Remember when right-wingers didn’t trust Pravda?

John Quiggin suggests some reasons why the anti-science position on climate change has become an orthodoxy on the Right:

There are many explanations, perhaps so many that the outcome was overdetermined – powerful economic interests such as ExxonMobil, the hubris associated with victories in economic policy and in the Cold War, tribal dislike of environmentalists which translated easily to scientists as a group, and the immunisation to unwelcome evidence associated with the construction of the rightwing intellectual apparatus of thinktanks, talk-radio, Fox News, blogs and so on.

And currently getting a run on right-wing blogs is this Drudge-promoted article from Pravda (yes, Pravda — and note the story in the sidebar next to the article) about how Earth is on the brink of an Ice Age. he only evidence the story offers for this is Ice Ages occur regularly so we are due for one. Which I guess we are, provided we assume that greenhouse gases have no effect on warming.

Hume’s Ghost points out that the article’s author is also a 9/11 truther. Mind you, this doesn’t bother NewsBusters’ Noel Shepherd one little bit:

How delicious that an America-hating Truther who contributes to Pravda has a firmer grasp of climatology than Nobel Laureate Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and most of the folks at the IPCC.

Comments

#1 nanny_govt_sucks
January 18, 2009

First they came to put the Japanese Americans in detention camps

… well, they had to disarm the Japanese Americans first!
#2 nanny_govt_sucks
January 18, 2009

Re: Homeopathy. Even if it is only a placebo effect and that works for some people, why knock it? Anyway we don’t need politicians telling us (regardless of whom they get their advice from) what medicines or treatments are best for us. That should be up to the doctor that you trust.
#3 bi -- IJI
January 18, 2009

> Anyway we don’t need politicians telling us (regardless of whom they get their advice from) what medicines or treatments are best for us. That should be up to the doctor that you trust.

Who was it that said that “you [yourself] are the easiest person to fool”?
#4 Barton Paul Levenson
January 18, 2009

Who wants to bet nanny supports selling Laetrile to cancer patients?
#5 nanny_govt_sucks
January 19, 2009

Who wants to bet nanny supports selling Laetrile to cancer patients?

I don’t know about Laetrile, but I support medical marijuana for cancer patients. Do YOU? Did you know that the AMA/Federal/State government conglomerate will revoke the license of doctors that prescribe medical marijuana for their suffering patients? So “licensing” strikes again, and deprives the very sick from an important medication that can help ease their suffering.
#6 WotWot
January 19, 2009

Did you know that the AMA/Federal/State government conglomerate will revoke the license of doctors that prescribe medical marijuana for their suffering patients

I call complete BS on that claim.

The following statement, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, was adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA Policy at the 2001 AMA Annual Meeting:

The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease.
The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies.
The AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana. This effort should include: a) disseminating specific information for researchers on the development of safeguards for marijuana, clinical research protocols and the development of a model for informed consent on marijuana for institutional review board evaluation; b) sufficient funding to support such clinical research and access for qualified investigators to adequate supplies of marijuana for clinical research purposes; c) confirming that marijuana of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo will be supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to investigators registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency who are conducting bona fide clinical research studies that receive Food and Drug Administration approval, regardless of whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant support.

The AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a smoke-free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated with the combustion and inhalation of marijuana.

The AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subject either party to criminal sanctions.”

AMA Policy H-95.952, amended June 2001

Also: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html#recomendation

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54

The AMA was supporting medical marijuana in 1937, and literally dozens of other American medical organisations have long supported the medical use of marijuana, including The American Psychiatric Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, The American college of Physicians, The Institute of Medicine, etc. The same holds true for senior mainstream medical organisations the world over.

I think you will find that the only group seriously opposed to medical marijuana are many politicians and some law enforcement types, and I agree completely that they should be kept right out of making these choices.

So, sorry, but Teh Evil Medical Licencing System Fascist Overlords at the AMA cannot possibly be blamed for this one, not only for the reason given above, but also in no small part because medical licences are not issued by the AMA.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination™ (USMLE™) is a three-step examination for medical licensure in the United States and is sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners® (NBME®).

[snip]

In the United States and its territories (“United States” or “US”), the individual medical licensing authorities (“state medical boards”) of the various jurisdictions grant a license to practice medicine. Each medical licensing authority sets its own rules and regulations and requires passing an examination that demonstrates qualification for licensure. Results of the USMLE are reported to these authorities for use in granting the initial license to practice medicine. The USMLE provides them with a common evaluation system for applicants for medical licensure.

