Ed Darrell writes about the fools promoting DDT as a solution to West Nile virus. It's as if these people think that there are no other insecticides in the world. And he has more examples in a later post: Steve Milloy and Henry Miller.
More like this
The tsunami and Katrina both left behind pools of stagnant water in which things have swarmed and multiplied and emerged to infect humanity. I'm referring, of cause, to clueless articles extolling the virtues of DDT.
The latest is by Henry Miller in the National Review Online.
The six-year old U.S…
Ed Darrell has been working his way through Steve Milloy's 100 things about DDT. See if you can spot what Milloy did in number 10. Here's Milloy:
[Rachel Carson wrote] "Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile…
Following the tsunami, the folks at Junk Tech Fumento Central Science Station (JTFCSS) have been calling for DDT spraying. Here's Michael Fumento:
The best answer would be spraying with DDT. Unfortunately, environmentalists have demonized DDT based essentially on…
Bug Girl has a post on setting the record straight on Rachel Carson, quoting US Fish and Wildlife Service, who, unlike Carson critics, know what Carson actually wrote about DDT and malaria, and another on a two-part article in the American Entomologist on Carson.
Ed Darrell has been checking the…
These people's problem is pure partiinost; they have absolutely no interest in the content of their beliefs so long as it permits them to resist the notion that certain target groups are right.
Doubleplusgood duckspeakers, indeed.
And he has more examples in a later post: Steve Milloy and Henry Miller.
I ask the group:
Is there any other pair, in any topic, anywhere, where 'propagandistas' comes so immediately and easily to mind? Where the conclusions of the shills are already so predictable it seems as if they mailed in their pieces?
Best,
D
I'd say the Daddy-Sonny Avery Duo can't be excluded.
I recall a paper back when chronic fatigue syndrome was new and interesting, that correlated national approaches to therapy/cure with national stereotypes. It was hilarious in its appropriateness.
German doctors approached the disease with vitamins, tonics, dietary additives, exercise etc.; i.e., the problem was basically that the machinery needed a tuneup.
British doctors approached the disease with antidepressants, psychotherapy, etc.; i.e., the disease was basically a failure to keep a stiff upper lip and do what must be done for God and the Queen.
American doctors on the other hand prescribed all sorts of antiinfectives; the disease was clearly some sort of invasion of our sacred bodily borders by sneaky foreign organisms which must be destroyed with a scorched policy, if need be.
Which brings us to the need to blanket the earth with a long-lasting toxin in order to ameliorate a disease which kills fewer people in a year than one good three day weekend on the highways; precisely because the toxin is longlasting and just plain deadly, that's what makes it so attractive. Yeehaw!
It strikes me that by and large the folks with the More DDT; Less Disease meme are the same folks as have the More Guns; Less Crime meme. Basically, the more deadly something is, the more I want it.
they are in the footsteps of Ann Coulter who rants that many lives were lost because DDT was banned. It's not a science issue, it's a right wing issue (rant) in the vein of global warming, there is full support for this view at Rush's site (no proof, just full support)
you have to remember that to be a right winger you have to fail science, if you pass you must be a "Libb" (not "Lib", you gotta have 4 letters)
Rich cares:
"you have to remember that to be a right winger you have to fail science"
That's possibly the dumbest comment I've seen in a while.
"That's possibly the dumbest comment I've seen in a while."
That's rich coming from someone who doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) the difference between a solar electrical panel and a solar hot water panel, even after it has been explained to them several times.
"you have to remember that to be a right winger you have to fail science"
for proof read Ann Coulter's last book, her views on science are ____________! any highschool student adhering to her viewpoint would flunk science!
So Ann Coulter speaks for entire the right wing movement?
That's like telling us that Aglore is a scientist and speaks for science when he ought to be contracted out to Weight Watchers to do ads.
----------------------
"That's rich coming from someone who doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) the difference between a solar electrical panel and a solar hot water panel, even after it has been explained to them several times."
Are you always this anal retentive?
This would work if in fact many right wing comment posters weren't even stupider than Coulter is pretending to be. (Actually, she's really just well-paid and deeply uncaring. Think Paris Hilton, quite a bit older and in a Dennis Miller phase).
Why does the conservative wingnutosphere hate science? I wonder if it's their occasional grappling with reality, rather than ideology? In any case, factoids about but facts are rare amongthis group (and Al Gore is fat isn't really a counter to this).
