You quote Michael Mann on integrity? If you are not joking, the Irony is beyond belief! This is the same Mann who doctored temperature data to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period to make his now infamous “Hockey-Stick” graph look more plausible, the same Mann implicated in the Climategate email scandal, the same Mann who refused to table his own data for his own court case?
'Scientist' Michael Mann Commits Contempt of Court in 'Climate Science Trial of the Century'
Christopher Booker of the back in 2009 slammed the climate alarmists behind the claims of global warming that was…
“When an Agency employee substantively engaged in the science informing an Agency policy decision disagrees with the scientific data, scientific interpretations, or scientific conclusions that will be relied upon for said Agency decision, the employee is encouraged to express that opinion”
Twist as you may, the clear intent of this clause is to prevent the suppression of alternative views, to stop dissident scientists from being censored if they don’t follow the accepted dogma. This is precisely what you are trying to do in attacking Pruitt for daring to say that the science of Global Warming is unprofessional at best, ideological propaganda at worst, and in any case is a steaming pile of crap, incapable of proving anything.
“Its clear to me that Mann is in violation of basic standards of ethical conduct, as he seeks to advance the Climate Change agenda by implying that Pruitt is in the pay of the Koch Brothers and polluting interests.”
If Pruitt wanted to, he could launch his own libel case against Mann.
CO2 is not pollution, it is essential to all life on Earth, so to call CO2 emissions pollution is the Big Lie that justifies calling ethical Coal-fired power stations “Big Polluters” or “polluting interests”. What a pack of unscientific lies.
In the concise words of eminent Physicist Freeman Dyson:
“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage. I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence”