by Mark Steyn
Since he decided to sue me, I've been checking in from time to time on Michael E Mann's Twitter feed. Yesterday, Kyle Gardiner alerted him to the presence of a "climate skpetic" [sic] at Dr Mann's "old back yard" of the University of Virginia, and literally a minute later Mann had dropped whatever tree ring he was working on and rushed to respond:Denying the reality & threat of climate change is a rejection of science.
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) February 17, 2014
So I clicked over to the piece Mr Gardiner had referenced - an op-ed in the student newspaper The Cavalier Daily by Thomas Forman, President of the University of Virginia Environmental Sciences Organization, arguing that the traditional deference to freedom of expression should not be extended to those who disagree with "former University professor Michael Mann, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (all government bodies, except for Dr Mann, who's a divine being):I contend the issue of climate change is not like any other issue that we may normally debate or discuss on Grounds, such as foreign policy, the national debt, gay marriage or income inequality. Climate change is not a subjective issue; it is proven science, backed by hundreds of studies and research full of empirical data. Climate change has been proven by researchers such as Prof. Mann, government agencies such as the EPA and many private universities and institutions. Hard science is not something that should be debated the same way we debate other topics, such as those found in political science. Subjects such as politics or philosophy have no clear definite answer; either side can make a compelling case as to why its beliefs are correct. However, the same cannot be said for climate change. There is one proven answer, and it is protected by scientific fact.
This is madness, and indeed ("There is one proven answer! It is protected by scientific fact!") totalitarian madness. But it is the world Dr Mann hath wrought. The other day I compared the climate cultists to the Islamic enforcers who insist the Koran cannot be questioned. If your response to a cartoon or a novel or even a teddy bear is to insist that somebody has to be beheaded, it's not a sign of intellectual confidence but of great insecurity. Likewise, when the mullahs of climate change insist that the Ice-Coran cannot be questioned, it is not a sign of strength but of profound weakness. Science advances through dogged contrarians testing the "settled science", not through glassy-eyed consensus acolytes prostrating themselves before "one proven answer". Like Thomas Forman at the University of Virginia, Dr Mann at the DC Superior Court is demanding the authorities enforce a one-answer world.
~In the real world, meanwhile, the oceans may be rising, but the waters are murky. Dr Mann's co-author on a 2005 Journal of Climate paper, Tim Osborn:I do wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early responses – the waters are really muddied now.
And sometimes even Supreme Ayatollah Mann himself admits that it's all a bit complicated:I'm really confused by this.
More article at link: http://www.steynonline.com/6103/one-tree-ring-to-rule-them-all