Glenn Reynolds can't seem to learn that if he links to JF Beck he will get burnt. He links to Beck because Beck claims to prove that:
Self-proclaimed DDT expert Tim Lambert was wrong, of course, to claim Europeans did not threaten trade sanctions against DDT users.
But all the story that Beck links to says is that a company that sells organic cotton (ie produced without the use of pesticides) rejected cotton after DDT spraying in the area.
Reynolds should have paid attention to what the EU ambassador wrote:
The European Union has no objection to the safe spraying of houses with DDT for malaria control, but it does have concerns about illegal agricultural uses. The E.U., like the United States and 149 other countries that signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001, believes that the use of DDT in agriculture should be phased out.
Nations have the right to use DDT for public health protection, and the convention includes an exemption to allow such uses. It even sets out conditions for the safe use of DDT in malaria control -- a use unlikely to leave residues in crops.
So if there were DDT residues in the cotton, it was because DDT was illegally diverted to agricultural use.
Reynolds might also consider what the Ugandan government says:
The World Health Organisation and the European Union have allowed Uganda to spray the DDT chemical, the water and environment minister [of Uganda] has said.
Ed Darrell has more.
You would have thought even Reynolds could work out that, if a purchaser can choose to accept or reject a shipment, it's unlikely that trade sanctions are in operation.
The original story at the end of the chain of links contains the text:
Over 11,000 farmers in Apac and Oyam districts of Uganda are now stuck with cotton after it was rejected by buyers from the Dutch firm BoWeevil due to DDT spraying in the area.
=====================
Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no reference in that story to DDT residues.
Of course, with modern analytical techniques, one can probably find DDT in almost everything. For example, one can find DDT residues in the antarctic---even though the extensive spraying of DDT on the famous ice cotton crops on Ross Island was discontinued in 1959 because new research showed that there had never been any crop-eating insects in Antarctica.
Chuck
Tim,
This is below your usual high standards. Unless you can read Reynolds' mind, you have no business claiming that he linked to Beck for any reason whatsoever, much less because Beck mentioned you. For those who bother to check, Reynolds' post, in its entirety, reads: "THE HIGH COST OF fighting malaria." Reynolds does not mention you at all.
The obvious reading of these 6 words has nothing to do with you. Reynolds is just implying that the use of DDT in "fighting malaria" led to a "high cost," at least for some farmers in Uganda. I have no idea if this claim is true or false, but you do your credibility little good to mislead the Deltoid community about what Reynolds actually wrote. Note, in particular, how you seem to have misled John Quiggin into thinking that Reynolds made a claim about "trade sanctions" when, in fact, he did not.
I think Quiggin is saying that even Reynolds is smart enough to realize a post with such an obvious error isn't worth linking to. Oh, but speaking of reading someone's mind and putting words in their mouths...
Mr Lambert is making some bitter enemies: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lamberted
Why are they making themselves enemies of Tim Lambert?
He has unsavory dangerous characters like us watching his back.
In all seriousness, they're bitter, and they're enemies, but there's no tie to objective reality.
And David Kane is living down to his usual standards with his analysis. Enough said.
melaleuca,
Bitter and barely literate enemies.
David, I did not mislead the Deltoid community about what Reynolds wrote. My judgement, based on his previous conduct, is that was the reason he linked.
And are you arguing that Reynolds knew that Beck's claim about trade sanctions was incorrect and linked anyway?
Bugger.
I typed 'tintellect'.
And I omitted to include an example or two of usage.
Bugger.
Tim,
I am arguing that a typical reader (like, say, John Quiggan or me) would think that the phrase "because Beck claims to prove that" means that you have some clear reason for thinking that this is why Reynolds linked to the post. When I clicked on the link to Reynolds, I expected (given your description) that his post would be something like, "Lambert still wrong on DDT" or whatever, something which tied you into the story explicitly. That was my honest expectation, that you would have direct evidence that Reynolds was linking because you were mentioned.
Now, you could be right that this is why Reynolds linked. I can't read his mind either. And, if you had just said "probably because" rather than just "because," you would be making clear that this was your best guess and you could be wrong.
So, clearly, I am quibbling. But I think that you like to get the details correct and, in this case, you did not.
When I (or Reynolds or you) link to a post, we are not necessarily endorsing every single thing in that post. I link to you on Lancet issues even though there are many things (?) that we disagree with. When I (or anyone) links to a post, the convention is to make clear in the wording around the link, what aspect of the post I am noting or agreeing with or disagreeing with.
So, when Reynolds wrote, "THE HIGH COST OF fighting malaria," the obvious deduction is that he thinks that the linked to material provides evidence on this topic. He might be wrong. He might be right. But, given Beck's description, the most reasonable interpretation is that using DDT (which Reynolds/Beck equate with "fighting malaria") increases the odds that your export goods (cotton, in this case) will have trouble finding a buyer (that is the "HIGH COST"). Isn't this the most obvious interpretation?
Again, this could be completely wrong. The underlying news story could be a fantasy. I have no idea. But, by linking, Reynolds is no more endorsing Beck's usage of the phrase "trade sanctions" than I am.
David,
I'm not going to argue with your quibble about mind-reading, but you may not be aware that Reynolds is famous for his passive-aggressive methods. Linking "without necessarily endorsing" is his favourite method of promoting nonsense. Are you aware of the "Disturbing, if true" catchphrase?
"...the most reasonable interpretation is that using DDT ... increases the odds that your export good ... will have trouble finding a buyer ... Isn't this the most obvious interpretation?"
Given that organic cotton represents ~1% of the global cotton market, not so much.
"...using DDT (which Reynolds/Beck equate with "fighting malaria")..."
So an argument whose fundamental premise is based on a fallacy of equivocation is reasonable, how?
As the source article says, alternative methods are available.
David, I do have some clear reason for thinking that was the reason why he linked. Try clicking on the first link in my post.
If I link to a post that contains a significant error, I like to warn my readers about it so as avoid misleading them.
David Kane started:
David, neither you nor John are 'typical' readers. Additionally, your non-typicality is very different to John's...
Replace 'linking' with 'posting' - et voilà ! - the kernel for a new thread.
I think everybody in blogreality has an obligation to accuracy so far as we can make things accurate. If Reynolds wished to express some problem with Beck's post, he would have needed to say so. Otherwise, he's merely pimping for Beck.
Which is what I think Reynolds was doing. Reynolds should have a better grasp of how evidence works, as a lawyer.
Tim writes:
Good to know! So, is it fair to conclude from this post that you think my paper on confidence intervals for L1 does not contain a "significant error?" I agree! Which one of us gets to tell Robert Chung?
Now, of course, I am being a bit snarky here. Just because you link to my paper does not mean that you endorse it. And I agree that you "like to" point out errors. I do too. And so does Reynolds. The issue is: Does linking necessarily imply that one agrees with all the linked material? In your (and my and Reynold's) case, the answer is No.
Now, it is certainly true that Reynolds is critical of you (and you of him). And, if you want to assume that anytime Reynolds links to something which mentions you it is because the linked piece is critical of you, then fine. Assume what you like. Yet, having seen Reynolds link to other DDT material (I think) that makes no mention of you, it seems perfectly plausible that he would have linked to the Beck post even if it did not mention you. Unless you can read his mind, you don't know either.
My point is that I found your link misleading. It is also fairly clear that John Quiggan was misled by your claim. Unless you want to mislead your readers, you should have said "probably because" rather than "because." Again, this is a quibble, but you have always struck me as someone who wants to get the details correct.