Year 4, Month 1, Day 6: A Sphinctral Fricative

The Pottstown (PA) Mercury runs a column by a professional asshole named Gil Spencer, attacking Michael Mann:

The professor found this sentence written by Steyn to be particularly offensive:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Pretty good, huh?
But Professor Mann found it not the least bit amusing. He demanded that Steyn’s snappy critique be removed from the NRO website and when it wasn’t, he sued.

I say, Professor Mann is not the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. I say he is the Jerry Falwell.

Sheesh. Have a nice day, everybody. Sent January 1:

Given that every single allegation against climatologist Michael Mann has been debunked multiple times, I’d say he has a right to be angered by the calumnies leveled at him by writers in the National Review. Since Mann first published his findings, conservatives have attacked him and his work, invariably coming up empty in their search for incriminating evidence. While scientific method is entirely built around evidence and analysis, lack of evidence poses no obstacle to the anti-science zealots who routinely reject any data that doesn’t fit their worldview.

Let’s put it plainly: scientists who have spent their lives developing expertise on Earth’s climate think there is a problem, and all of us need to talk about it. Writers and commentators on the payrolls of various petroleum-funded “think tanks” cannot refute the evidence of the climate crisis, and resort to ad hominem attacks instead. Gil Spencer’s column is an egregious affront to the rules of civilized communication, and an insult to the intelligence of your readership.

Warren Senders