Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten - updated with invite

Back by popular demand a reposting of my January look at the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn*, the reporter who believes there's no place for honesty or integrity in today's media or political landscape.  
{"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"  Ben Weingarten | The Blaze | Jan. 27, 2014 }

Steyn, Weingarten and friends are fighting a tooth and nail PR campaign against one of the world's experts on paleoclimate studies - {which alone is a good enough reason for the Republican/libertarian machine to make him enemy number one - despite the fact that recognized experts in the field, who actually understand the details of Dr. Mann's work consistently side with Dr. Mann's interpretation rather than the disjointed rhetorical attacks of the science rejecting, faith-based Republican crowd}.

I've shared some links to further information about court developments since this was originally written.

*  (Wednesday evening) 
Over the course of the day I've been wondering about my words: 
"the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn" - was I too extreme, could I support it? 

After much deliberation, YES, I can support the insanity claim.  Here's my defense.  

To begin with Weingarten assumes that truth doesn't matter.

Think about it, Weingarten and Steyn's and the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and in fact, the entire Republican/libertarian political machine's argument (for way more than denying climate science ! ) is built on the demand that truth doesn't matter - faith and a good story is enough for them to reject down-to-Earth-facts and believe what they want, rather than what the observed facts are telling us.

...

...

I actually had further "points" written up, 
but you know . . .  what's the point?

Until that main insight is appreciated and plugged into how we/you deal with them, the rest won't make sense.

The bottom line is that to the Republican/libertarian crowd the truth of scientific fact doesn't matter.  

All they care about is winning their power-political games.  Nothing else in our world, nor our children's actual future living planet matters to them - they got their ancient beliefs and their fortunes to defend - to hell with the real world surrounding us.

That is the enemy you young ones are up against, watch this:

I challenge Weingarten, Steyn, or any 'champion' to explain in a rational good-faith manner where any of what I have written in this post is wrong. 

Objectively, rationally...  we don't need to like one another to have a civil dialogue.

~ ~ ~ 
{Here's my prediction, you will hear nothing but the sounds of silence to my challenge, another failure to get through.

Fortunately, I'm almost 60 and on my way out, but I do worry about younger generations and I wonder do you have what it takes to crack that Republican/libertarian/evangelical faith-based shell of willfully imposed ignorance???  Lordie knows my generation failed big time.  

PS. you are welcome to grab anything I've written and rework it and make it your's.  Sharing and spreading information and ideas is what it's all about. }

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - here's an article that highlights their contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information.  

It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud.  In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s).  But, do his claims stand up?

Here's my review, along with links to further information.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"

Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten!

This article seems so popular I felt compelled to add an invitation to Mr. Weingarten:  Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten - updated with invite

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/youre-joking-mr-weingarten.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

{edited 1/29/14 evening}

If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - well, here's an article for you.

It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud.  In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s).  But, do his claims stand up?

Here's my review, along with links to further information.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"

Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014

Climate Science Watch - breaking news on Mann defamation case

The Climate Science Watch has posted the following breaking news regarding Judge Natalia Combs Greene rejection of another motion to dismiss the defamation suit against the National Review 
(& the Competitive Enterprise Institute):
 "Judge denies National Review's Motion to Reconsider ruling in Michael Mann's defamation case"

Though first, here's a little introduce to the CSW:

CSW History

Climate Science Watch was initiated in 2005 after founder and director Rick Piltz went public about the Bush Administration’s political interference in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s climate change reports. White House censorship and misuse of climate change communication had undermined the scientific integrity of policymaking and contributed to a failure of preparedness to deal with the impacts of climate disruption. After his resignation from the federal program, Rick teamed up with the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in Washington, DC, the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. Climate Science Watch is now a sponsored project of GAP.

CSW’s investigation, analysis, communication, and reform advocacy has combined the concerns that have driven it since 2005: protecting freedom of communication by federal scientists; combating the global warming denial machine; holding government accountable for using climate science with integrity; and the policy mission of climate change preparedness.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Judge denies National Review's Motion to Reconsider ruling in Michael Mann's defamation case 

Posted on August 30, 2013 by Climate Science Watch 

"The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits," said a DC Superior Court judge in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. "The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that 'actual malice' is present in the [National Review's] conduct." 

Another big problem over at Steven McIntyre's ClimateAudit...

... is his, and his supporters obsession with obscure data processing and modeling issues.  Issues that by all rights belong with the full time experts.  

In fact, a cute analogy occurred to me while reading the comments over at ClimateAudit today. Back in the day, I was decent at keeping my cars alive and maintained... in a simpler world... 50s,60s,70s models.  Haven't forgotten any of that knowledge, but I'd be nuts trying to go at my '99 pick up, let alone a friend's 2010.  It requires a level of training and expertise and tools I don't have, and if my ego didn't let me recognize that, my attempts to do-it-myself would result in expensive disaster after disaster.

McIntyre makes a big deal of statistical proficiency and the lack of top tier statisticians among climatologists - he never mentions that climatologists learned from early mistakes and lessons, and have long taken expert statisticians on board as collaborators.  {They really are trying to get as accurate as possible!}  

For instance, McIntyre won't tell you about the "Geophysical Statistics Project" and NCAR's collaboration