While reading an article I came across a phrase that triggered a memory of mine:
Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.Now, this is in reference to Michael Mann's bogus "Hockey Stick" graph that "proved" global warming was a problem and that the 90's were the hottest decade of the millennium. I can't help but notice, however, the syntax correlation between that statement and those made by the hard left regarding Rathergate's forged memos, easily paraphrased as "fake but accurate".
Is asserting that the main problem with the left in whatever form is that when faced with reality (when their facts fall apart) they refuse to readjust their initial assumptions too base of a conclusion to draw?
Is the only difference between a liberal and a conservative the willingness to acknowledge the effect of poor data on current conclusions? Or is it just a total reliance on emotion rather than logic?
As Dr. Edward Wegman (the man who found Mann's numerous statistical errors) summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
Lawrence Solomon of Canada's National post phrases it nicely: With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.