A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way?

” ‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’ ”
-Ian Plimer

Roy Spencer is not an “evolution denier”. After two years investigating the question of evolution vs. intelligent design during his PhD studies, he came to the conclusion that, though both theories depend upon belief as opposed to evidence, the latter seemed more plausible than the former.
He says that, though species adapt to their environment to some extent, there is insufficient evidence in the fossil record (or, for that matter, in living flora and fauna) to demonstrate that fishes could adapt so radically as to become mammals or birds. He points out that theories that try to account for inter-species evolution by positing hitherto-unobserved leaps from one species to another are based not on evidence but on the near-total absence of it.
So Roy’s approach is strictly that of the questioning scientist, trying to account for gaps in the existing theory of evolution. He says evolution and intelligent design are the only two scientific theories of origins available to us, and that neither of these accounts for the moment of creation – the Big Bang – because the laws of physics by which we are enabled to observe and understand the visible creation only came into effect a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, as Max Planck has pointed out.
My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.
Mann, a medieval-warm-period denier, is no doubt grateful that the Attorney-General of Virginia seems not to be actively pursuing his investigation of him under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000. However, is evident that a small and well-connected group of “scientists” (no names, no pack-drill) has been pushing the supposed evidence for catastrophic “global warming” well beyond what the science would support, in much the same way as irredentist evolutionary “scientists” have been claiming certainty where some element of legitimate scientific doubt unquestionably persists.
If scientific dissent such as that of Dr. Spencer on climate and on evolution is to be sneered at by charlatans such as Mann, and if funding goes only to scientific viewpoints which – however questionable the evidence for them – are politically “correct” and not to other viewpoints for which there is legitimate evidence, then the age of Enlightenment and Reason is dead and we are flung back into the Dark Ages. Mann needs an open mind, not an open mouth.