Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

18 September 2014

The Loneliest Mann In HockeyStickDom

By Mark Steyn, 16 September 2014

The so-called "consensus hockey stick". Hmm. Does that really look like a hockey stick?

Yesterday marked a not unimportant court deadline in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, and I wouldn't want to let it pass without comment. Ever since this tedious suit was launched by Doctor Fraudpants in defense of his global-warming hockey stick, Michael Mann's supporters have insisted that it's not, as I and my fellow defendants have insisted, about free speech. Instead, as they see it, it's about science finally fighting back against a sustained assault by Koch-funded "denialists". This sub-headline encapsulates the general line: 

Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. 

Gotcha. Michael Mann is not doing this for Michael Mann, or even for Michael Mann's science, or even for climate science. He's doing it for science. Mann is science and science is Mann. 

A few weeks ago, you'll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment - and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs: 

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

"At this point, we don't know," she said. 

Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call "lowering expectations".

As was written: 

I would be surprised if Mann didn't have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly's genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs - and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader "war on science" by well-funded "deniers", I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I'm confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month: 

The link between 'defending Michael Mann is defending climate science' seems to have been broken. 

As yesterday's deafening silence confirms. If you're defending Michael Mann, you're not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann - and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.

This wasn't the way the case looked back at the beginning of the year when the climate alarmism industry was gleefully predicting that this case would put National Review out of business. But I was struck some time ago by the weirdness of Dr Mann's dwindling band of defenders - the Irish inventor of the Percentigrade measure of global warming, the Guardian conspiracy theorist who thinks al-Qaeda is a western intelligence operation, the alleged "Republican scientist" in Utah with his kinky fantasies about me giving him a lap-dance... Then there's Toronto's leading ovine fornication specialist M J Murphy, who blogs as Big City Lib, and is now busy compiling my witness list: 

@RogerPielkeJr OT but curious: have you been interviewed to appear for Steyn at @MarkSteynOnline vs. @MichaelEMann? Have you said y/n? 
If the downturn in the ovine fornication analysis industry has left him with that much time on his hands, M J Murphy might be more usefully occupied trying to drum up a few witnesses for Mann.

Michael Mann is not taking a stand for science, or even merely climate science. Science will do just fine without him, and climate science would be significantly better off. As the Prussian puts it, "What is Mann that thou art mindful of him?" Do click through to look at the various "replications" and "confirmations" of Mann's hockey stick, and note the differences between Mann's own sticks and what he produces "when he has to work with competent scientists who can check his work" (see the "consensus" hockey stick above). The Prussian respects science, but he can't respect Mann's science: 

I still get into raging argument where I say it is outrageous to casually attack the scientific integrity of climatologists…. other than Mann

Because Mann's conduct has been an utter and complete disgrace. He's lied about being a Nobel laureate, he's lied about being multiply exonerated, he's lied about other scientists, and tried to bully and smear and intimidate anyone who refuses to defer to him.

And the only reason he gets away with this is because of the respect that good people, like Mr Huertas, rightly and properly have for science and the scientific method. Science is hard, tough, poorly paid, and often thankless work. It's also the thing that actually advances our species from the savannah to the skyscraper. It's quite right and proper to have a healthy respect for this.

And Mann's abusing it. He is trying to cash in on that respect for his own ends.

A lot of other scientists agree with the Prussian. Mann and his hockey stick have been called "scanty", "sloppy", "sh*tty", "rubbish", "a disgrace to the profession", "dubious", "invalidated" and "just bad science" - and that's just the fellows who believe in global warming, the guys who are on his side ...but don't regard it as "his" side, no matter how obnoxiously proprietorial he gets about it.

