Read on Twitter
Who might we turn to so as to make sense of the underlying epidemiology regarding the pandemic? How about professional climate deniers who know absolutely nothing of the matter. But they *do* know how to misrepresent mainstream science and peddle nonsense. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-lessons-from-the-asteroid-that-didnt-hit-earth-11585780465?mod=MorningEditorialReport&mod=djemMER_h
What does co-author Benny Peiser bring to this discussion? Well, he's got a doctorate in cultural studies studying the ancient Greeks. Before becoming a professional climate denier, he was an historian of ancient sport. /2
What does co-author Andrew Montford bring to this discussion? Well, he's got a degree in chemistry and then went on to become an accountant before becoming a "climate pro." /3
Neither of these two understand at even a basic level the details of the scientific literature they critique in the climate arena. That goes double for epidemiology and virology. But by all means, let's have them referee epidemiological models from Neil Ferguson and others. /4
While there's no reason to argue with someone who quite literally does not know what they are talking about, I found it rich that these two complain about allegedly dodgy and inscrutable (to them, anyway) modeling performed by, well, real-live credentialed experts. /5
Do *they* have an epidemiolgical model to inform their skepticism? Would they even know how to build one? Those two have made the exact same arguments about climate modeling, but AFAIK, no climate skeptic is running, studying, or building *any* climate models. /6
This is simply unbelievable. And it speaks volumes that @WSJopinion thought running this op-ed was a great idea. It gives you a sense, however, of how weak the case against taking COVID-19 seriously really is. /7
And for those of you who don't pay much attention to the climate debate, it gives you a sense of how unserious and ridiculous the denialists have become over the past several decades. /8
My parting gift to you for working your way through this thread is an introduction to follow @MichaelEMann and an invitation to read @RadioFreeTom's book on why killing this kind of quackery is critically important if we want to live. /9 https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge-ebook/dp/B01MYCDVHH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37RTTJ3G8F12L&dchild=1&keywords=tom+nichols+death+of+expertise&qid=1585832829&sprefix=tom+nichols%2Caps%2C129&sr=8-1
Look, I'm no expert in epidemiology or virology either. Heck, for those of you who don't know, I don't even have a college degree! But I'm not the one confidently weighing-in on the pages of prominently newspapers ... /10
... about how the world's most respected public health officials are a bunch of idiots who do sloppy, politically motivated work that even I can easily pick apart with absolutely zero training in the field. /11
The case against technocracy is that even the best and brightest of the technocratic elites know less about the realities of which they study and the impact of their policy suggestions than one might think. And that's a very fair observation. /12 https://www.amazon.com/Power-without-Knowledge-Critique-Technocracy-ebook/dp/B07WSJQ9VV/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Jeffrey+friedman&qid=1585833341&sr=8-1
But "citizen technocrats" know even less (far less) than the elites they critique, and, unlike many of the technocratic elites, the citizen technocrats don't know enough to even know what they don't know. /13
In short, it's quite possible that Ferguson et al.'s epidemiological model is wanting. Given how much we don't know about the novel coronavirus, in fact, it's almost certain. But the chances that these two can improve upon that modeling are precisely zero. /14
And at the risk of repeating myself, the proposition that the remedy for ignorance about these matters is to turn them over to those who are *infinitely* more ignorant about these matters is absolute madness. /15
For instance, coming back to the op-ed in question, did "citizen technocrats" and mass public scrutiny uncover the asteroid path? Uh, no. /16
