Jul 20, 2017 · 1 min read
That was not really the point. Here we have a bunch of “academics” from a university known for its “tolerance of dissent” lending their academic credentials to something they have not personally seen or reviewed. I are just supposed to shut up and believe them because they are better than we are.
At least with industry lobbyists, we immediately know they have a dog in the race. In the case, the so-called academics were trying to come off as “selfless pursuers of the truth” when in fact they were not.
So much for calling the “other” political side as anti-science. Of course, in our modern American culture right and wrong is defined by our own personal position, which is often just “the whim of the day”.