“Why” the headline in the online magazine Environment (a division of the left-wing activist website Change.org) wails plaintively, do the “deniers” keep attacking the noble, courageous, pure-as-global-warming-induced-snow NASA researcher Michael Mann? Why do the corporate shills, intellectual sellouts, and capitalist sycophants continue to harass and persecute this righteous prophet of the coming eco-eschaton? The sellouts and shills are, of course, quite literally everybody who disagrees on principled grounds with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, no matter what their credentials or how distinguished their careers, so there are a lot of them.
Let us look briefly a some of the reasons such “attacks” are still coming. Dr. Mann is a major figure among a core group of scientists at the root of what is perhaps the greatest corruption of and yoking of science for political ends since the career of Trofim Lysenko. The theories of Trofim Lysenko, the infamous Soviet biologist who rejected Mendelian genetics and Darwinian concepts of evolutionary development and promoted a concept of politically correct “proletarian” science (as against the “bourgeoisie” variety), failed in practice and produced a series of massive crop failures in the Soviet Union.
Even given an overwhelming lack of scientific support for his ideas, his theories became state dogma throughout the 1930s and 1940s, and skeptical scientists who did not agree with his concepts were hounded and persecuted by the Soviet government. This eventuated in the outlawing of scientific dissent from the Lysenkoist “consensus” in 1948.
Mann himself, who should – following normal protocol for AGW proponents – not even be taken seriously at all as he has no climate science credentials, looms large among the body of government grant funded scientists who stand as the Fathers of the Church of AGW. Indeed, he was at the root of one of the major fabrications of data the IPCC promoted in its original alarmist predictions regarding human induced warming, using computer code and carefully selected data to make well attested, empirically known phenomena (the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period) disappear from the paleoclimatological record.
Neither Mann nor any of the tiny cabal of politicized, government grant funded scientists who’s carefully crafted work became the basis for literally the entire edifice of AGW hysteria have as yet provided a shred of verifiable empirical evidence to support their claims or the predictions of the computer models they have relied upon to make their case.
Critics may point out that, like his colleague James Hansen’s reckless and scientifically unjustified hysterics before a congressional committee in 1988, Mann’s long discredited Hockey Stick graph has resulted in somewhere between $50 and $60 billion in government grants to study the impending doom created by the internal combustion engine and air conditioners being squandered on a non-problem while other serious scientific questions wait for the ideological fever to break.
Dr. Mann is still being “attacked” because his data was long ago exposed as fudged and, like Hansen, the effects of his concepts and attitudes on science as a viable intellectual pursuit independent of ideology, has been deeply subversive. Mann has also, following the behavior of many other proponents of AGW, refused for many years to substantively engage serious scientific skeptics in good faith debate and instead prefers the standard leftist dismissal of anyone who disagrees with them on this (or any) issue as being a “denier” (i.e., a “reactionary,” “counterrevolutionary,” “deviationist,” “Kulak,” etc.). Or, of course, it must be that skeptics are the paid hacks of vested interests.
This tactic (its not a rational argument at all, but simply a mass ad hominem circumstantial diversion) is of long standing among the Left. It’s really very suspicious (of course), and your arguments need not even be given a hearing if your think tank receives a few thousand, or tens of thousands of dollars of funding from Exxon Mobile. Meanwhile, many billions of dollars of taxpayer money flowing from interested politicians and bureaucracies into the study of “climate change” is passed over as morally pure without further question)?
The real question, it would seem, is not why criticism of Mann continues, but how a kindred spirit of Trofim Lysenko could arise in this country without that country’s scientific community isolating and ostracizing him.
There seems to be little consensus as to what constitutes sound climate science in our time, and that constitutes a really “inconvenient truth.”