More Bullying in The USA by Argument Authority 2
51. Mad Mann at TAM

Mad Mann at TAM
- Wow The Mann story carries right over from the Penn story

- First one extra thing about Penn. When confronted by Sharon Begley he first said "I don't know" "it's complicated", "All this Gore stuff it feels wrong".
- I now understand what he is on about... When I wrote to top skeptics before cos I was perplexed at them suddenly going "True Believer" over Climate Change I asked them "ask yourself am I trapped in a cult ?"
- That absolute belief in the CAGW is the Cult OF Gore , people are buying into a whole dogma belief system which comes with it's own set of magic solutions.

- Interesting how this cult like behaviour ties into something on the BrainScience Podcast : On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not ..extra notes podcast By Robert Burton

- Page of my notes This neuroscience explains thinking errors and I think it is consistant with explaining "denier shouter" thinking

Michael Mann Hockey Stick Inventor is to appear At TAM
- This is quite shocking - a man who has done so much to damage science
- Mann has quite a bit of a dirty record

I joke : Why's Mann coming to TAM ? - PSYCHIC climate predictor Michael Mann coming try to collect the $1m prize

- Mann's models are the equivalent of Dowsing, failing to predict the climate better than chance and there is a million dollar prize available to people who can prove their pseudioscience works ... he thinks he can win.

- He is always screaming "DENIER" and "ANTI-SCIENCE", but as with all climate alarmists their shouting is usually projection of their own faults : The reason I stopped being a "believer"was cos one day I saw the Hockey Stick 200ish ? .."where's the Medieval Warm period ?", "Ah well there wasn't one" Mann was the guy that DENIED the Medieval Warm period (even though it used to be in the IPCC report until 2001). Secondly that graph is a bit "too good to be true", real data isn't that smooth

Questions - Will Mann purposefully turn off the air conditioning in the building beforehand without telling anyone to exacerbate people’s experience of the heat ? (like Hansen did in 1988 at Al Gore’s committee Congress)

- Why did you claim you want a Nobel prize ? (page 2 paragraph 2, of his libel suit against the National Review)

- Did you really have On his own server was a folder labeled "CENSORED" can you just explain again why you put some hockey stick data in a directory marked "CENSORED" (censored.inf) and another marked FIXED (Wikipedia seems to come up with an explanation thata censoring is a stastistical term is but)

- will he receive any JREF money ?

- Have you ever been wrong in any of your scientific papers ?

- would you be a millionaire without climate hysteria ?
(Have you ever noticed how top warmist spokesmen : Gore, Flannery are all millionaires even Bill McKibben is very well paid and many others like the guys on Sks, Desmog Blog are paid PR professionals whereas most skeptics are not rich ..with the exception of Moncton ..maybe Bolt ? like dowsing ..claimimg victory under any circumstances)

- From Steve McIntyres review of Mann's book : "Mann begins his account by re-cycling his original outright lie that we had asked him for an “excel spreadsheet”.

Straw Mann argument ? All Agree Climate Changes
.. but Not Mad projections
Michael Michael quoted in the TAM press release by Dr. Steven Novella
- "You alluded to the word "skeptic." Well, many of those who simply deny that climate change EXISTS,
(He means Catastrophically due to CO2 increasing and that is due to humans)
we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue."

- Replace the stuff about "climate change catastrophe" with the words "Our God"..then see how it reads..

— Novella continued .. Michael E. Mann is ..A VERY BIG BIG MAN.. (I paraphrase)
- of course that is Fallacy from Authority

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE ..Lying about proven facts is DENIAL, but who is denying ?
- Mann is making a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

Straw Mann argument ?
- (almost) no one denies the climate change changes
- No one denies human behaviour effects the climate, quite possibly warms it a small amount. (and man also has a cooling efffect through other things) *
..THE CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE TIME over the decades and centuries.
- What people dispute is that current situation will lead go up exponentially and lead to CERTAIN CATASTROPHE.

- Mann says skeptical is : "looking at all sides of an issue" ..well surely that includes considering that changes are not CERTAINLY catastrophic
- CO2 has been at 3000ppm when primates were living and at times when the world 3C hotter. It's still here !
- People Mann calls "deniers", I agree climate changes but I just happen maybe to disagree that MAD projections are proven (or likely)
.. but don't worry we can discount their views cos they are Deniers !)

