Heh, gotta love this. Get popcorn. I was tipped off to this by Chris Mooney in a Tweet where he’s calling for reinforcements:
Kevin Green of the American Enterprise Institute got the war of words rolling with these comments at Mooney’s new digs at scienceprogress:
Ken Green ·
Right, so let’s continue on your dismiss-a-thon of leftist anti-science, shall we? DDT and cancer, BPA and phthalates as carcinogens and endocrine disruptors; claims that organic food are safer because they have less pesticides/contaminants; claims that eating local foods are better for the environment than foods from elsewhere; claims that re-usable cloth bags are better for the environment than plastic or paper bags; false claims of species endangerment; pseudo-scientific claims about species loss treated as gospel; claims that climate models have predictive power; claims that individual weather events represent climate change…I think you missed a few.
Ken Green ·
Oh, wait, I forgot a few: frogs dying from climate change, alligator penis malformations from endocrine disruptors, bees dying from climate change (or is it cell-phones this week?), butterflies dying from BT crops…And, let’s not forget Alar, or cancer from video displays, or cell phones, or anything vaguely reminiscent of modernity.
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
Chris Mooney replied, though it is hardly much of one, which is why I suppose he’s trying to get Revkin and Kloor interested in it for defense.
Chris Mooney · Top Commenter · Yale University
This is quite a grab bag of claims. Many are misleading, some might be valid, some are wrong claims that have been made sometimes on the left but refuted just as vigorously by fellow liberals….including me.
I was pretty amazed (as were other commenters on other issues) that Mooney didn’t bother to address the totally bogus and overhyped “frogs dying from climate change” issue, because that was one of the worst blunders in climate science ever.
It turned out to be totally unrelated to climate, as I’ve addressed here on WUWT. The frog decline was definitively linked an infection of the chytrid fungus. The PNAS peer reviewed paper slapping down this nonsense said:
Finally, almost all of our findings were opposite to the predictions of the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis.
Even Hansen’s buddies at Columbia agree. See this: Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction
Mooney was undeterred by the rebuttals, and the war was on. Green made a full post out of it at the AEI blog:
====================
Over at scienceprogress, Chris Mooney opines that the political Right is more “anti-science” than the political Left. He points to climate change and evolution as areas where the Right is anti-science, and dismisses the idea that the Left is anti-science when it comes to things like their exaggerations of the risks of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and vaccines.
His reasoning seems to break down into two arguments:
1) Chris argues that one can’t really tag the Left as being anti-science on things like vaccines and nukes because he (and a few other environmental journalists) have done their own policing on the issues, or, at least, walked away from actively shilling them. Chris actually says that he and journalists on the Left have “chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.” That’s going to come as a shock to virtually every social-network user, who probably sees half-a-dozen anti-vaccine posts a week.
2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Read it all here at So Who’s Anti-Science?
The “anti-science” label (which I think was coined by Joe Romm, if not he’s the worst serial user of the phrase) is no different that the “denier” label. The idea is to denigrate your opponent by applying ugly labels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gentlemen, please! Please stop and ask yourselves: What would Arrhenius do?
Doug Allen says:
September 24, 2011 at 6:02 pm
BorgHumer above says, “In the case of Evolution, it is not about science at all but about naturalism, supernaturalism is ruled out regardless of the evidence, because God must be eliminated.” Sorry, but all the Prostestant main line churches, the Catholic Church, and many of the evengelical churches accept evolution as a fact and as the organizing principal in biology. Take your head out of the sand. Bob, above, says, “I don’t see where “believing” in evolution has any effect on the welfare of the world population.” Yeh, right, medicine and everything else based on biological science hasn’t effected the welfare of the world population. Get real!
Sadly, there’s a lot of anti-science among the skeptics and critics of the IPCC and the “team.” Those anti-science global warming critics make it much more difficult for those of us who base our critical arguments on the empirical data and on science. A bit unfair-maybe- Newton had a lot of anti-science beliefs- but the left and the right both are guilty of ad hominem thinking, and that’s part of the reason for climate change confusion, and why it’s so difficult to convince anyone to think outside of their tribal groupthink.
=======================================================
Holy crap!!! Doug you’re attributing all the advances to medicine and biological science to the belief in evolution? I won’t even bother posting some of the countless examples of advances not pertaining to the evolutionary theory. Your example of Newton contradicts your point! Read his Optiks.
What really gets me is the idea of rejecting current thought is somehow anti-science. It isn’t. And thank God we had and still have people willing to publicly do so and set about set about scientific work to come to a better understanding of the subject rejected.
jim says:
“Gentlemen, please! Please stop and ask yourselves: What would Arrhenius do?”
