Denialists' Deck of Cards

Lead Industry & the Deck of Cards

choofnagle — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:08:43 +0000

Lead Industry & the Deck of Cards

Helen Epstein has an interesting review of Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner, in the current New York Review of Books. The review is worth reading to better understand the public policy problem of lead in products and the environment. But I cannot help but point out that the article could be used to provide more footnotes to the Denialists' Deck of Cards:

... The lead companies also paid scientists who produced flawed studies casting doubt on the link between lead exposure and child health problems. When University of Pittsburgh professor Herbert Needleman first showed that even children with relatively modest lead levels tended to have lower intelligence and more behavioral problems than their lead-free peers, some of these industry-backed researchers claimed that his methods were sloppy and accused him of scientific misconduct (he has since been exonerated).

The companies also hired a public relations firm to influence stories in The Wall Street Journal and other conservative news outlets, which characterized Needleman as part of a leftist plot to increase government spending on housing and other social programs...

choofnagle Thu, 03/07/2013 - 13:08

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

Here Comes the Downturn Denialism

choofnagle — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:19:59 +0000

Here Comes the Downturn Denialism

We have not played with the Denialists' Deck of Cards for some time! Let's pick them up again, because the economic downturn gives all sorts of businesses the opportunity to play the "Bear Market" card.

Stephen Power brings it in today's Wall Street Journal:

"We know something needs to be done [to cut emissions], but we've got to get the economy on its feet before we do something economically irrational," said Mike Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co. of Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Morris and other executives fear lawmakers will use revenue from pollution permits to pay down the federal deficit.

"The likelihood that they would try to take these revenues for other purposes, particularly in an economic downturn, is great," says James Rogers, chief executive of North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corp.

Do not feel so bad for these guys, because when the markets are up, they play "Bull Market." If the market is doing well, you should not mess with success.

choofnagle Thu, 10/16/2008 - 04:19

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

Wow. Yep, from reading the article it seems clear that many industrialists feel NEVER is a good time to spend money on researching/implementing alternative fuel sources and clean emissions.

I really wonder about industrialists complaining about spending money on emissions control. Haven't they thought about not spending so much money on fuel?

Slippery tricksy bastards they are. It's like they've got the game rigged.

(Looks at the Abramoff scandal and the abject failure of McCain-Feingold. Looks at the name of "McCain-Feingold".)

Oh.

You know, I've noticed one card that is still missing from your deck: the "Disgruntled Former Associate".

As in, "That person is not a brave whistleblower, risking their reputation to blow the cover on rampant corruption in the industry. They're a disgruntled former employee/business partner/spouse! They're just acting on a grudge and can't be trusted!"

I'm sure you could word it much better. Regardless, I've seen this quite often (it's a standard tactic businesses use to discredit former employees who try to expose their questionable business practices).

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

denialism — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:29:50 +0000

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

I'm flattered that Pandagon liked our post on a terrible ad campaign for diamonds.

But if Amanda thought that was bad, she should see some of the latest "reason" coming from our libertarian friends at Cato. David Boaz writes a post for Cato entitled "All Those Who'd Like to Live in Rwanda, Vietnam, or Cuba, Raise Your Hands" in response to a Parade article complaining about the lack of female representatives in Congress:

Parade magazine frets:

In the current U.S. Congress, women account for only 16.3% of the members: 16 of 100 in the Senate and 71 of 435 in the House of Representatives. Eighty-four nations have a greater percentage of female legislators than the U.S., including our neighbors Mexico and Canada, as well as Rwanda, Vietnam and Cuba.

It's not exactly clear that legislatures with more women produce better government. So why, then, as Parade notes, does the United States demand that emerging democracies have gender quotas that we would never accept in our own politics?

After the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the United States made sure that when those two countries held elections, 25% of the seats in their legislatures would be reserved for women.

So what do we think people? Stupid? Sexist? Both?

