Science

Liberals Don’t Really F**king Love Science

John Tierney on the Left's real war on science

|

AntiGMOArindamBanerjeeDreamstimes
Arindam Banerjee/Dreamstime

Democrats tend to fondly think of themselves as being members of "the party of science." As evidence that the Republicans are "anti-science" they point to Republican skepticism about man-made climate change and the efforts by some local bible-believing conservatives to have creationism taught in public school biology classes. But as I have reported, there is plenty of anti-science to go around, especially if science is seen as telling partisans something that they don't want to believe. Unfortunately when science intersects with public policy, it is all too often confirmation bias all the way down.

Over at the City Journal, John Tierney, a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, has written a terrific article, "The Real War on Science," which he makes the case that "the Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress." Tierney correctly observes lots of leftwing partisans forget that science is applied skepticism and instead treat "science" as a collection of dogmas. What dogmas? "The Left's zeal to find new reasons to regulate has led to pseudoscientific scaremongering about "Frankenfoods," transfats, BPA in plastic, mobile phones, electronic cigarettes, power lines, fracking, and nuclear energy," summarizes Tierney. And let's not forget Rachel Carson's thoroughly debunked claim that exposure to trace amounts of synthetic chemicals is a major cause of cancer or the assertion the current average consumption of salt is a major cause of cardiovascular disease. Tierney is correct when he writes:

[T]he fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals' "natural rights" against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for "scientific socialism," a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man. Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a "better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover."

This was all very flattering to scientists, one reason that so many of them leaned left. The Right cited scientific work when useful, but it didn't enlist science to remake society—it still preferred guidance from traditional moralists and clerics. The Left saw scientists as the new high priests, offering them prestige, money, and power. The power too often corrupted. Over and over, scientists yielded to the temptation to exaggerate their expertise and moral authority, sometimes for horrendous purposes.

Among the horrendous purposes cited by Tierney was the widespread support by leftists of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century. Tierney also describes how the social sciences have evolved into a Leftwing intellectual monoculture that deleteriously and comprehensively distorts the findings of social psychology, political science, anthropology, and sociology. For example, he notes that leftwingers think that genetic causes are just fine when it comes to explaining homosexuality, but totally taboo when differences between the sexes are discussed.

Tierney additionally delves into the confirmation biases that are rife in the debate over man-made climate change and how dissent from global warming dogma is treated by political leftists as damnable heresy.

The whole article is well worth your attention.

For some more background, see my article, "Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

158 responses to “Liberals Don’t Really F**king Love Science

  1. All libs love is bitching and complaining because they are confused idiots.

    They are largely ignorant, immature children.

    1. I read a Gavin McInnes article where he was talking about celebrities, and he said most of them became famous around jr. high school age and that they haven’t seen reality since, which explains their world views.

      1. similar for academics, they avoid reality and stay in college their whole life. Career advancement is eerily the same story all the way up, getting recommendations and writing applications for the next level.

  2. They’re also not liberals, Ron. They’re leftists. It isn’t the same thing, at all. The closest thing to a liberal today is libertarians. They really ruined the word liberal, I think maybe forever.

    1. If the leftists weren’t abusing language in order to abuse people, they’d have lost every debate they ever had on any issue. Leftisms just aren’t lefitisms without an accompanying compendium of bastardized terminology and truth concealing buzzwords.

    2. Don’t bogart my belated point, man.

      * My comment down thread wasn’t a passive aggressive response to you, just started posting it and got distracted midway(smoking a turkey, on vacation, having a day drink). Cheers, Hyp.

