By Gordon Fulks

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column.

While we have come to expect a lack of candor from climate alarmists, Michael Mann’s guest column on Oct. 24 was unprecedented in its deception and rancor. Any who dare disagree with him are “right-wing” “denialist” shills without “scientific credentials in climate science.”

That is an interesting charge coming from someone who has degrees in physics and geology, calls himself a meteorologist and studies tree rings. My background is similar to global warming guru James Hansen. We are astrophysicists. The great astrophysicist Alfred Wegener thought of himself as a meteorologist, yet is most remembered for his work in geology. His theory of continental drift challenged the consensus of his day. The best physical scientists are capable of moving science forward, while lesser mortals resist progress.

Mann should know that scientific qualifications are merely the beginning of a conversation, not the end. Arguments in science are won or lost on the basis of logic and evidence, not pedigree and consensus.

Mann should also know that quoting authorities like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is no substitute for discussing the science. Although they are supposed to weed out bad science, they have famously failed to do so, perhaps because they, like Mann, have a large financial interest in climate alarmism. The NAS received many millions of dollars during the Obama era to promote the scam.

The Trump Administration seems to understand this problem and has begun to limit conflicts of interest by insisting that scientists no longer approve their own work. “Self-Approval” or “Pal Review” are not part of any objective process, let alone the scientific method.

Mann is certainly pleased with his “hockey stick” graph showing remarkably rising temperatures in the 20th century and claims that everyone agrees. Why do you suppose he failed to mention the Wegman Report that found serious errors with his hockey stick? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the work of Canadian mathematicians, McKitrick and McIntyre, who demonstrated that a proper analysis of his tree ring data shows the Medieval Warm Period? And why do you suppose he failed to mention the much sturdier temperature reconstructions from ice cores that show all of the previous warm periods were warmer than today (Greek, Roman and Medieval)? Even James Hansen acknowledges this!

The science that Mann does not want to discuss was developed by the Obama Administration. Yes, there was actually an attempt at real science in the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Although hard to find amid all their unscientific promotional fluff, the “Three Lines of Evidence” used to justify their “Endangerment Finding” for CO2 would have gone a long way toward making their scientific case.

But their claim of “unusual warming,” since the end of World War II when atmospheric CO2 began to rise, fails. As best we know, the global temperature actually went down slightly for three decades, up slightly for two, and finally shows no significant trend for the last two. That is impressively poor correlation with rising CO2, a fatal flaw.

Although an Obama era temperature graph that alarmists prefer shows continuous warming, it was discredited this year by NOAA insider John Bates. Apparently, NOAA “scientists” were taking their orders directly from the Obama White House.

Then there is the elusive “Hotspot” in the tropical mid-troposphere that is a consequence of their claimed water vapor feedback. It is missing, according to robust data from NASA satellites and weather balloons, another fatal flaw.

Finally, the Obama Administration claimed its “Climate Models” are ultimate proof. But when we check these computer games against robust empirical data, both alarmists and skeptics find them running far too hot. That is also fatal for Mann-Made Global Warming.

Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman said, “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

No wonder Mann is far from candid. The honest science spectacularly fails to support him.

— Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett, Oregon. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.