Arrheius already did it, but the alarmist crowd deliberately ignores his own recanting of his 1896 paper in his 1906 paper, in which he drastically reduced his sensitivity estimate to ≈1.6°C. Still somewhat high, as we are finding out. But far below the IPCC’s and Trenberth’s preposterous assumptions of 3°+ per 2xCO2.
looks like the discussion is about sanity and how it correlates with a person’s location on the political axis ‘red.statist vs blue.statist’, really. that’s not a real dimension.
for ‘science’, read ‘the ability of man to make sense of his observations’. or just say ‘sanity’.
it is a historical agenda of the statists to enslave men, having defined him as chattel of the state.
they especially go after man’s ability to reason – knowing that if they cripple that, he may be enslaved easily.
i’ll submit that they are all nutso and identically rely on victims for their livelihood. none of them wish for others not to care – they all want a job calling for, standing behind, elevating the awareness, licensing, regulating and monopolizing – at whose expense?
so there certainly is an idealogical component but it’s hardly a qualitative difference that can distinguish one rent seeking policy making taxing trough guzzler from another.
although i did hear it said once that republicans at least know that when shearing sheep, they should stop at the skin.
to the list, therefore, i’ll add ‘belief in the state as omniscient omnipotent distributor of causeless wealth”. the repetetive indoctrination in the santa myth prepared you to prepare your kids’ malleable psyches for that to be indelibly imprinted. remember, you are on the list – they know where you live – they know who’s naughty and nice. that’s how we learned coal was bad.
maybe it wouldn’t hurt to outgrow that childish insanity.
i’m sure we go nowhere but downhill until the opposite is instilled from infancy and repeated annually.
hey Gail Combs –
i didn’t want to type as much as you did, is all – years of trying have convinced me there’s no point.
but for you, cuz i think you’ll like it:
http://reocities.com/Athens/Aegean/1835/kandide.html
You get to facism, nazism, communism, and all sorts of other statisms through socialism. It’s the common thread to them all. Rich basterds, I suppose, is Australian for rich bastards, but just try to run socialism of any sort without ’em. Someone has to provide the money for redistributionist fantasies, and the rich are where the money is.
As far as Laissez-faire goes, I doubt it has ever really existed anywhere on the planet at any time. So, it is a lot like the continent of plastic in the Pacific. Maybe Hong Kong before 1999 came closest to Laissez-faire. Government has to find a way to finance corruption (think crony capitalism here) and continual interference in, and regulation of, the economy is how it’s done.
I’ve often wondered what is the indisputable principle that says it’s right for the majority to vote benefits for themselves, and force a minority to pay for them. I’ve never gotten a reasoned response from any leftists, except for some sparkled-headed ideas about maximizing happiness. Maximizing welfare, though, requires meaningful jobs, which come not from central planning, but from free markets.
People are talking about “the left” and “the right” of politics.
I was wondering, is that measured against a base line of 1911-1950 politics or 1951-1990 politics?
Indeed, does this baseline shift at predetermined timescales (a la global temps)?
What is the length of a political baseline? (30 years for climate)
Or maybe the length depends on major events (Great Wars, The Berlin Wall etc) and is variable (like the solar cycle)
Funny how, the once solid lefties (East Europe, Russia, China) are rushing towards the right, whilst the righties (Europe, Nth America etc) seem to be rushing towards the left.
Does this mean humanity has natural balancing systems?
Indeed, is there a “tipping point”?
In view of the failure at Copenhagen, is it a travesty that we can’t find the missing lefties?
Has anyone else noticed the flood of papers from the left? (Greenback, Euro etc)
Could these papers be junk, just like climate science papers?
Quveschins quveschins; so many quveschins.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/16/pm-the-pacific–patch-comes-home/?refid=0
See this story on Pacific Ocean plastic. Method Brands decided they were going to recycle plastic from the ocean. Turns out when they went to harvest it the plastic was hard To find, in very small pieces and covered with living organisms.
Kevin Kilty says:
September 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Nice response……. they do love to hate the rich people but believe the wealth they acquired seems to be some path towards happiness. Never mind who earned it. It is a self defeating circle that leaves nothing in its wake except misery.
I would quibble with the term “crony capitalism”. As in the case of Solyndra, for example, I think it wuold be more apt to call it crony socialism. They took wealth from the public and gave it to one of their buddies. Of course that was scandalous enough, but the real scandal will be the loan restructuring that the Dept. of Energy signed off on, allowing the private investors be paid first before the public in case of default. Six months later, bankruptcy is filed. I wish they’d hurry with the indictments.
