1. deltoid
  2. Quiggin on junk science

Quiggin on junk science

By tlambert on April 18, 2004.

John Quiggin has an interesting post putting the disinformation peddled by folks like Steve Milloy and Iain Murray in a broader context:

But at some point, it must be necessary to abandon the case-by-case approach and adopt a summary judgement about people like Milloy and sites like TCS. Nothing they say can be trusted. Even if you can check their factual claims (by no means always the case) it's a safe bet that they've failed to mention relevant information that would undermine their case. So unless you have expert knowledge of the topic in question, they're misleading, and if you have the knowledge, they're redundant.

Of course, there's nothing surprising about paid lobbyists twisting the truth. What's more disturbing is the fact that the same approach dominates the Bush Administration. Admittedly, governments have never had a perfectly pure approach to science, but the distortion of the process under Bush is unparalleled, to the extent that it has produced unprecedented protests from the scientific community. Natural scientists aren't alone in this. Economists, social scientists and even military and intelligence experts are horrified by the way in which processes that are supposed to produce expert advice have been politicised.

Tags
Milloy

More like this

DI's Dishonest Attacks on Barbara Forrest
As a measure of the desperation felt by the Discovery Institute over the case in Dover, one could hardly find a better metric than this dishonest attack piece by John West on Barbara Forrest, an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case and the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse. West makes…
Risky Business
When I wrote earlier about Steve Milloy, I commented on his attack on a study that found that the introduction safe-storage laws was followed by a 23% reduction in unintentional shooting deaths of children. Milloy claimed: The reported 23% decrease in injuries is a pretty weak…
How Hillary Would Restore Scientific Integrity to U.S. Policymaking
Disclaimer: This series of posts is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Rather, we are paying attention to Hillary because she has gone farther than any other candidate thus far in injecting science policy issues into the presidential race--and promising, if elected, to…
Scientists and journalists.
I'm late to this round of the discussion about scientists and journalists (for which, as usually, Bora compiles a comprehensive list of links). The question that seems to have kicked off this round is why scientists are sometimes reluctant to agree to interviews, especially given how often they…

Cuts both ways, you can't trust the warmers at all either. They always fail to mention the gross uncertainties that taint their data. Or, like Mann, simply twist the data to suit their own ends. Do your own research into the data and judge for yourself.

Ed

Ed Snack writes, "Cuts both ways, you can't trust the warmers at all either."

Yes, that's the absolutely hilarious thing about "global warmers" (e.g., the IPCC). It's not like THEIR reports have any balance.

I challenge anyone to find chapters in IPCC reports titled, "The benefits of global warming" that lay out all the positive changes that can realistically be expected from global warming (e.g. greater agricultural productivity, less people dying from extreme cold).

The reality is: Trust No One. Be skeptical of everything. That's a hallmark of true science.

P.S. Which leads me to the observation of the hilarious situation that "global warmers" actually **deride** their opponents as "global warming skeptics." Of course they are! So should everyone be!