There is a really good post up at RealClimate responding to a pretty shoddy Wall Street Journal editorial. WSJ is a pretty good newspaper, but sometimes their opinion pieces are absurd. It's another good example of pre-conceptual science in which the conclusion is arrived at first based on one's political or religious ideology, and then evidence is sought to confirm that position. Any contrary evidence is dismissed out of hand. RealClimate does a really good job of debunking the Creationist... er, I mean climate skeptics' claims.
But it is amazing how similar people who don't believe in evolution are to people who don't believe in global warming. The same tired myths get propagated again and again and people continue to believe them because we're not doing a very good job of having a national discussion about these issues at the popular level. Whether it's UFOs, images of Mary in jars of mustard, or these kinds of hot topics, lots of people enjoy believing in positions that are extremely reactionary, short-sighted, and removed from reality.
Attacking Mann, as if his personality embodied the totality of empirical research corroborating global warming hypotheses, is a page straight out of the creationists' playbook (e.g., laughable claims about Darwin being wrong or the Piltdown man scam). How someone can scoff at creationists while denying global warming is the height of hypocrisy.