“In the case of Evolution, it is not about science at all but about naturalism, supernaturalism is ruled out regardless of the evidence, because God must be eliminated.”
Funny… Darwin didn’t eliminate God, and the Catholic church has accepted Darwinism as a plausible way in which God works His way in the world.
Anti-Darwinists keep harping on the idea that Darwin didn’t explain the origins of life. Well, he never claimed to have the answer to that mysterium tremendum, so it’s a strawman argument. His book, after all, was titled “The Origin of SPECIES”, not the Origin of Life.
Given that there are people familiar with the technical side of these issues, what is the actual state of understanding of the really big scientific hysterias: acid rain (silent spring?), the CFC-induced ozone hole, and whatever it was that caused the world-wide ban on DDT? (I don’t remember it being cancer; but whatever it was, it sure didn’t do Africa any favors.)
“AGW is a scam – pesticides are a real and present danger – they should not be conflated.”
Lemme help you out here….. does the phrase “the poison is in the dose” strike a familiar note?
Of course large doses of pesticides can harm living things. But that’s the not the argument Greens make. Their claim is that trace amounts are harmful as well. If that were true our lifespans would be shortening, and we should be seeing illness and disease everywhere.
We don’t. For example, there’s never been any epidemiological evidence that anyone living at Love Canal got sick, developed a disease, or died early.
nfw @ur momisugly 6
From your second link I particularly liked ‘wholesale renovation”.
=========
I don’t see the disconnect that is supposed to exist between a belief in God and embracing science. When I learn of some exciting new thing science is revealing about the origins of the universe I think to myself “so, that’s how God must have done things.”
Kevin Kilty says:
September 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Malcolm Miller says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Rich basterds, I suppose, is Australian for rich bastards, but just try to run socialism of any sort without ‘em. Someone has to provide the money for redistributionist fantasies, and the rich are where the money is.
=================================================
…. so true. Unfortunately though, the mega-fake-socialists only provide enough money to tell other people to redistribute the wealth (taxpayer money, not their own). Which is why the end result is redistribution of poverty mostly. (Poor Obama’s almost done his on-the-job-training, but he still hasn’t figured it out).
In their world though, more poor people is good. Less Arctic ice is good. All the more reason for poor human-saving and planet-saving.
Morons
Ok, in the spirit of compromise, but not to include increasing gov’t spending, I can accept the Leftist “CO2=CAGW” = “climate change”, er, Science that places the beginning of the very Climate itself at about 1000 yrs. ago, hasn’t gotten a relevant prediction right yet, and now makes it definitional that any “climate change” whatsoever must be Anthropogenic. But only if the Killer Bees remain held at bay! You may have not noticed that the ipcc Climate Scientists don’t seem to have acknowledged this all important benefit as currently achieved! Or any possible benefit of “climate change”, come to think about it.
But for that certainty alone, I’d even concede the most basic scientific tenet of the Left’s favorite Religion – of course secondary to Progresssivism itself: “Mecca is the center of the World!”
Oversell; hyperbola; overly broad generalization painting all with the same brush; indicates an inability to dissect the subject ‘population’ and note the significant differences; exhibiting signs of stimulus generalization, cannot differentiate significant constituent components; throwing baby out with bath-water …
.
u.k.(us) says: September 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
==============
About 2 years ago I did a google search for “the giant plastic ocean graveyard”, figuring there would be some pictures. I found none. Anyone got any pictures ?
Yep, but not verified.
The ghost nets and Aboriginal Ranger program that has developed over some years in northern Australia. A precursor to a carbon exchange or indigenous carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS).
http://www.ghostnets.com.au/pdf/Kimberley%20post%20trip%20Media%20Release.pdf
http://www.ghostnets.com.au/ (likely they run a database as the images demonstrate they code and classify the nets according to the WWF Netkit) see:- http://www.wwf.org.au/about_us/404_error.cfm But a specific Northern Australia kit remains avail here: – http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?1698/The-Net-Kit-A-Fishing-Net-Identification-Guide-for-Northern-Australia
The data may feed into such agreements eg http://www.ioseaturtles.org/electronic_lib2.php?cat_id=10&sort=title&order=desc and provide ?evidence to international sea treaties etc.
Many of the nets were previously collected and used for shade awnings, hammocks, sandhill stabilisation etc.This was in the days of ‘being a conservationist’.
