[Junior]

Ok, I'll bite. Examples please!

Well, the good folks at Darwin Central have already begun compiling Ms. Coulter's many errors:

• No Glowing Reviews for Coulter’s take on Chernobyl
• InANNities, Part I
• InANNities, Part II
• Take your beating like an Ann…

Darwinian Conservatism has an article entitled "A Battle of Titans: Charles Darwin versus Ann Coulter." Unfortunately, you'll have to scroll down the page to find it as I cannot figure how to deep link that site.

Panda's Thumb has at least one article dealing with Ms. Coulter's errors:

• Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution

And our very own Ichneumon has promised us a very lengthy posting of some several hundred of Ms. Coulter's more egregious errors. I'm pretty sure I could come up with some more examples if you'd like.

[subterfuge]

I see the Evos are here to highjack the thread.

You should go here:

http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html

[Aria]

Interesting. It's pretty hard to wisecrack science.

I sort of agree with her general premise that liberalism has become somewhat of a Godless religion...but I see what you mean about some of the specific scientific claims she cited.
They did the trick nevertheless, a best seller that will probably get more than a few converts. Since liberals make so many nutty claims themselves I figure this, on balance, is a good thing.

Thanks!

[Antoninus]

And our very own Ichneumon has promised us a very lengthy posting of some several hundred of Ms. Coulter's more egregious errors. I'm pretty sure I could come up with some more examples if you'd like.

Hey, put them altogether and you can have a Syllabus of Errors. Then you can condemn and anathematize Ann and declare anyone who ascribes to her views excommunicated from the scientific community.

Oh wait. That's only bad when Catholics do it.

[ArGee]

OK - I only went to the first link on Chernobyl and decided that the authors of the paper didn't get Ann's point. They didn't so much refute her as they did argue a different point altogether.

This is a rather typical approach. I won't call it disengenuous because they probably thought they were arguing Ann's point. But I would disagree.

I will also say I haven't cracked my copy of Godless yet. I base this statement on their quote in the article.

FWIW: I understood Ann's argument to be:

The worst possible nuclear disaster created by some of the worst possible nuclear engineers on the planet didn't come close to being the disaster it was predicted to be. Therefore, we should be allowed to pursue nuclear power in the U.S., where we have the best possible nuclear engineers on the planet.

That isn't the same as saying it wasn't a disaster or that we don't care who was hurt.

Shalom.

[steve-b]

And our very own Ichneumon has promised us a very lengthy posting of some several hundred of Ms. Coulter's more egregious errors.

Given that he's already caught her in at least one, not mere "error", but flat-out lie, that should be most enlightening.