"So Ann Coulter speaks for entire the right wing movement?"
she says so, you calling her a liar?
want more proof read Hannity's last book
for additional proof read "jc" posts
right wingers say "global warming" a hoax
right wingers said "cigerette smoking not harmful"
right wingers said "asbestos won't hurt you"
right wingers said "cadmium won't hurt you"
right wingers said PCB's don't cause cancer
not a good track record on science
their ignorance has actually oost lives!!
RichC
You're being silly and hyperbolic.
"want more proof read Hannity's last book for additional proof read "jc" posts"
You mean that most a good number of people at this site are basically statist and have no idea of economics. Yea, that's correct? It's about as true a statement as one can make.
"right wingers said "cigerette smoking not harmful"
Can you show me one right winger who has said that?
Don't overdo it, Richie, one well known free market type and not some red neck God botherer.
Go!
#13 Jc said: "right wingers said 'cigerette (sic) smoking not harmful'
Can you show me one right winger who has said that"?
Jc you are either uninformed or deliberately trying to misinform us. It is very easy to find right wingers who put out misinformation and lies about the health effects of tobacco smoking.
Here is one example:
Rush Limbaugh, April 29, 1994, "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...and the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease."
like I said for additional proof of ignorance read "jc" posts!
he probably doesn't know the name of the guy who testified for tobacco in congress. "jc" must be a Coulter fan, shows the same amount of intelligence.
The anti-environmental right generally, and Steven Milloy specifically, have deep roots in the pro-tobacco lobby.
But feel free to demand more evidence if you're still not convinced, Jc!
Tim, help me out on this: What the hell is Henry I. Miller doing? He's a physician at the Hoover Institute. Surely they he's not concerned about tenure, and on that score the WSJ article wouldn't count, anyway. Hoover wouldn't want him to be contracting out his viewpoint.
So, why is he advocating crazy stuff? No public health official on Earth has suggested that there is any need for DDT to fight West Nile virus. Not one. As best I can tell, not even the pesticide manufacturers are making that argument.
So, since no one who really has an oar in the water on this issue calls for DDT to fight West Nile, why does Miller? What's in it for anyone?
Rush Limbaugh, April 29, 1994, "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...and the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease."
You had to trawl around 13 years ago to find what some silly, overweight radio jock thinks. Good one.
Wasn't that the same year Aglore said he invented the internet?
"jc" must be a Coulter fan,
Well, not I can't say i like what she says, but I sure like how she looks.
"Wasn't that the same year Aglore said he invented the internet?"
Al Gore made no such claim. That is a bald faced lie that has been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted. See this article for an accurate account of what actually happened, and just how dirty and dishonest the neo-con spin machine can be:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentP…
"jc" , your attempts to sound intelligent are not working, it appears all you have are old debunked right wing talking points, you should stop digging, the hole is getting deep.
wow, you said of Coulter "...but I sure like how she looks". all I can say about that is they have a sale at Lenscrafters, maybe you should go.
Earlier Jeebezus Cretin said:
A quote was provided, and your response? An implicit moving of the goalposts. "It's 13 yrs old! A RW radio talk show host!" True, but it falsifies your stupidly absolute statement.
As pointed out above, he never said that.
Tch tch, JC caught out lying again.
I gave historical examples of right wingers against science, smoking was one of them. I was referring to the historic stupidity of right wingers. It was well before and during the 90's that right wingers fought the banning/restriction on smoking, it was before and during the 90's that quotes would be expected, even dummies like you should know this. It really isn't necessary for you to confirm this by your silly responses. Currently it's global warming they are against, though CFC's come in a close second.
As a heavy smoker, I initially accepted the right wing crap on smoking. Now after an open heart surgery and lung cancer surgery, I don't think I believe the right any more. Your comments are proof enough of your _____________________. Though smoking was one issue, PCB's did a lot more damage as well as did Cadmium poisoning.
As to the topic on hand, Coulter had a full chapter on DDT in her last book, and they were just as ignorant as your comments.
Miller, Milloy, Berlau and Tierney are all motivated by the desire to bash environmentalists.
RichC
Sorry to hear about your health problems and hope they improve.
I have to say that even as a former smoker I always knew the dangers of smoking. In fact if you got past your insinuations and inferences I think you would admit that too.
I think though that we and only we have charge over our bodies and what we do to them. I don't understand how anyone could pretend smoking isn't dangerous.
Even as an almost reformed smoker I don't blame anyone for my habit except myself. I don't even blame the cig companies.
