Meltdown at Scienceblogs.com – bloggers jumping ship

UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb, see below the “Continue reading” line.

UPDATE2: PZ Myers ends his “strike” and flames me, see response in Update2 below.

Many WUWT readers are familiar with some blogs that reside at Sb. For example there’s Wikipedia edit master, William Connolley’s “Stoat-taking Science by the throat“, Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid“,  and some others like the well known Pharyngula by the ever grouchy PZ. Myers. It’s all good fun to read.

But, now there’s quite an exodus occurring at the scienceblogs.com conglomerate. Just look at the front page for today and the list of bloggers leaving or expressing concerns:

What’s happened? Well it all started with the parent company, SEED, allowing the Pepsi Company to start a blog on nutrition. Some bloggers went ballistic, perceiving that SEED caved to the almighty dollar and let some evil corporation into the sacred science temple.

Newsflash: SEED is a business.  The Guardian did a story on the Sb blogger anger, and Sb was faced with a mass revolt. The SEED management didn’t handle it well enough or fast enough for some bloggers tastes, even though they removed the Pepsi Food Frontiers blog. The result: 15 Sb bloggers upped and quit in protest. Here’s the content they are protesting.

As PZ Myers writes at Pharyngula, it is getting worse, more bloggers are leaving, and he’s on strike with a list of demands for the Sb management.

The Sb Blogging Union, local #42

Meyers writes:

It’s come to this. We’ve been facing a steady erosion of talent here at Scienceblogs, with the loss of good people like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong a while back, and with the very abrupt departure of 15 bloggers after the recent PepsiCo debacle — an event that damaged the reputation of this place. And now just yesterday we lost PalMD and Bora. Something is going rotten here. What could it be?

Just in the time it took me to write this up this morning, Superbug, Zuska, and Speakeasy Science have all announced their departures, and Casaubon’s Book is considering it. We really are having a serious crisis of confidence, and Seed has to wake up and take action.

Add Mike Dunford to the list of departures.

Sb is crumbling fast. It seems to be the season for things crumbling. I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it? There’s a lot of brands, Doritos and Mountain Dew for example. What blogger can do without those?

And PepsiCo has a lot of green brands, like Ethos Water that helps children get clean water worldwide.

And who could argue with the greenness and innovation of PepsiCo stuff like this?

sunchips ad

Point is that the bloggers who resigned in protest over a nutrition blog probably consume some of these things and don’t even know who makes it.

But what is really funny is how the new Food Frontiers blog was presented by SEED management in the first place:

As part of this partnership, we’ll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo’s product portfolio, we’ll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.

Oh the humanity! Lots of tolerance over there at Sb.

I’ll give this piece of advice we always used to give in the TV Newsroom to people calling in that demanded we remove/edit/censure certain news stories, TV shows, or advertisements:

I understand your concerns, thank you, there’s no need to yell. Respectfully, if you don’t like the content, change the channel, we don’t force you to watch.

I find the whole Sb revolt thing hilarious. It’s a tempest in a pop can. Of course, PepsiCo could have defused this whole thing simply by making an announcement to stop putting deadly earth killing CO2 in their sodas, and instead sequestering it out back, underground. Then they’d be heroes, right?

========================================

UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb:

To demonstrate that scienceblogs.com has almost nothing to do with science these days, let us look at the five most active articles on their server, according to the main page of scienceblogs.com:

1. Episode LXXXII: Is this the thread for the tea party?… P.Z. Myers just included a would-be funny video that attacks the tea party movement

2. Monckton vs The House of Lords… Tim Lambert wrote a short text discussing purely the form, not the content, of some exchanges of Lord Monckton with the deputies

3. What fresh torment can we perpetrate on young girls?… P.Z. Myers discusses breast ironing in Cameroon and argues it occurs because the inhabitants are Catholics

4. Boyd Haley finally does the right thing, but is it for the wrong reasons?… Orac celebrates that the ScienceBlogs surrendered to the commies like him in PepsiGate; it’s discussed that evil companies are adding drugs to food

5. GOP Talking Points Even GOP Doesn’t Believe… Ed Brayton about Bush tax cuts. Doesn’t even pretend to be science

As you can see, science is virtually non-existent over there and everything is biased left-wing politics. But they still have the breathtaking arrogance to attack PepsiCo’s scientific blog on nutrition as insufficiently scientific for them.

Compare the above postings to the Food Frontiers blog now at PepsiCo’s website.

=============================================

UPDATE2: Predictably, the always angry PZ Myers goes zerkers over this post. He thinks I don’t understand the issue of “ethics of keeping advertising separate from content”. Um Newsflash there PZ. I spent 25 years in a TV and radio newsrooms, don’t lecture me about keeping infomercials off the news.  I’ve fought that battle. But as I pointed out and PZ missed, if people don’t like infomericals, they can turn off the TV or switch the channel. The organized rant that forced SEED to remove the PepsiCo Food Frontiers blog denies readers their right to choose. That’s so uncool but typical for people like PZ that think people shouldn’t be allowed to choose for themselves. Just look at his religious hatreds he posts regularly. No science there, just hate.

Also, without citing a single sentence he claims I have particular take, that the reason for the exodus is that people don’t like PepsiCo products. Well noooooo, if you’d read it rather than engage your typical hateful knee jerk keyboard pounding reaction, you see it was a question.

I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it?

It seems he’s ended his “strike” (he’s been posting the last couple of days), now he’s busy spiting me for noticing him at all. Next time I’ll just ignore him.

Some class act that PZ. He is the face of Sb today, so sad that science is co-marketed with anger and hate there.

================

UPDATE3: see my detailed comment below

About these ads

146 thoughts on “Meltdown at Scienceblogs.com – bloggers jumping ship

  1. Oh my God!
    I’ve been eating Doritos, will I go to hell for that?

    I had a beer with them, instead of a Pepsi, will that buy me some discount time in the Fire?

  2. mmmmmmmmmm Mug Rootbeer. I had no idea that Pepsi was owner of Dole Juices, nor do I really care beyond knowing that fact.

    Who peed in their Wheeties…wait is that a Pepsi product too?

  3. I’ve got nothing against junk-food (having consumed so much in my life), so long as it doesn’t try and pass itself off as something else. In my opinion the pepsico nutrition blog is at root a bit dishonest in its aims. If SEED is a business, they need to think a bit more clearly about who their customers are if they want to survive to next year, rather than on ill-advised short-term profit maximization. Businesses don’t deserve profit, they have to earn it. If they make too many mistakes they die. It’s called a free market.

  4. Pepsi running a science blog, hilarious,..”everyone knows Pepsi is what makes plants grow…it’s got electrolytes”

  5. “Scientists spit dummy out of pram and suck mountain dew instead”

    “Scientists without borders discover the domino effect”

  6. I also think that this is a tempest in a pop can. However I don’t understand some of the reasonings presented here. I also drink coke and pepsi and eat many not-very-healthy things, and it doesn’t mean that I think that they are healthy. It only means that their unhealthiness is not an important issue for me at the time I eat them. However, I will feel totally outraged if these companies “pretend” that they care about the health of their customers. No, they don’t. If they say that they do, they’re lying. And I may not care that they play somewhat with my health, but I won’t tolerate that they also lie in their customers’ faces. Because I may not care, but maybe others do.

    So perhaps these people are overreacting, but they do have a point.

  7. This is kind of a silly post, and perhaps it’s meant as such. I read (or used to read) a couple of Sb blogs, and I think it’s pretty clear that the bloggers weren’t objecting to the mere existence of Pepsico, they were objecting to SEED allowing Pepsico to use an Sb blog as an infomercial space. It doesn’t follow that any such blogger is a hypocrite if they drink Pepsi.

    To use your TV analogy, the bloggers are just saying “we don’t like your content and if it persists, we’re going to change channels”. SEED managment can either take note of that or not – all fair and above board.

  8. Was this the excuse the SB bloggers were waiting for to abondon the sinking AGW ship?

  9. Every company (and NGO for that matter) that has jumped on the greeny beeny CO² wagon has done it for money. That includes Soros, greenpeas, friends of the earth, etc. It’s all for money, guys. Wake up and smell the roses.
    You dumbos who run around protesting for these people need to get a life and get educated in life.

  10. You have to love a narrow minded over-reaction based on your own assumptions, at no point does pepsico say they are going to tell pepsi is good for you. They do say;

    The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy.

    Which doesn’t seem unreasonable for a large company with a huge portfolio in today’s world

  11. The CO2 is the least of the worries on soda. Do not even get me started on Aspartame I could rant all week!!!

  12. I’m with a couple of the commenters above. I don’t mind PepsiCo. I generally don’t buy their stuff, but I have no moral objection to doing so.

    I’ve followed the resignations, and I can see why it might push someone over the edge (I suspect most of the defections were not caused by this alone BTW) if scientific neutrality is a big thing for them.