No one in their right mind would read the quoted paragraph from Parade and make the idiotic leap that they were suggesting those governments are better. In fact, it's a sign of how pathetic it is that our government lacks women that these governments we consider repressive still manage to surpass us in female representation. It's a little bit like being behind Alabama in adult literacy. Gender quotas, further, are necessary to prevent countries that have deep problems with female equality from oppressing 50% of their population.

Why is Boaz playing stupid with us? He knows full well the purpose and reasoning in both cases. Is there no better argument sexists can use for the promotion of the status quo than the "duh" card?

It is pathetic we don't have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women's suffrage, we still don't have anything approaching equal representation in government. We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women's health, and not men's we've got a problem. When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we've got a huge problem. When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we've got a ridiculous problem. Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don't have to dumb it down even more.

denialism Wed, 12/19/2007 - 15:29

Tags

CATO

Denialists' Deck of Cards

The more I see of certain libertarians, the more I think that the only "rights" they're concerned with are those of white, male business owners.

Not all libertarians, of course, but still.

You just don't understand Libertarianism, Mark! It's about the princpiple of the thing! So what if our policies result in poverty, unhappiness, crime and oppression? It's the goddamn principle of the thing!

"David Boaz..."

You misspelled "Bozo"...!

It is a travesty that there aren't more women in US government. What I wonder though it this, what is the ratio of women running for office versus men? I would bet that far, far fewer women run. And I think that thats what needs to be addressed first, that there are a lot of women out there who don't think that it's not a womans place* to be in the government or have similar attitudes. And like so many other things I think education is the key.

But I don't think quotas are the answer. From the admittedly limited experience I have with them they tend to ensure diversity, sure, but at the cost of competence in many cases.

"So what do we think people? Stupid? Sexist? Both?"

I vote for willfully obtuse. Sexist they may be (I haven't read enough of their stuff to judge) and possibly stupid, but it seems that they misunderstood on purpose.

*I want to appolgize for even using that phrase, I hate it no matter what accident of birth (race, gender, orientation) it is applied to. But it's the only one I could think of that got the appropriate attitude across.

The reason for making sure women are well-represented in Afghanistan and Iraq is no different from making sure all the ethnic groups are well-represented. The reason for this should be obvious to anyone with half a brain (which leaves out the Cato Institute, I suppose).

To spell it out: especially given the treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan, it is vital that women have a role in how their society is set up. Afghanistan's infrastructure is a mess precisely because the Taliban were preventing trained women doctors, teachers, etc. from doing anything but faffing about in a black puptent all day.

More "enlightened" societies like ours can do without such quotas because legislatures aren't going to do insane crap like locking all women in bunkers 100 feet underground or forcing all Hispanics to eat ten pounds of bananas every day.

of course you have to dumb it down. you have to dumb it down for people like this pollyanna who seem to think that just because someone expresses bigoted views outside of the workplace they can magically set them aside when making workplace decisions.

From " Wikipedia"
"Deary et al. (2003) performed an analysis of an IQ test administered to almost all children in Scotland at age 11 in 1932 (>80,000).[14] The average IQ scores by sex were 100.64 for girls and 100.48 for boys. The difference in mean IQ was not significant. However, the standard deviation was 14.1 for girls and 14.9 for boys. This difference was statistically significant. In the sample studied, 49.6% are girls and 50.4% are boys. Because of the difference in variance between the sexes, however, girls are in excess by 2% in the middle IQ range of 90115. At the extreme IQ ranges, 5060 and 130140, boys make up 58.6% and 57.7% of the population (gaps of 17.2% and 15.4%) respectively. That is, boys were overrepresented amongst the lowest and highest IQ groups. It is generally observed that males tend to hit the most positive and negative performance results of many tests."
Given that the tendency is to vote for more intelligent candidates on the average, there is an automatic bias towards electing males. Add to that the fact that
women are biologically different than men, and put a much greater effort into raising children, and you'll get substantially fewer women entering politics than that 57-43 ratio would indicate. While males are working on advancing their careers starting in their 20's, most women put some effort into raising children. Spending less time in the work force, that puts them at an additional competitive disadvantage in the workplace. When running for office, males will usually have an overwhelming advantage in experience, another factor in selecting candidates.- Alan McIntire

Alan, seriously off topic, but really, is that your argument? I'm wondering if we should give Alan a chance to retract out of kindness, or say that was a joke.

