Having face-planted brutally in the 2024 American election with condescending lectures to the rubes about how the experts are always right, the chattering classes are seeking to undo the damage with condescending lectures to the rubes about how the experts are always right. For instance Science editorializes that “Science is neither red nor blue”. Funny, since Nature and Scientific American both endorsed Biden, and the latter endorsed Kamala Harris, though it had nothing to do with politics you see, despite neither having ever endorsed a Republican. Science itself didn’t go that far, but its sympathies for Harris over Trump were not well-hidden. They did note that “Whereas a majority (53%) of those who identify as Democrats reported having ‘a great deal’ of confidence in scientists in 2022, less than one-quarter (22%) of their Republican counterparts held that opinion, according to the long-running General Social Survey (GSS). That polarization has increased sharply since 2000, when an equal number – `48% – of Democrats and Republicans held scientists in high regard.” Which could simply mean that Republicans have been paying attention.

So here’s the New York Times’ David Wallace-Wells, post-election, sniffing that “As it turns out, the liberal establishment was right on Covid”. OK, that was his headline writer. But it’s a fair summary of a piece. Sadly here’s what liberal self-examination looks like in America in 2024:

“On the pandemic, inarguably, the liberal establishment was both patronizing and imperfect, which is one reason some prominent public health figures have expressed cautious optimism about coming changes to the country’s scientific bureaucracy. On issues unrelated to Covid, the contrarians have some useful instincts — to investigate chronic disease, for instance. But on the most basic and essential questions about the pandemic, the public health establishment was also, actually, right”.

And if not, for instance on the lab-leak hypothesis, the value of masking, the need to close schools and so on, well, they still feel good about themselves. And in the Times experts still reliably say what journalists think:

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims Americans are being ‘unknowingly poisoned’ by seed oils, and online influencers say they’re toxic. But are they? Here’s what nutrition scientists say.”

And they say, or the handful whom journalists ask say, and you knew they would, don’t eat meat or dairy, eat canola:

“The claim that seed oils are ruining our health is especially rankling to nutrition scientists, who see them as a big step forward from butter and lard. Decades of research have shown that consuming seed oils is associated with better health, said Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. To suggest otherwise, he added, ‘just undermines the science.’”

Because nothing undermines science like suggesting alternative theories. Further to the subject of COVID, in that same Science piece that says science is neither red nor blue, science is definitely blue and red is blockheaded, even deplorable:

“Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril. A recent example is the increased death rate from COVID-19 (as much as 26% higher) in US regions where political leaders dismissed the science on the effectiveness of vaccines.”

And where would we be without the science. On the plus side, Science did warn that:

“In addition, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science. Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy.”

And that:

“The scientific community must also better recognize that it may not be helpful to emphasize consensus in policy reports’ recommendations when the underlying values are not universally shared.”

Only to torpedo itself smugly by continuing immediately:

“For example, although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem. It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.”

Besides, it’s not about “values”. It’s whether there really is a scientific consensus which, of course, on climate there is not.

Alas, they just can’t help themselves. And until they do, they can’t help us.