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.
From gnomish on September 24, 2011 at 11:12 pm:
Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan? You enjoy his “cleverer essays” that expose The Truth about the “abrahamic goat herders” and that which descended from them, coming from someone who, implicitly if not explicitly, was a sworn enemy of the religions that came from them?
Such a wonderful concept! Why, it makes perfect sense to find out The Truth about conservative Republicans by checking with the liberal Democrats! Heck, to find out The Truth about what’s posted on WUWT, obviously one would be well served by seeing what RealModeledClimate and SkepSci have to say about it, especially to form one’s opinion of what is The Real True WUWT!
Thanks for the laugh.
Malcolm Miller says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“One day we will have an elected government that swings furtehr back towards socialism, and we’ll all (in Australia) benefit from it,[…]”
Milton Friedman: The Most Persistent Economic Fallacy of All Time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc&feature=related
Blade says: September 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Gail Combs [September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm] says:
“Religion has always been a very good way of controlling the masses.”
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.
Thanks for this commentary Gail.
I do not know what [Gail] may describe as the masses, however I assume referring to religions with the attendant ‘witchcraft/sorcery’ being well established in the populations of Sth & Central America; Africa, Asia-Pacific and vast regions of indigenous US of A, Canada and Australia. The former having a written historical weighting, in explorer and missionary endeavour, and later in embedded forms of Catholicism.
This ‘religion’, has economic and social policy implications in GDP funding aka medicare (10-20% GDP), VAST aid $ and VAST research fund alternate health care practices. NOT science.
And that BOTH private and govt practices employ under various awards; a variety of health care practitioners, regulatory and telecommunication directions and policy hecklers.
That’s me having a (half-educated) guess at Gail’s post. And that it is predominantly men that control treasury expenditure and can who read and decide on that ‘evidence-base’ to inform policy which directly informs that expenditure!
Heck, even here in Australia we had the ‘health practitioners’ crawling out from the woodwork following the Victorian bushfires and then the Brisbane floods. Aided and abetted by the lure of govt subsidised medicare recompensing their post-facto socialised diseases coded under ICD’s and DSM’s.
Maybe we will see a DSM coded directly under ‘climate change’ soon? Though I note posts on the FBI website posts articles on fraud post Katrina.
It was the local community, Churches and their families that supported the war veterans in decades past.
The Marxists Alinsky and Freire are well established education movements within the Catholic religion in Sth America. cf Gail Combs says: September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm
That’s some equation of grab in developing nations GDP and the investment by and by others!. History tells us they did that for a few ‘leader’ notables but doubtful they would do so for the masses. We have yet to see results from crony capitalism and the dark green lock up of productive areas (though much the same end game), AND foreign AID $ and media/entertainment types under the current ideology of ‘economic development through the education principle’ lately touted for the developing nations. Basically 0-25 years, a substantial mass of a population are provided with extraneous $ (special schools and funding, endless training and EEO legislation) to re-develop themselves?
The Constitutions can not escape the diaspora of this vileness, in lands they once visited, traded with, colonised, de-colonised and now support. One has to wonder whether it is dishonouring a tradition, a family, an individual, or being a [reproductive] pawn in a free society they thought heading to an individual light on that individual hill titled ‘freedom’.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/murder-wave-that-shames-the-world/story-e6frg6z6-1225928867204
Dirk @2.06, thanks for that.
Blade says: September 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Gail Combs [September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm] says:
“Religion has always been a very good way of controlling the masses.”
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.
Thanks for this commentary Gail and Blade.
I do not know what Gail may describe as the masses, however I assume she is referring to religions with the attendant ‘witchcraft/sorcery’ being well established in the populations of Sth & Central America; Africa, Asia-Pacific and vast regions of indigenous US of A, Canada and Australia. The former having a weighting in written history of explorer and missionary endeavour, and later in embedded forms of Catholic-founded governance.
This ‘religion’, has economic and social policy implications. Social justice in the form of GDP funding aka medicare (10-20% GDP), VAST aid $ and VAST research funded alternate health care practices. NOT science.
And that BOTH private and govt practices employ under various awards; a variety of health care practitioners, regulatory and telecommunication directions and policy hecklers.