      1. Cheers, I’m looking forward to a long weekend of food and drink and probably posting some in this here chat room.

        1. *For future reference, my turkey smoking technique: soak your turkey in a water/brown suger/salt based brine at a ratio of your choosing for 24 hours. Remove the turkey from the brine, remove the gizzards and asshole content and stuff the neck and asshole with 1/4 pound of salted butter in each hole. Then melt another 1\4 of satled butter and baste over the skin. Then apply the rub of your choosing over the skin. While doing this, use charcoal to get your smoker to 250-275 degrees then switch to a mix of 1/3 cherry, 1/3 apple, and 1/3 hickory woods. Place your turkey breastside down in the pan and smoke for 2 1/2 hours using the wood ratio given above. (continued)…

          1. After that, drain any excess liquid fat into a pan and keep warm in the oven at 180?. Then flip the bird and smoke until you reach about 165-170?internally, then cover the bird with foil and continue to smoke with charcoal until you hit around 190? internal temperature. This should take about 4 1/2-5 hours. Let the bird rest for about 2 hours, then, pull apart as you would pork and lightly baste it in the liquid turkey fat you kept warm in the oven.*

            * this will add more smoke flavor and prevent your Thanksgiving leftovers from becoming overly dry…enjoy!

            1. *This is for a 12-15 pound turkey, adjust the smoke time accordingly.

              1. Or you could do what I did: rub some butter over the skin, sprinkle on dry rub, smoke at 250 degrees or less all day long using whatever local hardwoods your neighbors put roadside (mostly live oak around here in Austin). That’s it. Nothing complicated.

                1. I do get a touch overly elaborate with my smoking technique at times. Just the competitive smoker in me. I originally hail from one of the bbq Meccas and it’s second nature at this point. One way or the other, I prefer mostly fruit woods for smoking poultry.

      2. How big of a bong do you need to smoke a turkey?

        1. Just a really big paper, like that Cheech and Chong one.

        2. Not so much the size of the bong, as the flame source you need to get it lit.

        3. I need a really big one just to put up with family.

    3. Since the word ‘liberal’ no longer appears in the article, you fellas must have struck a nerve.

      1. Nice! Good job, Ron!

    4. I am a liberal, a classical liberal. These people believe in the power of the state over individuals. How is that ‘liberal’?

    5. I like to distinguish as liberals vs progressives.

      1. That’s not going to fly with Ronal’d Bejlij, as he is a Technocratic Pragmatist. They believe science, and *only* science is the path to salvation through progress of Science. Therefore, Ronal’d is progressive.

        1. I wasn’t entirely sure where Ron was in the princples vs. pragmatism spectrum for the longest time, I’d given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was writing tongue-in-cheek for the most part. Then I read one of his several articles about making people legally liable for the germs and infections that they inadvertently spread to other people, i.e. Ron wants people to be liable for acts of nature. He lost me there. I’m sure he’s heart broken about it.

          1. Careful on that. I remember the, “inadvertant,” and he was trying to shoehorn that into legit legal liability concerns of infecting people against their will without their prior consent, extrapolating on the idea that if one has a wicked case of The Flu, they really should self-quarantine and avoid contact with others as much as possible to negate infecting others. More common infections and maladies, like the Common Cold, Crud, and Flu, are very difficult to pinpoint a specific vector. a so-called ‘Patient Zero’, if you will.

            Ronal’d was referencing airbourne/droplet contamination type diseases, as it were, and he is correct, strictly speaking, that you don’t have the right to infect others without their permission. And, that type of situation can warrant isolation precautions and sequestering of infected people, depending on the illness and situation, such as within both the surgical theatre and a hospital or other care environs proper. Sorry, but if you’re that jackass with active TB who wants to fly on plane with me, my wife and children for 11 hours, sorry, but no. You can kindly ask us first if we wish to be exposed to something like that (we’ll say, “Net,” every time. Without fail. Continue to proceed and my wife will take you out, unless I get to you first. And we don’t mean lunch.)

            1. And we don’t mean lunch.

              No lunch?!? Not even a knuckle sandwich?

              1. That’s on the appeteaser menu. Wifey, being a former ballet dancer whilst growing up (ENVY ME!), is fond of delivering a corned toe jam sandvich.

                1. “ballet dancer”

                  I was fortunate enought to be seated next to an ex ballerina on a flight back to my hometown during my early twenties. She looked a bit like Jennifer Love Hewitt in the face. We flirted for an hour, and then she nonchalantly extended her leg over her head and used her bare toe to operate the flight attendant call button.

                  And with that, a 23 year old Trigger Hippie had fallen in love.

