Why, even the newspaper of record has joined the wingnuts in dissing Rachel Carson’s work during this, the week of her birth centenary. I hadn’t seen the New York Times in a couple of weeks, having been home, without access to the free copies on campus (I don’t subscribe at home, and am even less persuaded to give them any money now). Well, I was back on campus yesterday, and it being tuesday, picked up the rag, turning eagerly to the Science Times section, looking for something good from Carl Zimmer. Instead, what hit the eyeball squarely and painfully was this hatchet-job on Carson’s legacy by one Jon Tierney, who proudly proclaims (in the “about” section of his blog) that he “always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through”! And boy, does he ever live up to that aspiration to sneak bogus claims past his readers with the diatribe against Carson! Fortunately, it appears that many of his readers are not willing to swallow his bullshit, going by the bulk of the comments on his blog (pompously labeled TierneyLab) where he backtracked just a wee bit by adding some qualifiers to his print article. I won’t hold my breath, however, for him to actually acknowledge his falsehoods, nor him/NYT to publish any retraction to the print version. I didn’t have the energy to start rebutting Tierney’s claims last night – and now am saved the effort thanks to Tim Lambert’s excellent takedown of the article at Deltoid, and Merrill Goozner’s article on Carson bashing and the campaign to boost DDT which the NYT has become a part of.