Brilliant essay. It’s sad that so many subscribe to hostility instead of hospitality. Michael Manns actions toward his peers is embarrassing. I can not imagine such open hostility being tolerated in a real professional organization. I hate being wrong, and having my ideas challenged but I welcomed it since providing incorrect or incomplete advice in my profession got me fired. Perhaps there needs to be a total rethink of how academic work is rewarded over the term.
Dear Roger, this is a profound essay. I have found in life that I do not learn anything by talking only to people who agree with me. I have to seek out and listen to people who disagree with me in order to learn the flaws in the things I think I know. Such exchanges require a high degree of civility and humility on both sides. One of the things I loved most about studying at Cambridge in the UK back in the 2000's was the marvelous talent the British academics had for disagreeing without being disagreeable. Someone would make a statement, then someone else would gently say, without heat or rancor, "I disagree", and state his reasons in a restrained, lucid, logical way. Sadly, I hear that, lately,
cancel culture and scorched-earth rhetoric have found their way into Cambridge as well as so many other formerly venerable institutions. I fear the real search for truth will suffer as a result.
As I suspected Michael Mann avoids debate like it was the plague, even when challenged. Sounds a lot like the Covid "We Are The Science" autocrats.
However, believe it or not, I did find one debate with Michael Mann, Judith Curry, Michael Moore and David Titley on Youtube, from almost 6 yrs ago, when science had not yet been captured by the ruling Psychopaths:
Here, once again, Michael Mann, is challenged to a debate during his visit to Australia, by one of the most rational politicians on Earth, Malcom Roberts:
Or, some quotes from better people than I in reference to the subject.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell
“Keep the company of those who seek the truth- run from those who have found it”
― Vaclav Havel
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
And to go with your thesis Roger;
“Always hear others out and remain open-minded; the day you think you know everything is the day you have the most yet to learn.” — A.J. Darkholme
For those interested in additional reading, I recommend Richard Haas' book " Bill of Obligations." A great discussion of the factors we need for intellectual hospitality and honesty.
Speaking of Intellectual Honesty, this Climate Science Physicist has taken to Youtube to critique some of the low grade Michael Mann style Climate Science frequently pushed by the popular Youtube channel of Sabine Hossenfelder, Particle Physicist. And has challenged her to a debate:
Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Talks on Climate by a Physicist | ICR 240129, Dr. Yong Tuition:
Dr. Pielke ==> Was the email the last you heard from Heartland on the issue, or did they later contact you with the information on how your name erroneously had gotten onto the list of contributors in the first place?
While using the words "claimed falsely" may be factually correct -- the fact was you were not a contributor nor a member of some committee -- wouldn't it have been more "intellectually hospitable" to use language such as "erroneously listed"?
Their email states so explicitly -- that your name was included in error rather than by some design or intention to deceive?
Roger, your Substack is so critical to scientific discourse and it is encouraging that the Substack platform has emerged, helping to further intellectual hospitality that is sorely missing in academia, the government, and corporate media. As a retired scientist with the Department of Interior, I started out, like you, sharing the political views of most of my colleagues. But like the great Thomas Sowell, working for the federal government made me realize why limited government is necessary. The government and academia are incapable of solving most problems, and usually contribute to, magnify, or even create the problems that then require massive spending of taxpayer money (or even worse, massive debt) to "solve." Washington DC is clearly broken, and I am watching in horror as Colorado is on track to overtake California in government overreach, justified, in part, by the intellectual elite and self-proclaimed experts like Michael Mann pushing their ego fueled agendas. Mann is just a particularly egregious example because he is such a despicable and dishonest bully. By following Roger Pielke Sr and Judith Curry's blogs, and more recently Roger Jr's work, I came to better understand the assumptions, competing hypotheses, and weaknesses in so much of the climate science (especially Mann's hockey stick) that so many of my former colleagues ignored because they were blinded by their ideology and ignorance of the limitations of the prevailing climate change paradigm. I did not feel safe fully sharing my scientific perspective on climate science with my colleagues, or I would have been ostracized as a denier. How sad is that. I am simply a sceptic as all scientists should be. Now that I am retired, I finally feel free to express my ideas. We all have biases and blinders, which is why it is so important to get out of the echo chamber and challenge your own paradigms! The general lack of intellectual hospitality has led the general public to believe that we understand much more than we think about a very complicated and highly dynamic system that is operating across multiple time scales greater than just the last half century or so.
Roger, your attitude and approach to science is probably the biggest reason why your readers enjoy reading and following your work. Keep it up and never waver from it!
I personally dislike the terminology of “intellectual hospitality”. To me it connotes a willingness to accept any and all intellectual challenges in a polite, friendly manner, something that I disagree with. The patently absurd or dictatorial aspects of disagreement should serve to undermine any challenge and should be settled before a discussion can even take place.
By that I mean, those who claim authority to dictate rather than inform and respectfully influence others with logic and clarity aka Michael Mann, do not merit standing on the podium with someone as yourself.
Folta's lawsuit was dismissed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/03/01/court-sides-new-york-times-professors-defamation-case
Excellent, Roger. We give you high marks for taking the high road in the face of some of the accusations thrown at you over a long period of time.
Brilliant essay. It’s sad that so many subscribe to hostility instead of hospitality. Michael Manns actions toward his peers is embarrassing. I can not imagine such open hostility being tolerated in a real professional organization. I hate being wrong, and having my ideas challenged but I welcomed it since providing incorrect or incomplete advice in my profession got me fired. Perhaps there needs to be a total rethink of how academic work is rewarded over the term.
