Jones Beene wrote:
When a fool like Mann has been caught in such a pattern of deceit, this
does incredible harm to those many other scientists who have done good
work and come to the same conclusions, but without the kind of dramatic
non-evidence which has been largely concocted here.
Shame on you Michael Mann. You have done the cause a great dis-service.
Exactly right! As I said yesterday about Y2K, "these crises are bad enough
already. We do not need to sensationalize them or pretend they are bad in
ways they are not."
(An earlier comment)
I say this even though, like Nick Palmer and others (who may have been led
to this forum because they are looking for solutions), it seems clear that
we could be facing an incredible environmental crisis due to overuse of
fossil fuels. Unfortunately the proof is in the eye of the beholder, and
there does not exist the kind of Hollywood-style dramatic (and falsified)
evidence which Mann concocted - it is mostly statistical and interpretive
(unless you have lived in Alaska for years . . .
I disagree somewhat. I think the environmental crisis is clear already,
because the deleterious effects are not limited to global warming. You can
see and smell massive air pollution anywhere on the US East Coast, or
Southern California. Fossil-fuel also causes serious social problems such
as war, poverty, disease, terrorism, famine and deforestation, and of
course this human misery in turn damages the environment. The high cost of
oil and natural gas fuel is a burden on poor people in the first world, and
it kills millions of people in the Third World.
In a way, I think it is a shame that global warming has attracted so much
attention, and that it has become the focus of the environmental debate. It
is used as an excuse to avoid addressing the energy crisis. Debunkers and
industry flacks say there are legitimate doubts about global warming (which
is true) and therefore we can stand pat and do nothing about impending oil
shortages or pollution (which is a non sequitur). I wish the
environmentalist would emphasize this argument: "Put aside global warming
and look at all the other problems fossil fuels cause. Coal kills 20,000
people a year in the US alone, 7 times the death toll of the 9/11 attacks,
and it goes on year after year, unabated. If we are willing to spend
billions to avoid another 9/11, why are we unwilling to spend billions to
replace coal with cleaner renewable energy sources?"
As Jones said, Michael Mann had handed the debunkers and industry flacks
ammunition. Perhaps he is a secret agent for the other side, and he is
trying to make the environmentalists look bad?!?
- Jed