    For many of the bloggers on Sb the fact that they are accused of being “Big Pharma” shills is a real issue. Of course they are not – no more than Anthony is a shill for “Big Oil”. But if Sb is going to contain “blogs” that are shills for industry, then the mud is going to be a whole lot clingier.

    There’s no way Anthony could afford to have WUWT be sponsored by Shell or Exxon. Even if they let him total editorial control it would look too suspicious. I wouldn’t buy it. In the same way the science bloggers need to be totally above suspicion as being bought by industrial concerns. It looks like a little matter, until you investigate what is actually behind the concerns.

    This is different to sponsorship. I have no issue with “industry” as such. If they sponsor the NZ Provincial Rugby Championships it will endear me to them, and I might buy more of their junk. But the sponsorship better have no ring of influence.

  13. MMmmm all this CO 2 molecules running in our brains after having a Pepsi…
    They should be blacklisted too….
    [sarcasm off]

  14. Pepsi? I hit the TAB button.. now where is it?? Oh wait.. no time for that.. the computer’s starting!

  15. Some people have to gripe about everything.
    Sure some corporations have done terrible things in the past, and time to time still do some bad things. But on the whole, they are very responsible and have made our lives immensely better.
    Take a look at the list of products. I see many there that I enjoy on a daily basis. Let the people decide for themselves if they want or don’t want to buy.
    The eco-zealots are so out to lunch (and often with Pepsi products).

  16. What interests me is that many of the blogs on ScienceBlogs are not about science. Pharyngula is not about evolutionary biology (because PZ writes about that on “The Panda’s Thumb”), its about PZ being as offensive as possible to religious believers of various sorts (and I’m not religious, just to let people know).

    PZ Meyers at least writes well, even if most of the time he writes too angry. Its a wonder he doesn’t develop stomach ulcers or boils to the skin. He even encourages angry discourse on the blog – but maybe he has an enlarged spleen or something because I can’t manage it for that length of time without nausea.

    Tim Lambert’s blog isn’t about science – its about the character assassination of people that Tim disagrees with, mixed with a good helping of historical revisionism and really bad scientific comprehension (and cheered on by people even more clueless than Tim). Its densely argued nonsense that one could spend a good lifetime trying to catalogue all of the mistakes – only to get blocked by Timmy for annoying him.

    William Connelley’s blog is about science with rigid blinkers on. No variation of view from what WMC believes is allowed. He thinks Wikipedia is too conservative now that they’ve rumbled him.

    The Denialism blog takes that whole idea one stage further to accusing anyone who disagrees with the author’s political views on science policy as morally depraved – a religious concept if ever there was one.

    What Scienceblogs does demonstrate is that most academics don’t automatically make very good writers (or even thinkers). But they do have monster egos. And they do bitterly resent outsiders standing on their educational lawns.

    Scienceblogs is also solidly politically far left-of-centre. No variation at all. (Note: not liberal). The commentary is mostly classical late 19th Century Marxist and politically correct to the n-th degree. Its gets very boring after a while.

    I like reading a range of viewpoints (which is why I like WUWT, because I can mock quite a few of them safely), so scienceblogs is like an occasional dip in the swimming pool with the enormous wave machine on – fun, but tiring and after a while you just want a quiet swim.

  17. This is too funny – except it suggests the way they want their world to be. Would they have been up in arms if Ben and Jerry’s or Stonyfield Farm (NE Organic Yogurt)had sponsored the nutrition site? Hold on, didn’t Ben and Jerry sell out to Unilever? The money grubbers did. We can’t have those Capitalist swines at Unilever sullying the science, even if they are Europeans.

  18. Ken Hall says:
    July 23, 2010 at 3:28 am

    The CO2 is the least of the worries on soda. Do not even get me started on Aspartame I could rant all week!!!

    How about corn syrup sugar?

    I like the ads put on by the corn syrup sugar industry demonstrating ‘moderate’ consumption of corn syrup sugar is fine.

    I agree, moderate consumption of anything is fine. Only problem is defining moderate.

    I’ve decided, on a strictly personal basis, a 16 ounce serving of Pepsi per week is ‘moderate’. No consumption of processed foods in the house is ‘moderate’. Well, except for those stray bags of pretzels or potato chips. I try to eat at places where the food is obviously fresh, but there are times the occasional fast food meal, sans the soft drink is ok. Bread has gone down in my diet. My favorite food too. Too many carbs.

    By the way, whatever happened to people deciding for themselves what they will eat or drink? If the stuff is bad for them, so what?

  19. Nylo: July 23, 2010 at 2:54 am
    However, I will feel totally outraged if these companies “pretend” that they care about the health of their customers. No, they don’t. If they say that they do, they’re lying. And I may not care that they play somewhat with my health, but I won’t tolerate that they also lie in their customers’ faces. Because I may not care, but maybe others do.
    So perhaps these people are overreacting, but they do have a point.

    It’s more a reaction to having a representative of the vile, bourgeois, manufacturosyndicalist cabal intrude into the *purity* of their site — it forced them to face the Inconvenient Truth that somebody has to pay the rent.

    Which is why I get a chuckle when I see outraged commenters demanding that Anthony change WUWT to conform with *their* points of view…

  20. Some bloggers went ballistic, perceiving that SEED caved to the almighty dollar and let some evil corporation into the sacred science temple“…

    Ahhh, the cluelessness of leftists is manifest yet again…

    So what if SEED was taking money from Pepsi?

    Its not like bandwidth (plus assorted hardware & software) were free…

  21. Hey, Pepsigeddon has been no easy thing:

    http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/07/tempests_teacups_and_the_futur.php

    You might remember Joe D’Aleo who recently posted here why he couldn’t move ICECAP to a more friendly platform which would allow commenting. I think he said he has thousands of articles which would have to move somehow without being lost.

    My local banks are still using 1980’s software because of the nightmare that transferring to new software would represent. Fossilised blogs are just a new Y2K-like result of this rising tyranny of the electron!

  22. Amen to John A. So much on there has so little to do with science anyway . . .

    Kind of comical to see the hysteria induced.

  23. This has nothing to do with outrage over health concerns just as the science of global warming has nothing to do with concerns about the planet. The truth is, wherever Coke and Pepsi are ascendent, western culture is as well. So perhaps this is really an argument pitting Aristotle against Marx.

    I drink Coke and Pepsi, and lead an active and healthy lifestyle in a vibrant community that embraces the western tradition.

  24. Companies are not stupid. They see a shift in the saturation of the “Green” movement and are looking at future profitability to keep their products selling at the inflated prices that their products are at.
    Good question is what is the products actual price to manufacture and sell, without all the marketing gobbledygook to get the true answer.
    “Have to keep our shareholders happy” is the current social order, so let’s keep pushing that price up, sneak in the change of amount in the packages smaller to keep that profit margin high.

  25. Some people seem to like their science as a big white shiney temple where peaople piously sing hymms to theoretical constructs.
    While others would prefer to urinate against the wall and see the world as a place to observe.

    I think the Sb thing is really Climate Change in a bottle. People disconnecting from whats real to let their preconceptions be the world. PepsiCo probably has more chemists in it’s employ than NASA and has done positive things, the litmus test is are they making blog entries about scientific facts in a Science Blog? Its too early to tell about Pepsi, but not about the people who don’t seem to bother with empirical evidence.

  26. What, the authoritarians are taking their ball and going home? Who they gonna play with?
    ==========

  27. Science in medicine have had an extremely profitable union with healthcare. Any company would love to have this same union in another science field that has as much interest in it. But our society have an extremely limited attention span to science as it is an education thing that government should take care of.
    You don’t see Colleges or Universities looking for any NEW SCIENCE that will draw students and sponsors as the knowledge is in a book or on the computer.
    I have seen so much science that is very incorrect being taught as higher learning, when in actual fact will create our next world leaders to be “educated idiots”.

    When you do not question anything, it must be correct. I question everything and find many surprises in what is actually happening.

  28. The anti-corporate thing runs deep apparently. Note that they threw a hissy fit immediately, they didn’t wait to look at what PepsiCo actually wrote/blogged about, no no no. Corporation = eeeevil. NGO apparently = good. Big Oil is bad bad bad. It seems the more likely they are to actually use the product the more they want to demonize and hurt the providers of said product.

  29. Sounds like a bunch of petulant drama queens throwing a hissy fit.

    Reminds me of that time early in the evolution of the internet, when text only content gave way to a WYSIWYG graphical content and, horror of horrors, ads began appearing. The sounds of the offended just burst through every computer — and all without the benefit of soundcards.

    Or how about this, for the sanctimonious and self-righteous: the very holy internet they profess to love was founded by tax dollars under the guidance of the military-industrial complex (aka DARPA). You want purity? Build your own internet with your own dollars and expertise.

    Ever notice how sanctimony and hypocrisy seem to go hand in hand?

  30. Where would science be without the capitalistic system? Where would engineering be without the capitalistic system? And where would our standard of living be without the capitalistic system? All three would have a much lower level of development without it.

