I was introduced to Dr. Brigg's website some years ago and thoroughly enjoy the process he uses when either dissecting someone else's missteps in statistical analysis or his attempts at explaining a reasoned approach towards statistical interpretation. From his latest blog post:

"Apparently Mooney, who also wrote The Republican War on Science, has compiled these studies and come to the conclusion that the sheer number of them proves that he and his fellow leftists are just better creatures. As in wired better, genetically superior, purer souls by birth—made of the Right Stuff, worthy of what comes to them, more worthy, perhaps, of life.
Doubt me? From the blurb: 'A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence.' Just you ponder what this sentence implies.
I have not yet read the book: my information comes from Mooney’s other writings, the comments to his book on Amazon (which amusingly pairs Mooney’s book with Rachel Madow’s Drift), and my long exposure to the same genre of papers which Mooney uses as the basis for his book." (Why Republicans Deny Science--And Reality: Request for Help)

I am trying to avoid posting thoughts on other people's thoughts in my own blog. I'd prefer to leave it as a short tweet simply pointing to an interesting article or posting that I've read (thoughts on thoughts can often misrepresent the original author's intents - in this case Mooney's - and I don't want that). In this case, however, I wanted to make a small defense of my conservative friends, family and foe. It is the definition of irrational to use such a broad term as conservative when talking about people's attitudes towards science and "facts." I am disinclined to read Mooney's book because the title itself implies that Mooney is being irrational and I shouldn't waste the time to read and then comment. On the other hand, I think we need to openly criticize this type of reckless writing regardless of which side of the isle it is coming from. It  does not help progress or discourse. One of the books I'm reading is David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. A large bit of the discussion explains how the brain (mind, soul - it depends on how far you define the brain) works on the basis of a rowdy democracy. Inner conflict leads to long-term progress:

"As with memory, the lesson here is that the brain has evolved multiple, redundant ways of solving problems. The neural factions often agree about what is out there in the world, but not always. And this provides the perfect substrate for a neural democracy."

and later

"Biology never checks off a problem and calls it quits. It reinvents solutions continually. The end product of that approach is a highly overlapping system of solutions—the necessary condition for a team-of-rivals architecture."

Mooney is welcome to disagree with his interlocutors, but to decry that a complete subset of the population (known as conservatives) are not capable of recognizing facts stops general intellectual progress. It is the equivalent of a kid on the kickball field picking up the ball in the middle of the game and going home. I question the motives of anyone who sets the stage as such.