As an example of liberal scientific knowledge a friend of mine--whose wife is a friend of Michelle Obama's-- castigated me for invoking Feynman to critique the process used by some climate alarmists.
My friend thought it was absurd to use a physicist to question a climate scientist.
My friend did so because he actually has no comprehension of how the laws of physics underly how the climate behaves.
This was additionally informative in that what I quoted Feynman on was that if a theory does not model reality--the model produces results different from what we measure-- no matter who came up with the theory, no matter how beautiful the theory was, we have to conclude that the theory is wrong.
Essentially all Feynman was doing was explaining how science works; you guess what might explain something and then you compare your guess's predictions with measured data. If they match great; if not then the guess is wrong.
But given that every single climate model has failed to match measured data for 15 years it's pretty clear that using science we can, according to Feynman, conclude that climate scientists current guess's are wrong.
Once they admit that then, if they are scientists and not political shills, they need to make new guesses and see if they accurately predict what nature does.
But liberals don't understand that so they use bogus statistics to say that since most climate scientists believe man is warming the planet it doesn't matter what the data says.
Just like primitive people listened to their witch doctors.
The sad reality is that while liberals envision themselves as progressives they are really the most radical of conservatives in that they wish to return to a primitivism; a primitivism that includes child sacrifice--abortion.