That’s me having a (half-educated) guess at Gail’s post. And that it is predominantly males that control treasury expenditure and can who read and decide on this ‘evidence-base’ that which informs policy which directly informs that expenditure! That’s some scope in steps to decisions and gross expenditure.
Heck, even here in Australia we had the ‘health practitioners’ crawling out from the woodwork following the Victorian bushfires and then the Brisbane floods. Aided and abetted by the lure of govt subsidised medicare recompensing their post-facto socialised diseases coded under ICD’s and DSM’s.
Maybe we will see a DSM coded directly under ‘climate change’ soon? Though I note posts on the FBI website posts articles on fraud post Katrina.
It was the local community, Churches and their families that supported the war veterans in decades past.
The Marxists Alinsky and Freire are well established education movements within the Catholic religion in Sth America. cf Gail Combs says: September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm
That’s some equation of grab in developing nations GDP and the investment by and by others!. History tells us they did that for a few ‘leader’ notables but doubtful they would do so for the masses. We have yet to see results from crony capitalism and the dark green lock up of productive areas (though much the same end game), AND foreign AID $ and media/entertainment types under the current ideology of ‘economic development through the education principle’ lately touted for the developing nations. Basically all 0-25 years + biological and kin adults, a substantial mass of a population, are provided with extraneous $ (special schools and funding, endless training and EEO legislation) to re-develop themselves?
The Constitutions can not escape the diaspora of this vileness, in lands they once visited, traded with, colonised, de-colonised and now support.
One has to wonder whether it is dishonouring a religion, tradition, a family, an individual, or, being a [reproductive] pawn in a free society they thought heading to that individual light on that individual hill titled ‘freedom’.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/murder-wave-that-shames-the-world/story-e6frg6z6-1225928867204
I have been examining the hormone disruption capabilities of a number of man-made chemicals for two years, in human cells. I am in the process of drafting a manuscript at the moment.
Work that is already published shows that DDT is an estrogenic chemical and has anti-androgenic activity. DDE is an estrogen mimetic, and though DDE is a very poor androgen mimetic toward the wild-type androgen receptor, it is potent androgen in the common mutated forms of androgen receptor found in prostate cancer. Estrogen sensitive breast cancer cells show very significant changes in their proliferation following exposure to a wide range of lipophilic hormone disruptor’s.
Bis-Phenol A and Nonyl-phenyl are both synthetic estrogen’s. No if’s and no but’s.
Want science?
Take human cells that have estrogenic/androgenic control and grow in hormone striped media. Compare them to cells where you add DDT/DDE/BPA or NP, then compare their growth and mitochondrial levels. Mitochondrial levels are of course partially modulated by the ERbeta2 receptor element of the mtDNA genome.
You get a complex array of effects which point to the activation of both nuclear and non-nuclear estrogen/androgen signaling, using a large number of hormone disruptor’s.
In the case of organochlorines, like DDT/DDE, one also has to make sure that one has the correct temporal study time. At steady state, the degradation products of these compounds are more potent estrogens than are the parental compounds. Therefore a 12 hr incubation gives you almost nothing, whereas after 96 hours you can observe wide scale effects, within a cell population or within individual cells.
Add to this the steroidal epigenetic imprinting that neonates undergo in the womb that changes an individuals linage’s response to these signals and you can then understand why some people see an effect and some people don’t.
The potential for man-made hormone disruptor’s to cause large scale, long term, changes in the phenotypes of animals is very real.
Kozlowski says:
September 25, 2011 at 12:28 am
“Um, I consider myself to be a conservative but I do not believe in gods and I do not believe in creationism. How many people here actually do not beleive in evolution?”
If all we observe wasn’t created then how did it get here?
Why did you choose to phrase your question about evolution as one of belief?
I would ask how many here are certain that they are just the purposeless result of a random dance of matter and energy that began billions of years ago.
Personally, I’m not at all certain. Having spent years investigating what math, science, and engineering can tell me about why and how the universe is what it is I keep coming back to the incredible complexity of it all. There is such a huge degree of interdependent laws, order, and initial conditions in the universe that, as an engineer, it’s absolutely absurd to think it all just happened by accident. If it didn’t happen by accident then it happened on purpose.