    It sounds like many people at Scienceblogs don’t consider this, which isn’t too surprising. Their education at our higher institutions of liberalism has brainwashed them into believing capitalism is evil, that anything touched by that system should be rejected, and that self-flagelating behavior is the answer. They’ve constructed their own self-righteous demise.

  31. And the reputation of science takes another hit. So much for that silly idea that scientists were rational and level-headed. They’re as nutty as the rest of us. And there goes the free pass for science.

  32. Yep those environmental scientists sure care about people,not big corporations.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/green-diet-push-angers-experts/story-e6frg6n6-1225894792847

    AUSTRALIA’S top health standards body has been accused of subverting food science to fit a green agenda.
    It did this by suggesting caps on meat and fish intake on environmental grounds — even though pregnant women risk nutritional deficiencies as a result.
    But in a submission responding to the draft, sent to the NHMRC in May, the CSIRO noted the “term ‘environmentally sustainable’ appears . . . throughout the document as an argument for some of the limitations on some foods, notably meat, fish and dairy”.
    “It is unclear from this document as to how such conclusions were derived and . . . why nutritional desirability for optimal health has been compromised as a consequence,” the CSIRO said.

  33. ‘Point is that the bloggers who resigned in protest over a nutrition blog probably consume some of these things and don’t even know who makes it.’

    Speculation doesn’t make a good argument one way or another.

    ‘Of course, PepsiCo could have defused this whole thing simply by making an announcement to stop putting deadly earth killing CO2 in their sodas, and instead sequestering it out back, underground.’

    You don’t have other ways to view the world’s issues do you?

    It is a textbook conflict of interest for SEED to take money from Pepsi and then give Pepsi blog space under the auspices that Pepsi scientists are going to give a complete picture of the science behind Pepsi products. I think that one is hard-pressed to claim that in that given situation there wasn’t a better way in which SEED could have brought Pepsi along. That was the major contention of many of the contributors.

    The other contention had to do with the fact that while the contributors of ScienceBlogs work to give the site legitimacy (whether you agree with particular blogs or not), SEED was effectively selling that legitimacy to Pepsi without any feedback from the bloggers themselves. In the end, I think it was this fact that drove many away because they had had enough of having no say in the direction the site could take on any given day.

    [snip]

    [reply]As you said speculation doesn’t make a good argument one way or another. RT – mod

  34. Pepsi is evil for many reasons –
    The main one being that it is a poor imitation of Coke.

  35. I find it impossible to understand why you skeptics don’t believe that RC is the fount of truth and beauty and that’s all there is to know.

    RC Cola, that is.
    ==========

  36. Oh, me. I think I pulled a muscle laughing too hard at these indignant bloggers sputtering and stamping their wee little feet petulantly at the very thought of a corpoaration. Thanks for the comic relief.

  37. This is advertising from The Soda Pop Board of America (1950’s). “For a better start in life start cola earlier” “How soon is too soon? Not soon enough. Laboratory tests have proven……babies who start drinking soda during that early formative period…”

    Pepsi has science on its side!!

  38. Personally, I prefer Coke, but I have nothing against Pepsi. Indeed, I’ve been studying in Tokyo for lo these many, many months, and at this point I’d kill for a (formerly PepsiCo owned) Taco Bell Bacon Club Chalupa thing. You don’t normally realize how much you miss Taco Bell food until it’s no longer an option for you. It’s strange because there are KFC’s everywhere here but not a single Taco Bell in sight. I’m very upset about this. Maybe I should follow Al Gore’s motorcade during his next Japanese PowerPoint Climate Crisis + Massage Therapy + CO2 Footprint Tour.

    As for these leftist food snobs who can’t tolerate having their so-called “science” blogs co-hosted on a site with PepsiCo, it doesn’t surprise me one bit. These are the same hypocrites who will refuse to consider a published peer-reviewed paper if one of the authors happens to have a second-cousin whose neighbor once knew the brother of a secretary who worked for Exxon in 1967. This is how their “science” works: Don’t evaluate the merits of the actual claims being made, instead attack the sources of funding and assassinate the characters of the people making those claims.

    Is it really surprising then that the loyal patrons of exxonsecrets.org would abandon ship en mass rather than endure the humiliating possibility of being (even remotely) connected with an obscure PepsiCo-backed “science” based infomercial? The scary thought of having their green credentials revoked was enough to make them run for the exits. This is how group-think works.

    Well, that’s my take on it anyway… Now I’m hungry :-) ¡Yo quiero Taco Bell!

  39. John A wrote:

    An accurate epitaph for Scienceblogs.

    Scienceblogs. Having spent more than enough time in the academic science environment I was always bemused by the highly doctrinaire social, cultural, and political views held by many. Along with the demand for conformity to these views and the lack of tolerance of any dissent. Also that the belief that they are correct about everything, regardless of whether or not it’s outside their domain of specialized knowledge, simply because of their belief that they are smarter than everyone else.

    The outcry over Pepsi reminds me of an anecdotal story. I went out to dinner with a well known professor, in his field, and his students. This prof was a supporter of every so-called progressive cause one could imagine. Naturally, he was a vegetarian. So all his students fell obliged to order veggie dishes. I ordered the meatiest dish I could find on the menu. It was clear that the prof was not pleased – did not approve. So I said, “Well, my evolutionary ancestors did not fight their way to the top of the food chain, just so I would eat nothing but vegetables.”

    The tenured types can predict their secure income over their working life to the last penny, so it’s not surprising that they may have difficulty understanding why Scienceblogs might need to consider a sponsor.

    Anyways, I find that various science news aggregators, such as PhysOrg, TechReview, etc., a far more interesting, informative, and useful read than most of the blogs on Scienceblogs which, as someone correctly pointed out, are mostly not about science.

  40. Some one needs to research how much the green industry has bought into the CO2 AGW myth and how much their executives stand to loose as the myth is exposed and bad laws, treaties, and regulations are abandoned. That green industry includes a lot of scientist who have used scare tactics to fund their research. Watch the political green issue ads between now and November.

  41. I find it interesting that in the 21st century we have arrived at Marxism without Marx and Leninism without Lenin. People still hold to the same philosophical positions (Gov = good, Capitalism = bad) but without the underpinnings from Marx and Lenin. In fact they would deny any connection to those two worthies, but they still pine for a socialist utopia void of profit motive.

  42. Hmmmn

    Consensus mindsets become sceptical, Watts up with that? Gosh, I was always taught to think, make up my own mind, and when someone was hard selling you something, or soft selling for that matter you always took their claims with a “grain of salt” (reality check) No need for those of the consensus faith to get their knickers in a knot, just healthy normal scientific scepticism (skepticism)

    A reality check, for those in need, indeed!!

  43. BarryW says:
    July 23, 2010 at 5:45 am
    Capitalism was good when companies looked after their employees and not looking to grab the biggest profits and pay bouses to who can rip you off the most.
    Government do not listen anymore when elected. They create their own agendas as it suits especially in early terms of office so to give time for the voters to forget as the world moves on with other stories that catch their interest.
    People in general have a short attention span.

  44. This tempest in a teapot reminds me of Sayre’s Law, which is originally sourced from the faux-reality of academics:

    “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue.”

    Not being an academic, I had no idea it was called Sayre’s Law until I went to look up the accurate phrasing.

    See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_Law

  45. Oh heck! (trying hard to not get snipped!). A major company involved in the expansion of bellies and a narrowing of arteries….Good grief! Lets get back on topic, ignore the semantics and the hippies jumping ship!

  46. This is so funny. They rant aggainst corporations. When Corporations jump on the marketing bandwagon, the people that rant luve the money.
    Exxon did 100 million dollar donation to Stanford where Schneider worked. Now they find themselves chasing the dollar. They are exposed.

    Pepsi is the suggar daddy.
    Money and High fructose carbon.

  47. But Pepsi helped bring down the Berlin wall by swapping cola for Stolichnaya, so they can’t be all bad.

  48. Wotinell? Who is SEED, and what is Sb besides…what, tin? Antimony? I never heard of this bunch, so what difference does it make?

  49. More evidence that it isn’t just the masses that can’t separate funding from science. As long as they follow the scientific method rigorously I really don’t care who the funding comes from. Now if the funding starts to interfere with that or the fund provider wants certain results from the research and won’t allow full disclosure of unpleasant results then I have a problem.

  50. Maybe we should be archiving the more ridiculous pro AGW statements made in the old blog posts. You can be sure they won’t reappear wherever these bloggers turn up next.

  51. A quick reading will show that Science Blogs have always been an oxymoron. Perhaps one or two bloggers there possessed an IQ bigger than their waist size, and those few have jumped ship long ago.

    The readers of SB? Don’t get me started!

  52. “Patagon says:
    July 23, 2010 at 2:04 am
    Oh my God!
    I’ve been eating Doritos, will I go to hell for that?”

    No…but you WILL have to pay a tax.