              2. There is precious little lunch to be found on planes these days.

              3. TANSTAAFL, biatch.

            2. Ronal’d was referencing airbourne/droplet contamination type diseases, as it were, and he is correct, strictly speaking, that you don’t have the right to infect others without their permission

              Ronald was not talking about a case where you get the flu and then proceed to sneeze all over the residents at the old folks home either intentionally or negligently, he’s talking about a person who was not vaccinated against Disease X that contracts the disease and gets some nurse sick, or who sneeze in public not knowing that they have anything more than a cold but since it turned out to be Disease X, for which they are not vaccinated, that person is now legally liable. That’s wrongheaded as can possibly be from a libertarian standpoint.

              Am I as the owner of a woodlands, legally liable for a farmer’s cows because I did not set wolf traps throughout my woodlands? Am I, as the owner of a wetlands, legally liable for the alligator that eat’s some hiker, because I didn’t exterminate all the alligators on my property?

              Ron is talking about making people liable for acts of nature, it’s as simple as that.

      2. Yup. Liberals are generally honest, well meaning sorts. Progs are power-hungry tyrants.

        1. I prefer “proggies” to “progs.” I feel that it captures the spirit of self-infantilization that the left has nurtured.

      3. “Progressive” is just marketing. They’re not advocating progress.

    6. After reading Levin’s book, The Great Debate, I’m beginning to come back around to using liberals to define leftists. They’ve horribly bastardized the meaning of liberalism, it’s true, but in a sense they’ve retained the core tenant to which Edmund Burke was opposed: their belief in the perfectibility of mankind, and all of the technocratic flourish that derives from that belief. So, no, they’re not classical liberals as Adam Smith or David Ricardo would understand it, but they are liberals as Thomas Paine argued, fighting to fundamentally restructure society under the banner of scholarly scientism.

          1. I’d hoped my tone implied that I was joking, but I guess with reality unraveling like it is, there’s no telling any more.

            1. I can’t believe you’d say that, you shitlord.

    7. From the leftists who exploited the nature of actual liberalism when co-opting and converting the Democratic Party back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, to Rush Limbaugh, there is plenty of blame to go around for that problem.

    8. I thought I was a liberal in the 70’s and 80’s until I realized they had changed the definition while I wasn’t paying attention. Also I was with it until they changed what it is. It’ll happen to you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0wTtiJygY

  3. When will you ever get it correct?

    These people are not “liberals”. There is nothing liberal about them.

    They are LEFTISTS! Hard core, totalitarian LEFTISTS!

    Call them what they are. Please.

    1. The beauty of the average marxists-leftist-retard; whatever you wish to call them, is that they have no idea they are Marxists. They think they are really cool compassionate people.

      What they will never be able to grasp is that in their brainwashed delusional quest to exterminate all cheap fossil fuel energy, they would simultaneously be sanctioning the starvation and misery of billions of people.

  4. And how many African deaths via starvation can Rachel Carson take credit for?

    By getting DDT outlawed, farmers in poverty ridden countries starved along with the people they were to feed.

    1. What about the golden rice fiasco? Remember that? Science!

      1. Night blindness is no big deal, Hyp. Not when we’re talking about GMOZZZZZ!

        1. Yeah. GMOs. Strangely enough, there’s not even one study showing that GMOs are harmful to humans. But some new age hippy wrote a book. Science!

          1. They are harmful because someone somewhere in the world made money off of them. That makes them equal to hitler-satan’s love child.

            1. And without any evidence whatsoever, entire countries in Europe have banned them. Science!

              1. We had a bunch of hurricanes in 2005. Global warming is settled then. Science!

    2. And what’s a little malaria, amongst friends?

      1. -5,000,000 children in Africa and India

        1. +5,000,000 Malthusian points.

        2. You’re forgetting that many Progressives and Lefties don’t believe in second or third order consequences, therefore those people being dead isn’t their fault.

          Although when it comes to other ethos, if there’s even a whiff of a fifth order consequence (if such an animal even exists) they won’t miss a beat in calling for your death.

