Climate alarmist and Hockeystick inventor gets in hot water after more hot air
Michael Mann called a fellow scientist, but climate sceptic, "anti-Science" after her Congressional Testimony, but the tables have been turned on him in spectacular fashion
If anyone out there thought that scientists were a bunch of genteel, Queensbury rules respecting gentlemen-types they've obviously never seen climate alarmists and climate sceptics going at each other like their lives depended on it.
That's not to draw a parallel and to declare each side as guilty as the other. The "consensus" scientists are almost always the ones playing the dirty tricks and calling the names. But when the other side fights back, it's not just instructive about the state of the "consensus" itself, it's downright entertaining.
Bring on Fred Singer, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project writing in the American Thinker. He's got it in for Michael Mann -- or "Hide the decline" Mike, as he calls him -- director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, inventor of the so called "Hockeystick" and one of the most famous climate alarmists in the world.
What has got Singer all riled up is a recent piece written by Mann in the New York Times where he starts playing the victim about all the grief he's got for the fact his theories have all turned out to be wrong, and an accusation he made against a fellow scientist's testimony last week to Congress.
Let the fun begin. Before he gets going himself, Singer brings in Ross McKitrick, a well known scientist who long ago trashed the whole Hockeystick nonsense for what it was. Responding to Mann's New York Times op-ed, which was entitled "If you see something, say something.", McKitrick retorted:
"OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself."
Singer plainly thinks this is far too tame: "OK, I want to say something too," he says.
"I see an ideologue, desperately trying to support a hypothesis that's been falsified by observations. While the majority of climate alarmists are trying to discover a physical reason that might just save the AGW hypothesis, Mann simply ignores the 'inconvenient truth' that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years -- while emissions of greenhouse gases have surged globally."
According to Singer, Mann had launched an attack on "the Senate testimony (Jan 16, 2014) of fiercely independent climate scientist and blogger, Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry."
She was none too impressed. And responded as follows:
"Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being 'anti-science,' I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide."
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.