* people who say man is not warming the planet

- Why shouldn't they say that ..well maybe they are right ? maybe there is such a thing as AGC (COOLING)
..maybe all those Indians and Africans cooking over wood fires are sending up so much smog that they are shading the Sun and reflecting heat out into space ?

- if that were proved.

"It works, it works !" shout the Eco-dowser .."pay us now !"

- You tell us we have buy your CO2 war now ! , cos "your form of dowsing" is proven
- you are absolutely sure of that (Catastrophic AGW)
- well ...Are the IPCC predictions of climate for the last 10 years any better than chance ?
- If not should we buy it any more than we should buy any other form of dowsing or clairvoyance ?

Tying Together : How Mann created Deniers with his Denial

- Apologies this is a big long, but I am beginning to tie a number of recent things mentioned here together : Irrational feelings of certainty, The Mad Mann at TAM, Warmists SHOUTERS of "Denier & "Anti- Science"

- This feeling of Certainty that warmists SHOUTERS have
- 1. My own feeling is that you never trust anyone who is black and white certain about complex issues

- Robert Burtons book : on-being-certain Even if you are wrong When You're Not - shows the same thing that rather than be rational, this feeling of certainty come from an optical illusion like effect on the brain, and might be just a direct link to a fear emotion (that that sound could be a tiger so you'd better believe it.)

- This name calling and anger comes from (a). they haven't processed any logic so they have no immediate logical comeback (b) They seem to consistantly just subconciously PROJECT their own faults back onto other. In this particular instance they are denying so many things, like that isn't CAGW is proven etc.
- This feeds into the human habit of post justifying something rather that admit they haven't done a full analysis they appeal to authority

- This ties into the convenient misbelief that "published in a peer reviewed paper"= PROVED when we know peer review is just the first stage of the process and for various reasons science today is riddled with systematic biases * (although we love science) so most published science doesn't stand the test of time.
- which ties into Shouters saying "ANTI-SCIENCE" again another form of projection (when they themselves say things like "I know this works, I just NEED to get a grant to PROVE it")

- this ties into Mann's Hockey stick graph which breaks 2 logic rules (a) It breaks the too good to be true rule" (b) it is far too smooth to look like real data
- Then this links into Michael Mann creator of the first big FIRST DENIAL that provoked the birth of so many skeptics : The Mann denial that the Medieval warm period didn't exist. That meant Mann created deniers, cos once he smoothed out the Medieval Warm Period everyone who conformed to the established view that even exist in IPCC reports (1991-2001) could be labelled a denier.

- This then feeds back into Mann shouting "denier" & "Anti-science" this again is projection cos you don't get much more anti-science than Mann's skullduggery
- This ties into another common fallacy : that of "the false dichotomy" : dividing complex full colour arguments into simple black and whites sides : and then "since my side is right" so Mann can label anyone who won't conform to his ideas a DENIER and claim a win : So I can be labelled a denier , what about Judith Curry ? James Lovelock ? The Telegraph ? Easy to Mann it's simple anyone doesn't confirm and conform is a denier.

- This strange dichotomy idea ties into being PARTISAN : when anyone talks down an IPCC predictions they shout denier, but when people deny IPCC predictions by HYPING more extremes they are never called deniers. Shouters either add to the hype by publishing and retweeting or at the very least do nothing.
- This ties in with CENSORSHIP : the tradition of warmists saying :"We never debate a denier", "and deniers should be kept off the public TV etc."
- Oh another tie in : The huge finance and paid professional PR staffed machine of the multinational-eco charitities, where Projection raises it head again with the shout of "Big Oil
- Then this ties into Mann being invited to TAM (the home of U.S. Skeptics who are not skeptical, cos they also jumped to certainty with full analysis as if they had become members of the the Cult OF Gore )

- This ties into to Dowsing : Mann's models are the equivalent of Dowsing, failing to predict the climate better than chance... and there is a million dollar prize available fom TAM organiser JREF to anyone who can prove their pseudioscience works.
("It works, it works !" shout the Eco-dowsers .."pay for the war on CO2 now !"
See how it's like dowsing :
They have a theory
They have years of correlation 1977-1998
is correlation proof of causation ?