Given that the tendency is to vote for more intelligent candidates on the average

What country do you live in, and how does one go about moving there?

There's not much to say to someone like MarkH, who makes ridiculing remarks rather than concrete arguments.

Maybe MartinM habitually votes for stupid politicians, but he's an exception. Most members of the federal legislature, and majorities in state legislatures, are lawyers by profession. The average IQ of lawyers is around 127, so obviously elected politicians are more intelligent than the average American.

Ok Alan. Don't say I didn't warn you, I gave you a full opportunity to say that was a joke and instead you persist, so here goes:

To restate your argument, you are asserting that a functional difference in IQ is what is responsible for the differential representation of women in congress. Correct? Boys occupy the extremes, and those at the high range will end up being overrepresented in government etc. I think that is a fair summary.

Why is this a remarkably stupid argument? Well for one, as mentioned in the CATO article, multiple countries have better representation of women, including our neighbor Canada. Is that because foreign women are smarter? Is it because their governments elect people based on different criteria? Of course not. You argument doesn't even make it out of the gate. No one is doubting that politicians come from a higher-educated set of people, but the idea that a 0.6% variance in the standard deviation between men in women will result in a 9:1 ratio of men to women in government is absurd.

The fundamental error in your analysis, and it really is a pathetic one, is that it makes two false assumptions. (1) It assumes the choice between two candidates for office will go to the one with the higher IQ. Certainly with presidential politics this has not been the case. I think you would have to show me data to prove your assertion that in a competition between two people that on average it goes to the smarter. (2) The difference between males and females, if it exists, is so slight as it could hardly explain a 9:1 ratio of men to women in congress, or whatever it is now. It is frankly a frighteningly stupid point to make, I'm really sorry to say, to grasp at such a minor difference and suggest that the very smartest women and the very smartest men go head to head, and because of a 0.6% difference in standard deviation of IQ, in head-to-head matches (which aren't happening that often) women are losing out.

So to sum up, your argument makes no sense for three reasons. It is falsified by the experience of women in other countries, including close neighbors with similar population dynamics and genetic background. It is falsified based on the mistaken assumption that in political competitions the smarter candidates win more frequently (I think the opposite is likely). It is falsified by the tendency of cream to rise to the top, we're not talking about huge numbers of people competing for these positions, it's not an averages problem at all.

When one listens to the media coverage over Hillary you hear these jackasses ask questions like "Is America Ready for a Female President?" as if we should be worried she'll menstruate all over the constitution. I'm pretty sure Hillary is postmenopausal anyway, but the fundamental problem is sexism. Women aren't winning because they aren't smarter (I mean, have you met some of the idiots in congress?), they're not even running because they're seen as nonviable by a population that thinks women belong in the home, pregnant and cooking dinner.

I was not being facetious, I honestly thought that argument was a joke, and if not, you should be embarrassed by it.

"(1) It assumes the choice between two candidates for office will go to the one with the higher IQ." I didn't say ALWAYS, I said on the AVERAGE. People will pick the candidate who most closely mirrors their own political positions, but on the average, they'll tend to pick the more intelligent candidate.

"Certainly with presidential politics this has not been the case. "

Most politicians are not presidential candidates. I didn't say ALWAYS, I said on the average. I think you'd agree that most presidents were much more intelligent than the average American.

"(2) The difference between males and females, if it exists, is so slight as it could hardly explain a 9:1 ratio of men to women in congress, or whatever it is now. It is frankly a frighteningly stupid point to make, I'm really sorry to say, to grasp at such a minor difference and suggest that the very smartest women and the very smartest men go head to head, and because of a 0.6% difference in standard deviation of IQ.."
14.9/14.1 is a 5.67% difference in standard deviation, not
0.6%- you were off by a factor of 9.