Mann has spent the last decade painting himself into an ever more exclusive corner. Consider this, for example, from his Twitter feed, where he purports to call out Judith Curry: 

As Jean S points out immediately below his Tweet, if Mann was really interested in getting an answer from Dr Curry, he'd address her directly via her Twitter handle rather than a hashtag. But he never does, does he? He blocks anyone who disagrees with him, and then refuses even to acknowledge their Twitter address lest anything even mildly critical of the poor insecure fellow turn up in his feed. By contrast, every week Dr Curry cheerfully links to drivel by Mann acolytes trashing her: 

Curry's Credibility Crumbles [link]

Judith Curry Scores Own Goal in Climate Hockey [link]

When you can bear as little dissent as Michael Mann it's no wonder a self-proclaimed Nobel Laureate winds up in an echo chamber populated by sheep shaggers and 9/11 troofers. 

Meanwhile, tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2pm Eastern, Penn Futures, the state's environmental advocacy group, will be hosting a live Twitter chat called "Ask Dr Mann". You might like to ask him why he's scared of Judith Curry's Twitter handle. Or if he'd like you to submit an amicus brief.

~We incline more to the Judith Curry way of doing things here, so I'm happy to post Mann's latest feeble legal pleading at SteynOnline. There's not much of interest in it, except in the section on page 21 headed "Jurisdiction", where Dr Mann has withdrawn his objection that "an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Act does not meet the stringent requirements of the collateral order doctrine". If that makes your eyeballs bleed, it's to do with the fact that, at the time the District of Columbia passed its anti-SLAPP law, it was not clear whether a ruling under the law was immediately appealable. If that still makes your eyeballs bleed, well, join the club: we're essentially a test case for a new law whose full scope the DC Appeals Court has yet to pronounce on. But I read Mann's reversal of his earlier position this way - that he's desperately hoping the DC judges will rule that the anti-SLAPP is immediately appealable and then they'll toss the whole case out, and get him off the hook of his own vanity before he has to spend any more time holed up with M J Murphy and David Appell.

I doubt it'll work like that. I'm not part of this appeal and I've countersued Mann. We're planning for discovery, deposition and trial. I'm busy with a family emergency at the moment, and I regret being unable to post more. But I thank you during this content lull for keeping up your support for my pushback against Climatollah Mann via our Steyn Vs The Stick trial merchandise, our new SteynOnline gift certificates and all the other stuff - books, CDs, and more - over at the Steyn store. As the absence of amici suggests, the tide is turning against Mann. That's in part due to the way we've been able to shine a light on his mountain of misrepresentations. And we've only been able to do that because your support kept us in the game during a very rocky patch at the beginning of this year. I'm profoundly grateful, and determined to fight on.

17 September 2014

The Myth of 'Moderate' Islam in the Middle East

Last Week from The Speech: Obama Gets It Wrong On Islam, Again.:

'Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents.'

- President Barack Obama, 10 September 2014

'ISIL claims to be fighting on behalf of Islam but the fact is that it’s hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam. ISIL a manifestation of evil, a vicious terrorist organization and it is an organization that achieves its goals only through violence, repression, and destruction. Fed by illicit funding and a stream of foreign fighters, it has seized territory and terrorized the people who live there regardless of their sect or ethnicity. There is literally no place for their barbarity in the modern world.'

- Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry, 10 September 2014

Make sure to take a good look at the quotes from actual Islamic scholars in the Kerry post to which above I linked.

And from Muffin:

'They are not Muslims. They are monsters.'

- Prime Minister David Cameron, 14 September 2014

 'Finally, you can not overstate this, we must repudiate the gross distortion of Islam that ISIS is spreading. Put an end to the sermons by extremists that brainwash young men to join these movements to commit mass- atrocities in the name of god.'

- Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry,  17 September 2014

I love how:

* Barack Obama (United Church of Christ)

* John Kerry (Roman Catholicism w/ Jewish ancestry)
* Chuck Hagel (Episcopalian)
* Martin Dempsey (Roman Catholicism)

* John 'Jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community' Brennan (Roman Catholicism - Muslim convert?)
* John McCain (Baptist)
* Hillary 'Bashir al-Assad is a Reformer' Clinton (Methodist)
* Lindsey Graham (Southern Baptist)
* Samantha Power (Roman Catholicism)

* Nancy 'Hamas is a humanitarian organisation' Pelosi (Roman Catholicism) 
* Susan Rice (Agnostic)
* Joe Biden (Roman Catholicism)
* David Cameron (CofE Anglicanism)
* Ed Miliband (Jewish)
* Nick Clegg (agnostic atheist)
* Ed Balls (CofE Anglicanism)

* Tony Blair (Roman Catholicism) 

ALL claim to know more about 'REAL' Islam than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed Caliph of the Islamic State, who obtained BA, MA and PhD degrees in ISLAMIC STUDIES from the Islamic University of Baghdad.

Why do white elites think that they know more about a subject than brown-skinned man, who is quite obviously supremely educated on the matter?

I wonder if al-Baghdadi ever utters words like 'the soft bigotry of low expectations' although I doubt he thinks it is soft.

Why do white elites in the West ignore what Muslims want?  Studies ask them all of the time.  Like Pew Research Centre's survey, What Muslims Really Believe.


Some essential reading that helps to debunk the propaganda spewed by Islamists and their apologists:

From Former Muslims United - Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam:

‘Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.’

By Ali Sina,, 14 March 2010

I have always maintained that “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. We have two kinds of Muslims: Terrorist Muslims and ignorant Muslims. The former are those who know Islam well and live by its dictums. The latter have no clue about their religion and have an idealized image of Islam that has no bases in facts.

Mr. Tarek Fatah’s editorial published in National Post on March 12, 2010 confirms my view. Fatah attended a debate between Dr. Wafa Sultan, the courageous ex-Muslim woman that shook the Arab world when in an Aljazeera televised debate she pointed out that the problem with the Muslim world is Islam, and Dr. Daniel Pipes, a scholar of Islamic history and the director of the Middle East Forum.

In this debate Pipes argued that Islam is not essentially an intolerant religion and that there have been instances when Jews who were persecuted in Christian countries had sought refuge in Muslim lands. Sultan disagreed and reminded her audience that Muhammad had raided several Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia, massacred their unarmed men and allowed his marauding band to rape their women, while always reserving the prettiest for himself.

Upon hearing these comments, Fatah was “traumatized”. “Even a hardened secular Muslim such as myself was deeply hurt by what I heard that evening,” wrote Fatah.

While acknowledging the validity of Sultan’s criticism of Islam, Fatah repined that “instead of using her newfound fame to challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms of the Middle East, Sultan veered off the deep end and could not resist the temptation of becoming the poster child of Islam haters, joining their ranks with the fervour of a convert.”

Why should Sultan challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms when these are the rotten fruits of the poisonous tree of Islam? The problem is Islam, these are the symptoms.

Fatah accused Sultan of fear mongering and telling to a predominantly Jewish audience, that Muhammad was a Jew killer. He wrote “Wafa Sultan delivered an astonishing account of how the Prophet had slaughtered Jews and then raped the wife of the defeated Jewish tribe.”

Astonishing account? These accounts were reported by early Muslim historians. If Fatah is astonished it is because he, like most Muslims, has not read the history of Islam. Few Muslims care to investigate their religion. The references to Muhammad’s raids, rapes and lootings can also be found in the Quran. Muslims chant the Quran for thawab (reward), but they don’t study it and often don’t understand what they read.

The hatred of the Jews is in the Quran. The first sura of this book is a prayer where Muslims supplicate to Allah “Show us the straight path. The path of those whom Thou hast favored; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.”

Muslims agree that “those whom Allah has favored,” are Muslims, “those who earn Allah’s anger,” and “those who go astray” are Jews, and Christians, respectively.

Jews are stereotyped as greedy in all Muslim countries. This is due to quranic verse that says Jews “cling to life more eagerly than any other people. …every one of them would love to live a thousand years,” but they will burn I hell. (2:96)

Many verses of the Quran portray the Jews as evil doers, wicked, transgressors, prophet killers, and despised by God. Because Muhammad hated the Jews, Muslims will always hate the Jews. This hatred is inseparable from Islam.