They DENY that their run from 1977-98 might have been a lucky streak
- but since 1998 have the IPCC predictions of climate for the last 15 years any better than chance ?
- If not should we buy it any more than we should buy any other form of dowsing or clairvoyance ?

- Then this ties back into the principle of REAL SKEPTICS that things are only proved when prediction models have PROPERLY been repeatedly tested in the real world , so until then it certainly OK to say "I don't know, it's so freakin complex", and avoid jumping to unjustified certainty

- Which ties into me saying I cannot tell who is right, but I can tell who is PROBABLY wrong The warmists shouters on forums don't have a good argument technique : they get angry resort to derogatory name calling, when you make 20 good points they only try to scratch a refute on one of them preferring to namecall and pick up spurious issues which divert the discussion as 4 warmist people make 40 derailing posts as the try to to skittle the debate.

- This ties into warminst shouting "trolling" which is another form of projection.

- If the shouters were right they wouldn't be shouting and namecalling, there would be the slow, polite thorough point by point rebuttall you get on skeptical blogs ..LIKE At Bishop Hill

Notes I used to create the tying together post above
Mostly raised on the Jref Forum
Shouting Denier

- Is Lovelock a "denier" ?

- shouting the word denier like members of other dogmas shout "UNBELIEVER"
- Please snap out of it American Skeptics ..just cos right wing people take one side it doesn't mean you can just assume the other side is the CORRECT side without doing the hard work of analysis. It seems to me shoutinfg DENIER is used to create a false dichotomy as if there are only 2 viewpoints in Climate Science
- you can project anyone who disagrees with you in a minor way as a "DENIER" !
Then it's easy "I am right, therefore you are wrong

- religious people have always failed to scientifically prove the existence of God. should they be banned from TV ?
- does Dawkins say I will never debate a Christian ?

shouters : Scientists or Activists
- people who shout Denier ! are they scientists or Activists ?
- when someone comes up with a claim that appears to show evidence that things won't be so bad, that claims for catastrophe made in IPCC reports are overplayed .. what do shouters do ?
- Shouters shout DENIERS !

- when someone comes up with a claim that appears to show evidence that things will be EVEN WORSE than than the claims for catastrophe that are made in IPCC reports ..what do shouters do then ?
Do shouters shout DENIERS or Wackos ..?
.. No it seems they either add to the hype by publishing and retweeting or at the very least do nothing.

That's not being impartial that's being partisan.

strange how denier is only used to demean those who say the models overplay

..those who OVER hype are never called deniers

This mad idea that there ia a huges denial machine
- ALARMISTS : SkS & Desmog blog are well funded and staffed by professional PR people
- top SKEPTICAL Discussion Blogs are all amateur * - WUWT, Bishop-Hill etc they get much more traffic than the alarmist sites
- the comments are not controlled people are free to give their opinions
- Warmist Commenters : emotionFUL logicLESS argument

- There maybe websites with industry funding, but they are not discussion blogs. Like maybe GWPF might get some industry funding ..I don't know

Contradiction of warmist Commenters

- Mann created deniers, once he smoothed out the Medieval Warm Period - everyone became a denier

- Everyone who disagrees with us us a denier , they shouldn't receive any funding, they should be kept off the public TV etc.

2013 "Mr President we need extra money to prove our already proven science, to fine tune our models"

OK you are selling me an almost finished product ? Yes

- It's all over it's proved more CO2 = ever increasing temperatures. See our observations from 1977-1998.

.. Does it work ? can you predict the future climate any more than chance ?

- "Some people disagree with you" .. "don't listen to them they are deniers keep them off TV."

- Mann "Warmist Don't need to show credibility by debating skeptics "cos they are DENIERS".

- Mann - "We don't need to release detals of the work even though the tax payer funded it."

- OK 1998-2013 the temperatures didn't increase statistically significantly so was that just unlucky ..line of those random patterns
in a trend line, like flipping 6 heads in a row ?

so how do you know the 1977-1998 rise wasn't a lucky pattern.

