To the Editor:
An individual named Andrew Engelman did a disservice to your readers by spreading various falsehoods in his recent commentary in your paper denying the threat of human-caused climate change (Oct. 8, “Solid evidence needed”).
I became aware of Mr. Engleman’s commentary through a friend who happened to read it, and was horrified by his misrepresentation of my own views about climate change.
My book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars describes the attacks I have been subject to owing to the iconic status that my scientific work establishing the unprecedented nature of modern global warming — the “Hockey Stick” curve — has taken on in the climate change debate. I spend an entire chapter (“A Candle in the Dark”) explaining how important scientific skepticism is “the self-correcting machinery” that keeps science on the path of increasingly better scientific understanding.
Skepticism, as I explain, is a good thing. But I contrast true skepticism with pseudo-skepticism or denial, the indiscriminate rejection of well-accepted science based on the flimsiest of arguments that don’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. I’m afraid that the latter best characterizes Mr. Engelman’s views.
In the epilogue of my book, I note, “Some critics have gone so far as to pronounce those individuals behind the corporate-funded [climate change] denial machine guilty of ‘crimes against humanity’ because of the devastating effects on humanity to which we are already committed, especially among the world’s poor and disadvantaged.”
That doesn’t really bear much resemblance at all to Mr. Engelman’s claim, “Michael (Hockey Stick) Mann said that skepticism is a crime against humanity,” now, does it?
I could go on at length about Mr. Engelman’s other misrepresentations of basic climate change facts, for example his claim that the globe has warmed at most “a tad” over the past century. In fact, the globe has warmed almost 1.5 degrees F, and the Arctic almost double that over the past century. This is a significant fraction of the temperature difference between today and the last Ice Age, hardly “a tad.” And the scientific community has established that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg; we will see as much as four times that additional warming if we continue with the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels.
Suffice it to say that those interested in the truth behind the science of climate change, rather than the falsehoods perpetuated by individuals like Mr. Engleman should consult other sources. These include scientist-run websites likerealclimate.org andskepticalscience.com, or books on the topic like my Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.
There is a worthy debate to be had about what policies we should enact to deal with the climate change threat. But debating whether or not the threat even exists is simply no longer worthy.
Michael E. Mann
Distinguished Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State University
Director, Penn State Earth System Science Center