We could also begin by realizing that this is one of their very strategies in the first place. Politicize the science by attacking the scientists motivations, then spend money getting media people to attack the scientists for politicizing and polarizing the science when they respond in kind.
We need to be able to see through shit like that. Sadly some people keep falling for this bait and switch every time. They’re republican voters.
I am not sure taking a polarized political position like Mann does helps his cause. Eliminating one major party would end healthy debate and would simply move strong advocates against sensible policy elsewhere. You only need to convince the middle in both parties to invoke policy.
I think what Mann says in this interview is credible. He is not claiming proof but only supporting evidence. Given the evidence he is showing, having policy that reduces risk here is sensible.
Bill you surprise me by saying something sensible. 
What “healthy debate”?
You mean like Jim Inhofe’s sophomoric snowball stunt?
Or do you mean like Ken Cuccinelli’s baseless attack on academic freedom?
Or do you mean the Republican base’s threats of violence against Mann (and most probably against others)?
Or do you mean the Heritage Foundation acting as a paid shill for the oil industry?
Or do you mean the global, multi-million-dollar, hacking-for hire campaign waged against climate activists and organisations?[1][2]
It is hard to see anything, even remotely healthy, about the manufactured FUD from the climate-denial crowd.
Oh, and @colewd, as you’ve brought up Mann yet again, I will again ask you:
What papers by Michael Evan Mann have you been referring to?
This topic was automatically closed 8 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.