----------
It's a little disfficult to buy into this "the right is anti-science" schtik the left keep peddling.
A great deal of science- practical science- is done outside of universities. R&D departments of firms etc. The politcal leanings of these people is unknown, but my guess is that it would be about 50/50. So the suggestion that the right is anti-science is about as silly as saying the left is all about science.
Tim
I don't know about the others as I haven't heard much about them.
However you are mistaken about John Tierney. He's a great scribe who only wants to get to the truth.
OB
This is what Gore said:
In answer to a question about why Democrats should support him, Gore spoke about his record. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative"--politico-speak for leadership--"in creating the Internet," he said, before going on to describe other accomplishments.
funny that, i always thought Vinton Cerf created the internet.
to jc:
a quote from "Vint Cerf":
VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them
did gore invent the internet, a link:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
try reading a popular book by Chris Mooney, "The Republican War on Science", he has a web site http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/
you can try loading your brain with knowledge instead of talking points.
"funny that, i always thought Vinton Cerf created the internet."
Once again, Jc, you shift the goal posts, playing slippery games with words and using selective, out of context quotes from the article I linked to.
You initially accused Gore of claiming to have "invented" (your word) the internet. The clear implication being he is claiming to be the main technical creator. Now you say he said he "created" the internet.
Vincent Cerf isn't someone I would be quoting to support your case. In the very same paragraph you took that quote from is the following:
"Vinton Cerf, often called the father of the Internet, has claimed that the Internet would not be where it was without Gore's leadership on the issue."
Cerf's actual words are:
"I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by [Gore]..."
"Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet's origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore "helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.""
Clearly Gore is widely credited with being the main force behind creating the specific legal and institutional framework without which the internet would be a pale imitation of what it is today. Even his arch political opponent Newt Gingrich gives him credit for that:
"Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet,"
The last three quotes are from this article:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
which gives a very good account of how the conservative media spin machine completely and deliberately misrepresented the story and slandered Gore.
Ob
I'm not playing word games. you are.
Gore says he created the internet. Rightfully so he got laughed out of the "room". He didn't create it, Cerf did!
We're talking about a legislator here, not a scientist.
More to the point, the "thing" he supported through legislation was nothing like the "thing" that developed. If I recall correctly his was legislatively guiding a very primative network for ed information exchange.
He had as much to do with "creating" the internet as I did the wheel.
Man, you guys really are statist's aren't you. You think all mankind's knowledge derives from the state.
RC says:
"try reading a popular book by Chris Mooney, "The Republican War on Science", he has a web site http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/"
Now why would I go reading Mooney's book on anything to do with science. The guy is an English lit undergrad from Yale for gawds sake. More to the point he's just a head kicker for the Dems, earning a living doing so.
Don't take me for a sucker too.
RE Jc "A great deal of science- practical science- is done outside of universities. R&D departments of firms etc. The politcal leanings of these people is unknown, but my guess is that it would be about 50/50."
I actually spent number of years working in an industrial setting (R&D in a biotech company) and the scientists in the lab are just as liberal as their colleagues in academia. The big joke around election time was to relate how divergent the R&D group was from the Admin group. I don't have the hard numbers, but my experience does not lead me to believe that the ratio is 50/50.
D56
Good to see your confidence level, 56. I wish I could extrapolate certainty from a microscopic population sample. I would be a zillionaire by now.
jc, you should really go elsewhere to show your ignorance, we are tired of laughing at you
bye bye
for those interested Chis Mooney is included in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2006 (The Best American Series) (Paperback) " available at Amazon
his last book, "Republican War on Science" was a best seller, his current release "Storm World" is doing well, he's gotten numerous awards, you can see his bio at
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/about.php#Chris%20Mooney
just thought I'd put in a plug for a fellow traveler.
RC
It's not your site dude, so take a hike.
If I want to read about something sceintific I would pick up a book by someone who has the credentials and has a decent shot at understanding the subject on hand. Chris Mooney doesn't. He is a politcally biased writer with no formal training in science.
Why read a law book written by a non lawyer? Same thing.
deech, I spent several years working in a lab doing research into alternate refrigerants (miscibility, heat transfer, etc.). My experience was the exact opposite of yours. Bill Clinton couldn't have gotten elected janitor in that lab.
Given our two data points, I guess that means that we can't draw any conclusions based on our own personal experience. Too bad...
"Now why would I go reading Mooney's book on anything to do with science."
Yes, I would never try to read anything that looked like something I disagreed with, or might contain something I did not already know.
