Way to go, Josh Farley and many others!

I seldom read John Tierney’s spew in the NYTimes “science” section… let alone the comments… but I am glad I did today. Tierney lamely offers up the Environmental Kuznets Curve as some sort of shrewd insight into our carbon dilemma… and gets called on it, big time.

The balance of responses from commenters is, frankly, derisive… They call out Tierney’s risible research and bizarre stance that his lack of scientific bona fides is something to celebrate as he “rethinks conventional wisdom about science”….

There are a number of excellent comments that expose Tierney’s cherry-pick and logical fallacies, but I thought I would just highlight this bit from UVM  Gund Institute for Ecological Economics Prof. Josh Farley:

I find it interesting that you willingly point out in your online bio that you recognize that your work would not pass scientific peer review. Scientists make an effort to familiarize themselves with the literature. You seem to rely on the works of Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg, both of whom makes exactly the same claim as you…  Right now I wish the scientific review process were not so strict. You could then be a scientist, publishing your ‘research’ in lousy journals that no one would ever read. Instead, because you don’t qualify as a scientist by your admission, the NYT has given you a position as ’science writer’, where thousands of people read your shoddy work… Perhaps you (could) write an article on why belief in science has become a partisan issue.

I know that Tierney is a bit player, but I found this dismantling even more encouraging than those of George Will, et al.  Even the most “scientific” amongst them are being publicly called on their irresponsibility and ignorance, and they are silent in response.

Tell it like it is.   

“But you and I we’ve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour’s getting late.”
(love this version of All Along the Watchtower… )