"I think you would have to show me data to prove your assertion that in a competition between two people that on average it goes to the smarter."

If it didn't, the average intelligence of national office holders would be no greater than the average intelligence of city councilmen. You may generally vote for relatively stupid people, but most people don't.

"(2) The difference between males and females, if it exists, is so slight as it could hardly explain a 9:1 ratio of men to women in congress, or whatever it is now."

That would result in a 60-40 difference.

I said there were other factors, like experience. Women bear children, which puts them out of the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Women who have children have less seniority in the work force than men. People ALSO make selections based on experience, and men, on the AVERAGE, have more experience.

A third factor is MONEY. When you consider national politics, you've got to be wealthy to run. Wealth is related to IQ, and you're probably looking at the top 0.1% of the population in wealth when you're considering national office holders. Again, women who bear children are going to have less income on the average than men.

As the folks at CATO would say, nobody is holding a gun to women's heads forcing them not to run for office. Any
difference in the proportions of the sexes is due to the
factors of intelligence, and those biological factors which limit women's relative income and experience.

Look at lesser offices, like city councils, and I'm sure you'll find a somewhat larger proportion of women in office.- A. McIntire

Any
difference in the proportions of the sexes is due to the
factors of intelligence, and those biological factors which limit women's relative income and experience.

Well, you keep on harping on the averages but you're still operating on a false assumption. Studies of what defines a political leader show that people do not respond to intelligence. Oddly enough, what people respond most to is the ability to lie, which is perceived as charisma. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Show me this data that suggests even on the average more intelligent people win elections, maybe then I'd start to believe your argument. And in the end we're talking about very minor differences between men and women on a test, these do not demonstrate the big differences.

Second you are continually dismissive of the point that other countries elect women in far greater numbers than ours. Canada for instance. Does the intelligence gap stop at the border? Of course not.

I might buy the money argument, there are more men at the top of businesses and companies, although that is changing. It might just be a lag in time. But to say that money is an indication of intelligence, ha! Paris Hilton begs to differ. Excess wealth has a stultifying influence on intelligence and ambition. The entrepreneurs that make the money might be bright (more likely criminal, as they say behind all great wealth is a great crime), but wealth itself is not going to track with the peaks of intelligence. In fact I would say that the opposite is likely. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the smartest students in college or professional schools are not the business students. Much of the time intelligent people choose careers that are a financial disincentive.

Further, I am disturbed by this continual assertion that the way things are is because of innate factors and qualities of people. Are blacks inferior too because they are more likely to be poor and are underrepresented? Or are we going to acknowledge that social factors have retarded the progress of groups like minorities and women for centuries? It's very easy to sit at the top and say that things are the way they are because that's the way god intended, but it ignores the many ways people are exceedingly disadvantaged by minority status or female sex by society. Try educating yourself in SE DC sometime, or succeeding in the face of a decades-old old-boys network. We only desegregated schools about 4 decades ago, and at many universities, racial desegregation proceeded coeducation. The bigger problems are social, not the 0.6% variance on an IQ test, hardly the best or most objective measure of ambition, creativity, or success.

In Canada the upper house has 105 members compared to the US 100, the lower house has 308 compared to the US 435.

The populaton of Canada is about 10% of the US population, so each member of the upper house represents on average about 10% as many people as a US senator. Each member of the lower house represents about 435/308 * 10%, or about
1/7 as many people as the US. Women make up 65/308 = 21% of Canada's house, 70/435= 16% in the US. House, and 14% in the Senate. Once you factor in the fact that each American house candidate has to spend about 7 times as much as his or her Canadian counterpart to ensure the message gets to all voters, the 21 -16% difference is not that significant. The Canadian Senate is not comparable to the other 3, because that's an appointive rather than an elective office- A. McIntire

Toxins!

denialism — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:29:07 +0000

Toxins!

I'd love to see what the angry toxicologist thinks of this scary article from CNN Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies.