Trade in illegal shark-fin and others predominate in these waters. Customs and Navy may have further information.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/black-market-in-dugong-and-turtle-meat-in-far-north-queensland-opposition-says/story-e6freon6-1225853299845
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/conservation/dugong-killed-in-illegal-nets-20100426-tmu9.html
Also a few mentions and 1-2 photos here:-
http://www.australianwalkingholidays.com.au/index.php?section=trips&id=58736
http://www.antar.org.au/sea_of_hands
http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/marsupials/aboriginal-ranger-plastic-f1763.htm
Smokey @3.22 and 5.07
Thanks for the neat youtube link and apt comment re: communists.
Speechless in Seattle says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:45 pm
==========================================
Just wanted give kudos to your comment. Science is a wonderful thing and has led us to many answers, and when we get all of this psuedo-science sorted out, it will again. But, it won’t answer the original questions.
SteveB:
You are right about the “How does it work?” part. But you missed my point. Science is the method used to investigate the question. It does not however provide any absolute answers, only clues as to whether you have asked the right question.
I can’t speak for DDT since I never got to use it, but, oh, what I would give for a 20 lb bag of diazinon!
Socialism is the religion of legalized theft. Communism and Fascism are just recent implementations of this long running human foible. Translated to modern speak, Socialism is merely ‘government’ camouflaged as Robin Hood or Santa Claus benefiting the ‘have nots’ at the expense of the ‘haves’. The modern twist is using elected governments to place the stamp of legalization of this theft as democratic socialism.
Coveting thy neighbors private property is one of the world’s oldest professions. In the past the perps were quickly flogged or stoned, lately they are given welfare checks, political offices and golden parachutes. But they’re still criminals. Those that vote for them and promote glorious theories of this enterprise are also criminals or at the minimum, promoting criminal activity.
Even though you seem to think that the consensus is at your back and that Socialism is partially good because it has some degree of rationalization and voter approval, you haven’t done the math. Furthermore, and rather ironically, if you were in a ‘Survivor’ situation, you would be among the first voted off the island.
On the frog claims – there was also the bogus and hugely over hyped Man Causes Deformed Frogs with Missing or Extra Limbs fiasco. Alternately, claims were either ‘chemicals cause frog deformities and missing limbs’ – or ‘elevated UV-b from thinned ozone layer causes…’ In other words, we were at fault, not nature. Turned out, however, that the real culprit was both dragon flies eating the limb buds off tadpoles, and Ribeiroia parasite infections which can cause not only missing legs, but also extra or multiple legs (http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/facultysites/pieter/malformationgallery.html).
From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8116000/8116692.stm:
Legless frogs mystery solved
Matt Walker, Editor, Earth News
Scientists think they have resolved one of the most controversial environmental issues of the past decade: the curious case of the missing frogs’ legs.
Around the world, frogs are found with missing or misshaped limbs, a striking deformity that many researchers believe is caused by chemical pollution.
However, tests on frogs and toads have revealed a more natural, benign cause.
The deformed frogs are actually victims of the predatory habits of dragonfly nymphs, which eat the legs of tadpoles.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely.
The cause of these deformities soon became a hotly contested issue.
Some researchers believed they might be caused naturally, by predators or parasites.
Others thought that was highly unlikely, fearing that chemical pollution, or UV-B radiation caused by the thinning of the ozone layer, was triggering the deformations.
Once they grab the tadpole, they use their front legs to turn it around, searching for the tender bits, in this case the hind limb buds, which they then snip off with their mandibles
Biologist Stanley Sessions describes the dining habits of dragonfly nymphs
“Deformed frogs became one of the most contentious environmental issues of all time, with the parasite researchers on one side, and the ‘chemical company’ as I call them, on the other,” says Stanley Sessions, an amphibian specialist and professor of biology at Hartwick College, in Oneonta, New York. (continued online)
“There was a veritable media firestorm, with millions of dollars of grant money at stake.”
That is a rather cynical description. I got you pegged as a glass half-empty kinda gal. Others would describe religion as a very good way for the masses of controlling themselves. You know, a method of differentiating themselves from the 99.999% of other species on Planet Earth that steal, rape, murder, etc, amongst themselves as a matter of Darwinian daily routine.
Historically, two of the most well-known religions are known NOT for ‘controlling the masses’, but instead, for being practiced by minorities of those masses that were under the control of ‘controllers’ (Egypt, and later, Rome). At least in these two instances, religion was the enemy of the controllers of the masses.
However in more modern times, if we can establish that Communism and Fascism are in fact religions, then your quoted comment makes really great sense. The 20th century is chock full of masses being controlled and body bags being filled by these two religions.
JPeden says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm
But for that certainty alone, I’d even concede the most basic scientific tenet of the Left’s favorite Religion – of course secondary to Progresssivism itself: “Mecca is the center of the World!”
=====================================================
The first clue that they were regressive totalitarians should have been when they started calling themselves progressive liberals.