          Go figure.

          1. [M]any Progressives and Lefties don’t believe in second or third order consequences, therefore those people being dead isn’t their fault.

            1) Those types don’t recognise the humanity in those other people, especially since they don’t have to see them face to face as the consequence is meted out;

            2) “One death is a tragedy; millions are but a statistic.” The ultimate hubris is The Prog and The Lefty are convinced that serving at the right hand of the devil ensures they will be clear of his path.

          2. You’re forgetting that many Progressives and Lefties don’t believe in second or third order consequences, therefore those people being dead isn’t their fault.

            Not only that, but many of them almost certainly have a very scathing response as to how it is somebody else’s fault.

      2. About a million unnecessarily dead human bodies annually, give or take.

        1. Paul Ehrlich is furiously masturbating to this even as we speak.

    3. Don’t forget the Great DiHydrogen Monoxide Crisis.

      Deadly Poison

  5. It wasnt the right that killed off food irradiation.

    1. The left’s emphasis on politicizing science has done a lot of damage to a number of areas of research–much more than the right’s–but I think the real issue is with government meddling with science, regardless of which party is ascendant.

  6. ‘Progressive Statists’ Don’t Really Fucking Love Science. Or Evangelical Creationists for that matter. Regardless…

    Come on, Ron. You’re too smart too indulge in the bastardized definition of ‘liberal’. – pedantic pants shitter. 😉

  7. Call e’m what you want, Ron.

  8. When your end goal is getting the population of the earth down to 500 million people, spreading alarmist bullshit is about the only way you can get anyone to agree with you. OMG, humans are going to make the earth uninhabitable to most of the Earth’s population/OMG we better we better pass legislation that will make the earth uninhabitable for most of the earth’s population.

  9. I think science has been “fucking loved” enough. Maybe liberals should leave the poor dear alone for a while.

    1. Did you know that most ‘deniers’ are white racist bigots? There’s some connection there. If I can get funding, I’ll find it!

      1. I’m so racist, I don’t even believe the ozone hole is a problem. I also spray an entire can of pre CFC ban aerosol into the atmosphere everyday, just because I can.

        1. I bet you do that in minority neighborhoods only!

    2. Science needs to bend over and take at least six anal beads before they’re done.

    3. Liberals Don’t Really F**king Love Science

      But they do love fucking science.

    4. 1/5 of all science has been raped!

      1. That’s more than 8%!

    5. They would never hurt science, it’s just the war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson

      1. +1 Jenny

  10. Here come the white knights to save Sir Ron. I guess as long as we commentariat retain the right to be called CIS shitlords, then Ron can call the pinkos whatever he wants.

    1. Can’t you see? You’re never getting those words back. You will die on this hill unless you adapt now.

  11. The Lefties are rather selective about which religions they’re skeptical of. They don’t spray their contempt on Native American spiritual beliefs, since that (or at least the popular perception of what those beliefs are) can be made to dovetail with their war on the country’s standard of living.

    1. I find it sort of hilarious how the left are in general, anti-Israel, but they are going off about Steve Bannon being a rabid anti-semite, which from what I’ve been able to gather, is not even close to the truth. But once the left have latched onto a particular talking point, they won’t let it go no matter what. Right now they are still posting about this ‘wave of hate attacks sweeping the nation’ after the election of Trump, as if it were the gospel, even after almost all of the reported incidents have turned out to be false.

      1. I had a rant about BBC having the unmititigated gall to spew about Bannon and “last century’s conspiracy that rich Jews control American policy” in an article that doesn’t include the phrases “Israeli lobby”, “Jenin Massacre” or “Muhamed al-Durah”.

    2. These are people who will refer to Romney as “magic underpants guy” till they die, and will throw you in prison if you refer to, say, Keith Ellison as “ass over head guy”.

      1. Or the “Evil Dr. Yacub created created the devil white race guy”, given his past association with the Nation of Islam.

      2. That’s a little unfair. Magic Underwear is fun that everyone can partake of. I’ve known quite a few Mormons and most of them have been insanely nice people, but that doesn’t make their undergarments immune from humor.