Me, I've got copies of More Guns Less Crime, and the Bell Curve, for instance. They show up in large qantity at the used book stores for cheap. I find that before I can take somebody's argument to pieces, it's helpful to read it.
Nice to see where your science comes from and why you are a zealot, Z..... from an English lit major. Who would ever have thought?
Fascinating, JC. What was John Tierney's major?
Tim:
Dunno, but last time I looked Tierney's wasn't the main scribe for the science section of the NYTimes.
Ummmm
I guess I have to back peddle. He is the science writer for The Times. ummmm last time I knew of him he was an op-ed writer.
Well same goes for Tierney if he doesn't have a science background. They should have kept as an op-ed scribe.
Tim
If you wanna believe Mooney's book that the GOP is attacking science, Mooney may want to explain how he goes suddenly silent when it comes to little issues like opposing opening up ANWR and preventing oil exploration beyond a 90 mile limit off the US coasts.... all done in the name of conservation supported with "scientfic" facts of course :-)
He may also want to explain why the Dems only seem to believe one half of the theory of evolution.
While at it he also want to explain his party's tacit support to prevent the use of GM crops.
Little things like that.
In other words Mooney disses the GOP but can't find too much wrong with the Dems views on science.
You think Tierney is really like that?
In other words, JC, you haven't read his book.
Whose book? I actually read Mooney's and was underwhelmed but not surprised at his one sidedness.
To argue there has been a systematic attack by the right ( i agree actually) and ignore the systematic attack by the left is a gigantic attempt at deception or simple ignorance. Both are bad when hawking a book. At least you can turn the page when you arrive at Tierney's column and not think all your money is wasted. The Times does have a good sports section at least.
Mooney ignores the points I made.
He in fact ignores one of the most important systematic attacks on science by the left. The attack on big Pharma at any given opportunity ignoring the benefits their output has produced.
JC you might want to [read my review of Mooney](http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/27/the-war-and-the-quarrels/). It was specifically about whether he had ignored left-wing attacks on science.
OK , Will do thanks Tim.
Here's a few more of my own criticisms.
mooney rightly gets stuck into the GOP and Bush for restrictions placed on stem cell research. However if I recall correctly it was Clinton who enacted the first restrictions.
Mooney also seems to assert that scientists are the bees knees in telling us where we ought to be heading. However that's not their damn job. Policy makers are the people who have that responsibility. GW is a case in point. Scientists are there to tell us the likely senarios etc. in terms of what the science says. However it's not scientists who ought telling us what to do. Policy makers need to do that with the help of economists working out the trade offs and cost benefit analysis.
This is where I think mooney also goes askew.
Read your review and it seems fair and reasonable.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I think people need to understand that there are unhelpful coalitions on both sides of the politrical fence that both major parties have to speak to.
As a libertarian with right wing leanings I am very troubled with the Christian rights sway in the GOP. However as far as trade offs go I would much rather see the GOP in power than I would the Dems.
I would also like to see cleaner air, however I don't see the solution in a Kyoto type arrangement.
"I think people need to understand that there are unhelpful coalitions on both sides of the politrical fence that both major parties have to speak to."
That's why it's best to ignore the pundits on both sides and go direct to the science. I find the models which predict anthropogenic global warming to be more compelling than the models which do not, given that there do not seem to be any such, merely strange extrapolations such as "we have found a climate change cycle which correlates with a cosmic ray flux cycle with a periodicity of 14 million years, therefore the anthropogenic component of global warming for the past couple of decades may be less than commonly accepted".
Particularly funny when you hear it referenced by people who believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago.
Fair enough Z. You raise some valid points.
JC, Mooney's thesis is that scientists are the best people to judge the science, not that they should decide policy. But the essence of the Republican War on Science is that if the science says that policy X will have bad effect Y and they adopt policy X anyway, they don't argue that the benefits of policy X outweigh the bad effect Y. Instead they attack the science.
For example, Bush's stem cell policy, greatly hinders research, but rather than admit this, he claims that researchers have enough cell lines to work with by counting unviable and useless lines.
Now why would I go reading Mooney's book on anything to do with science. Don't take me for a sucker too.
Whose book? I actually read Mooney's and was underwhelmed but not surprised at his one sidedness.
finally:
Fair enough Z. You raise some valid points.
Tim
That applies to both sides, which is my point. The history of GM crops is a good example. Science helping us to increase acreage output along with the accruing environmental benefits is ignored or underplayed by Mooney.
