This would be transparently a childish tantrum if it weren't for the fact that Mann and Hotez have seemingly broad support among scientists. This says to me that defunding and rebuilding with higher and more rigorous standards and methods is the only way to address a largely corrupt "institution."
It is essential to acknowledge that science operates as a systematic process. This involves formulating testable hypotheses, conducting observations, developing falsifiable explanations, and rigorously validating these against empirical evidence. Ideally, this process incorporates laboratory experimentation; however, when direct experimentation is not feasible, discerning observation and statistical analysis serve as crucial alternatives. The overarching objective is the pursuit of truth, fostering a deeper understanding of the world, and informing predictions and policy decisions.
Consequently, the scientific endeavor itself is inherently apolitical. Historical evidence consistently demonstrates its profound value to individuals and society, contributing to the betterment of billions of lives and the generation of trillions in wealth.
Conversely, the application of "Science (TM)" within corporate and governmental frameworks can become politicized, influenced by factors such as funding allocations, collaborative agreements, underlying agendas, institutional reputations, professional credentials, and prevailing consensus.
If you think this is bad, check out human nutrition / metabolic health / public health and their nexus with environmental issues... In your spare time, of course ;-) Come into this rabbit hole. Of course you can leave any time... ;-)
Coincidentally, I just finished reading an interesting article on how 'shortcuts' to motivation are used to avoid engaging with substantive arguments. (name-calling to promote hatred) https://x.com/johnkonrad/article/2033355013133611351
It fits the argumentation style of Mann and Hotez very well.
Facts matter which is why Mann and Hotez are so short of them. What a terrible shame that these scientific institutions have been captured by emotional ideologies that they have lost their way. Not so dissimilar to our medical schools which have been captured by “gender care” otherwise known as genital mutilation.
Roger, the Wall Street Journal has a quarter-page editorial in today's Weekend edition, entitled "A Judicial Climate Science Scandal" which lays out the case you made regarding the "ghost authorship" of the FJC Manual's Climate Change chapter. The editorial quotes your work at considerable length. Congratulations! And Well Done!
I too saw the WSJ piece and felt pride in Roger for his important work and in myself for following him! The Journal sometimes wobbles off course, but not for the most part, and in particular on climate/energy recently (opinion, not news) has found its voice loudly and clearly.
As much as these two don't believe in politicizing science it's just going to have to be that way because of well you know the "Republicans". 😂. That narrative alone will get people to believe anything they say. Quite a smart strategy on their part , I suppose.
* P.S. Clearly, Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony. As an “Academic freedom lecturer,” he gave a speech preaching for the end of the climate debate at University of Michigan, after President Mark Schlissel introduced Mann by saying that UM will always be “an unalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.
Clearly, Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony. As an “Academic freedom lecturer,” he gave a speech preaching for the end of the climate debate at University of Michigan, after President Mark Schlissel introduced Mann by saying that UM will always be “an unalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.
I have followed Michael Mann for some time - Since the initiation of the Hockey Stick, through his Climategate denial and the various litigations. I find that the Hockey Stick data, the process and the conclusions are extremely flawed, and I am amazed that the Scientific community accepted such a travesty. I find that Michael Mann is extremely combative when people disagree with him (but he rarely argues with evidence), and that he seems to have a strong paranoid complex (although I am not a psychologist). I will probably read the book, but I must say that I will read it with a large amount of skepticism. I won't buy it, but the library will probably have a copy.
You spoke of Mann and Hotez' lamentations about journalists: "They are poorly equipped to litigate the contentious, often technical, debates about the science.”
I wasn't aware that the purpose of science was litigation.
In his book "Making the Atomic Bomb," Richard Rhodes wrote that "Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, 'the gradual removal of prejudices.'"
It would seem that Mrs. Mann and Hotez' could stand for a lesson or two of Dr. Bohr's science.
(1) Partisanship is a choice. It doesn't just happen. We make choices that get reflected, amplified across broader society. Sure, there are plenty of actors trying to influence those choices but ultimately they are ours. Even in the most totalitarian regimes evidence exists of the power of free thought. (2) Sooner or later chickens come home to roost. Usually diatribes like this book are written, published, circulated when that roosting has begun. And so I am hopeful that we are near some sort of end and that you, Roger, will have to find other things to write about!
It's the total smugness that throws me off. But if the entire scientific community is now a political science community, that would explain their sense of protection from Mann, Hotez to Fauci. I see this dynamic now in my own science-degreed circle of friends. I was just lucky enough to work the last 30 years outside the USA slipstream
This would be transparently a childish tantrum if it weren't for the fact that Mann and Hotez have seemingly broad support among scientists. This says to me that defunding and rebuilding with higher and more rigorous standards and methods is the only way to address a largely corrupt "institution."
