstrated what a true amateur he really is. The general public thinks that real science is performed by adults that rely on objective facts, reason, and logic. The general public knows that Ad Hominin attacks are behaviors that have no place in science. That is why the highly polished and rehearsed Michael Mann lost his cool when the topic came up about him calling other scientists “deniers.” He clearly felt uncomfortable discussing that topic, and easily came across looking like a bully. “Deniers” is a derogatory political term used to fire up the passions of the political base, it is a red meat trigger word for the political left. Prosecuting/persecuting others that disagree with a position is also antithetical to what the general public expects from real scientists. Micheal Mann even went so far as to perjure himself than to admit association with such groups. This video captures Michael Mann’s guilt for all to see.
Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, called his hockey stick an iconic result, and was caught in two new lies: he denied his affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute and he denied calling Dr. Curry a “denier.”
This video with Sen Ted Cruz and the Sierra Club President highlights what happens when discussing science is going outside the person’s expertise. This will never happen to Michael Mann, he is too well rehearsed in the focus group tested talking points. What trips Michael Mann up is discussing his unprofessional behaviors, of which there are many.
Instead of focusing on the science in the next congressional testimony, the focus should be on Michael Mann’s dishonest perjury, his association with groups that support inquisition-like tactics, his unprofessional labeling of scientists with differing views as “heretics” and “deniers.” The Climategate emails are full of material for discussion. The rigging of the “peer review” process, the rigging of the publication process, the intimidation of fellow scientists, the collision and resulting “adjustments” to the data and conclusions, the acknowledgment that the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier isn’t melting yet nothing is done to inform the public about the true cause, sublimation. All these claims are factual, truthful and honest, and they are the last thing Michael Mann would ever want to discuss during a congressional testimony. It isn’t an Ad Hominin attack if it is truthful and helps expose a fraud. As long as Michael Mann can hide who he truly is from the public, the climate alarmists will win. It is time to pull the curtain way and expose the truth.
Another point of attack would be to hit Michael Mann on the economics of climate change. I would love to see him defend pouring money down the climate change rat hole when people are still living in poverty, attending failed school, don’t have access to healthcare, etc etc etc. Identifying the better uses for the trillions of dollars he would have us spend on fighting climate change would expose him to be astronomically out of touch with the average voter.
$7,000,000,000,000/year is the equivalent of:
Giving every American $22,000/yr
Giving every person on the face of the Earth $933/yr
7,000 new drugs/yr
8,750 new major hospitals, or 4.7 million new hospital beds
14,000,000 miles of new road/yr
28,000,000 Family MDs salaries
70,000,000 Teacher’s salaries
35 Apollo Missions
Preserve 700,000,000 acres of Rain Forest
70,000 endangered species breeding farms