    JimB

  53. Daniel H: July 23, 2010 at 5:37 am
    …and at this point I’d kill for a (formerly PepsiCo owned) Taco Bell Bacon Club Chalupa thing. You don’t normally realize how much you miss Taco Bell food until it’s no longer an option for you. It’s strange because there are KFC’s everywhere here but not a single Taco Bell in sight.

    KFC translates well into most cultures — Taco Bell, not so much.

    Most folks who don’t grow up eating dairy products (about 90% of the world) lose their tolerance for lactose — too much queso makes them queasy…

  54. Pepsi gets oil off your driveway. Seriously. If you have a leak just pore on some Pepsi and leave it for thirty minutes, then wash it all away. I’m sure there’s a green joke or something to do with BP in there…

  55. RockyRoad says:
    July 23, 2010 at 5:10 am
    Where would science be without the capitalistic system? Where would engineering be without the capitalistic system? And where would our standard of living be without the capitalistic system? All three would have a much lower level of development without it.

    It sounds like many people at Scienceblogs don’t consider this, which isn’t too surprising. Their education at our higher institutions of liberalism has brainwashed them into believing capitalism is evil, that anything touched by that system should be rejected, and that self-flagelating behavior is the answer. They’ve constructed their own self-righteous demise.

    ——————

    RockyRoad,

    Well said.

    I would suggest the words “. . . . education at our higher institutions of collectivism . . .” instead of your words ” . . . education at our higher institutions of liberalism . . .”. In 18th & 19th centuries the words liberal/liberalism were about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then the 20th century came along (with its Marxism/Facism/Communism/Socialism/etc) and the meaning was intentionally switched to the opposite by those who wished to mislead.

    The terms liberal/liberalism are now just too confounding for my taste. I avoid them.

    John

  56. And here I quit buying Pepsi products when they started promoting green. BUMMER!!!!
    If I knew they would produce a rebellion at SB I would have continued supporting Pepsi and now I will have to return to buying their products because it seems the Greens do not like Pepsi and an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.

  57. Gareth Evans says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Pepsi gets oil off your driveway. Seriously. If you have a leak just pore on some Pepsi and leave it for thirty minutes, then wash it all away. I’m sure there’s a green joke or something to do with BP in there…

    Maybe Pepsi is a good oil dispersant.

    Anyone try it?

  58. Stupid! Stupid! STUPID!

    All Pepsico had to do was call their blog “Naked Juice” and address Clean Water Purification as their main subject. There was no need for this to happen. No need at all! Now all these bozo’s get a bunch of free publicity on WUWT’s world-wide front page and bloggers everywhere are spattered with mud and look like a bunch of English Punks and American Rappers. Terrible! Terrible!!

    I blame Pepsico!

    Pass the Tropicana and Fritos please…

  59. Excerpt from: Mike Davis on July 23, 2010 at 9:10 am

    …an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.

    The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.
    Rule #29, source
    :-)

  60. kadaka (KD Knoebel): July 23, 2010 at 10:25 am
    The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.
    – Rule #29

    Personally, I’ve always been partial to Rule #12: “A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.”

  61. PepsiCo is a really interesting Corporation … There are all kinds of financial MODELS … yanno for “Modeling” to find out where Corporations are heading so that incredibly smart financial “scientists” can predict where those Corporations are going to wind up financially … Heating up or cooling down or tipping-point bound?

    Anyway … PepsiCo is the one Corporation that is SO diverse and intricate that the models cannot predict at all when in the hell it’s going to go. Thus … PepsiCo is kinda like Mother Earth or Mother Nature or Weather/Climate … I think I like that!!

  62. RT,

    what am I speculating on? The point of Anthony’s post is that what SEED and Pepsi were doing was absolutely acceptable in the spirit of raising revenue for the site. In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests. That’s not a matter of speculation and is the meat on my argument.

    I was speculating on why others left based on what I had read on ‘Good Math, Bad Math’ and ‘PalMD’. I’m willing to admit that. This point, however, isn’t as significant as the factual point that what Pepsi and SEED were attempting to do represented a conflict of interests.

    It’s ok to be wrong sometimes, you know. It’s even acceptable to admit one’s mistakes. You should try it some time.

    Oh, and thanks for snipping the end.

  63. maxwell: July 23, 2010 at 10:50 am
    In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests.

    No, it’s “sailing under a false flag” — peddling products while purporting to be science.

    Which meant that PepsiCo(®/™/©) fit right in with the rest of the crew…

  64. Billions of dollars on advertising and marketing and they want to divert some of that complete waste into science? Fine by me. I’m pretty sure the science would be shit, but they deserve a chance to prove that.

  65. Austin says:
    July 23, 2010 at 9:12 am
    Maybe they would prefer that Kool-Aid sponsor them?

    LOL!

    Come on back, we’re SORRY. Hey look! I have non-genetically modified grapes for youuuu!

  66. Sponsoring research?

    Government Sponsoring:
    Events of past ~2 years (or longer) show evidence that gov’t sponsors of climate science research are influencing the research they are sponsoring via biased funding mechanisms in favor of CAGW. Government benefits, directly and indirectly, from this bias toward CAGW in the areas of finance and political power over business/citizens.

    Private Enterprise Sponsoring:
    On the other hand, during the same period, we have the CAGWer’s (supported in funding predominately by gov’t) claims that some private enterprise (oil in particular) sponsors of climate research are influencing the results of the research they are sponsoring in favor of anti-CAGW. The private enterprise sponsors are accused by CAGWers of being biased in favor of their company’s financial gain.

    The above perspective becomes more interesting when you consider that in climate research the level of private enterprise funding is insignificant compared to gov’t funding.

    GAGWers are winning the sponsorship game big time. Game, set, match . . . . . yet are not winning the science argument and have lost credibility with the public.

    John

  67. maxwell says: July 23, 2010 at 10:50 am
    what am I speculating on? The point of Anthony’s post is that what SEED and Pepsi were doing was absolutely acceptable in the spirit of raising revenue for the site. In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests. That’s not a matter of speculation and is the meat on my argument.
    This point, however, isn’t as significant as the factual point that what Pepsi and SEED were attempting to do represented a conflict of interests.

    I’m not sure who wrote this, but it’s pure bunkum. You do realize that you’re promoting censorship. Do you decide what science is or isn’t. If yes, then I suggest you click on the Al Gore website advert above or another pro AGW web-ad that occasionally pop up and learn to appreciate absurdities, if that isn’t a conflict of your interest.

  68. It seems that there is a great deal of religion in the guise of anti-religion on many of the science blogs. It is more about who is talking than the message. That is just intolerance. You certainly see it more often in climate science than other sciences where it has become totally politicized. It attracts the most extreme political types from the left that couldn’t care less what someone says about climate unless they are on the approved list and only talk about doom and gloom. They can’t even admit that CO2 helps plants grow unless the plant is poison ivy.

    How people with that attitude can call themselves scientists is beyond me. They only adopt science as weapon to ridicule people with. They forget how science is first about objectivity. They have totally lost objectivity and have adopted science as the basis of an intolerant form of religion. It seems to be a large part of the far left political movement now. That isn’t good for science.

  69. Ah, now I understand. The problem was that Pepsico was attempting to talk about science on a science blog! Notice that those are the blogs these bloggers hate and depise .

  70. You’ll wonder where the oil slick went when your brush your driveway with PepsiDent.
    ===================

  71. Speaking as one of the bloggers who left Sb during the exodus, Anthony (and Lubos) missed the rationale of the episode.

    It’s not about Pepsi. And if you read through the (excessive?) mountains of commentary rather than cherry pick through to find the political slant you want to make, the point should be clear. It’s about Scienceblogs and about Seed media.

    All previous bloggers had been invited into the network after demonstrating a track record and building a readership elsewhere. Pepsi bought a spot. Essentially, Scienceblogs violated the bloggers’ conception of themselves as a meritocracy by selling blog space. THAT is what the fuss was about. What good is a slot on a prestigious network when placement in that network can be also be auctioned?

    The bloggers are largely freelancers. Many are their own business, with their own brands, their own books, their own products. Many folks left for capitalistic reasons. Scienceblog’s unannounced move was perceived to damage the brand that these bloggers were selling to their consumers. This is especially true of the journalists.

    I don’t see anything insightful in Anothony’s post, or in Lubos’. It certainly doesn’t match anything that I saw as the whole SBfail unfolded.

  72. Seed inc is always one bounced check from insolvency. Usually just as they make the final step on the banana peal, some friendly unnamed sugar daddy gives them a cash infusion. The one I witnessed (via the net) was half a mil ($500k). That was just before obama was elected, 2008 Setember or there abouts.

  73. 1/2 million dollars is a LOT of money by any single “donation” …

    I wonder if the donor (Soros – an international financial seer who has made his money “shorting” – or betting on the destruction of certain stocks and money funds) was involved. He has received 10% of his company’s investment money from Obama’s US government backing deep-water off-shore drilling off of Brazil.