It is essential to acknowledge that science operates as a systematic process. This involves formulating testable hypotheses, conducting observations, developing falsifiable explanations, and rigorously validating these against empirical evidence. Ideally, this process incorporates laboratory experimentation; however, when direct experimentation is not feasible, discerning observation and statistical analysis serve as crucial alternatives. The overarching objective is the pursuit of truth, fostering a deeper understanding of the world, and informing predictions and policy decisions.
Consequently, the scientific endeavor itself is inherently apolitical. Historical evidence consistently demonstrates its profound value to individuals and society, contributing to the betterment of billions of lives and the generation of trillions in wealth.
Conversely, the application of "Science (TM)" within corporate and governmental frameworks can become politicized, influenced by factors such as funding allocations, collaborative agreements, underlying agendas, institutional reputations, professional credentials, and prevailing consensus.
If you think this is bad, check out human nutrition / metabolic health / public health and their nexus with environmental issues... In your spare time, of course ;-) Come into this rabbit hole. Of course you can leave any time... ;-)
Thanks for all you're doing!
Coincidentally, I just finished reading an interesting article on how 'shortcuts' to motivation are used to avoid engaging with substantive arguments. (name-calling to promote hatred) https://x.com/johnkonrad/article/2033355013133611351
It fits the argumentation style of Mann and Hotez very well.
Thank you, sir, for your service.
Facts matter which is why Mann and Hotez are so short of them. What a terrible shame that these scientific institutions have been captured by emotional ideologies that they have lost their way. Not so dissimilar to our medical schools which have been captured by “gender care” otherwise known as genital mutilation.
Roger, the Wall Street Journal has a quarter-page editorial in today's Weekend edition, entitled "A Judicial Climate Science Scandal" which lays out the case you made regarding the "ghost authorship" of the FJC Manual's Climate Change chapter. The editorial quotes your work at considerable length. Congratulations! And Well Done!
I too saw the WSJ piece and felt pride in Roger for his important work and in myself for following him! The Journal sometimes wobbles off course, but not for the most part, and in particular on climate/energy recently (opinion, not news) has found its voice loudly and clearly.
As much as these two don't believe in politicizing science it's just going to have to be that way because of well you know the "Republicans". 😂. That narrative alone will get people to believe anything they say. Quite a smart strategy on their part , I suppose.
* P.S. Clearly, Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony. As an “Academic freedom lecturer,” he gave a speech preaching for the end of the climate debate at University of Michigan, after President Mark Schlissel introduced Mann by saying that UM will always be “an unalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/academic-freedom-lecturer-takes-claims-climate-change-deniers/
Clearly, Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony. As an “Academic freedom lecturer,” he gave a speech preaching for the end of the climate debate at University of Michigan, after President Mark Schlissel introduced Mann by saying that UM will always be “an unalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.
I have followed Michael Mann for some time - Since the initiation of the Hockey Stick, through his Climategate denial and the various litigations. I find that the Hockey Stick data, the process and the conclusions are extremely flawed, and I am amazed that the Scientific community accepted such a travesty. I find that Michael Mann is extremely combative when people disagree with him (but he rarely argues with evidence), and that he seems to have a strong paranoid complex (although I am not a psychologist). I will probably read the book, but I must say that I will read it with a large amount of skepticism. I won't buy it, but the library will probably have a copy.
I echo Ms. Kopp's compliment - "well done #136."
You spoke of Mann and Hotez' lamentations about journalists: "They are poorly equipped to litigate the contentious, often technical, debates about the science.”
I wasn't aware that the purpose of science was litigation.
In his book "Making the Atomic Bomb," Richard Rhodes wrote that "Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, 'the gradual removal of prejudices.'"
It would seem that Mrs. Mann and Hotez' could stand for a lesson or two of Dr. Bohr's science.
They seem to have framed their entire book in accordance to the Manichean position:
• “The other side is fundamentally wrong, so no compromise is possible.”
• “Any concession strengthens evil.”
• “The conflict is existential, not negotiable.”
(1) Partisanship is a choice. It doesn't just happen. We make choices that get reflected, amplified across broader society. Sure, there are plenty of actors trying to influence those choices but ultimately they are ours. Even in the most totalitarian regimes evidence exists of the power of free thought. (2) Sooner or later chickens come home to roost. Usually diatribes like this book are written, published, circulated when that roosting has begun. And so I am hopeful that we are near some sort of end and that you, Roger, will have to find other things to write about!
This is hilarious - well done #136
It's the total smugness that throws me off. But if the entire scientific community is now a political science community, that would explain their sense of protection from Mann, Hotez to Fauci. I see this dynamic now in my own science-degreed circle of friends. I was just lucky enough to work the last 30 years outside the USA slipstream