So how strong is your faith that the universe and living things is an accident? Faith is all you can possibly have about this. What I believe is that if you have faith in the accident scenerio then it’s a misplaced faith. What we observe in the universe today is a massive feat of engineering. It’s really the only satisfactory explanation. Exactly who or what engineered it is a different question and I have nothing objective upon which to base speculation about that.
Dave Springer says:
September 25, 2011 at 6:13 am
If all we observe wasn’t created then how did it get here?
——————
The religionist’s answer to this is: Don’t know, let’s make something up.
The scientist’s answer is: Don’t know, let’s try and find out
We don’t (yet) know why the universe exists, or how life first started, or why or how we are conscious of it, but we do know this: All the evidence points to life as we know it being the product of billions of years of evolution, directed by natural selection and other natural factors. If some “intelligence” played a part, he/she/it/them have hidden their tracks very successfully.
gnomish says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm
“… that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.”
Well, I guess you just made the case for AGW skeptics since CAGW cannot be scientifically verified.
We all have faith in something, whether it is verifiable or not. Doesn’t your scientific model tell you that you can verify an hypothesis over and over and still prove nothing? Don’t you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis in science? By definition, faith is not provable nor falsifiable.
You probably accept the physical view of the string theorists, and yet there aren’t many people in the world who can understand it, much less verify the notion. It may never be verifiable to most people.
Science is only a handy process for measuring the physical world. Even that notion takes a certain faith.
You have to have faith in something, and you have placed your stake in the ground of having faith in the words of other people, and maybe even yourself.
I hope you believe in luck. You will need it.
I know this is a tangent to the main topic of Mooney being a flake.
At least someone in the forest service paid attention to the whole frogs vs climate debate. The US Forest service has an active ban on entering caves and mines in their care up to putting grates across them. This is an effort to stop the spread of the bat white nose disease (or is it a fungus).
On topic… if I act conservatively and disagree with AGW, how come that makes me the religious right? Who is jumping to conclusions again without evidence? Oh, wait, I see a pattern.
All generalizations are false, ………………. 8^D
DocMartyn says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
“The potential for man-made hormone disruptor’s to cause large scale, long term, changes in the phenotypes of animals is very real.”
I guess this means that DDT is bad?
Doc Martin,
It is, of course, prudent to understand the effects of widely used chemicals on humans, plants and animals. DDT is a special case because of its life saving potential. Many are critical of it’s continued ban in light of the numbers of annual deaths due to mosquito transmitted diseases. The issue long ago became political rather than scientific. Science always has and always will take a back seat to politics because truth is not important, only rhetoric is.
It seems to me that most of the arguments in this thread which involve AGW, Creationism and socialism, all seek to justify the world view of the one posting. Then there are those who think that pure science exists and is somehow independent of a world view – “facts is facts” you know. Unfortunately, it shows only how conditioned and strangely nieve we all are. In this thread the theology is mangled, the science is not “facts” and the politics is normal politics. Clarifying a creationists world view is as follows:
The creationists believe that Adam was real and that there was a fall and this fall was the reason why Christ came. WIthout the fall there is no need for Christ, so any arguments that remove the fall also remove Christ. It is possible to hang on to a religious world view like it is possible to hang on to a corpse, but if the heart is dead, it is just a shell that is left. The curse is removed by the one sent to remove it.
The creationists (even young earth types) believe Darwin made improtant discoveries and that variation by natural selection is real, indeed they see it as a built in mechanism but they don’t see this mechanism as being sufficient for innovation to any extent which is where the problem arises, and the design argument is a very strong one. Unnatural selection had been practiced for thousands of years so there was no suprise in this anyway. Fixity of species was never a Biblical principle.
“Survival of the fittest” is an easy concept which is why many people believe it today and spout it but it is a tautology. Fitness really only means being in the right place at the right time to leave offspring that surive, and so it is just the “survial of the surviors” and is really nothing about being best fitted, and certainly not enough to drive innovation.