        Transubstantiation (assuming you believe that it actually occurs) is pretty creepy, but less so since it’s really just crackers and wine. Magic underwear is just on another level of funny. The E-meter is also pretty entertaining since I can’t help but think of Ghostbusters gadgetry. I wonder how they always manage to detect Thetan levels that correspond well to gullibility for Ponzi schemes.

  12. D.C. Progressives don’t just distort ‘ the findings of social psychology, political science, anthropology, and sociology. ”

    They strive to vest them with executive authority

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/09 /as-lame-ducks-fly-into-sunset.html

    1. They strive to vest them with executive authority

      Without reading your linked article – do you have a 1-sentence explanation of what that means in practice?

      1. No he doesn’t.

        Dr Sietz of Harvard university doesn’t seek to inform people. They might then start thinking that they are as smart as a tenured professor! Nope. He wants to demonstrate that he is one of the ubermenschen by writing as opaquely and obfuscatingly as possible.

        That way people will be forced to confront the realization that he is smart and they are stupid.

        1. Absolutely.

          Reminds me of Mecken’s criticism of Veblen:

          [It is] a cent’s worth of information wrapped in a bale of polysyllables?. It was as if the practice of that incredibly obscure and malodorous style were a relentless disease, a sort of progressive intellectual diabetes, a leprosy of the horse sense. Words were flung upon words until all recollection that there must be a meaning in them, a ground and excuse for them, were lost. One wandered in a labyrinth of nouns, adjectives, verbs, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and participles, most of them swollen and nearly all of them unable to walk. It was, and is, impossible to imagine worse English, within the limits of intelligible grammar. It was clumsy, affected, opaque, bombastic, windy, empty. It was without grace or distinction and it was often without the most elementary order?. Worse, there was nothing at the bottom of all this strident wind-music ? the ideas it was designed to set forth were, in the overwhelming main, poor ideas, and often they were ideas that were almost idiotic. The concepts underlying, say, “The Theory of the Leisure Class” were simply Socialism and well water.

          1. I heard we libertarians aren’t allowed to enjoy Mencken anymore since the alt-right really likes him too.

            1. I think that the alt-right have said that libertarians are sort of okay in that at least some of us are white male sexist bigot monsters.

              1. As long as they are of good Anglo-Saxon or other Germanic stock, alt-white will accept anyone. Any disagreement between racially related people can be resolved rationally, after all. Any agreement with racial inferiors is accidental and means nothing.

                1. Huh, so kind of like how Israel considers you a citizen as long as you’re Jewish. Boy, that’s my daily helping of irony. I’m full.

              2. I think they’re okay with libertarians because we defend the right to be bigot. Which is also the reason progs have such a hard time distinguishing between libertarians and alt-righters, if you defend a person’s right to say stuff, you must wholly endorse all the stuff.

                1. “, if you defend a person’s right to say stuff, you must wholly endorse all the stuff.”

                  ACLU, Nazis, etc

        2. tarran|11.21.16 @ 3:53PM| block | mute | #

          No he doesn’t.

          This is the second time you’ve gone off on the dude (that i’ve seen). Is there some backstory i’m missing?

          1. He’s a class 1 scumbag.

            He used to post on here as russell. According to one regular, he used to be an interesting guy who used to maintain a very erudite if obscure blog on archeology.

            But then the whole climate change religious movement swept into academia, with a promise of golden grants for those who joined up and leaden career death for those who declined to enthusiastically support it. He made his side with the religious nutjobs.

            I first became aware of him due to his denigration of Anthony Watts. I’ve interacted with him, and invariably he has behaved as a snobby little prat. The more I’ve interacted with him, the more certain I’ve become that he’s a horrible little man who seeks not so much to raise himself, but to degrade those around him to the point where they are below him.

            And that’s why I hate his guts.

              1. Terran can’t seem to get anything straight, including Seitz name.

                As Ron Bailey can confirm, Seitz
                1 Has written for Reason Magazine criticizing the Greens gonzo carbon rationing proposals.

