Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented by Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the political front was represented by Dr. Michael Mann.
The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the climate change gravy train. To them, the truth represents a cut in pay and must be denied and undermined, not embraced.
A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of Congress is like throwing tuna to the sharks.
In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,
Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.
Real science is constrained by what is called “the tyranny of the status quo.” In real science to win the debate, overwhelming evidence must be provided. In real science winning the majority vote means nothing, the null has to be rejected at confidence levels as high as 90, 95 and even 99%. Science papers that reject the null at the 51% confidence level are themselves rejected.
Science isn’t a democracy. Science is highly discriminatory. Science demands discipline and accountability. Science has no feelings and isn’t compassionate. There are no safe spaces, affirmative action or participation trophies in science. Science has rigid rules and consequences for failure. Science is “one strike you’re out” intolerant. Science is black and white, Science doesn’t grade on a curve, you are either right or wrong. Science isn’t inclusive, the truth is a very exclusive club that rejects many applicants. There is no gray zone in science. Science is extremely conservative. In other words, real science is the pinnacle of political incorrectness. Politics isn’t bound by the truth, it is bound by the vote, and therefore, the non-scientist has an extreme advantage when it comes to testifying in front of congress.
‘If the climate-change evangelist can’t be bothered to take a House hearing seriously, why should anyone take him seriously?”
This is incorrect. Mann took it very seriously, was well prepared and exploited it for every political opportunity – he dominated the entire proceedings. He had the advantage of not caring or having to care about the truth. His performance was designed for most of the public who have no idea about what is true. He knows this works because that assumption has driven the juggernaut from the start.
Mann also understood the political and manipulative nature of Congressional hearings. They are charades supposedly seeking the truth, but are really designed to make the politicians look good.
The hardest thing for real scientists to accept is that modern climate “science” isn’t about nor was it ever about real science. Modern climate “science” has its roots in the IPCC, the Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Climate change is a means to an end. Climate change is a means to undermine capitalism and redistribute wealth. If global “equality” is the desired outcome, the leftist’s way to impose equality is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Climate change is a World Socialist’s wet dream. The socialists don’t even try to hide that fact, they write books and protest about it.
For the real scientists to succeed in congressional testimonies, they must “Know Thy Enemy,” and adjust the battle plan accordingly. Real scientists must learn to present their truthful scientific arguments in a manner that is conducive to political success. Winning the scientific battle, but losing the political battle results in losing the war. The real scientists continuing to fight the science battle in front of congress is like Hillary campaigning in NY and California to win the Presidency, it is a losing battle plan. Real scientists have already convinced the conservatives in Congress. Talking real science in congress is preaching to the conservative choir. News flash to real scientists!!! Donald Trump won the election, real science already has their votes. Real science doesn’t need to convince Ted Cruz anymore, what you need to do is convince Sen “I Bully Women” Markey. Real science needs to spread the real science gospel to the real science non-believers.
To spread the gospel to the real science non-believers, one simply needs to study how real science non-believer leaders communicate to their obedient flock of followers. Fortunately for the real scientists, there are plenty of documented examples and actual books written about leftist political tactics. The political left is very proud of their “community organizing” abilities and willingly share their knowledge with everyone. To most, the sterilized homogenized dystopian detailed in Orwell’s “1984” was a warning, to others, it is a guidebook. Propaganda tactics invented during the 1930’s were later perfected by leftist agitators in the 1960s. Such agitators as Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky had great influence on President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trust me, people that embrace the tactics detailed in a book dedicated to the Devil don’t give a rat’s ass about the scientific truth.
Alinsky’s most famous book, the 1971 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, includes a dedication to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
As for Clinton, there is no doubt that she was deeply impressed by Alinsky’s work. In 1969, she wrote “‘There Is Only the Fight …’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” a 92-page senior thesis at Wellesley College on the elder radical’s tactics. At the Clintons’ request, the thesis was embargoed until after they left the White House.
One the most common and effective propaganda tactics of the left is to “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty.” That tactic was clearly demonstrated by Michael “I’m a Victim” Mann in the recent congressional testimony. In the testimony Michael “They’re Picking on Me” Mann claimed to be the victim of ad-hominem attacks and lies. In other words, the ring leader of the well-documented attacks on real scientist is playing the victim card. To highlight just how absurd this claim is, Michael Mann wrote a book that effectively called real scientists “deniers” on its cover. He even called fellow members of the congressional testimony “deniers” in his written testimony (Link to the must see video). Michael Mann’s work was certainly attacked, the “Hockey-Stick” is probably the most discredited piece of “scientific” work in world history, but the critics weren’t attacking Michael Mann, they were attacking his laughably poor “scientific” work.
Why is this “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” so effective?
- It immediately puts the innocent opposition on the defensive
- The innocent opposition has to waste valuable time refuting a lie and not addressing the issue
- It has perverse consequences of making the innocent guilty and guilty innocent
- Its impact is asymmetrical, falsely accusing the innocent elicits a completely different response than truthfully accusing the guilty
- Falsely accusing the innocent catches them completely unprepared, there are infinite numbers of false accusations one can draw from, and there is no way to prepare or anticipate all of them. The guilty knows of their true guilt, they know what they truly did, and they have time to prepare a thoroughly deceitful response to hide their guilt
- The accusation is what makes the headlines, the retraction gets printed on page 6 if at all
How then can real scientists use the “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” to their advantage is an honest manner that doesn’t require sacrificing their integrity?
- Properly expose the behavior that one is truly guilty. By falsely accusing the other of guilt, they expose what they are truly guilt. Their false accusation becomes a self-admission of guilt. Michael Mann has reason to be ashamed of being a member of groups that actively promote attacking real scientist. Exposing the truth forced him to be caught in a lie, and “deny” the easily proven truth. The political value of this video easily outweighs any of the scientific discussion. This is the video that will be posted on countless websites and news sources. This video demonstrates how a real scientist can win both the scientific and political battle. The truth is the real scientists greatest ally, expose it, expose it in a manner that the non-scientist can understand.
- One of Saul Alynski’s rules if that ridicule is that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Ridicule is an appropriate tactic when directed towards the guilty. There is nothing improper with calling a liar a liar to expose the truth. Dr. Judith Curry demonstrates this approach is a manner that should get her nominated to the Real Science Hall of Fame. The video clip highlighted in this linked article should be donated to the Smithsonian and saved in the National Archives. Adding proper ridicule to counter the “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” tactic is particularly effective. Once again, Dr. Judith Curry’s video of her refuting Michael Mann is worth far more than all of the science discussion. Her non-science related comments are worth far more than all the science discussion. Her comments will change the hearts and minds of the fence-sitters, and in a 50/50 America, that is what counts. That is the path to victory.
- Don’t let the climate alarmist put you on the defensive, don’t take the bate. When a false accusation is leveled, say that it is ridiculous, demand evidence which never exists for a false accusation, and then put the accuser of the defensive. Dr. Judith Curry could have also said: “Your false statement is ridiculous, you have no evidence to back your claim, but there is plenty of evidence, much of which is recorded in your written testimony that proves you are guilty of those accusations.” By phrasing it that way, Michael Mann is put on the defensive and exposed as being either a liar, ignorant, hypocrite or all the above, none of which are good.
This article is the second of a series that will explore the political tactics that may help the real scientists win the climate change war. As noted, this is a two-front war, and this series is the battle plan for winning on the political front.