Fatah continued, “I left the synagogue deeply disturbed. In the fight against Islamofascism, Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing. When a questioner asked her ‘What is the solution?’ she just shrugged her shoulders. Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die.”

Sultan has all the reasons to hate Islam. Former Muslims hate Islam because we hate discrimination against women, violence against non-Muslims, dictatorship and imposition of faith that characterizes the true Islam, and because we know the damage that his overgrown cult has done to our people, our culture and our countries. We don’t shrug our shoulders when asked for the solution. Obviously this “hardened secular Muslim” was so traumatized that he could no longer hear what Wafa Sultan was saying.

Former Muslims propose telling the truth as the solution. We believe that truth can set us free. Former Muslims do not advocate violence and hate against our own kin, brothers, sisters, parents, and loved ones. We strive for their freedom and their right to know the truth. We oppose censorship and political correctness that have enslaved the truth. Truth can hurt our feelings, but lies will kill us.

I do not disagree with Dr. Pipes’ historic account that sometimes Jews who were persecuted by Christians sought refuge among Muslims. However, I respectfully disagree with him when he presents this as evidence of the tolerance of Islam.

Islam is not tolerant because Muhammad was not tolerant. This does not mean all Muslims are intolerant. There have been many Islamic rulers who were tolerant, but they went against the canons of Islam, as many do today. That is why the jihadists who follow the true Islam are attacking these Muslim rulers.

Unlike the crusaders who wanted to convert everyone to Christianity, the jihadists don’t want to convert everyone to Islam. They want to establish the Caliphate and dominate the world. In an Islamic state, ruled under the Sharia, non-Muslims, particularly the people of Book, (Jews and Christians) are protected, as long as “they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q: 9:29). This is no different from Nazism. Hitler did not want to convert everyone to Arians, nor did he want to exterminate all mankind. He wanted to dominate the world.

By drawing a distinction between Islamic terrorists and “moderate” Muslims Dr. Pipes is threading a dangerous path. One is either a Muslim, therefore emulates Muhammad and is a terrorist, or he is not a Muslim. Moderate Muslim makes as much sense as moderate Nazi.

Lies always come back to haunt us. A Muslim who does not practice Islam or believes Islam means peace is not a moderate Muslim, but a wishy-washy Muslim or an ignorant Muslim.

It is this myth that allows Glenn Beck to malign Geert Wilders and call him a “fascist,” (SoRo: Beck and Wilders have since become friends.) or Jacqui Smith and other British officials to bar him from entering the U.K. There are countless good people who are harassed, prosecuted and called racists because of this myth.

I respectfully urge Dr. Pipes to stop promoting the myth of moderate Islam. I also cordially invite him to a written debate on this topic. Getting to the bottom of this matter goes beyond academic interest. This myth is endangering the lives of the critics of Islam and is violating their right to free speech. Good people are called Islamophobe, bigot, racist and fascist because the world prefers politically correct untruths to the inconvenient truth. It is thanks to this myth that telling the truth has become the new hate speech.

Mr. Tarek Fatah proves my point that there is no such thing as moderate Muslim. He calls himself hardened secular, but cannot stand to hear a historic truth about his prophet. When he says, “Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing,” he is talking about himself. Many honest Muslims prefer not to hide their heads in the sand; they face the truth and deal with it in a rational way.

I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background. At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.

Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.

P.S.: A copy of this article was sent to National Post. Since they published Mr. Fatah’s attack on Dr. Sultan, I hope they would publish this response to him. However, if they refuse to publish it I won’t be offended. Most westerners have no problem shadowboxing the non-existing “political Islam,” as if dealing with a real entity different from Islam, but shun the real critics of Muhammad and Islam itself. This mighty task is left on the shoulders of the apostates of Islam and few heroic souls like Geert Wilders.


Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! 

Please visit where Ali Sina Reveals Islam and Prophet Muhammad and also take a look at his companion site, Faith Freedom International, for a collection of his articles, as well as other members of Former Muslims United.