                2 He didn’t “maintain a very erudite if obscure blog on archeology.”: but his rediscovery of the lost jade mines of the Olmecs made the front page of the NY Times and appeared in peer reviewed form in Antiquity

                3 Believed in global warming years before Ron did, having had to master atmospheric science in order to debunk Carl Sagan’s climate hype on Nuclear Winter. He has published on the subject in Science, Nature , Naturwissenschaften, Physics Today, and Climatic Change

                4.Watts being a bona fide scientific laughingstock, denigrating his sideshow is about as hard as writing a two dimensional account of the Flat Earth Society.

      2. Executive Order — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People

        A phone and a pen, pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill, you didn’t build that, if you like your plan you can keep your plan… sooo many sentences to choose from!

        1. SF’d link.

        2. I think those things are examples of “executive authority”.

          But i don’t see how it translates directly to “vesting the various disciplines (psychology, political science, anthropology, and sociology) with executive authority

          my own translation would be to assume that it means “the merging of policy-making with Chosen Experts in each field” – e.g. Technocracy.

          This article in reuters from a while back has some good tidbits re: the ‘politicization of science’*

          (*a topic on which i’ve seen ron speak multiple times in NY)

          e.g.

          We can all agree that politicians should not politicize science by distorting what scientific studies conclude. But we should also be wary when scientists and unelected officials attempt to exert influence on policy decisions by selectively presenting, or even distorting, scientific findings ? which leads to the scientization of policy.

          The [insert legislation] pretense that science alone can determine the ideal [insert policy outcome] virtually guarantees the scientization of policy. It effectively forces those involved in regulatory decisions to hide rather than reveal scientific uncertainty, and to dismiss and denigrate dissenting views. Key policy choices, disguised as science, rest with technical staff, while policymakers charged with making hard decisions avoid responsibility by claiming their hands were tied by the science.

  13. Liberals Don’t Really F**king Love Science

    Bailey, you may be a weirdo transhumanist who desperately wants his techno-utopia and robo-life everlasting, but you’re alright.

    1. but you’re alright. For a shitlord.

      1. Hey, who said that Ron has achieved the coveted title of shitlord? Don’t get carried away just yet, he still has lots of proving to do.

      2. Bailey is hardly a shitlord, he’s barely even a shitsquire.

        1. Shitpage?

  14. Sincere question =

    Why would someone like Tierney publish in City Journal (*of the Manhattan Institute) as opposed to, say, Reason (of the Reason Foundation)?

    Im curious if its either just a matter of arbitraryness – they asked him to write something, he complied; or he just happened to be friendly with some people there…

    …or if its actually significant of something – like respective circulation, or “who reads it”, etc.

    Hasn’t Tierney published here before? I recall he appeared a few times in 2014, and a handful of times earlier.

    1. Pay is better?

      Reason spent all its money on Dalmia and Chapman reprints?

      Or they didn’t have the room for another Contributing Editor, while CJ did?

      1. Right now, Dalmia is sitting sullen by the paper shredder and feeding those piles of Madame President articles through it.

        1. If she has them written, she should release them all one Saturday. By the time staff gets back into office on Monday and see them, it’ll be too late.

        2. You’re not going to suggest she jump in?

          /sarcasm

      2. Reason spent all its money on Dalmia and Chapman reprints?

        don’t say that. its painful to think.

        robby at least brings them clicks.

        1. Man, Dalmia used to be good at the clicks, too. These days, she only gets 150+ comments if it’s a weekend repost, so we have nowhere else to go…

        2. So, what did you guys even do to the guy who used to write here that made him come back as shreek to troll the comments? It must have been really bad. I’m just wondering what Dalmia’s troll name will be…

          1. That’s just a joke-theory. Dave Weigel was the predecessor to Robby, sort of. No one liked him. unlike Robby, Dave was a full-blooded team-blue partisan and his pretend-libertarian thing didn’t convince anyone. When he moved on , everyone joked that Buttplug was actual Weigel’s Ghost, because of their similarly-juvenile team-blue partisanship.

