Mar
11
2026

"Back Off, Man; I'm a Scientist."

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

I don't actually recommend you buy the Amazon Product du Jour over there on your right. (Although I've put it on my possibly-get-at-library list. If I'm feeling masochistic.) It's by the failed litigator Michael Mann and Peter Hotez. And according to the review by Roger Pielke Jr., they are The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America.

With Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World, climatologist Michael E. Mann and virologist Peter J. Hotez have written an important book. When future historians look back at the early twenty-first century and document the causes and consequences of the intense politicization of the U.S. scientific community, Science Under Siege (SUS) will be a core reading.

The central argument of the book is apocalyptic.

“The future of humankind and the health of our planet now depend on surmounting the dark forces of antiscience” (p. 3)

“Unless we find a way to overcome antiscience, humankind will face its gravest threat yet – the collapse of civilization as we know it.” (p. 27)

“Antiscience,” they tell us, is “politically and ideologically motivated opposition to any science that threatens powerful special interests and their political agenda” (p. 2).

Mann and Hotez define opposition specifically—Republicans:

The fact that antiscience has been embraced so fully by one of the two major parties is a grave concern. Today’s Republican Party is an authoritarian, anti-democratic political entity . . . we face a stark realty (sic): the Republican Party now represents a very real threat to human civilization itself.

"Stark Realty" would be a good name for a New Hampshire real estate company.

Roger's not a big fan, as you might expect from someone who's named by Mann/Hotez as one of the Enemies of the Good.

Also of note:

  • Trying to put a smiley face on mediocrity. The Heritage Foundation has issued an updated Index of Economic Freedom, ranking 184 countries.

    I won't sugarcoat it, Reader: the US is in a solid 22nd place. The relevant page reflects the Heritage Foundation's Trump sycophancy:

    The United States’ economic freedom score is 72.8, making its economy the 22nd freest in the 2026 Index of Economic Freedom. Its rating has increased by 2.6 points from last year, ending the precipitous five-year decline of America’s economic freedom. The Trump Administration’s pragmatic pro-growth economic strategy—lowering the costs of doing business, advancing and spreading prosperity, and enhancing long-term competitiveness—has yielded the strongest economic growth rate recorded in recent years.

    The American economy has achieved the largest score improvement among the major advanced economies and the third largest among all of the countries graded in the 2026 Index. Gains in monetary freedom, government spending, fiscal health, and investment freedom have outpaced the lower score in trade freedom, reflecting the positive impact of major regulatory and tax reforms on economic growth, investment, and business confidence. This improvement also marks America’s biggest score advancement since 2001 and the second-best in the U.S.’s 32-year history in the Index.

    You might have missed the mumble about the "lower score in trade freedom". And I'm not sure how they measure "government spending" and "fiscal health" to come up with gains.

    But it's downright embarrassing when your country is getting its clock cleaned economic freedomwise by Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, Taiwan, Luxembourg, Demark, Norway, Estonia, The Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, Lithuania, Chile, Cyprus, South Korea, Czech Republic, and Mauritius.

  • Like I'm five years old? Bryan Caplan bravely says: I Think I Can Explain Trump's Theory of Trade.

    Donald Trump likes exports and foreign investment, and laments imports and trade deficits. Most economists find this a baffling bundle of preferences — and the more they know about international trade, the more baffled they are. Never mind the truism that the whole point of exports is to buy imports. Doesn’t Trump know that getting more foreign investment raises trade deficits by definition? How confused can you get? While I agree that Trump is terribly wrong about international trade, there’s a big difference between being wrong and being confused. While I doubt I’m ready to pass an Ideological Turing Test for Trumpian trade theory, I recently had a weird epiphany on the topic. After said epiphany, I feel capable of articulating roughly what Trump is thinking.

    1. Above all, Trump wants the rest of the world to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as possible. He wants the world to buy our current output — and he wants them to buy our assets, too! His dream is piles of dollars flowing into the U.S. from all directions.

    2. If piles of dollars flow into the U.S. from all directions, he thinks this will boost U.S. sales and employment.

    3. Trump doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the “trade deficit” as economists define it. When he hears “trade deficit,” Trump imagines that U.S. dollars leaving the U.S. exceed U.S. dollars entering the U.S. Foreign investment means U.S. dollars entering the U.S., so on his implicit definition, foreign investment reduces trade deficits.

    Why would anyone find this story plausible? Simple: It’s unadorned, old-fashioned Keynesianism. Trump wants to boost aggregate demand. The more money foreigners spend here, the more American business will sell, and the more American workers they’ll hire.

    Since I know nothing about Keynesianism, let alone the unadorned, old-fashioned variety, I probably shouldn't comment.

    I will anyhow: I think Bryan's giving the president too much intellectual cover. I think Trump operates simply on a combination of unprincipled whim and narcissism.

  • If the truth-in-labelling laws had any teeth, they would have been forced to do this already. David Strom at Hot Air fantasizes: CNN Changing Name to PNN: Propaganda News Network.

    Some things you cannot make up.

    I mean, who would believe it if you told them that CNN would turn an Islamist terrorist attack on New York City into a tale of two brothers minding their own business until they were forced to protest the injustice of white supremacists who were committing an Islamophobic hate crime?

    He's talking about this:

    CNN eventually got embarrassed into fixing this particular outrage, but David has more examples. And since then:

    When I see people out there claim "You can't hate the media enough", I take it as a dare. "Oh yeah? Watch me."

  • But in more positive news… James Freeman pays some attention to an under-reported bit of the story: Duty, Honor, Country, City. (WSJ gifted link)

    One always hopes that in the face of danger one would act with courage. But how many among us would run toward alleged terrorists or toward an improvised explosive device even as it emits a cloud of smoke from its lit fuse? New York City police officers did both of those things last Saturday in foiling an attempted attack allegedly inspired by ISIS.

    Something to hold onto.


Last Modified 2026-04-13 11:29 AM EDT