  74. “UPDATE2: PZ Meyers ends his “strike” just to flame me.”

    Erm… that claim is demonstrably false, as PZ had been posting entries for a few days now… unless he went back in time to add them to make it look like he was not ending just to have a go at A Watts.

    REPLY: Yep I discovered the same thing just about the time you did a couple of minutes after I made the update. I was wrong, and I’ve edited the wording. – Anthony

  75. From the Food Frontiers blog:
    “The critics seem to feel there is no place for a food industry viewpoint in such a report”

    http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/2010/07/the-critical-role-of-the-food-industry-in-the-obesity-debate/

    I guess it’s a terrible option for many scientists: accept funding with strings or live within frugal means. For the guy writing the cheques the choice is a little easier. For scientists who like fame and fortune, easier still.

  76. this is pathetic. If Mr. Watts had any integrity at all, he would side with those at sb. It’s blatantly obvious that the pepsico blog was nothing more than PR for pepsi, and did not belong. His post here has nothing to do with anything other than an attempt to erode the credibility of those whom his sees as his enemies in his little AGW is not real game. I can see how it might work for those that aren’t regular readers of WUWT and other blogs involved. If you actually read what is being said, it’s easy to see what a lame attempt at a smear this is.

    REPLY: I’m not interested in your judgments of “integrity” when you hide anonymously behind “moondog” while lecturing me about integrity.

    There are thousands of blogs under the same conglomerate here at which my blog is hosted, wordpress.com I don’t agree with a lot of them, some of them are nothing but ads with some BS content, but I and other wordpress.com bloggers don’t demand that they be taken down. If I did, imagine the caterwauling that would erupt. But those same people who support academic freedom at Sb would have me or Motls removed in a heartbeat if they could. They have already demonstrated intolerance.

    The people and marketplace will choose, if a blog is doing a good job it gets traffic and accolades, if not it gets ignored. This is the way it works.

    I’m not of the mindset to tell what other people and companies should do when it comes to having a blog or not. The group at Sb simply engaged in overhyped attempts to silence something they didn’t agree with. In the process, they’ve probably killed Sb once and for all. It will now likely wither.

    Just like in TV, don’t like it, change the channel. In blogs don’t like it, don’t visit. It’s just that simple. – Anthony

  77. “The organized rant that forced SEED to remove the PepsiCo Food Frontiers blog denies readers their right to choose. That’s so uncool but typical for people like PZ that think people shouldn’t be allowed to choose for themselves.”

    You’re a complete idiot. PZ didn’t stop SEED from having a PepsiCo blog, but he was against it because the scientists from PepsiCo could not be expected to be independent. It was a blog taking advantage of Sb’s reputation to promote PepsiCo. Furthermore, as I said, PZ didn’t stop SEED from doing anything. He merely voiced his opposition to it as did many others.

    Also, you’re complaint about “choice” is particularly idiotic. If Pepsi wants a blog, there’s nothing stopping them from setting one up on their own site. But when corporations can buy their way into having a blog on Sb, it damages the network’s credibility and therefore the credibility of all the blogs there.

    REPLY:
    SEED is a business, they can do anything they please with their business as long as it is legal. WordPress.com (where I’m hosted for free) has buy ins too. CNN and BBC bought into WP.com for example under their VIP hosting program. I don’t like CNN or BBC but you don’t see my demanding WP.com take them off. All Sb bloggers had to be were good neighbors, instead they banded together and convinced SEED to throw the new people out of the neighborhood.

    Like SEED, WP.com has the right to say yes or no to any business that wants to buy an enterprise level blog. Unfortunately SEED caved to demands of censure now it appears the whole enterprise is going down hill.

    And, I wouldn’t get into a credibility battle much when you have people like PZ writing about how much he hates constitutionally protected religion, tea party people (also constitutionally protected), far more than he blogs about any science. His science to hate ratio is pretty ugly. If you go read the PepsiCo Food Frontiers blog, you’ll see a professionally written blog. You may not agree with it, but nobody is forcing you to read it. The same would be true on Sb.- Anthony

  78. Anthony wrote:

    “The people and marketplace will choose, if a blog is doing a good job it gets traffic and accolades, if not it gets ignored. This is the way it works. ”

    That’s exactly the way it works. And if a blog network makes a decision that affects the bloggers it hosts, they can move elsewhere. And they did.

    What you witnessed there was an excellent example of the free market at work, and instead of seeing it for what it was you’re trying to make it into some ideological point because of some pre-standing tif between yourself and one of the 80+ bloggers at Sb. I really don’t buy it.

    REPLY: Sorry, but banding together to demand censure/removal is not a free market exercise. It would be a free market exercise if the new blog went along, got no traffic there, and then PepsiCo decided to pull it for lack of interest or SEED said you aren’t meeting some minimum so we are shutting your down.

    -Anthony

  79. Wow, first time commenting on any blog ever and I get a five paragraph response. Must be on to something.

    Anyway, I know you would never try to silence something just because you didn’t agree with it…

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-crock-week-whats-anthony-watts-take-2

    REPLY: No, that was a copyright issue. But people like you that hide behind anonymity always twist it into what you want it to be. So after all the DeSmog induced caterwauling over it because I’m apparently not allowed to defend the use of my own image, I didn’t pursue it further. And, the video remains.

    – Anthony

  80. “Some class act that PZ. He is the face of Sb today, so sad that science is co-marketed with anger and hate there.”

    Hmmm…I’ve just written a post about PZ on my blog.

    I chanced upon a post on Professor Myers’ Pharyngula blog purely by accident when doing some research on transgendered issues and I actually assumed (admittedly wrongly) that he was some sort of KKK-aligned far-right extremist.

    Suffice to say I didn’t exactly make myself very popular by voicing that assumption. Okay, my assumption was stupid and my aggressive reaction even more so, but I was taken aback by the amount of ‘anger and hate’ which hit me – phew!!! (which, in turn, instead of shutting me up only served to have the counterproductive effect of making me angrier and more aggressive on that thread). In short; wish I hadn’t gone there.

    Also, as an ‘idiot’ intellectual inferior like apparently I’m told I am, I might have come away with a bit more respect for Professor Myers had he actually bothered to stoop down so low as to ask and discuss my issues with his post before he brought his famed banhammer upon my head and went ahead and banished me to *the Dungeon* accusing me of ‘insipidity’ and declaring me ‘obsessed and touchy’ and in ‘in desperate need of a mental health professional.’ Besides, isn’t that just ‘politically acceptable’ code from the normally desperate-to-be-seen as anti-sexist PZ for ‘you’re a pathetic, hysterical wee girlie with whom a great man like me would never lower himself to engage in intellectual intercourse with’?;)

  81. Oh, and apparently they think I’m a bloke and many of them refer to me as ‘he’ on those threads (that’s when they’re not referring to me as ‘it’, that is).

    But they’re *not transphobic*, of course…

    Nah…probably just the age-old tactic of ‘you’re not submissive’ = you can’t be a real woman coming into play.

    But, hey, they’re *not sexist*, of course…;)!

  82. The fact is the SB crowd are not nutrition skeptics and they blindly accept what their biases tell them, just like how they accept AGW. To combat them, WUWT should include articles and scientific research on benefits of daily consumption of liters of Pepsi (ok, Coca Cola can join in too). I have no doubt Anthony Watts is the man to do it.

    REPLY: Why not have a look at the PepsiCo blog and see if you can find that topic?

    http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/

    – Anthony

  83. Heh, PZ banned me, but not before I got in my licks on the epic Stan Peterson thread. In my opinion, his hatred for religion gets in the way of his pursuit of science. A sad irony.
    ====================

  84. I’m mistified at why someone, anyone, at Pepsico would even consider opening a site at Sb. There’s no reason for it. It does nothing for Pepsico. It would only help Sb. If they were serious, they should have opened a site at WordPress or some other reputable outlet. Why Sb? That is the question! There is a mystery here, it borders on the paranormal. Maybe it’s chemical. You think, maybe, if we drink too much Pepsi we’ll go crazy too?

  85. Hi, Doug. Stone walls do not a prison make. I skipped before he put me in the dungeon, but he told me he was banning me in a thread shortly after the Stan one. I don’t remember whether or not I challenged his ban. So, I may not be in the dungeon. I posted simply under ‘kim’ and I double underline everything.
    ====================

  86. P @ 4:56.

    Maybe someone at Pepsico thought that the veneer there of science was for real and thought it might help the brand. Little did they know the planet was populated with crazies.
    =================

  87. Anthony opined:

    It would be a free market exercise if the new blog went along, got no traffic there, and then PepsiCo decided to pull it for lack of interest or SEED said you aren’t meeting some minimum so we are shutting your down.

    You have an oddly stunted view of the free market.

    Yes, consumers make their choices, but in a free market so do producers. You seem to be saying businesses shouldn’t actually make decisions about what product to market- they should just produce a bunch of whatever crap is lying around and let the consumers sort it out.