Michelle Hammond and Jeremiah Holland were intrigued when a friend at the Oakland Tribune asked them and their two young children to take part in a cutting-edge study to measure the industrial chemicals in their bodies.

"In the beginning, I wasn't worried at all; I was fascinated," Hammond, 37, recalled.

But that fascination soon changed to fear, as tests revealed that their children -- Rowan, then 18 months, and Mikaela, then 5 -- had chemical exposure levels up to seven times those of their parents.

"[Rowan's] been on this planet for 18 months, and he's loaded with a chemical I've never heard of," Holland, 37, said. "He had two to three times the level of flame retardants in his body that's been known to cause thyroid dysfunction in lab rats."

Oh noes! The toxins!

I kid, but in the midst of an article which is a bit over-the-top in scaremongering are some important issues that probably should result in increased regulation of chemicals going into everyday products. For one, Elizabeth Whelan of the ACSH, true to form, spouts the standard industry denial - no problem:

Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, a public health advocacy group, disagrees.

"My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false," she said. Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks.

Public health advocacy group? The ACSH? Please. Try instead, an industry can do no wrong advocacy group. While I agree that trace measurements of most of these chemicals is likely not a health problem, that doesn't mean there is "no problem".

The main problem here are the standards by which the EPA regulates chemicals which are routinely going into household products:

The Environmental Protection Agency does not require chemical manufacturers to conduct human toxicity studies before approving their chemicals for use in the market. A manufacturer simply has to submit paperwork on a chemical, all the data that exists on that chemical to date, and wait 90 days for approval.

Jennifer Wood, an EPA spokeswoman, insists the agency has the tools to ensure safe oversight.

"If during the new-chemical review process, EPA determines that it may have concerns regarding risk or exposure, the EPA has the authority to require additional testing," she said. EPA records show that of the 1,500 new chemicals submitted each year, the agency asks for additional testing roughly 10 percent of the time. The EPA has set up a voluntary testing program with the major chemical manufacturers to retroactively test some of the 3,000 most widely used chemicals.

Now, this makes sense in the context of our understanding of toxicity before more sensitive methods of testing for these chemicals in the body emerged. When these rules were formulated it simply was not understood that low-level environmental exposure to many chemicals would lead to small amounts being absorbed, ingested, inhaled, etc., by the body. While it's not clear that any level of these chemicals should be a concern for health, it simply isn't acceptable now that we know they eventually get ingested to treat them as benign and harmless as a default. At the very least it needs to be made clear to consumers exactly what they're buying, but even that isn't really enough, as the woman in the article complains:

"I'm angry at my government for failing to regulate chemicals that are in mass production and in consumer products." Hammond says. "I don't think it should have to be up to me to worry about what's in my couch."

This is a very reasonable complaint. It is simply not possible for an average or even extremely above-average consumer to understand the impact of all these chemicals in ordinary household products even if they were informed of the content. Instead there simply must be more significant advanced safety testing, labeling, and retrospective testing, with the costs incumbent on the industry, for chemicals that ultimately end up in our bloodstreams. It is fundamentally unfair to expect consumers to tolerate chemical contaminants in their bodies, without being informed, given consent, or being minimally protected by toxicity and safety testing in animals.

denialism Wed, 10/24/2007 - 03:29

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

environmentalism

medicine

Also troubling is whatever testing is required never looks at the additive or synergistic toxic effects of chemicals used simultaneously.

The estrogenic activity of plasticizers comes to mind.

MarkH say "Public health advocacy group? The ACSH? Please. Try instead, an industry can do no wrong advocacy group. While I agree that trace measurements of most of these chemicals is likely not a health problem, that doesn't mean there is "no problem"."

