That tars too much of the academy with too broad a brush. Within the academy, there are people who work with evidence and weigh interpretations, and there are people who conceal their inability to formulate anything resembling a testable implication through wordnoise or attempts to make a proper noun out of Theory. Ace, however, is correct to protest the intrusion of practitioners of the second kind into areas (archaeology, not climate science) where practitioners of the first kind are able to thrive.
I'm confused -- Ivy-level academics propose that irrefutable historical facts, such as Jews living in Judea (hint-- it's named Judea), are not facts at all but merely "socially constructed narratives of the dominant power group."
And yet we're also supposed to believe that the evidence for global warming is now "virtually irrefutable."
How do I know global warming isn't a socially-constructed narrative of a bunch of Hebe investment bankers who just want to sell me some carbon-neutral herring they got wholesale from their cousin Moishe?
See my problem?
Academics seem to have decided that everything is acceptable for skepticism and "vigorous and daring academic inquiry," except for, like, eight or twelve leftist shibboleths for which doubt is very nearly a capital offense.
HOW OTHERS SEE US. Tell us what you really think.