Professor Michael Mann is a researcher in Global Warming, often "guilty" of attacking "deniers".
I hate to imply he is "guilty" but then he did imply those who disagree with him are on a par with "Holocaust Deniers" by choosing to use the label "deniers" to group them into a class to be rebuked. He should at least feel guilty for taking that cheap shot rather than maintaining Scientific Integrity.
He recently wrote in the Washington Post that the furor does not represent altered evidence; that the evidence is still sound for Climate Change. Below is my reply posted on the WP comments section associated with his article:
Sorry Mike… you’re NOT "the man" you think you are. You cannot shape the world with "claims" because the world’s politicians and ad writers have already destroyed any confidence people have in "promises" or "claims" or "assurances" or even "analysis". We heard the consensus view of the Intelligence Community world-wide, but there were no WMDs; we heard the consensus view on the economy, but home prices did fall; we heard the MIT economists explain how risk was reduced via derivatives, and we bought it and them only to see the world economy crash. We heard how the "bird flu" would ravage us, then the "swine flu", then it was suppose to be mutating and coming back…. yet our society is not on it’s knees for that, but from spending too much, eating too much, watching too much TV and doing too much of what TV suggests.
We also remember when the consensus opinion of the "experts" was that the earth was flat. Most were not convinced they were wrong until Magellan sailed around the world. We need a Magellan moment before we take Global Warming seriously, especially when we are again in the grips of record setting COLD!
I’ve read the many scientific arguments supporting man-made climate change, but the complexity of the arguments lead to doubt. Many of the arguments involve a balancing between contravening forces that impact the environment after various delays on the order of decades or centuries (e.g. the release of CO2 from the oceans AFTER the rise in temperatures clearly confuses the argument that the rise in temperatures were originally triggered by a rise in CO2 levels!) It is very hard to be accurate in computing which is the cause and which is the effect when there are so many unknowns over so many decades of delay …. and such a faint trace of the evidence available from the distant past. You may well be right…. but you may well be wrong also. Scientific history argues for humility and repeated verifiable tests by independent agents, without the pressure of money, politics or reputation to color the results.
Most certainly, you and the original "Global Warming" crowd seriously over estimated the amount of warming we should have experienced by now, and also seriously overestimated the impact on humanity of the predicted warming. These realities …. present realities …. seriously weaken your case.
We are also very aware of the ease with which we can talk ourselves into believing that "we" (the anointed ones) must use our superior intellect or perspective or as Linus of "Peanuts" fame describes it: Our Superior Sincerity … to SAVE the WORLD!
We’ve already had the Son of God Himself come down and give us THAT message, and have yet to act appropriately upon it!
So I guess you shouldn’t feel too hurt to know that your fellow human beings have discounted your claims and will not be running out to worship at the alter of "Global Warming", or "Anthropomorphic Global Warming", or "Climate Change" or whatever you call it now.
Fact is, we are a "stiff necked" breed and have survived as bull headed as we were in the Old Testament. God has been good and given us many chances, and in the process helped us evolve into a race know for adaptation, not adherence to a holy grail. The waters may well rise, but not more than they did in Katrina and in hundreds of storms in the centuries before that went unrecorded. And we built higher and smarter and survived.
Our greatest mistake of recent time has been to withdraw our support for Nuclear Power because of the scare tactics of those who feared the technology. If we had continued to use Nuclear Energy for electrical power, hundreds of thousands who have died from pollution form coal fired plants would have lived and we would not have to be concerned about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today.
Should we learn from THAT lesson? ….should we have heeded THOSE scientists who promised that the reactors would not melt down to the core of the earth and bring about global destruction? Yes! We SHOULD have studied their designs and rather than imposing straight jackets on the technology, we should have evolved it to be the safe and reliable servant of mankind it has proven to be in much of the rest of the world.
Fear mongering and exaggeration of claims …. especially when mixed with politics and too much "money" …. regularly misleads us.
Want us to return to a belief in the need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere? Then return to realistic arguments and make practical proposals. I can envision a world in which we choose to conserve our carbon resources for those purposes they best fit, exploiting nuclear resources (e.g. Thorium) in safe and reliable ways. Propose incremental change based on cost savings and efficiency, and we will follow. Frighten us and we WILL revolt!
For all the "evidence" you and you associates may have, we have a HUNDRED times more evidence that "the bum’s rush" is proof of a crooked deal! Whenever we hear that we must pass this bill, impose this tax, buy this or that … in a hurry, or else … we discovered we were misled, cheated and taken advantage of.
Frighten us again, and we WILL revolt!