To the extent that you succeed in politicising Scientists, that is how far your War on Science has progressed. When neutral non-partisan Science is told “scientists shouldn’t shy away from engaging in political conversations”, that is a direct appeal for scientists to engage in politics instead of Science. Ever since Al Gore falsified and prostituted Science in his Movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Science has been in decline. It would have been more accurately entitled “Several Convenient Untruths”. There are 35 errors of science in the movie, 9 of which were serious enough to be upheld in the UK High Court, banning the movie from being shown without explaining the falsehoods.

For instance far from facing extinction, Polar Bear numbers have tripled since 1975. The judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

You cannot be politically partisan and claim to be impartial scientists at the same time. The concept of a “Scientific Consensus” has no place in the Scientific Method: Consensus is for politics, not science. So yes, there is a War on Science, but it comes from the Left, not from the Right, and Al Gore bears much of the blame for corrupting a generation of scientists.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store