    Scienceblogs is a different type of product than WordPress. It’s a more narrowly focused product, one that trades on exclusivity of writers (much like, say, The Atlantic, or NRO). Blog readers have a choice to read those smaller networks, or to read free-for-alls like WordPress. The market works because there are lots of readers with different tastes and lots of bloggers and blog networks offering different ways of doing things.

    Yet you seem to want all blog networks to work like WordPress. I admit- I like WordPress. That’s why I returned there. But I can’t figure out how your view can actually be free market, when you would prefer all blog networks to be free-for-alls instead of letting the blog ecosystem settle itself out with a diversity of blog network models.

  88. One must seek hard at the Pharyngula site to find some science – it’s mostly a constant Myers’ attack against anything remotely religion-related with a religious zeal that would be more becoming in a Great Inquisitor or maybe exorcist 400 years ago.

  89. How does using Pepsi poductd disqualify you from being horrified at allowing them to greenwash on a science site?

  90. Anthony: so you’ve made your position clear on where you stand with respect to corporate sponsorship of blogs. I’ve always wondered: do you recieve corporate sponsorship for your blog? (And if not, why not?) Either way, the answer is interesting. Excuse the boldness of the question, but it does strike precisely to the center of the issue.

    [reply] So far as I know, the blog relies on Google Ads revenue and donations from visitors. Any corporate money top up required is likely from Anthony’s own business. He may see this and clarify for you. RT-mod.

    • I have one corporate sponsorship – this free hosted blog provided by Automattic which is the parent company of wordpress.com Much like Sb bloggers under SEED.

      But as I have pointed out, I don’t go ballistic if wp.com hosts corporate blogs. (They do and many I disagree with)

      I think the whole Sb issue is a tempest in a pop can.

  91. Kim,
    If you’re not in the dungeon, you are not banned. Do you have link to the thread in question ?

  92. Scienceblogs is a different type of product than WordPress. It’s a more narrowly focused product, one that trades on exclusivity of writers (much like, say, The Atlantic, or NRO).

    It’s narrow all right. And the narrowness is entirely political. For example, do you think the Sb bloggers would permit Roger Pielke Sr to blog there? Or Joe Bastardi?

    Neither do I.

    I think Anthony has a point, which is that Sb’s own bloggers think they should control who else gets to blog there.

  93. Of course it’s hilarious that some scientists can’t figure out that they are paid out of taxes paid by corporates and their employees, and that they spend their lives 99.9% dependent on corporate goods and services.

    It’s even more hilarious that people like PZ and the generally foul-mouthed acolytes he attracts to his blog think they have anything whatever to do with science.

    One of them who was trying to argue her “climate science” religious beliefs with me turned out to be a sociologist about the time she abandoned debate for infantile abuse. I suspect the “hard science” educated faction over there is small.

  94. And Anthony, PZ ended his strike before you ever made this post flaming him, so your second update is still misleading.

  95. Doug McGee,

    Anthony already admitted he made a mistake, and fixed it. Why are you being a pest? Try to be gracious.

  96. Re: McGee and “Apples and Oranges”.

    Well we don’t see eye to eye on the blogging platform issue. Not a worry for me. Fact is that nobody has gotten run out of wordpress.com by other bloggers.

    The Sb episode, with the tight clique of bloggers reminds me of NIMBYism in small towns. My point is that the revolt started with a preconceived notion about what it “would” be, rather than wait to see what it was.

    That’s the worst error anyone in science can make. Not gathering data on the object/issue/event, but assuming they know what will happen in the Food Frontiers case.

    Sb bloggers didn’t wait to see what Food Frontiers was to be, they ran it out of town based on a preformed bias. From comments I’ve read they expected it to be pushing products, or product justifications as thinly vieled advertisments. The fiasco could have easily been avoided by observing, and then complaining if the blog and the worries about it met with preconceived notion. Then they’d have a case and data to back it up.

    Yet when I read the Food Frontiers blog at http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/ I don’t see a hint of such things. Here’s some sample titles

    A Conversation on the Sodium in Our Diet

    Responses to Questions on Microbial Stability, Acidity, and Phosphorus Content in Carbonated Beverages

    European Association for the Study of Obesity/Karolinska Institute pre-International Congress on Obesity Meeting

    PepsiCo Leading Discussion of Food Industry’s Role in Promoting Heart Health at the World Congress of Cardiology

    If you read these posts you won’t find a hint of advertising, just things like this:

    “At PepsiCo, we recognize our responsibility to understand the health challenges of populations around the globe and the role we can play in addressing them. We take this responsibility very seriously, which is why we are increasing our use of wholesome and natural ingredients, reducing fat, sodium and sugar content, and actively working with global and local partners to find new ways to encourage healthier lifestyles,” said Dr. Khan.

    ”As one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, PepsiCo can make a positive impact in helping to reduce the risks of heart disease and stroke. PepsiCo’s research and development activities, combined with the work we’re doing with partners in the scientific and health communities around the world, will support our efforts to promote heart health while also tackling many nutrition challenges that exist today,” said Dr. George Mensah, PepsiCo’s director of heart health and global health policy and chair of the symposium.

    PepsiCo recently announced its commitment to achieving a set of industry-leading global nutrition goals, including:

    * Increasing whole grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts, seeds and low-fat dairy in its portfolio
    * Reducing the average saturated fat per serving in key global food brands in key markets by 15% by 2020
    * Reducing the average added sugar per serving in key global beverage brands in key markets by 25% by 2020
    * Reducing the average sodium per serving in key global food brands in key markets by 25% by 2015

    Oh, the horror of it all. They even cited references in the first story I linked.

    There seems to me to be far more science and rational debate at the Food Frontiers blog than there currently is at PZ’s site, and, as an added plus they don’t call people names or demean their personal religious views either.

    I would think that the biggest error Sb bloggers have made (besides abandoning their own village in the uprising) is thinking that the people in charge of Sb/SEED didn’t have the integrity or management skills to define and keep the conversation at Food Frontiers on track. Instead they just brought out the pictchforks and torches to combat the imagined “monster” and then the most aggrieved ones abandoned their town, after the monster was killed.

  97. Smokey,
    The “strike” was over prior to Anthony even making this post. His update is wrong. He fixed nothing. He should write a correction, not an update, stating he was slow on hearing the news and the issue was resolved before he ever posted on it.

  98. Anthony,
    It’s already been explained to you by a ScBling blogger who left, that your interpretation (now repeated) of the problem is not accurate so there’s no sense in me trying to dissuade you from believing that which you would obviously prefer to believe, even as inaccurate as it is.
    But let me repeat Alex’s words from above:

    All previous bloggers had been invited into the network after demonstrating a track record and building a readership elsewhere. Pepsi bought a spot.

    It’s about earning the right to have a blog on Science Blogs. There’s no self-nominating as there is with word press where anyone and their dog can blog.

    REPLY: And that elitism thinking, or “exclusive club” if you like, is the root of the problem. To be a VIP member of WordPress, to get all the features and exposure (like CNN and BBC) there is still a buy in and not just everyone can do it. Even though WUWT has:

    …after demonstrating a track record and building a readership elsewhere.

    I applied for wp.com VIP, and was rejected. I didn’t go ballistic. it was a business decision

    Like wordpress.com, SEED still runs a business, they have to make a profit. Sb is not altruistic, which is why there are all sorts of commercial ads all over Sb. The SEED management made a business decision some folks didn’t like, and the “exclusive club” took up a destructive policy in retaliation which will likely result in the whole enterprise falling prey to economic pressures.

    You also failed to comment or even recognize the other points made in my last detailed comment. – Anthony

  99. Doug @ 2:41

    PZ Myers told me I was banned and I took him at his word. He said it in a thread just a few after the Stan Peterson one. I’m not going to bother to search for it or link it because I don’t care whether or not you believe me. PZ said I was banned and I believe him.

    I vaguely remember not being able to post afterwards but am not sure. I doubt that I tried because I don’t have to be invited twice by the host in order to leave. Other commenters trying to have me heaved out the door isn’t adequate, and there was plenty of that, too. The squeals to have ‘kim’ sent to the dungeon were hilarious.
    ====================
    ==============

  100. Also, Doug, if you are so privy to the meaning of the dungeon over at Pharyngula why don’t you pass on to the Chief Jailer the sentiments of EW at 10:15 AM. He has PZ in a nutshell.
    ================

  101. Anthony writes:

    And that elitism thinking, or “exclusive club” if you like, is the root of the problem.

    Then Seed shouldn’t have set it up as the “exclusive club” that it is and let it be a free-for-all like wordpress.

    To be a VIP member of WordPress, to get all the features and exposure (like CNN and BBC) there is still a buy in and not just everyone can do it. Even though WUWT has:

    …after demonstrating a track record and building a readership elsewhere.

    I applied for wp.com VIP, and was rejected. I didn’t go ballistic. it was a business decision.

