8 thoughts on “Michael Mann return to UVa rejected by school administration”

  1. How disappointing. I have a degree in history. To see a history scholar so bamboozled when it comes to understanding science. History is based on consensus, science is not. This is why we don’t refer to the Science of History. I’m saddened to see Geraci add credence to the theory that liberal arts scholars have little reasoning skills.

  2. I didn’t know history was based on consensus. I thought it was the study of what really happened.

  3. How about this as the reason? The people who said “NO” to Mikes return know what is in his e-mails and do not want him back.

  4. Mann put them in an awkward spot in which they had to publicly defend themselves against the State Attorney. They did their best, at considerable expense, to salvage their own image (whatever they perceive that to be), but they certainly are not going to allow him to place them in that kind of position again.

  5. Thomas, it sounds as if you’re objecting merely to my following the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change — so you’re hardly even addressing what I wrote, but rather dwelling on one of the basic assumptions underlying it — an assumption shared by multitudes. I’m not a climate scientist myself, of course. Everyone who is concerned about climate change isn’t necessarily claiming to understand the science thoroughly — we take a certain leap of faith when we decide whose expertise to trust. How do you think it looks to a layperson when only a miniscule number of scientists disputes anthropogenic global warming? And what is one supposed to think when he notices that virtually all the non-scientists who side with that miniscule minority and publicize their views just happen to be crowded on one end of the political spectrum? Of course he’d have to say it looks more like a political controversy than a scientific one. I suppose you think it’s just a coincidence that all the advocates of one particular “scientific” viewpoint share the same politics? Do you really think the public is so stupid that they can’t see that the “scientific” position of most skeptics and deniers (meaning those who are not climate researchers themselves) is a function of their economic and political interests? You ought not to waste your time talking about science because we all know that that’s not why you’re so concerned with this. As for my reasoning skills, how about being more specific? I’d be happy to explain to you anything you didn’t understand in what I wrote. I assure you that it’s entirely well reasoned and reasonable. Cheers, RG

  6. Sir, your statement “anything to further expose the global warming denial lobby is a great public service nationally” is anti-science. Science welcomes descent. America welcomes descent, too.
    Just ask Hilary.

    In your article, you say, “Cuccinelli (so stubborn that he’s still trying to reinstate Va.’s anti-sodomy laws in spite of a Supreme Court ruling).” This non sequitur speaks volumes of your character, not Cuccinelli’s.

Comments are closed.