In Science Left Behind, I made what seemed to be an obvious point to everyone outside science journalism - but to very few in it: do not defend science. Science does not need defending.

So if you started writing about science because you wanted to stick it to Republicans/climate change deniers/skeptics/(insert whatever term you want here), you are already not doing journalism, and you are not even doing science outreach.  Because you have already lost the ability to be a trusted guide for the public. They are smarter than you think.

Now, sometimes you do have to call it like it is. Ignoring the fact that most anti-science people about GMOs vote Democrat or that most anti-science people about climate change vote Republican would be intentionally stupid and creating a sort of false balance to say they are bipartisan just because some cross the aisle. It is ignoring the reality to try and create some weird fake equivalence landscape where those issues are the same for both sides. Both are instead part of their efforts, and the efforts of their representatives, to make their anti-science beliefs mainstream.

If you are rationalizing people in your political camp with 'they are not anti-science, they just distrust Y' you have already lost. If your goal is to defend science, you are not going to ask the awkward questions about models and the scientists who created them that you would ask if they came to a conclusion you happened not to like.

And everything that does affirm your position suddenly becomes evidence.  "SuperStorm" Sandy was suddenly indisputable evidence of global warming - at least according to those in the media who were going to vote for President Obama anyway and wanted to make sure that everyone in science did also. It showed again how evidence and skeptical thinking has been left behind when it comes to science blogging and parts of journalism.

Imagine poor James Madison. In today's hyper-political climate, our fourth president might have been impeached due to the hurricane of 1815, because he did not buy government-subsidized windmills that we are to believe will mitigate the hurricanes caused by global warming.

And the public would have lapped it up. People then were not all that much different then than they are now. They liked infighting - people caned each other on the floor of Congress in the 19th century - and people cared about the environment. Noah Webster, he of the famous dictionary, and Thomas Jefferson had the first global warming debate in 1799. The Republican was on the side of climate science that time. 

Today we get crazy claims that estimated global warming is a more powerful driver in evolution than natural selection. I got news for you on that one, activists - Evolution is currently undefeated at about 1 billion and 0 when it counts.