From the Mann who brought us the hockeystick, which has now been discarded alongside the flat earth theory, phrenology and the idea of the luminiferous ether, we have this pathetic effort to extract sympathy.
Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding…
Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines.
Outfunded? WUWT has the reply to this absurd suggestion. For this attempt to claim that he is a victim in all this, and his outlandish conspiracy theories, Michael Mann is the climate fool for this week.
I’ve got a dishonourable mention for Clive Hamilton, who this week expressed his desire to punch skeptics in the face.
Another goes to Canada’s The Globe and Mail and the journalist Adriana Barton for this attempt to stereotype skeptics. She uses the term “denying climate change”, which in only three words has two serious problems. The first is that most skeptics don’t deny the anthropogenic global warming theory. They question it and find it to be lacking in evidence. Secondly, who questions that climate changes? Jo Nova exposes this hatchet job on the English language. Brendan O’Neill has a critique of the study.
Apparently, there’s something called “the white male effect”, where, because white men have faced fewer obstacles in life than other groups, they are “more accepting of risk than the rest of the public”. In short, having lived cushy lives, they now laugh in the face of the End of Days.
There are so many problems with this report it’s hard to know where to begin. First, the report patronisingly treats what it calls climate-change denial – itself a loaded term – as a kind of default behaviour, a group instinct.
In line with authoritarian regimes throughout history, many of which had a tendency to write off alternative views as the products of unstable minds, greens refuse to treat scepticism as a legitimate way of thinking.
I wonder if Barton read the studies which suggest that skeptics have a greater understanding of the scientific literature.