Should this not be a card in your denialism book of cards, the ad hominem attack card? It goes sometime like this "sure Dr. so and sos research shows that passive smoking causes no smoking related diseases in never smokers, however, the research was partially funding by big tobacco." The implication is that the finding has no merit because of the funding source and we all no what liars big tobacco it. This is also a denialist tactic. Above you are using it to discredit the ACSH and Dr. Elisabeth Whelan. ACSH states that they accept industry funding when no strings are attached which makes up 40% of their funding. Dr Whelan responds to the attacks on her that are similar to yours here:

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1628/healthissue_detail.asp

So you are making ad hominem attacks, like the denialists, to discredit statements or research findings you do not agree with based simply on who funded them. Let's face it much research done by the medical community is funded by BigPharma and other bias sources. Why should we accept research based on those funding sources after all Big Pharma has their bottom line to protect? Boy you have problem claiming others use denialists tactics, but then use them yourself when it suits your needs.

"the ad hominem attack card... The implication is that the finding has no merit because of the funding source... Above you are using it to discredit the ACSH and Dr. Elisabeth Whelan... you are making ad hominem attacks, like the denialistï¿½s, to discredit statements or research findings you do not agree with based simply on who funded them."

That's quite a rant you got going on there, Dan. Unfortunately for you, while Mark's offhanded dismissal of the ACSH is something of an ad hominem, that doesn't make it fallacious or incorrect. In case you're too lazy to google it, here's a fairly representative explanation:

there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements... made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question

The fact that ASCH gets almost HALF of it's funding from industry shows that it has a very strong incentive to misrepresent factual data (this means LIE, Dan - they have a strong motive to LIE). Combine this with their long history of siding with/defending the industry position on virtually every single issue they have ever advocated for and you've got a good indicator that they are not, in fact, a "Public health advocacy group" but actually more like an "industry can do no wrong advocacy group."

And whaddaya know?! That's exactly what Mark said

I'm sorry, that's the kind of statement I should have backed-up by a post and it was dismissive. I didn't expect it to actually have any fans. One of the major goals of this blog is to explain which sources of information are viable and should be listened to (and in which contexts). ACSH is quite simply an industry shill group with a great deal of history confirming this. I'll have to write about it sometime.

Ah, Ken, then you agree with my "rant". You say "Unfortunately for you, while Mark's offhanded dismissal of the ACSH is something of an ad hominem, that doesn't make it fallacious or incorrect." but the same can be said of the ACSH and does not take away from my statements that MarkH is using denialist tactics. You are seem to support the statements that research funded by BigPharma, the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, etc are not to be trusted because they have incentive to LIE. BigPharma expects the research they fund to match their financial interests while the others finance studies that advance their political agendas. Where is the difference? You seem to be making my point. Based on his statements above, it appears MarkH sees he was playing with his own deck of cards.

Jesus Dan, give me a bit of time. I've only had this blog running for 6 months and I can't be expected to thoroughly research and debunk all kinds of crankery and fake experts in that time.

Especially with regards to ACSH which is a particularly sophisticated group. They're smart enough to disguise the ideological basis of many arguments in a lot of truthful attacks on junk science. All I can do at this point is say
"trust me", and wait until I inevitably take them on.

What I will say, before I have time to do a full post on them, is that they've raised the hackles of many skeptics based on their opinions on threats to consumers. While they've disguised these pro-industry positions with many reasonable attacks on false health scares, the overarching goal clearly seems to be the willingness to defend industry against any attack (with the sole exception of tobacco).

I'm going to wait until there's a more timely and critical example of their dishonesty, then it should be clear. Until then, please be a little charitable and accept that I've got some expertise on crankery and fake expert groups and am not just attacking them based on an ideological agenda. After all, I did agree with the statement in this case, except I disagreed with the implication of the statement.

MarkH I will give you the time and opportunity to support your position. My point being that you are seemingly also using your own deck of cards when convenient. I see ACSH as being a voice of reason with all this health scare mongering going on in the press. Call me a skeptic or call me a denialist. It is sometimes hard to tell the difference. I did take the time to read what wikipedia had to say (yes I am aware of your posts regarding wikipedia) about ACSH and the post seems to support your position.

One farther comment. There is another person posting under the alias Dan here. The difference being I include my URL.