[snip]

Examination committees composed of medical educators and clinicians prepare the examination materials. Committee members broadly represent the teaching, practicing, and licensing communities across the United States. At least two of these committees critically appraise each test item or case. They revise or discard any materials that are in doubt.

http://www.usmle.org/General_Information/bulletin/2009/overview.html

Your move.
#7 luminous beauty
January 19, 2009

nanny,

Doctors can’t write a prescription for pot, but they can write a recommendation for a patient that gives the patient state and local legal right to possess pot in states with medical marijuana provisions.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/cases/conant/index.cfm

Sometimes loopholes in the law work for the public good. Fancy that.
#8 nanny_govt_sucks
January 20, 2009

WotWot, please read what you posted:

The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act …

!!!!!

Also, state medical licensing boards are composed of mostly AMA members. That’s why I referred to the AMA/Fed/State conglomerate. They’re so in bed with each other that you can’t tell the two apart.
#9 Dano
January 20, 2009

This Yoostabee toker once did a term paper on the criminalization of pot. There is so much gummint political capital tied up in keeping it criminal – to the point of wasting tens of thousands of acre-feet of water to keep hemp fiber illegal – that it should be criminal in itself, IMHO.

Best,

D
#10 z
January 20, 2009

” I support medical marijuana for cancer patients”

i support medical marijuana for substance abuse patients
#11 Barton Paul Levenson
January 21, 2009

I’d legalize all intoxicating drugs. All of them, with the possible exception of those that made people immediately dangerous to others (e.g. PCP). I’d have warning labels and quality control and prosecute people for driving stoned or selling to kids. With grass or whatever available in every drug store, the Mafia and the Narcotraficantes, etc., would go bankrupt. Prices would drop like a stone and their multi-billion-dollar holdings would vaporize overnight. With no point in shooting each other over drug turf any more, collateral crime associated with drugs would decline markedly. This is roughly what happened with the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
#12 Bernard J.
January 21, 2009

-6.38, -5.85.

I feel decidedly conservative amongst the crowd here!

And I am a little surprised, because I felt that I might have answered in a conservative fashion for myself. Perhaps it’s the creeping of middle-age… I may have to take it again after a cooling off period.

The mind boggles at how anyone might score positive on this ‘test’…
#13 Bernard J.
January 21, 2009

Perhaps it is in atonement for my paultry values in the negative, but I absolutely concur with D, z, and BPL.
#14 bi -- IJI
January 21, 2009

ngs says

> Did you know that the AMA/Federal/State government conglomerate will revoke the license of doctors that prescribe medical marijuana for their suffering patients?

…and then claims that, because the AMA encourages the use of marijuana in clinical trials, therefore the AMA is trying to ban marijuana.

It’s almost like the claim that because someone just used DDT legally, therefore DDT is being banned.

Or, the fact that a climate ‘skeptic’ got published in the media proves that the media are suppressing him.
#15 nanny_govt_sucks
January 22, 2009

I’d legalize all intoxicating drugs.

It’s good to hear that we have some common ground.
#16 Dano
January 22, 2009

With grass or whatever available in every drug store, the Mafia and the Narcotraficantes, etc., would go bankrupt. Prices would drop like a stone and their multi-billion-dollar holdings would vaporize overnight.

And we’d have more forest acreage, and less damaging cotton planted (Aral Sea, anyone) with the fiber from hemp.

Sh*t simple, except when money and politics is involved.

Best,

D
#17 Paul
January 28, 2009

Russia’s official skeptic line in order to maintain fossil fuel profits continue:

http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/7740/
#18 Paul
January 28, 2009

Further to my previous post, the Russia-ic.com site is run by Garant InfoCentre whose main customers include:

Shell Exploration & Production Company
Lukoil Oil Company’s subsidiaries and affiliates
Iteranet (Gazprom’s subsidiary)
Rosoboronexport State Corporation (the sole state intermediary agency for Russia’s military imports/exports)
British American Tobacco Ltd (International tobacco marketing services)

http://www.garant-ic.ru/eng/eng.php
http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/7740/
#19 Gregory Fegel
October 1, 2009

Tim Lambert erroneously assumes that everyone who doubts the unproven theory of CO2-caused Global Warming is a ‘right-winger’. Actually, there are many ‘left-wingers’ who doubt the theory of CO2-caused Global Warming, and I happen to be one of them.

Lambert attempts to make a political issue out of what should be a scientific question. There are many scientists who doubt the theory of CO2-caused Global Warming, and true science does not operate on the basis of ‘consensus’, but of proof.

Gregory Fegel
#20 Dan L.
October 1, 2009

>Gregory Fegel: “…there are many ‘left-wingers’ who doubt the theory of CO2-caused Global Warming, and I happen to be one of them.”

Funny then, that you post the same talking points as the rightie bloggers.

Who are these “many scientists” to whom you refer? Signers of a petition, perhaps? And what do you call “many”?

“…true science does not operate on the basis of ‘consensus’, but of proof.” Is another common rightie aphorism based on misunderstanding what consensus means and what science does. Are you *sure* you didn’t get out on the wrong side of bed this morning and get your left and right reversed?

Next you’ll be telling us you used to believe in AGW until you looked at the evidence.