Why use Rush Limbaugh and his liberal twin, Michael Moore, as examples?
Because these two are irresponsible in their presentation of information and they have a lot of gullible followers.
Rush Limbaugh is actually known for followers who are too ignorant to have thoughts of their own. They call themselves ditto heads.
Popular Science is eliminating comments from their stories, because there is so much nonsense in the comment section that it detracts from the science reporting.[1]
Limbaugh is whining that the scientifically illiterate will be deprived of their ability to throw anti-science tantrums on this science site.
People with more spare time than sense are being told that their ignorance is not as good as a scientist’s education. The horror. The horror.
Am I exaggerating?
Let me tell you: This is Popular Science cutting off comments because of a “politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise.”[2]
Don’t have your vehicle fixed by an expert (mechanic), since expertise is bad.
Don’t have your illness treated by an expert (physician), since expertise is bad.
Should Jenny McCarthy and her University of Google followers be treated as if they know what they are doing?
When it comes to science, is Jenny McCarthy any different from Rush Limbaugh?
Climate change denialists (people who pretend that reality is not real) have been insisting that the planet is not warming because the yearly temperature does not move in a straight line and they seem to think in the most simple terms.
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).[3]
If we were treating a septic patient, should we rejoice that his peripheral temperature (skin, arms, legs) is coming down?
Should we assume that the patient is getting better by cherry picking data that appears to support what we want to happen?
An expert (physician) should ignore the predictable anomaly and realize that the core temperature is what matters.
Should the septic patient be treated according to science, or should we make treatment about politics?
cranks tend not to mind the crankery of others, since they see themselves as opposed to a scientific orthodoxy. Consistency be damned, they just want to see science with egg on its face so they can prove that they are being persecuted.[4]
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Jenny McCarthy, . . . are cranks. They do not understand science and cannot tell the difference between nonsense and science.
Climate change is not politics. Ways of dealing with climate change will involve politics.
Persuading people that climate change is politics is one way of avoiding science and claiming that any ignorant criticism is as valid as understanding science.
Climate change is science.
Science is not politics.
Science denialism is politics.
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments – Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why.
Popular Science
By Suzanne LaBarre
Posted 09.24.2013 at 8:15 am
Article
–
[2] Popular Science Ends Reader Comments Because Too Many People Disagree with Them
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Quick Hits Page
Link to Quick Hits Page – there does not appear to be any link to the actual article by Limbaugh.
–
[3] The Escalator
Skeptical Science
Article
–
[4] Crank Magnetism
Denialism Blog
Posted by Mark Hoofnagle
June 28, 2007
Article
.