And yes, I agree with the stem cell issue, but my point is that it wasn't just Bush who has been messing about with restrictions. They all have been.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Mooney's book places scientists on some sort of pedestal implying they have a say in policy decisions. They shouldn't. Their input is only to do with the science.
Imagine a world where doctors had the final say on who lives or gets the medication shut off?
RC
I didn't buy the book, my wife did and I read it after. Unfortunately her reading bias leaves a lot ot be desired.
Why should I consider Z comments to be anything but fair and reasonable.
He says:
"That's why it's best to ignore the pundits on both sides and go direct to the science."
Why would I diagree with that?
Don't be silly.
Science helping us to increase acreage output along with the accruing environmental benefits is ignored or underplayed by Mooney.
Show this!
I didn't buy the book, my wife did and I read it after
likely story, much like your smoking "Can you show me one right winger who has said that?" comment.
you appear to have no credibility!
JC, my copy of Mooney's book states "Let's be fair: those on the political left have undoubtedly abused science ... In objecting to genetically modified foods, for instance, Greenpeace has suggested that these "Frankenfoods" pose human health risks due to the "inherently risky process" by which they are made. Yet, in a 2004 report, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the ..."
the silly guy says "don't be silly"
my guess he never read that book, even though he retracted that he never would read it. It's his wife's book, hilarious.
Sorry, no credabilty points for you.
Tim:
So why is it a GOP war on science? Why not a Congressioanl war on science? Mooney doesn't offer this as that important in his overall assessment?
You clowns are the same geniuses saving the world's envirnoment by discouraging all possible oil and gas development in the US. That obviously sends all the drilling and pumping to places where those in control could not possibly care less about cleanup, salt water spills, etc. In other words, you idiots are making the people already struggling to exist in Africa, South America live with worse pollution than we spend billions to clean up. All because you wackos are worried we might disturb the breeding habits of a stray pair of musk oxen. DDT didn't push the Bald Eagle to near extinction. The abuse, overuse did. It's replacements are a lot more poisonous. Humans were relatively unharmed by DDT, even with the massive amounts applied in the 50s and 60s.
"Humans were relatively unharmed by DDT, even with the massive amounts applied in the 50s and 60s. "
Shoobie, can you cite factual peer reviewed research to back up your claim, other than right wing propaganda. the current scientific dats shows what?
Can you cite factual accounts that comment is wrong, onna? If you think it's wrong, show us as I would be interested in this too, as would most of us.
No left propaganda now. Just the science.
for jc,
there are thousands of links
try this one and google the rest
http://www.panna.org/magazine/summer2006/inDepthDDT.html
this was intially directed at Shoobie who made a claim, are you joining him? make claims no cites means your right!
Let me highlight the relevant part of the section Tim quoted, since you seem to be reading-impaired:
"In objecting to genetically modified foods, for instance, Greenpeace has suggested..."
Last time I checked, Greenpeace is not Congress; hell, I don't think Greenpeace has ever held much weight in DC, no matter who has been running the show. And I don't recall any Congressional bans or major restrictions on GM foods passing, though you should feel free to cite information to the contrary.
Have you even bothered to read Mooney? He gives his justification for focusing on the GOP very early on, so either you haven't, or you ignored that part.
Prof Davis:
Thanks so much in that lesson on comprehension. Perhaps you could show me where I have mentioned greenpeace.
"Have you even bothered to read Mooney? He gives his justification for focusing on the GOP very early on, so either you haven't, or you ignored that part."
You really are dopey aren't you? I haven't argued that Mooney is wrong in his assertions about the GOP. i have argued he is biased and performing in the same way as any other politcial hack by everselling the wrongs of his opponents while ignoring or paying little attention to his own side.
Are you tenured?
i have argued he is biased and performing in the same way as any other politcial hack by everselling the wrongs of his opponents while ignoring or paying little attention to his own side.
Wingnut argumentation using 'bias' is soooooo 2003.
So, Jc, can you trot out some grey literature (knowing you don't read the journals) that shows the (not an) opposition party in Murrica suppresses scientific research, as you imply? Thank you so much in advance for the examples, especially the ones that show that the (not an) opposition party does it, oh, 1% as much as the NeoCons.
Best,
D
D
Wingnut? Me? amusing comment coming from a trot.
Any chance of putting that swill in plain English.
To understand your incoherent rant?
The book is fine because Mooney is on my side of the politcal fence.
