A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Right wing science rejectionism & its apologists

The ragbags of the American right concede they are anti-science ninnies but seem to be claiming some kind of justification because Democrats also have some anti-science attitudes.  Its a truly bizarre argument pursued at home here by one of the least interesting representatives of the right in Australia, Rafe. You do feel sorry for this guy.

7 comments to Right wing science rejectionism & its apologists

  • Rafe

    Thanks Harry!
    But you really don’t need to worry.

  • Ron Bailey finished with “I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science.” But Rafe pretends that Bailey’s conclusion was the opposite.

  • KB Keynes

    Rafe has never been the same after putting up an extraordinary article on Monkton and then saying he didn’t know enough about the subject to comment.

    Catallaxy all over really

  • rog

    Ditto with nuclear power and with most other topics.

  • ken n

    Seems to me it’s beyond politics.
    People of all political leanings have foolish ideas, some of them about science.
    Dunno what you do about it, either.
    As much or more than non acceptance of the AGW consensus among many on the right is the green’s rejection of almost every technological development that will improve life or contribute to economic growth.
    To take an only moderately contentious one, you can certainly argue about specific dam projects but to say no dams, ever, anywhere is quite foolish.
    The Greens (capital G this time) insisted that carbon offsets from hydro generated anywhere could not be used under carbon trading.

  • observa

    Fair dinkum Harry. Can you possibly defend this sort of drivel any longer?
    It’s a jigsaw puzzle-we don’t know if we’ve got all the pieces- assume we have and feed it all into the Gaia computer model- abracadabra we can explain the LIA the great Gaia computer couldn’t before.
    And here were we critics thinking there was no method in their post normal scientific madness eh? Perish the thought!

  • anon

    Tim lambert’s assertion is incorrect. Ron Bailey asserted something else entirely, which of course Lambert omitted.

Leave a Reply