Generally, I would agree with this statement:

Nah, I don’t see much value in criticisms about science from the alt right…

but… the author is criticizing how science is reported, not science itself. He’s done (and is probably continuing to do) some pretty unethical things, but this article seems reasonable, and raises a valid point.

Plus, he’s not just whining or throwing a tantrum like some pundit. He offers a solution:

Okay, but then what? “No Evidence That Snake Oil Works” is the bread and butter of science journalism. How do you express that concept without falling into the “no evidence” trap?

I think you have to go back to the basics of journalism: what story are you trying to cover?

If the story is that nobody has ever investigated snake oil, and you have no strong opinion on it, and for some reason that’s newsworthy, use the words “either way”: “No Evidence Either Way About Whether Snake Oil Works”.

If the story is that all the world’s top doctors and scientists believe snake oil doesn’t work, then say so. “Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work”. This doesn’t have the same faux objectivity as “No Evidence Snake Oil Works”. It centers the belief in fallible scientists, as opposed to the much more convincing claim that there is literally not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that anyone could use in favor of snake oil. Maybe it would sound less authoritative. Breaking an addiction to false certainty is as hard as breaking any other addiction. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.

He’s advocating for greater accuracy and clarity. That’s not something that charlatans typically do. If the “fallible scientists” bit bothers you, well, it’s only the truth. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us. That’s why peer review exists.