Best,
JC.
jc says "Any chance of putting that swill in plain English. To understand your incoherent rant?"
no need to answer jc., he has proven himself intellectually challenged (polite version of retarded) maybe, he will go away.
What you said and what you think you said are clearly two different things, then. Apparently you're writing-impaired, rather than reading-impaired. Or perhaps both, I've read a great deal of your nonsense in my lurking here.
And you're flat-out wrong because, as Tim clearly points out, Mooney doesn't ignore the left's wrongs; he points out they exist, and then proceeds to explain why he thinks the current situation is especially bad. I ask again, have you read Mooney?
Professor Davis:
Do you accept i didn't mention Greedpeace or was hubris part of your dissertation not to mention remedial comprehension?
Do you accept that professor?
While the prof is busy answering the question let me leave one about the book for you to ponder Rich.
Mooney discusses abortion in the book.
Let's ponder this:
Some time ago I read that there have been 30 odd studies on the subject of breast cancer and the possibility of a link to abortion. 25 of those studies have shown a reasonable correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Now this is real science- in other words it has objective/ empirical foundations. It is not the science that Mooney seems to prefer- the type that relies on models and probability to set an agenda.
This is swept under the carpet by various elements of the medical profession for the obvious reason that abortion is a sacrosanct right that cannot be disturbed.
How does the sophomoric Mooney treat this information?
I mean he is a researcher, right. He's selling a book that is supposed to cast an objective eye on the travails of the science community in dealing with the political culture.
It gets swept under the covers of the book because Mooney doesn't want to go there. In other words it's easier to beat up on the administration, as it will sell more books than it is to deal with the truth. By the way I couldn't give hoot if a gal had an abortion every hour.
I have made a perfectly reasonable argument in that I agree that the GOP has been problematic with science. However I have shown the problem exists on the other side of the political fence too in equal scoops.
Maybe you have an answer for that, Rich?
Ah yes, the jc version of "we never said Iraq had nuclear weapons" About as impressive.
Jc, the only example of the left abusing science I can find in this thread is Tim's quote of Mooney referring to Greenpeace. If that's not what your comment was in response to, then your argument has no context -- if it's a Congressional war on science, and not just a GOP one, present examples that the Dems are as bad, not just random groups associated with the left.
JC, I'm afraid that I don't buy your theory that there is a conspiracy by scientists to obscure a link between abortion and breast cancer. I'm more inclined to believe the studies that Mooney cites which indicate that the link doesn't exist and that the people saying that there is such a link do so because they are against abortion for religious reasons.
Let me guess ...
The right wingnut site which you read didn't mention that ...
1. The correlation isn't with having an abortion, but rather not having children. Being a nun is as dangerous as having an abortion, in other words. Saying "abortion causes breast cancer" is a horribly misleading interpretation.
2. Carrying a baby to term is not risk-free, indeed it's far more risky than not having children ...
And, of course, if the correlation between not having babies and an increased risk of breast cancer is to believed ...
Then abstinence, which lessens the odds of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy, causes breast cancer, too.
Using your logic, that is, JC.
Oops, I meant "abstinence before marriage" above, in other words the favored lifestyle of abortion-hating fundies ...
Clearly we should ban fundie-favored sex education with its focus on premarital abstinence!
Fundies are killing women, JC, killing women by promoting an increase in the risk of breast cancer!
"In other words it's easier to beat up on the administration, as it will sell more books than it is to deal with the truth." This is too hilarious, this guy is either retarded or 10 years old. which?
#52 Jc said: "The history of GM crops is a good example. Science helping us to increase acreage output along with the accruing environmental benefits". Just what "accruing environmental benefits" are you referring to? If you do a bit of reading you will find that in the majority of places where GM crops have been introduced there has been far more environmental disasters than environmental benefits. Some of these disasters are described below:
Cattle died during an experimental feeding test in Germany. Villagers living next to a BT maize field in Indonesia became sick when the maize flowered. Thousands of Indian farmers committed suicide because they went into debt to buy the "miracle" crop BT cotton which cost more for seeds, more for chemicals and produced a lower yield of an inferior product. Goats and sheep died when allowed to graze on harvested BT cotton fields in India. Large numbers of indigenous farmers forcefully removed from their land in Argentina so large corporate farms could grow GM soy beans. Soils so poisoned by the overuse of herbicides that the indigenous farmers who remained could not grow any crops. High incidence of fusarium head blight in wheat and corn fields which had previously been sprayed with glyphosate (Round up).
