You think the voting machine FUD mongering is bad … ?

What do you do when you loose an election or can’t win an argument based on its merits? One example is illustrated in the Democrats attack on the US elections system. Another one is in Climate change special: State of denial – earth – 04 November 2006 – New Scientist

It appears that those poor scientists who advocate human caused global warming are being attacked by a vast conspiracy of something or other, too.

Kevin Trenberth reckons he is a marked man. … The attacks fit a familiar pattern. … So what is this money buying? … with a US administration that has a record of hostility to concerns about climate change … NCAR is not commenting on Inhofe’s investigation, but many climate scientists contacted by New Scientist regard it as a tactic designed to intimidate

This, of course, goes along with the allegations about  how the current administration is censoring scientists who do not agree with it and other such things.

When you hear complaints about the politicization of science, these kinds of reports are a good place to start. Rather than work on the merits of the data, the accuracy and precision of the knowledge, and a proper weighing of evidence, complaining of attacks and censorship are the tactic. What do you want? Evidence and rationale debate or conspiracy theories and fantasies?

Comments are closed.