"Jesus Dan, give me a bit of time. I've only had this blog running for 6 months and I can't be expected to thoroughly research and debunk all kinds of crankery and fake experts in that time."

Yeah, we know: I haven't the evidence yet, but I think it's coming in on the next pony express and I'll get back to you.

"Especially with regards to ACSH which is a particularly sophisticated group. They're smart enough to disguise the ideological basis of many arguments in a lot of truthful attacks on junk science. All I can do at this point is say
"trust me", and wait until I inevitably take them on."

Yeah, we know: I haven't the evidence yet, but I think it's coming in on the next pony express and I'll get back to you.

You're arguing like an ignorant twit. Why the hell don't you just close up shop and take up basket weaving? What a pathetic attempt at self-justification!

Trust you? Why should we when you're obviously running on ideological juices and even more obviously don't have the faintest idea what in the hell you're talking about?

Jeez, what a creep.
.

Such hostility?

I wonder what ideology I'm being accused of today. Am I being a neocon? A materialist atheist? A whackjob liberal? I seem to be a Rorschach test, I am apparently the opposing ideology of whoever doesn't like their BS challenged.

Anti-science doesn't have a conservative or liberal bias. Everybody has their BS. So I get accused of it all.

As far as ACSH, the sourcewatch page should tide you over until, as I say, I have a chance to demonstrate the problem with that group. Very quickly, they have cleverly created the appearance of an independent group, but by largely selecting scientists with an industry bent, and frankly, knowing where their money comes from, they should not be trusted. They have many crank experts working for them that I wouldn't trust for a minute at the same time they have highly legitimate folks that I know.

The result is an all-purpose fake consumer group that, as you can see in this article, will automatically take the side of industry and say "no problem" when clearly a problem exists.

Sorry it took so long to comment There really shouldn't even be an argument about ASCH, they are a joke. As to Mark's comment:

Instead there simply must be more significant advanced safety testing, labeling, and retrospective testing, with the costs incumbent on the industry, for chemicals that ultimately end up in our bloodstreams. It is fundamentally unfair to expect consumers to tolerate chemical contaminants in their bodies, without being informed, given consent, or being minimally protected by toxicity and safety testing in animals.

That's exactly right. How can we give someone the right to pump my body (and my kids) full of chemicals with out my consent and have no idea whether it's safe or not. With this situation, I have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I got sick from their chemical. A rediculous situation if you ask me.

Whoops. I guess I screwed up the link above. It should go to my post about ACSH here.

The second should go here.

Wiley Miller on think tanks

denialism — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:06:44 +0000

Wiley Miller on think tanks

I'm loving the Non Sequiturs about Danae setting up her think tank.

I think Wiley must be reading the blog. Stop lurking and show yourself!

denialism Wed, 10/03/2007 - 05:06

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

Wasting your time

Not just for think tanks, but I find the following extremely useful in evaluating the culture/principles/ethics of any organization:

Compare:
-- What an organization says it values compared to what it actually values
-- What an organization says it does compared to what it actually does
-- What an organization actually does compared to what it actually values

From: Patterson, J. & Kelehear, Z. (2003). Lessons about culture from NASAï¿½s experience. The School Administrator, 60 (11), 35.

A fourth comparison might well be: What an organization doesn't do that should be a logical follow on to its stated values.

Have you seen this piece by Philip Meyer of UNC Chapel Hill?

In the age of the Internet, mere transmission no longer adds value to information. The way to add value to the surplus of data is to process it to help the reader select it and make sense of it. That requires interpretation, and interpretation requires objectivity in the scientific sense. I call this objectivity of method as opposed to the he-said/she-said objectivity of result. In other words, journalists should act more like scientists: collect information, look for patterns, construct a theory, and then provide an objective test of the theory. Objectivity in this sense means asking a question of the data in a way that will protect you from being fooled by the answer.

Journalism, like science, is tentative in its conclusions. It should be as transparent as science, leaving a paper trail of data that other investigators can retrace and arrive at the same or better conclusions.

