A little etymology lesson: data derives from the Latin, dare (pronounced DAH-ray), “to give,” and means “given.” (Back when I took Latin, it was typically the second verb the conjugation of which one learned. The first was amo, “I love,” the infinitive form of which is amare.) Data means “given.” In the natural sciences, it’s supposed to mean what […]
Who Are the Real Science Deniers? It’s a Given Learn More »
It’s hard to imagine a more thoroughly ignorant statement than this: “The discipline of science is one where the facts, once they are peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals, are fixed. They’re not open to interpretation, or at least not much.” That’s the opinion of Jeffrey Kluger and Justin Worland, writing in “How a war on
Does the Trump Administration Put Science in Jeopardy? Learn More »
Leftwing environmentalist Washington Post columnist Chris Mooney has made something of a cottage industry out of lampooning what he considers conservatives’ “science denial” in four books. Count ’em: The Republican War on Science, 2005 Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming, 2007 Unscientific America—How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, 2009 (with Sheril Kirshenbaum,
Who Does John Tierney Think He Is to Challenge Chris Mooney about “Science Denial”? Learn More »
So you think of science (or maybe I should say “science”?) as a solid, objective, trustworthy activity? Certainly a whole lot more credible than, say, philosophy, or theology, or fortune telling? Before I go on, let me assure you that I value science (without the scare quotes) a great deal. (Philosophy and theology, too—but not
Who Are the Real Science Deniers? Learn More »
Can’t help chuckling as the chickens come home to roost for the nattering nabobs of climate correctness. They’ve been telling everybody for over a decade that “the science is settled,” “there is no debate”: Human emissions of CO2 are driving catastrophic global warming and we must, absolutely must, drastically curtail emissions to save humanity and
Those Greedy Climate Deniers! Learn More »
Was it a critic of the IPCC’s notion of dangerous manmade climate change who wrote this? The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for
Obviously this Guy’s a Science Denier! Learn More »