    You still don’t seem to understand there is a difference between wordpress and Science Blogs. [REPLY: No, I get it, as you said, Sb is an "exclusive club", no place for unwashed commoners or businesspeople there. -A]

    Like wordpress.com, SEED still runs a business, they have to make a profit. Sb is not altruistic, which is why there are all sorts of commercial ads all over Sb. The SEED management made a business decision some folks didn’t like, and the “exclusive club” took up a destructive policy in retaliation which will likely result in the whole enterprise falling prey to economic pressures.

    grrlscientist posted this before she left SB:

    But I and my colleagues were recruited by ScienceBlogs based on our track records of productivity, topic choices, traffic and whatever ephemeral talent that their corporate masters thought we possessed. Not one of us had to buy our way in. And despite the presence of advertising on this site, none of us is paid to write content that supports a particular corporate agenda. But yesterday, we were blindsided with the surprise addition of a new corporate PR “blog” written by PepsiCo’s top R&D folks.

    The presence of that “blog” raises a few important questions. How does ScienceBlogs expect to maintain their (OUR) credibility as a science news source (we are picked up by Google news searches afterall) when they are sneaking paid-for propaganda into the ScienceBlogs news stream under the guise of news? That is unethical. I can only speak for myself, but as an unemployed scientist who’d love to continue my interrupted career path before I’m dead, the only thing of value that I have left is my integrity, but this surreptitious decision by the Seed overlords is casting a pall over all of us by selling the site’s integrity to the highest bidder.

    Pepsi ethics

    Principles and integrity. Some folks believe they are important qualities. OMMV. [REPLY: You mean like PZ Myers hatefests against contitutionally protected religion? Like GrrlScientist titling the story of that link you provided "Sucking Corporate Dick"? If that's "integrity" what a laugh on you. It is an illusion of your mind. -A]

    You also failed to comment or even recognize the other points made in my last detailed comment. – Anthony

    They weren’t relevant.

    REPLY: Not relevant, heh. Well then don’t bother commenting here again since you dismiss everything I say. Since you take that route, we’re done, and likely so is Sb as the inhabitants have started burning their own village over “the wrong people” who bought a house in town where everybody else had their house subsidized for free. Can’t have that. Meanwhile the town is nearly broke and there’s now less revenue for the city coffers since the former inhabitants are no longer productive (or present). Recipe for bankruptcy and closure.- Anthony

  102. Kim,
    If you are banned, you would be in the dungeon.

    ==================================

  103. Doug, you are in a dungeon of your own beliefs. PZ Myers told me I was banned.
    =======================

  104. Anthony writes,

    [REPLY: You mean like PZ Myers hatefests against contitutionally protected religion? Like GrrlScientist titling the story of that link you provided "Sucking Corporate Dick"? If that's "integrity" what a laugh on you. It is an illusion of your mind. -A]

    Religion isn’t constitutionally protected. The right to believe and practice it is. By your statement you would have us believe there’s a protection of religion against ridicule.
    You can clutch your pearls at the language, if you want, but it has nothing to do with whether or not she’s making a stand on principle.

    Not relevant, heh. Well then don’t bother commenting here again since you dismiss everything I say. Since you take that route, we’re done, and likely so is Sb as the inhabitants have started burning their own village over “the wrong people” who bought a house in town where everybody else had their house subsidized for free. Can’t have that. Meanwhile the town is nearly broke and there’s now less revenue for the city coffers since the former inhabitants are no longer productive (or present). Recipe for bankruptcy and closure.- Anthony

    You still miss the point. The community wasn’t set up where some were subsidized and some bought in. If Seed’s going to change the covenant, it shouldn’t have been done unilaterally, which denied residents a voice in the process and as a surprise, which denied residents the ability to opt-out prior to the change. That’s the point and why your other statements had no relevance to the issue.

    REPLY:
    Yeah right whatever. “Integrity” when you have religious hate speech ranters doing more rants than science and people that make headlines with “suck dick” don’t add any integrity, they make Sb look like a collection of fools and intolerants. If I did such things, I’d be vilified all over the blogosphere, since everybody wants to sidestep real integrity issues and play “gotcha”. Sb gets a free pass on this sort of juvenile ugliness.

    No, you misunderstand, it’s a business (and now likely a faster failing one), not a democracy. If every business allowed their employees to vote on every decision there would be no direction or progress. At some point you have to let owners/management do their job even though you may disagree with the decision. While I respect the right of employees to leave a business they don’t agree with, torching the business publicly in the process has consequences.

    And in business, there’s buy in all the time, on product/services joint agreements. Employees get to join for free, but they don’t necessarily get to make top level decisions.

    We won’t convince each other, so may as well stop trying. You can cling to your religion haters and disgusting headlines, I’ll choose to call them like I see it. You don’t agree, that’s fine, I get that, but I disagree. We’ll have to agree to disagree. End of story. – Anthony

  105. Actually, I think we agree on the bottom-line Anthony. A business has the right to alter its business plan anytime it wishes, but if such a business is going to ignore its employees and their expertise and leave it’s employees out of the loop, it’s a bad business model and it is doomed to fail – deservedly so.

    (REPLY: Yes we agree on that but not this (snip – this paragraph). Your use of the P-word in that context insults millions of people for the despicable behavior of a few. This is the central problem with the ugly generalizations we see at places like PZ, broad ugly name calling and labeling of millions by someone who is in a minority) – Anthony

  106. Kim

    Still waiting on your proof you are banned but somehow escaped being named in the dungeon.

    A link showing PZ said you are banned (not will be banned) is all it takes. “Kim banned” doesn’t show up in any searches. All I got was:

    Truth Machine for his tenacity/insanity in dealing with that kim character.

    and

    Posted by: kim | February 12, 2007 12:05 PM

    Whoww, this is precisely the ammunition we need to give the IDiots. Suggesting that a degree should be revoked because your personal believes contradict the mainstream ideas is exactly up their alley of suppression. Good job guys….

    The spastic responses here tell me something else, and that is that we are not sure of ourselves, and more important, the strength of science. We should not focus on the few individuals who misuse their legitimate degree for bogus, but on teaching good science and effective public relations…..

    (I know someone who got a Ph.D. in nuclear physics just to know where he was fighting against as an environmental activist)

    ====================================================

  107. So PZ caved in right quick, and now he’s like, not on strike??
    That didn’t last very long.

    One of his commentators [Aquaria] said:

    “You’re going to be on strike for a while.”

    Wrong. PZ threw a tantrum, disappeared for a few days, realized he was losing income, and came scurrying back. He’s every bit as much a Capitalist as Andrew Carnegie. The difference is, he pretends to be one of the proles.

    PZ Myers caved in, and he caved fast. So no more “strike.” Hey, he’s got his Atheist Religious Cult to preside over, and his religiously atheist acolytes need their religious leader to broadcast atheist scripture and accept monetary indulgences from his befuddled true believers.☺

  108. Pitiful engine you’ve got there, Doug. I was all over the Stan Peterson thread from around comment 800 to 1100 and several subsequent threads, in one of which PZ banned me. Keep looking. It’s pretty bizarre that you are so wound up about this.

    Also, neither of your two quotes there are from me.
    =====================

  109. I think Doug must be some sort of bizarre metric about the culture of banning at Pharyngula. They have quite a ritual about the Dungeon, and apparently Doug thinks that since the ritual was not observed in my case then I can’t have been banned. Note that the ritual and the end result are what’s important in Doug’s mind, not what PZ said.

    I’ll be amused when Doug finally finds the quote from PZ. Or maybe not. More interesting would be the number of commenters who called for my banning before PZ did it.
    =================

  110. Well, dammit, Doug has provoked me to search the archives. He has a point; here is the quote from PZ Myers: ‘I’m about to give you the old heave-ho’. I then thanked the host for the bandwidth and the commenters for being gracious and never tried to post again. In my world, I’m banned from the site. In Doug’s world I’m on the precipice. Functionally, for me, there is no difference in this distinction.

    For the curious, it is the Green UMM thread from 11/13/07. Quote on the 14th near the end of the thread.
    ================

  111. #
    kim says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Pitiful engine you’ve got there, Doug. I was all over the Stan Peterson thread from around comment 800 to 1100 and several subsequent threads, in one of which PZ banned me. Keep looking. It’s pretty bizarre that you are so wound up about this.

    Also, neither of your two quotes there are from me.

    It’s science blogs engine … not “mine” and it doesn’t even show a “Stan Peterson thread”. Not wound up about it. I just want to determine if you’re a liar or not. If so, you wouldn’t be the first to try and gain notoriety by falsely claiming you’ve been banned from a site.

    =====================

    #
    kim says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    I think Doug must be some sort of bizarre metric about the culture of banning at Pharyngula. They have quite a ritual about the Dungeon, and apparently Doug thinks that since the ritual was not observed in my case then I can’t have been banned. Note that the ritual and the end result are what’s important in Doug’s mind, not what PZ said.

