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

You buried the lede.
“Michael Mann hikes skirt and runs like frightened girl when confronted by spector of global warming debate.”
– should have been the headline.

I really think that the assumption that an unquestioning approach to evolution is the only way to demonstrate scientific veritas is seriously wrong and it is entirely inappropriate to try and undermine a persons scientific credibility in one field of science simply because they question the consensus in another. Here speaks a scientist who questions everything.

It would be interesting to ask Dr Mann to name one or more front-line scientists who disagree with CAGW with whom he would be prepared to debate the issue.
Silence, no doubt…..

I really don’t care if Roy Spencer believes mankind was dropped by the flying spaghetti monster, it does not change the facts, and the facts are that the earth is showing a far lower sensitivity to CO2 than the team has been preaching. In their furvor, the alarmists have made predictions, but the data goes against their gospel. Mann is using an unrelated matter to dodge the debate.

I am not a believer in intelligent design partly because it does not answer the question about the origins of the intelligent designer.
However, I also have problems with evolution. If you look at a family tree of life forms there are various branching points and nodes but the longest spaces are between these points. So why do we not find more transitional fossils than non-transitional ones?
Putting it another way, if life is constantly evolving then surely most examples in the wild must be in a partially evolved state not in an easily defined category.
In summary, the theory of evolution is still evolving 🙂

So, Mann is still nervous of a debate, eh? He sounded so sure when he waved the hockey stick.

Taking a shot at people’s religious beliefs when they are irrelevant to the subject under discussion is rude, ignorant and unprofessional. If it was two biologists having the argument, it would still be rude, but perhaps might be relevant in some way.
I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, but anyone who claims that Darwinian “evolution” is a fact misunderstands the science. Contemporary debates about the origin and evolution of species have moved a long way since Darwin’s time. The science is far from settled. This is a good thing, surely. It is proper science – we keep debating and researching and improving our knowledge.
You don’t have to believe in the supernatural to accept that our understanding of these matters is far from complete. Dr Spencer’s views are tinged with his religious beliefs, but they are far from unscientific. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists are practising Christians, and see no contradiction between studying evolutionary theory and their faith. Apart from the lieralist “the world was made in six days” crowd, there is no reason why they should.

I do not understand why Michael did not want debate Roy, he could easily win.
He could successfully challenge Roy’s fictional “Virginia” story by pointing out that he can not prove that colder bodies can warm warmer bodies just by claiming that they can or by drawing a picture where they do. Or that Roy can not prove “greenhouse effect” by an IR-thermometer, because the atmosphere does not have a lens. And that he can not just ignore the R.W.Wood experiment. And that he can not just claim anything about changes in “global temperature” probably knowing that the thermometer network has never been proven representative and temperature reconstructions and homogenizations are BS.
Michael, come on, if you read this, go ahead, do it. Do not be afraid of Roy. OK, maybe Roy can say something about that tree ring thing, but you can easily counter that by referring to the “skeptiks” general acceptance of other proxies. E.g. Christopher Monckton’s favorite is Central England’s temperature record allegedly representative for the whole world, it is not really better than trees. So, Michael, call the Fox News and stand up and fight, make me proud.

Oops -“literalist” – bad typo there in second last line. If mod has time, grateful if you could fix – thanks – J

“No @FoxNews, I’m not interested in “debating” #climatechange & #evolution denier Roy Spencer”
I see no mention of religion. Is it is some other post?
If someone believes that a invisible magic man or aliens started life on earth, it is clear that the person does not look at data in a clear unbiased manner. Why would someone debate such a person?