Do you need any more examples, Jc? If you do I can give you many more examples where GM crops have not been of benefit to farmers and, in fact, have caused problems to both farmers and the environment.
I have not included any references to these but if you search the gmwatch.org and the Institute of Science in Society (i-sis.org.uk) web sites you will find plenty of comment and references to published papers.
richCares:
In response to your question - can't he be both?
Professor Davis:
Please show where I even mentioned the whalewatchers society. You can't move past go until you acknowledge your lack of comprehension skills.
Forrester:
I agree we should be eating far more organic food and smoke a bong each day.
All these people lost along with death and destruction! Are you sure you haven't got this thread confused with one about Iraq.
Tim says:
"I'm afraid that I don't buy your theory that there is a conspiracy by scientists to obscure a link between abortion and breast cancer."
Well the (US) National Cancer Institute seem to agree.
"I'm more inclined to believe the studies that Mooney cites which indicate that the link doesn't exist and that the people saying that there is such a link do so because they are against abortion for religious reasons."
Really? It was only after serious pressure from the current administration to show a link (as a result of those studies) that it was included...... you have to dig deep though becasue they stuck it in the back of the report.
Now I would have thought those are the types of things Mooney would want to discuss. I guess they weren't models and only showed strong empirical evidence :-)
The National Cancer Institute "... concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer ... newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk."
You need to do better on so many fronts don't you jc? If you didn't presume to so much knowledge in so many disparate fields maybe you could get more of your "facts" and claims right, then go on to victory.
This is what the National Cancer Institute says - no link. Note that early studies were inconsistent and many were flawed - more recent prospective studies with large populations have shown no link. It appears that you are relying on outdated and flawed science, JC.
--
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
Background
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women's histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their "self-report" rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.
#79 Jc said: "Are you sure you haven't got this thread confused with one about Iraq."
The only one who is confused is you. You are confusing your irrational view of the world with scientific facts.
right wing religious nuts (wingnuts) preach a connection to cancer and abortions. so j.c. appently is not just an ignorant right winger, but a wingnut. this explains his views, bet he believe the earth is only 6000 years old, right j.c. ?
(is j.c. for Jesus Christ?)
I was made curious by JC's claim, so I did some looking about the web. There are a LOT of sites that tout a link between abortion and breast cancer. Here is one example:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm
Reading that page, I was struck by the reference dates for the primary studies they cited: 1988, 1981, 1986, 1983.
Gee, I wonder if this reliance only on old, outdated studies is naivete or dishonesty?
BTW, wikipedia has a very good page on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis
The section on recent cohort studies is especially informative.
Lee
Your last link ends in cul de sac.
Onna.
I've haven't been sighted near a church since the last wedding I attended. Stop being an idiot.
Ian Forrester
I'm not irrational. You are. I think GM crops will help a great deal with land reclamation and greater output per acreage. You imply organic farming and a bong a day will get the world's population through to it's next soy meal. It won't dude. Dream on.
there is risk in most things we do. There is risk in getting up and going to work in the morning. You're simply overplaying that nonsensical precationary principle that basically means we never do anything.
Am I the only person here hoping that JC does *not* look both ways before crossing the street?
#86 Jc said: "I think"
Jc by your various ramblings and nonsensical statements you have clearly shown that you are not a member of the "thinking class".
Those who have not previously encountered the Jc phenomenon, and wish to study it further, can find additional data [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/maybe_the_australian_could_emp…)
Something weird happening there, Mr Lambert. But it seems to work now.
You posted a raw url containing underscores. Markdown turns text between underscores into _italics_. I edited your comment to fix it, but you should use markdown or html and post proper links.
"Am I the only person here hoping that JC does not look both ways before crossing the street?"
Is the reason you once told us you work from home, hoggsie that you are very reluctant to walk across the street. Come one , Dude, try it once. I'm sure you'll feel like you actually accomplished something.
OB
you clown, you're linking to a thread where you argued that subsidizing solar panels makes good economic sense. In other words subsidies allow for an efficient allocation of resources.
If you can prove allocative efficiences of subsidies I suggest you write somthing up and get published as it could mean you join the list of our most famous economists. Seriously. you could a million bucks with the Nobel prize.
You know how you guys are always linking Haliburten, Exxon, Mobil, GE, GM , Ford, and every other fotune 500 company to denialists of science.