Catastrophe Theory is like dowsing
- you have a theory
- you have years of correlation 1977-1998
is correlation proof of causation ?

- "so like people who have faith in dowsing it work it works !"
- but just like dowsing has to show predictions better than chance to win the million dollar prize CAGW has to show it's predictions are way better than chance to win the trillion dollar prize.

- To Warmist Troll : don't throw up a lot of negative energy at me by shouting at me ..get to it and get working on models that are better than chance

so you don't think there is any doubt ?
2023 will be much hotter than now .. how much ?

- He says "deniers are a small group no one should take any notice of" complete the phrase : The UFO believers Club said "Skeptics & JREF are a small group no one ...."

..What do you reckon should we phone the hotel for TAM ..those SKEPTICS they are just a fringe group ..society shouldn't listen to them ?

climate hysteria kills

- no right to claim ownership of the word skeptic

- Debating Climate hysteria is important as it aready killed people in the UK and takes hundreds of dollars out of normal taxpayers pockets paying for green subsidies of ineffective renewables and is destroying industry as it moves to locations with less drastic eco-laws

- Good, everyone is welcome at TAM as long as they stick to basic rooms of civilty and debate is open. So I state for the record that I find the word "denier" as offensive as the N-word & B-word and that nobody will be bullying others by using this word against them.

- Furthermore it is essential that Mann's appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

- I hope there will be respect for people's opinions in the past I have also seen "True Believer" Skeptics try to BULLY Randi .. "look athose idiots who don't believe" , but he states his principles clearly

- TAM 2008 it was sad Penn & Teller were BULLIED by Sharon Begley for saying "Man made global warming ? I don't know .. it's complicated" she replied "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc."
- It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
- If you tell people to pick a side when they haven't analysed all the arguments & evidence themselves, then you are telling them to rely on AUTHORITY
- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2013 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW certainty of castatrophic manmade global warming , based on Argument from Authority

1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
2. Given a choice between Simple :pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side

- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all "True Believer" just like the UFO hunter's anti-anti-vaccine people with "confirmation bias", "absolute certainty beyond evidence", emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.
- I try to work out why : I hypothesise that their thinking is "the RIGHT-WING people take one side, and they are always wrong, so the other side must be CORRECT"
... that is very convenient to pick a side (with all answering dogma), without analysing all the science & evidence themselves, but that is basically a fallacious ARGUMENT from AUTHORITY
- They then surround themselves with other cool people, hipppy girls who want to hear the greendream etc. and so it is reinforced.. so basically when they don't get to hear alternative viewpoints they don't know they exist and if theycome across them then rather than THINK HARD they can play the "it's funded by big oil card" and dismiss it

Just as the GREEN Movement walked away from Green .. (to magic dogma)
The SKEPTICAL Movement moved away from being SKEPTICAL
.. lets move back and NOT FAIL to capitalise on a whole new market of people who are starting to think critically

WE have to pay now cos Greens say so
- I suggested that if they think the need Wind and solar subsidising they are free to do it themselves.. and he FAIRLY pointed out that they "don't have the choice to avoid OUR polluting CO2" ..I accept that ..that's like saying "I don't like war" so i am not going to pay tax for the army".. you have to go the way of democracy..but with that comes having a fair debate

- OK how about this I have no problem with the theory Polluter pays, but you have supply the proof that you have done yet

..So what about : we loan them the money today AND in 40 years time if there is no sign of catastrophe and your models still don't produce a reliable model of the climate do you agree to start paying us back and can we put an extra tax on your offspring ?
AND - If it turns out you were right then we could right off the debt.
WE loan you now but Green families will pay us back if they are wrong

- On that argument that we have to what the Greens want, rather than give them a choice to pay for all the solar and wind farms themselves.

- So you vote for money to be spent now ? on this war on CO2 ?

...yet like dowsing you can't predict the next 10 year of climate any better than chance.
- So we have buy your CO2 war now ..cos "it's proven" even though you can't demonstrate that any more that anyone can demonstrate dowsing.

how can Sharon Hill's DoubtfulNews afford to advertise on Google ?

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

NEXT -->