    Adding a name to a list is a ritual? Go figure.

    I’ll be amused when Doug finally finds the quote from PZ. Or maybe not. More interesting would be the number of commenters who called for my banning before PZ did it.

    Man, you must of been real insipid to get them all worked up. Too bad I can’t find the thread, it sounds entertaining.

    Smokey,
    That was a nice piece of imaginative thinking, but you should try reading sometime:

    The strike is over. We had a productive discussion with the Seed Overlords, and I think we’ve clarified issues, got some ideas for further progress, and will be working for a Better World in the Future. Don’t expect any sudden changes here, though — we’ve got a Plan, but it will take time to implement, and the most important thing is that we’re going to be holding certain people’s feet to the fire on a regular basis. We could still explode and send little fragments of Scienceblogs hurtling outward into the greater blogoverse…but we’ve also got ideas to keep it all together. Stay tuned.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/still_alive.php

  112. Well, besides not reading my last two posts here, Doug also has a problem. He’s looking to call me a liar.

    Doug, please read the thread in which PZ Myers banned me. He invited me to leave and threatened to give me the heave ho if I didn’t. In any sane or courteous world, that is banning, and I’ve taken PZ Myers at his word.

    Doug, your problem from the get go is that you have boxed yourself in by the belief that only residence in the Dungeon constitutes ‘banning’ in your mind. This is your problem, not mine, but it doesn’t justify you insinuating that I am lying. You are particularly out of line since you apparently haven’t read the thread to which I directed you. That part is simple negligence, but you have an intellectual and cognitive problem, too, which makes you tell untruths. Untruths like ‘If you’re not in the Dungeon, you’re not banned. I’m not calling that a lie; to do so would require knowledge of your motives to which I’m not privy.

    By the way, what is your motive?
    ===================

  113. Heh, more ironies for my museum. Your motive appears to be enforcement of the purity of the Ritual of Banning and Dungeon Flinging. Say it ain’t so, Doug.
    ===========

  114. Yeah, so I find it highly amusing that you call PZ Myers “angry”, while YOU are in fact dedicating MAJOR parts of your own blog post on him, whereas he merely mentioned you in passing.

    FAIL.

    (Reposting due to censorship.)

    [reply] I don’t know what happened to the first message, but accusing the mods of censorship isn’t called for. WordPress software, like much else in this world, isn’t perfect.
    [update] No valid email address on first post. Please aplogise to the mods before posting again.RT-mod

  115. There’s a nice irony here. Scienceblogs is failing and Watts Up is not. Maybe there’s more interest in pursuing the truth at Watts Up. I see at least three blogs at SB that are strongly into denial of climate realism.
    =========================

  116. I didn’t see your next two posts prior to posting my reply. (I didn’t refresh) I posted this, this morning … I thought.

    kim says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Well, dammit, Doug has provoked me to search the archives. He has a point; here is the quote from PZ Myers: ‘I’m about to give you the old heave-ho’. I then thanked the host for the bandwidth and the commenters for being gracious and never tried to post again. In my world, I’m banned from the site. In Doug’s world I’m on the precipice. Functionally, for me, there is no difference in this distinction.

    For the curious, it is the Green UMM thread from 11/13/07. Quote on the 14th near the end of the thread.
    ================

    Ahhhh, no wonder. Insipid indeed. (G&T? Oh my!)

    But your ban is self-imposed, no matter how you parse it.

    All the dungeon is, is a list of all banned posters. Are your “favorite” blogs as honest about who is and isn’t allowed to post and why? I doubt it. And I didn’t call you a liar. PZ would have banned you had you posted again and not corrected your poor behavior. That is correct.

  117. Slea Z. Lyers just loves to “ban” people, but anyone with an IQ above the single digits can figure out in about 10 seconds how to get past his “dungeon”. For a narcissist like SZL, it’s all about his ego, all the time.

  118. So, tell me. Why would I have posted more? And sorry, my behaviour was not poor. PZ and all his crew are in denial about climate realism and me telling them so is not poor behaviour. What you did see was a lot of poor behaviour on the part of his gang of commenters.

    If you can’t read PZ Myers words as plainly a banning, then you have problems I can’t help you with. I realize that you would not interpret those words as a banning, but I considered myself a guest who was no longer welcome. That’s banning.

    But, rest assured, I have found places I’m better appreciated, as well as plenty of other places I’ve been banned. Like you can see on the Green UMM thread, I get banned when I’m making a fool of the regular posters.
    ============================

  119. Kim,
    I saw them repeatedly ask you to support your arguments and you repeatedly refused to do so – except for “read a link”. That’s poor behavior. If you don’t know the subject well enough to argue in your own words, you shouldn’t be trying to debate it.

    And I’ve seen PZ ban enough folks to know what he means.

    Good luck to you.

    Global Warming is a Scam,
    I dare say more people have been censored here and at CA than have ever been on PZ’s blog. One really has to screw up repeatedly to get censored, much less banned by PZ.

    REPLY: that may be true, but it also may be true that PZ demonstrates no scruples against boorish behavior. As we’ve seen that he practices it daily, and so do many commenters there. We try to maintain a modicum of decorum, and all of the details on that are in the WUWT policy page. – Anthony

  120. Anthony,
    Your house, your rules. One man’s “decorum” is another man’s tyranny.

  121. Sorry Doug, you’ve badly mischaracterized my writing over there. I never say ‘read a link’, almost never make a link, and almost always make my argument in my own words.

    You’re a liar. Or else you read the wrong kim.
    ==================

    REPLY: I can back up Kim on the link thing, can’t recall that I’ve ever seen one. She has a distinctive style of short, direct, and often entertaining posts. But I think you should both stop calling each other liars. Maybe PZ did, maybe PZ didn’t, I don’t know, and don’t care. The banning habits of one PZ Myers is not something I care to follow. You want to fight about it take it elsewhere. – Anthony

  122. @kim

    “There’s a nice irony here. Scienceblogs is failing and Watts Up is not.”

    The comparison is completely nuts. Scienceblogs is a blog host, like WordPress. Watts Up is a blog, like Pharyngula.

    Of course, Watts fails miserably when he calls PZ Myers “angry”, while Watts himself is in fact dedicating MAJOR parts of his own blog post to raging over PZ Myers, whereas PZ Myers only mentioned him in passing.

    “Maybe there’s more interest in pursuing the truth at Watts Up.”

    Clearly not, considering the history of this blog.

    You seem to have an issue with dealing with facts and truthful information…

  123. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/hello_stan_palmer.php

    Reasonable request:

    Posted by: ChemBob | November 11, 2007 9:54 AM

    Kim, perhaps you’d care to make a bullet point summary in a post explaining McIntyre’s “most important ideas of the 21st Century.” I’m always open to alternative scientific explanations, provided they are truly scientific and not just repeated talking points and/or propaganda. Then those explanations have to be compared to the other lines of evidence within that same context and examined with respect to current and past measurements and predictability. …

    Rude and dismissive answer:

    Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:13 AM

    ChemBob, a simple idea, really. That carbon is not the culprit.

    Have you read Gerlich and Tscheuschner? Or are you too busy with taxes and socialism?

    Refuse to answer and a “read the link/article” and insult right out of the gate – second post by my count.

    Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:11 PM

    Onias, you deserve a look at the evidence. climateaudit.org in case you missed something.

    Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:29 PM

    Well, PZ was feeling cranky, but we’re just getting cranked up.

    The evidence? tinyurl.com/2szwh8 Untechnical enough for those intimidated by the scientific gravitas of climateaudit.org.

    Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:03 PM

    Tinyurl.com/2szwh8

    You got responses like reasoning humans or insults like savages?

    The link is referenced many more times in the thread. Kim, you were saying?
    Creationists and others who don’t understand science come to Pharyngula and pull this crap all of the time. All they know is they have a philosophical/political position against the science, but can’t support it and try and get the posters to argue with unspecified points in a link/paper.

  124. Global Warming is a Scam,
    Then prove it. Show us the threads where someone was banned for “merely”disagreeing w/PZ. Time to put up, or shut up.
    Note: Spamming the thread with links and repeatedly refusing to support one’s argument (see below) is not “merely” disagreeing.

    High Crimes and Misdemeanors

    What gets people put into the Pharyngula killfile dungeon? This is a list of annoyances; it usually takes more than one incident to get thrown in the slammer, though. The people who’ve been incarcerated are typically persistent and have a known history of pulling these stunts over and over again.
    Concern trolling A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
    Godbotting Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
    Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
    Morphing Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
    Slagging Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently “X is bad”, even in threads that aren’t about X, then you’re simply slagging, not discussing.
    Sockpuppetry Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
    Spamming Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
    Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
    Trolling Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
    Wanking Making self-congratulatory comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.

  125. This post commentary has devolved to he said/she said, which is a waste of my time to moderate. It is off the main page, so I’m closing it to further comments. Be as upset about it as you wish.

Comments are closed.