Now I wonder if you, along with Mooney, have a problem with this. I don't, although it would have been great to have a little disclosure, but Jim Hansen is now on the Soros payroll! Who would ever have thunk it.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
Please show me where I said you mentioned them. I merely pointed out that your response to Tim was a non sequitur; his (quoted) mention of Greenpeace supports your contention that the left abuses science, but not that both sides of the aisle in Congress do (i.e., that there's a "Congressional" war on science rather than a GOP one). Good day, sir; I'm done with this time-wasting on your part.
the stupid guy says "You know how you guys are always linking Haliburten, Exxon, Mobil, GE, GM , Ford, and every other fotune 500 company to denialists of science"
yet in reviewing all these posts there was/is no mention of these companiies. He's a right winger projecting his distortions into these posts. Either Stupid or Retarded or an amzing joker.
Illiterate, obnoxious, remorseless - you could update dictionary definitions of "troll" with the example of Deltoid's fool-in-residence jc and nobody including its mother would complain.
We should all have more entertaining ways to waste our time than this (as I believe Dano and Hank Roberts at least have mentioned before).
Professor Davis:
this is what you wrote
"Last time I checked, Greenpeace is not Congress; hell, I don't think Greenpeace has ever held much weight in DC, no matter who has been running the show."
You bet this is a non sequitur as i never mentioned those pinkos at Whalewatchers Society.
Now you're even confused with your own comments. I hear Omega 3 aids memory loss.
Rich(doesn't)Care
Where did I say anyone mentioned these fine upstanding firms?
I thought you guys would be interested that Jim Hansen is now on the George Soros payroll. I'm sure Chris Mooney would be delighted to know- chomping at the bit- to use this information in his next edit.
Dontcha think?
Frankis:
Don't anything back ok? As your analyst I suggest you scream as loud as you want and let all that pent up anger go. I'm always here for you, you know that.
It's suprising to see all this anger over the simple fact that I mentioned Mooney was too one sided in his criticism: obviously blinded by partisanship. It's regrettable
jc,jc you are a real dummy and a lyer, back up 3 posts and you say "You know how you guys are always linking Haliburten, Exxon, Mobil, GE, GM , Ford, and every other fotune 500 company to denialists of science"
you are an idiot and a lying sack of shit!!!!!!!
no more my comments to you, you are much too stupid
no one should respond to this idiot, if I was in charge he would be banned, so just ignore him (jesus christ) (that's it no more)
Rich
Calm down. It's only a blog, for gawds sake and you're taking things far too seriously.
I should be the last one to do this, but mine are mostly typoes as I am too lazy to edit.
Can i suggest a spelling error in your last missive? It's Liar, not lyer.
There. If there's anything I have taught you through this long thread it's how to spell the word liar.
Wow! JC admits that he's just being a troll, and isn't interested in serious discussion. "It's only a blog!"
Yes, asshole, but many of us are interested in honest, serious, discussion.
But you, you're just a troll. Self-identified as of this post.
Tim - banning's an unpopular thing to do but, when self-identified trolls drop by to disrupt things, why entertain them by allowing them to post?
Hoggsie
Don't be silly. You're always going off the curb.
Look dude, my comment is meant to convey that Rich seems to be taking this all to personally and needs to settle down and take a deep breath.
It's doesn't suggest that i don't take my own views seriously. Of course I do.
Now go try to walk outside. Don't be scared.
all we are stating is that you don't need to continually prove what an idiot you are. we all got that clearly, so just stop making a fool of yourself, you bring nothing to the table, you are a troll and an A___ H____! do your image a favor and go away!
Normally I would delete them, but I'm leaving the comments above as an example of what not to do. Please do not call people names -- it just makes you look bad. JC lost the argument on the facts, but because you called him names and he responded calmly, he ends up looking like a winner.
If you think he is a troll and doesn't really believe the silly things he writes, you should just ignore him.
JC, I see that you've fallen for the latest phoney story from the IBD about James Hansen. A word of advice -- if you get a email from Nigeria offering you a handsome fee to help retrieve millions of dollars that have been tied up somehow, don't respond because it's a scam. IBD editorials are similar.
Well Tim
If it is phony how so? Hansen has never received any contibution from Soros?
I have no issue if that is incorrect. Who says it's wrong?
Hansen is not on Soros' payroll.
"American doctors on the other hand prescribed all sorts of antiinfectives; the disease was clearly some sort of invasion of our sacred bodily borders by sneaky foreign organisms which must be destroyed with a scorched policy, if need be."
To to fair, that's the Japanese national stereotype as well.