Michael Mann admits he is NOT a ‘serious scientist’

There’s nothing quite like a warmist who just can’t stop pontificating.

Here’s Mann’s tweet saying no serious scientist claims global warming will cause human extinction:

Mann extinction

But here’s Thom Hartman’s October 1, 2013 interview of Mann in which Mann states:

Once again we are literally change the composition of the atmosphere and the climate at rates far greater than happened naturally in the past. And what that means is that we are subjecting living things to rates of change that they simply haven’t evolved to deal with. Rates of change that are well outside of what we might reasonably call the adaptive capacity of ecosystems, of species and of human beings… of human civilization.

Watch the video below… the clip starts at about the 2:50 mark.

6 thoughts on “Michael Mann admits he is NOT a ‘serious scientist’”

  1. Wow. Michael Mann is right, he’s not a serious scientist. On everything else he is wrong.

  2. Fits with the theory of punctuated equilibrium that most evolution happens after mass extinction, so to evolve we need mass extinction.

  3. Pathway, you are really stupid enough to swallow an unsupported idea, not even a hypothesis as it does NOT have a mechanism, like punctuated equilibrium??!?!

    Did I hear you say, what else could it be??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  4. Humans have managed to bypass many of the ‘traditional’ triggers of natural selection (for humans) with artificial immunization and remarkable medical care, as well as engineered environment. These advantages might be lost along with civilization in a “Green” future.

    Humanity might indeed become threatened if we have to compete on a uniform “natural” playing field, where intelligence is not an allowed advantage.

  5. As they say, “Even a blind dog sometimes finds a bone.”
    Mann demonstrates here that it is probably impossible to be wrong on *everything*.
    But when you are wrong enough often enough, people stop paying attention to you, and you have to become increasingly outrageous to get any attention at all.

  6. “Humanity might indeed become threatened if we have to compete on a uniform “natural” playing field, where intelligence is not an allowed advantage.”

    In fact, take away “society” and especially the technology that it brings (which depends heavily on the social structure surviving, which is a highly artificial construct) and humanity is in deep trouble.
    Without rapid large scale transportation of resources our cities will starve of food and water for their residents in days, waste will accumulate so rapidly they become impossible to live in in weeks at most.
    And rural areas too depend on technology. Our farms are incapable of producing enough to even feed themselves without it.

    If we lose our technology, people living in “primitive areas”, “third world countries”, etc. will be the best off as they’re living closest to a state where they don’t need technology to survive.
    Their cities will still be death traps, they’ll still lose a large portion of their population due to disease, starvation, and civil wars over resources, but their agricultural areas can survive (though no doubt their city dwellers will loot, pillage, and murder farmers living near the cities, digging their own graves even deeper).

    I’m not advocating a program for the slow abandonment of technology and return to a medieval lifestyle, close to the land. But having a fallback scenario might be a good idea.

Comments are closed.