    2. John Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal, coauthor of Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Strength, and a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, where he previously wrote “The Big City” column.

      1. Oh, so its his new full-time residency? or no?

        I’m not really hip to journalism job-titles. “Contributing” means he’s not exclusive to either publication? Last i recall he was a NYT full-timer. That suggests he’s been downgraded from having his own regular slot?

        1. Yeah, I don’t know the titles either but I assume that having any kind of formal connection probably requires him to publish a regular piece.

          1. The loudest noise in Times Square is the implosion of the paper’s Science masthead coverage has shrunk from a separately staffed eight page weekly section to a skeleton crew.

  15. Ooh, I’m just about to finish a lovely book, so can we add “hockey stick” to the list of hate crimes against The Science?

    Or, you know, a review (apologies if you did it already, but Search function says no)?

    (yes, there are excellent two paragraphs on ACGW in the article, but this particular atrocity is unmentioned)

    1. Christ Pan, just propose to Steyn already. Just think, you’ll get to hear that Birmingham Smacked In The Face With A Canadian Hammer accent all day long. He’ll even sing songs about cats for you.

      1. Guilty as charged. He did more for Canada than any expat I can think of, though.

        Granted, that’s not a high bar, but…

      2. Pan is right.

        Seriously, Steyn may not be perfect, but that book is a great indictment of the mismatch between how political activists represent the science and how scientists see it.

        On every level it’s a great book:
        1) It gives you the perspective of how actual scientists consider a particular scientific claim (and there are different approaches)
        2) It exposes what a fraud the celebrity scientists like Michael Mann can be.
        3) It’s a great way to win the libel suit he is currently fighting (Michael Mann can either drop the suit, or face all the evidence that Steyn’s characterization of the Penn State investigation of Mann being a whitewash similar to the whiteashed investigation of Paterno conducted by the very same people is based on fact).

        Anyone who loves science should be defending Styen and kicking Mann to the curb. Instead the left fetes Mann. The climate defense fund funds his lawfare.

        1. Steyn has his faults, but I admire his spine. Also, regardless of whether you share his opinion, you have to admit that he’s an entertaining writer, which is more than most can say.

          1. Get him off the topic of Islam (and yes, it’s sometimes hard), you get a guy who

            -thinks policing in US is far too violent and heavy handed
            -is fiercely pro-1st Amendment and went to a kangaroo tribunal rather than give in to censorship
            -thinks TSA is useless and should be disbanded
            -thinks the US debt is an existential problem for the nation (and the world, due to US position as superpower)
            -thinks that regulatory state has metastasized and become bipartisan
            -was on Reason’s side in woodchipper incident, and made sure Limbaugh listeners hear about it
            -is being sued for libel due to writing an opinion piece, and the case has stalled for four years, despite him wanting it getting to trial

            On top of that, he actually knows how to write. Compare to Weigel, Chapman or Dalmia.

            1. Compare turd sandwich to Weigel, Chapman or Dalmia.

              Even IBM’s Watson would have difficulties discerning.

            2. You forgot how he writes like Balko when it comes to police violence. He is more libertarian than most of the writers here.

        2. Steyn’s court adventures with Mikey Mann are entertainment by themselves – unless of course you’re Steyn footing the bills.

        3. I don’t have a lot of problems with Steyn, I thought his analysis of early Trump support before the nomination was the best media coverage of the whole season. I’m just bugging Pan because he brings him up here regularly.

        4. Tarran is a gift that goes on giving – Steyn is almost as funny as Watts

          http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp…..n-now.html

          1. v vatts? You used a joke website as a “reference”? Surely Tarran’s description of you is too generous.

  16. As Maddox said, they don’t love science, they love pictures.

    And Liberals don’t really love anything. All of the progs I know are some of the most miserable people.

    Seriously, you can’t make this shit up. 2 of them were talking about how their useless degrees from college weren’t getting them anywhere: “It’s not our fault society doesn’t value our degrees as much as they should!”

    Yup, it’s the world that needs to change. Not you.

