It's all so confusing: Which critics of Michael Mann's hockey stick are showing "healthy skepticism", and which ones need to be tried at a "climate Nuremberg"?

Of emails and scientific research | Planet3.0

Take a look at this email written by Raymond Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

Bradley was one of the authors of the original hockey stick graph, along with Michael Mann. But he clearly thinks that a subsequent reconstruction (which largely agrees with his own) done by his former collaborator is not very good. He says so in very strong language, and when asked about it by the New York Times he stood by his earlier complaints and made it clear that he expressed his disagreement directly to Michael Mann.

This example, and many more contained within the emails, show a healthy skepticism within the scientific community.

Flashback:  Chilling Intolerance for Free Speech on Global Warming

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." -David Roberts, Gristmill, Grist Magazine, September 19, 2006

So said Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts of those who question looming global warming doom. They are war criminals and should be tried and prosecuted the same way as Nazi Germany leaders.1 In his words, global warming doubters "have blood on their hands" and are "morally if not legally, criminals."2