Allentown Morning Call letter: Penn State should not give Michael Mann forum on global warming

“When Penn State should be doing everything possible to regain its status as a bastion of truth and integrity, the last thing it should be doing is supporting someone of such questionable scientific ethics and political motives with our dollars.”

Paul Saunders’ letter in the Allentown Morning call states:

The Penn State Forum speaker’s series on Thursday features professor Michael Mann speaking about global warming. This is the same Michael Mann who is at the center of two scandals. First, there was the scandal over his bogus “hockey stick” plot that misrepresented global temperatures over the last 1,000 years. This plot was discredited by expert statisticians and scientists. Second, there was the scandal over his involvement in the Climategate I and Climategate II controversies for allegedly manipulating data to align with his extreme political views pushing global warming alarmism.

Mann’s own emails, which became public, show him admitting that global warming science is still far from settled and, even worse, conspiring with his environmental alarmist cronies to intimidate and silence those scientists and editors who dared to publish any article opposing the alarmist dogma of the evangelical church of the global warming crisis.

When Penn State should be doing everything possible to regain its status as a bastion of truth and integrity, the last thing it should be doing is supporting someone of such questionable scientific ethics and political motives with our dollars. There is no place for this brand of extreme political activism, disguised as academics, at Penn State. University leadership should be ashamed for continuing to provide Mann with such high visibility — at our expense.

4 thoughts on “Allentown Morning Call letter: Penn State should not give Michael Mann forum on global warming”

  1. Letting Michael Mann speak about climate change is more scandalous than the Nazi party allowing Einstein to speak about relativity before WWII. We must not let those who understand science speak about science or the public might begin to understand science. If the public understands science, then the entire capitalist machine will begin to collapse. Therefore, we must keep our people ignorant about science for capitalism to survive!

    Imagine if the oil companies had to divert 10% of their quarterly profits to decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, Exxon’s 2011 third quarter profit would have been only $9 billion rather than $10 billion. How would Exxon survive?

    Penn State should on invite credible speakers who better fit the ideology of capitalism such as the reality TV stars Snooky or Kim Kardashian. These noble speakers could then bestow their useful knowledge to the public. Only when we stop scientists from speaking about their science can we simultaneously assure that our public remains scientifically illiterate and ensure the glorious future of capitalism. We must stop the message of the climatologists, and for that matter the Darwinists, before we live in an America where every John Doe understands basic science! We must keep the people ignorant or we will be unable to control them!

  2. To woodNfish;
    I would totally agree with your wishful statement; sadly though, the likelihood of said “media scum” embracing, let-alone even acknowledging the existence of the fraud and dishonesty driving this issue is about as high as the rise in sea level. But we must continue to expose the fraud and highlight the truth and the facts. This letter is an excellent example of what needs to occur whereever and whenever it is required; we should all be ready to do the same.
    It will take the unrelenting efforts of Steve at Junk Science and others that have the ethics and courage to speak truth to power (sorry for the liberal cliche’). It will not be easy to undo this fraud; that by my own observations has become so engrained in so many areas of government and the scientific community (e.g. the National Academy of Science, NASA, etc.). Th basic premise has been accepted; undoing that abomination is the real challenge we face.

  3. A very articulate letter, and even-tempered, at that. One quibble: “evangelical church” is too vague. Climatology is an apocalyptic cult!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.