    1. Maddox is still alive? Haven’t read him in a long while.

      1. he had a live stream for the election and over 100,000 watched. It was actually way more entertaining / relaxed than all of the other news media channels

  17. Among the horrendous purposes cited by Tierney was the widespread support by leftists of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century.

    Eugenics is still happening. Why is my wife an electrical engineer? Why is our offspring good at math? Why is he not a good athlete? I have no fucking clue!

    1. Eugenics is still happening.

      Wrong. See Kardashians, Jenners, etc.

      1. That doesn’t prove that eugenics is not happening, it just proves that it doesn’t work.

  18. From the link provided in the article text, ‘The Real War on Science’:

    The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats…”

    Clearly, this man should be believed without question. ^_-

    1. Only those who are antiscience would deny this obvious truth.

      1. When I hear rumors like Trump will bring NASA back to actually doing space missions instead of measuring global warming and reaching out to Muslims, it seems to me like Trump loves science more than Obama does. Of course, he then makes a guy AG who still thinks that reefer madness is the go to science on drug policy, so maybe not.

        1. The days of public dollars paying for what would amount to Billion, if not Trillion, dollar projects are basically over. Too much money is being funneled into defense and social programs to be able to afford things like getting to a space station we helped pay for without paying the Russians a toll.

          The worst part is that a lot of the technology that was constructed to support the space program is falling apart. In other words, they aren’t even maintaining what we already have, let alone investing in future improvements.

          NASA should just be dissolved, their purpose is defunct at this point. That is immensely sad to me, but it’s also blatantly true. Perhaps they’ll eventually funnel some of those Defense & Welfare dollars into optimistic programs like NASA, but I think as long as people are shitting themselves over countries stuck in the Dark Ages it’s not terribly likely.

          Musk can go fuck himself, too, by the by. I’ll maintain that until his shit stops exploding.

          1. “Too much money is being funneled into defense…”

            What percentage of the total annual budget is defense spending?

            And please don’t give me any nonsense about discretionary vs. non discretionary.

  19. Has anyone asked for Pope ManBearPig’s opinion?

    1. Roman Catholics are a loyal lot. In a meandering conversation with my ethnically German Roman Catholic home family the Pope came up.

      “Pope Frank”, they called him as a bit of joke. Yeah, they hold him at a distance.

  20. I fucking love John Tierney.

    And you can quote me!

  21. Trump is Newton next to Obama.

  22. Liberals love pseudo-science, and always have.

    That’s what happens when an art history major is told that with their college education means they can “reason” and “use logic” to arrive at correct conclusions about everything despite having not studied any of the sciences beyond the absolute minimum required.

    1. Hey! I’m a history major and don’t think that way at all. In fact, if taught properly, they should know how to reason and apply logic.

      The twits you’re referring to are the prog/critical theory morons who give history departments a bad name.

  23. Well said, Ron.

    You seem to take some heat here for your global warming stance. I, myself, and undecided on hcl.

    Have you considered writing something long form on the subject?

  24. At least here, let’s please not confuse science (an ongoing search for a better and better model of the universe or its parts) and technology (stuff we do and make, whether it be a wheel or an improved wheat). Words have precise meanings, let’s not be the ones to misuse them.

  25. Yes, but, the left does not deny biological evolution. The right does. Denial of biological evolution is worse anti-science than anything the left does.

    1. The left finally came around to believing in trivial biological facts like differences between the races? Huh. Cite?

    2. Nice broad brush you got there, how much did you pay for it?

      Are Hindus, Buddhists, and American Indians who adhere to their creation myths all ‘on the right’ as well?

      What I find amazing about that relatively small cohort of people who flatly deny evolution (e.g. strict creationists) is just how many of them are extremely well versed in evolutionary science.

      I’d be willing to bet any one of those people could give a more credible and accurate representation of Punctuated Equilibrium than you.

  26. When I see someone post “I !@#$ing love science!” on facebook, I mentally translate it into “I !@#$ing don’t know $hit about science!”

  27. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me..???????
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Exactly. Science is not rigid adherence to the “consensus”. It’s the continual challenging of the consensus when new evidence emerges.

    1. But it moves

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.