In terms of the Earth and it’s climate, the creationinsts believe that God created the Earth as a special place for man to dwell. It is therefore likely that he designed it as a negative feedback based controlled system and though it may not be understood, creationist have faith that it is so. This does not mean creationists are less concerned about finding out or acting on what they find out, but they do expect to find it under control whereas the athiestic types expect a more random and threatening system, as though they woke up in a car hurtling down a winding road on the edge of a deep ravine but without a driver – they must take control. This also explains part of the political side of the argument too, simply put that if God is not in control who is? We must do something quick, before it is too late, whatever it costs!!! etc., and all this witn no self interest! For the Christian and creationist, the concept of sin in every man (and woman – sorry feminsts) ensures that corruption and self interest will preveail.
I think this is a fair summary in context for those who want to understand it properly from the creationist point of view.
gee, bob –
“Well, I guess you just made the case for AGW skeptics since CAGW cannot be scientifically verified. We all have faith in something, whether it is verifiable or not. ”
is your epistemology so badly broken you don’t even get that you just confessed to the same irrationality you remark upon?
look up epistemology if you are interested in how it is possible to know something.
it’s what the brain does – it’s adequate for the task unless it’s been crippled by indoctrination with anti-concepts made for the purpose.
the world has been around a lot longer than you – take a couple walks around the block. wisdom is out there, not in your navel.
I think the attack on Christians is purely political, in most cases. The left simply want people of religion to have no say or vote. It is clear from these conversations that 1) not all Christians believe evolution is incompatible with their religion 2) the TOE deals with species, not the origin of life, so is a straw man 3) no one knows how the universe came about. One shouldn’t foist their atheistic view upon others.
The point of view of atheism is like a penis.
It’s fine to have one.
It’s fine to be proud of it.
But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE [SNIP: Sorry, that was just a bit too graphic, -REP, mod]
kadaka (KD Knoebel) –
you’d have to read some of lavey to actually know what you’re talking about.
not only was he not religious, he was an excellent satirist. he simply chose particular institutional taboos to ridicule because there are so many lulz for so little effort when you yank the chain of a zombie worshipper. they don’t own themselves and have virtually no control over their actions- their decisions having been preset by indoctrination. thus they are both easy and worthy targets of mockery. the best name i know for them is ‘lulcow’. thanks for the moue.
Sure glad gnomish is here. He has everything figured out. Boy, is that a relief.
gnomish says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Max Planck says
1932
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.”
Perhaps you should endeavor what he meant by that.
James
gnomish says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:44 am
“gee, bob –
is your epistemology so badly broken you don’t even get that you just confessed to the same irrationality you remark upon?”
Actually, it was a mistake in logic. Let’s complete your epistemology tour. You don’t know what you don’t know. It’s a tautology you can take on faith.
Getting back to the anti-science issue, I made the statement that science is a process. Science is not a thing, person, or ideology. You cannot go to a store and buy a pound of science. You can buy scientific research, but science in and of itself is not object or objective. It is a process, or method. A scientific explanation of physical things and processes is the goal, or objective.
Your supposition that a disagreement with a given branch of scientific inquiry is anti-science is not only a poor implementation of language and logic, it speaks volumes about your beliefs. You have chosen to believe in science. A monolithic, unchanging science does not exist. Perhaps you can use the scientific method to prove that science, as a thing, God, or person, exists.
jim says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:09 am
I think the attack on Christians is purely political, in most cases.
===========================================================
It goes beyond that. It is the absolute refusal of accountability and the pursuit of relative morality.
Here’s a quick read that just scratches at the subject relating to some of the topics here. And a very brief coverage of a few contributions to modern science by Christians.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/christians-have-been-and-are-great-contributors-to-science/
There is, of course, much more to sate, but I’ll do it piecemeal.
James
Sans (your) non-use of proper capitalization (yes; Stasi-grammarian here), sadly, that is my thinking too (write for those who read pls! Semi-regardless of content.)
.
“Grant says
Doc Martin,
It is, of course, prudent to understand the effects of widely used chemicals on humans, plants and animals. DDT is a special case because of its life saving potential.”
Well yes and no. The complete ban, including home spraying was too much, but the general spraying was prudent.
There are three properties of DDT that should give one pause for thought to its wide spread usage in the biosphere.
1) It is very long lived. The t 1/2 is very long both inside of and outside of biotica.
