I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care.
And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.
Sure we can because dressed up Cato report clones "addendums" aren't science. Exposing the crap and bias is how to keep it real. Otherwise, inventing new names is passing the buck from critical thinking, awareness and fact-checking. They're the PR problem, not the scientific method. Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap and the talking head charlatans. Emperors new clothes lingo doesn't remove the jerks that condone personal threats to climate scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care.
And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.