Huge Arsenal win over Liverpool, Roger probably dancing a little jig.
Dear Roger, this is a profound essay. I have found in life that I do not learn anything by talking only to people who agree with me. I have to seek out and listen to people who disagree with me in order to learn the flaws in the things I think I know. Such exchanges require a high degree of civility and humility on both sides. One of the things I loved most about studying at Cambridge in the UK back in the 2000's was the marvelous talent the British academics had for disagreeing without being disagreeable. Someone would make a statement, then someone else would gently say, without heat or rancor, "I disagree", and state his reasons in a restrained, lucid, logical way. Sadly, I hear that, lately,
cancel culture and scorched-earth rhetoric have found their way into Cambridge as well as so many other formerly venerable institutions. I fear the real search for truth will suffer as a result.
As I suspected Michael Mann avoids debate like it was the plague, even when challenged. Sounds a lot like the Covid "We Are The Science" autocrats.
However, believe it or not, I did find one debate with Michael Mann, Judith Curry, Michael Moore and David Titley on Youtube, from almost 6 yrs ago, when science had not yet been captured by the ruling Psychopaths:
Climate Debate - Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018:
youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg
Here Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke, jr present their views to Congress, in March 2017:
Curry Christy Mann & Pielke go at it:
youtube.com/watch?v=_3_sHu34imQ
Here, once again, Michael Mann, is challenged to a debate during his visit to Australia, by one of the most rational politicians on Earth, Malcom Roberts:
How dare you, Michael Mann.:
youtube.com/watch?v=trywf_p-lgs
Or, some quotes from better people than I in reference to the subject.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell
“Keep the company of those who seek the truth- run from those who have found it”
― Vaclav Havel
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
And to go with your thesis Roger;
“Always hear others out and remain open-minded; the day you think you know everything is the day you have the most yet to learn.” — A.J. Darkholme
The old saying goes “if you have nothing good to say about someone then best to say nothing at all”.
So all I have to say about Mann is
Thanks Roger ! When travelling it is best to make small course corrections rather than overcorrecting and losing control. Same in politics!
For those interested in additional reading, I recommend Richard Haas' book " Bill of Obligations." A great discussion of the factors we need for intellectual hospitality and honesty.
Speaking of Intellectual Honesty, this Climate Science Physicist has taken to Youtube to critique some of the low grade Michael Mann style Climate Science frequently pushed by the popular Youtube channel of Sabine Hossenfelder, Particle Physicist. And has challenged her to a debate:
Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Talks on Climate by a Physicist | ICR 240129, Dr. Yong Tuition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWyxfmHJcd0
What Sabine Didn't Tell You about Climate Sensitivity | Comments on Hossenfelder Part 2 | ICR 240131 Yong Tuition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDMDn7u-dw
Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Magical Greenhouse Effect | Independent Climate Research 230209 Yong Tuition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY2xHk0ThJ8
Dr. Pielke ==> Was the email the last you heard from Heartland on the issue, or did they later contact you with the information on how your name erroneously had gotten onto the list of contributors in the first place?
While using the words "claimed falsely" may be factually correct -- the fact was you were not a contributor nor a member of some committee -- wouldn't it have been more "intellectually hospitable" to use language such as "erroneously listed"?
Their email states so explicitly -- that your name was included in error rather than by some design or intention to deceive?
Roger, your Substack is so critical to scientific discourse and it is encouraging that the Substack platform has emerged, helping to further intellectual hospitality that is sorely missing in academia, the government, and corporate media. As a retired scientist with the Department of Interior, I started out, like you, sharing the political views of most of my colleagues. But like the great Thomas Sowell, working for the federal government made me realize why limited government is necessary. The government and academia are incapable of solving most problems, and usually contribute to, magnify, or even create the problems that then require massive spending of taxpayer money (or even worse, massive debt) to "solve." Washington DC is clearly broken, and I am watching in horror as Colorado is on track to overtake California in government overreach, justified, in part, by the intellectual elite and self-proclaimed experts like Michael Mann pushing their ego fueled agendas. Mann is just a particularly egregious example because he is such a despicable and dishonest bully. By following Roger Pielke Sr and Judith Curry's blogs, and more recently Roger Jr's work, I came to better understand the assumptions, competing hypotheses, and weaknesses in so much of the climate science (especially Mann's hockey stick) that so many of my former colleagues ignored because they were blinded by their ideology and ignorance of the limitations of the prevailing climate change paradigm. I did not feel safe fully sharing my scientific perspective on climate science with my colleagues, or I would have been ostracized as a denier. How sad is that. I am simply a sceptic as all scientists should be. Now that I am retired, I finally feel free to express my ideas. We all have biases and blinders, which is why it is so important to get out of the echo chamber and challenge your own paradigms! The general lack of intellectual hospitality has led the general public to believe that we understand much more than we think about a very complicated and highly dynamic system that is operating across multiple time scales greater than just the last half century or so.
Roger, your attitude and approach to science is probably the biggest reason why your readers enjoy reading and following your work. Keep it up and never waver from it!
I personally dislike the terminology of “intellectual hospitality”. To me it connotes a willingness to accept any and all intellectual challenges in a polite, friendly manner, something that I disagree with. The patently absurd or dictatorial aspects of disagreement should serve to undermine any challenge and should be settled before a discussion can even take place.
By that I mean, those who claim authority to dictate rather than inform and respectfully influence others with logic and clarity aka Michael Mann, do not merit standing on the podium with someone as yourself.
Intellectual honesty is my preferred standard.
Thanks for your courageous defense of intellectual tolerance.