The final fantasy!

... Actually, that might be pretty amazing on a VR headset.

To be quite blunt: I'm just a layman and I'm really not interested in ever seeing revived mammoths released in to the wild.
I'm more interested in seeing mammoths used as safe scientific test subjects for experimenting with the technology to revive extinct species.

Once the process of reviving extinct species is understood well enough that it can be done safely: Species that I would like to see revived (and released into the wild) are ones that were recently driven to extinction by human activity (by over hunting & habitat destruction)... but I think that is a long way off.

I was going to make a very similar comment to yours, but the more I thought about it the more the mammoth seems like a good test case.

It seems to me that we're just starting the testing & experimentation phase of resurrection technology. To be cautious I think we should start testing this new technology on extinct species that meet both of the following conditions:
(1) Are unlikely to escape captivity (ideally test species should be unable to survive outside specially designed enclosures).
(2) Are big, lumbering, and slow breeding. Even if such a species somehow escapes captivity (and manages to survive in the wild) we can still hunt them down and eliminate them.

So far as I know mammoths meet both of these conditions making them good test subjects for resurrection technology.
"... bringing [the mammoth] into an environment that it was not evolved to handle" - That's a feature, not a bug!

Oh look and he's a Republican. How completely unsurprising.

The problem with caveat emptor, especially when it comes to education, is that the people who want to take a computer programming bootcamp are mostly the people who know the least about computer programming and are thus the least qualified to tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate computer programming syllabus.

If you think THAT's bad, you should see what happened to a journal "skeptical" of climate science last week:
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher of Pattern Recognition in Physics actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)! There's your fraud.

The sad part is that no matter how many times you debunk that talking point "skeptics" of climate science will just keep repeating it forever.
That kind of behavior doesn't sound like honest skepticism to me.

Ordinarily I would recommend that you put your opinion in a paper but the only journal with low enough standards to publish it just got shutdown for scientific malpractice.

Yesterday Creationists confused the science of Evolution with the political application of Evolution to public policy (Social Darwinism, & Eugenics). They were wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.
Today "skeptics" of climate change tell us that the science of climate change is wrong because of the possible irresponsible political applications of climate science to public policy. They too are wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.

That is your opinion, but I prefer facts.

"UN climate change projections made in 1990 'coming true'
Climate change projections made over two decades ago have stood the test of time, according to a report published Monday in the journal Nature."
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2012/12/un-climate-change-projections-made-in-1990-coming-true.html (article links to the paper in Nature)

The people who have actually compared the model projections to observed climate changes over the past two decades have found the models to be accurate.

A scientific consensus forms when almost all scientists within a field of study are convinced, based on the strength of the available evidence, that a theory that is within their field of study is correct.

Global Climate Change has become the consensus position of Climatologists the same way that Evolution has become the consensus position of Biologists and the same way that General Relativity has become the consensus position of Physicists.

Take a look at the arguments used by Creationists in the Responsive Ed workbook:
Many of them are very similar to the arguments used by "skeptics" of Global Climate Change.