Michael Mann says Rep. Rohrabacher unfit for public office because of ‘anti-scientific zealotry’ — meanwhile public employee Mann says ‘proof not for science’

Keep talking, Mike. You’re only making yourself sound nuttier and nuttier.

Here’s Mann’s tweet:

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 10.05.41 AM

Meanwhile, Mann was recently quoted as saying:

Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.

5 thoughts on “Michael Mann says Rep. Rohrabacher unfit for public office because of ‘anti-scientific zealotry’ — meanwhile public employee Mann says ‘proof not for science’”

  1. Please, Michael….PLEASE…just slither away and crawl in a hole somewhere. Penn State’s had enough trouble of late…we don’t need any more bloviating from the likes of you…

  2. Rohrabacher being a politician who’s taken the time to carefully examine both sides of the issue. If there is a particular shining example of a politician driven by anti-scientific zealotry, it would be Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has dismissed skeptic climate scientists out-of-hand because of his beliefs in some conspiracy theory about those skeptics being on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/sheldon-calls-out-climate-deniers-in-senate-speech

  3. Liberals Are Anti-Science Too
    ‘Cognitive creationists’ and fuzzy environmentalists abound on the left

    Liberal-leaners have their own set of anti-science beliefs on a par with creationism, writes Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and popular figure on the smart set lecture circuit, in Scientific American.

    One example: “cognitive creationism.” That’s the name Shermer gives to the idea that human character and intelligence are shaped entirely by nurture, not by nature.

    http://politix.topix.com/homepage/4241-liberals-are-anti-science-too

  4. Mann is partially correct in saying that Proof is not part of science. He just doesn’t understand that it is a clear definition of disproof that matters. We never prove our hypotheses. We just clearly illuminate what we want to see to disprove them. Mann suffers from Texas Sharpshooterism.

Comments are closed.