2) It is highly lipophillic and as such it will be transferred from maternal fat to neonates/infants during gestation/lactation.
3) It bypasses the natural xenophobic oxidation pathways of fish, amphibia and birds.
Mammals can both oxidize and conjugate DDT, but our pray species can’t. Cows are a special case as they deliver all the DDT they can find into milk.
So we have concentration food webs which deliver high levels of persistent organochlorines like this:-
DDT in soil from 1950’s enter soy.
Soy fed to chickens.
Chickens can’t metabolize DDT/DDE and so it partitions into fat/feathers
Rendering plant takes chicken fat and feathers which is hydrolyzed and pelleted into fish food. Concentrated DDT fed to fish where it concentrates in their lipid.
Pregnant women want child with high IQ and slim figure so undergo calorific restriction and high fish diet.
Mothers transfer DDT from own fat and fish into largest lipid reserve of fetus; brain.
Brain development linked to astrocyte/neuronal sculpting and is dependent on estrogen/androgen levels.
Lucky that brain developmental mechanism is so robust and we have no indications of any rises in disease states that may be linked to disruption of hormone signaling isn’t it?
Hey, you left out that power lines cause cancer. Another idiotic claim that was even made into the plot of an Eddie Murphy movie.
Bob-
“Perhaps you can use the scientific method to prove that science, as a thing, God, or person, exists.”
That existence exists is an axiom, not an article of faith.
Yes, it is easy to prove the existence of something which exists.
No, science is not a matter of faith.
No, irrationality is not to be characterised as ‘disagreement’ as if it were merely a choice of flavored bubblegum. It is a contradiction of reason and therefore has negative adaptive significance because reason is man’s means of survival.
There is a distinction to be drawn between ‘unproven’ and ‘unprovable’. Religions are special collections of ‘unprovables’. Science is the opposite. All ‘unprovable’ statements are false.
That’s the nature of the ineffable ‘mysteries’ – they can’t be effed – they are lies.
There is no such thing as divine revelation.
Bob- did you ever read Woody Allen? He has been over this ground many times. Irrationality is the fountainhead of satirical grist. One of his little parables went something like this:
“A brooding person went to the rabbi and told him “I’m not sure what’s real – I’m not even sure if I exist!”. The rabbi punched him in the nose and asked “So, what hurts?”
I’m pretty much convinced that it takes at least a broken nose to wake a zombie worshipper from his trance.
Jim – just for you this once – not that I admire ee cummings style or anything, but this is more or less grafitti by anonymous in the style of Steinbeck’s stream of unconsciousness – it’s not that critical. I only hope it’s engaging enough at some level to be considered worth the bother.
I can spell and punctuate perfectly when I wish, but it’s casual Friday for me every day. I don’t wear a double windsor Brookes’ Brothers’ tie most days either, though i’m not allowed in certain restaurants… lol – but i eat to get fed – not to make friends and influence people. I’m old enough so I’m allowed. 🙂 I’m past the finger.exercises phase of learning English. I’ve corrected my share of library books. That’s how come I’m not so particular and don’t feel a need to draw attention to poor syntax.
Misuse of the word ‘endeavor’ might be bad enough to remark on, though. But no big deal – I understand what the man was trying to say despite his poor attempt to create the appearance of erudition.
James- there is no such thing as irrational belief in the rational nor is there a rational belief in what is irrational. Exorcise that little demon and study its etiology. It didn’t spring up by spontaneous generation. Faith is not reason. That’s why we have 2 different words, eh. We also have a word ‘antonym’ just for the relationship between word pairs like that. Logical self contradictions are the loaves and fishes, I understand. Understanding is not divine revelation. No heretics were ever burned at stake in support of science.
David Ball – yah – so simple any 3 yr old child of 2 can do it, eh. Without an army of liars to confuse kids, they’d still be able to do it as adults.
But just because i pick up after some litterbug once, doesn’t make me the appointed garbage man forever.
i wrote more than 20,000 words about ismism so i’m not gonna be able to avoid reruns – and i hate reruns. time for me to move along to something new, for i have the novelty seeking gene. 🙂
@Bob
Lauding low doses