Once again, the winged monkeys of climate change denialim are writing fake, stupid, made up an absurd reviews of Michael Man's book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines on Amazon.com.
If you've read the book and like it and have not written a review of it on Amazon, please go do so! Help a scientist out.
Thank you very much.
What kind of moral atmosphere is possible when people willfully choose to deny uncontested science regarding what could be real with regard to the human species? If people are presented with scientific evidence and say, "Well, I cannot refute what is before my eyes but still, I consciously and deliberately refuse to acknowlege it because it is unbelievable." In such circumstances is it even possible to speak honestly or honorably of a moral atmosphere? Can there be morality in any meaningful sense without truth, that given to us according the lights and scientific knowledge we possess?
The arc of moral order in the world must follow the 'trajectory' of what is true and real about ourselves and the planetary home we inhabit, I suppose.
To gain some insight into the climate denier mind--a scary proposal, I grant you--you might enjoy Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Tavris and Aronson. It is a general treatment of self-delusion, denial, and the motivations for such behavior--not that we need a well researched analysis to understand the primary motivation; Upton Sinclair’s explanation goes far: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"