The reporters who bought the White House line on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not being objective investigators. They were just parroting their sources, fearful of alienating them. Thats stenography, not reporting. Correspondents in the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau got the story right because, not having a Washington outlet, they were not in a symbiotic relationship with the official sources and had to use shoe leather to seek out the working stiffs in government and the military. Objective inquiry, not advocacy, made their effort successful.

Journalism, like science, is tentative in its conclusions. It should be as transparent as science, leaving a paper trail of data that other investigators can retrace and arrive at the same or better conclusions.

And how does this transparency occur, what with the anonymous sourcing so common across the board in political media? (Disclaimer: I appreciate the anonymity of the blurgs, but what insane person is going to base anything important on anonymous blurg comments?)

Who here couldn't call bullshit on Judith Miller? Who was responsible for sacking Donahue for "poor ratings"? I mean sh*t, Donahue was on the telly, with guests and all, that we could eyeball -- and that was pretty dang transparent relative to the daily NYT and WaPo drumbeat. I WISH we could blame the Washington Times or World Nut Daily, but it weren't them.

There's a basic fallacy here -- that journalism is interested in doing its work transparently. One would assume that getting the objective information out would be effective, but why would it be effective for AGW? Do we assume that conflict and yelling isn't interesting? For example, if we look at the political
tag-teaming that went full-bore prior to the war; they weren't interested in having the cards fall where they may and neither will AGW counteradvocates. I mean, there's a cohesive groundwork that's laid out, and then the follow up "news" stories just land into the ready made bed with a soft, cushioned pffft.

Correspondents in the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau got the story right [...] Objective inquiry, not advocacy, made their effort successful.

Pfew. If it wasn't for those guys we would have fell ass backwards right into a Vietnam type quagmire. Good thing they were successful.

I saw this one today in the Targum and I immediately thought about this blog. Are you sure the authors aren't lifting material from you?

DEI --- Danae Enterprise Institute

"Thats stenography, not reporting."

I've heard reporters defend this, as they're afraid they'd be labeled Editorials by saying something different.

Ridiculous is what it is.

Two new cartoons:

4 Oct
5 Oct

A cartoon summary of the Denialist Deck of Cards

denialism — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:03:11 +0000

A cartoon summary of the Denialist Deck of Cards

PZ has found this wonderful cartoon that I think sums up the problem nicely.

Danae should go to work for AEI or Cato!

denialism Tue, 10/02/2007 - 07:03

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

I read that cartoon every day! It's definitely one of the best on the net (that I've come across). The one for today is a followup of the one you posted and is just as good.

Re: surgeons !
Med students may not have enough respect for the darker side of physicians. Ridicule in any form, even polite, can result in punishment that may never be traced to the origin. Hopefully, he is using a pseudonym, to avoid that problem? I was taught that lesson "in Spades" when I reported the gross negligence of some doctors- which resulted in the cardiac arrest (and unknown amount of brain damage) of a healthy 16y/o boy who was being prepped for a "hydrocoele repair". My punishment was NOT related to my report, it came a little later, for other "good" reasons (which exist for each and every student! if someone wants to use them).

- Mel

Denialist Deck Applied: PRISM

denialism — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:31:48 +0000

Denialist Deck Applied: PRISM

It's that time again. Bora's got the scoop on this new organization PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine). They purport to be the saviors of scientific publishing, protecting us from the evil of open access. But how much do you want to bet they're the same old industry lobbying group, disguising themselves as actors in the public interest? Well, there's an easy way to tell. Let's apply the deck of cards!

There's not a lot to work with yet, but I think we've got some classics to go after right away. After all, we have an industry group - the publishers - who are trying to avoid being regulated so that they're forced to open up publicly-funded research to the public (after a delay). Let's start with their frontmatter:

* undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it;

Undermining peer-review! Commercial journals can't compete with open access! That sounds like:

* opening the door to scientific censorship in the form of selective additions to or omissions from the scientific record;

Now this is just utter BS. I have no idea where they manage to get this idea that forcing open-access will lead to censorship, but I can't help thinking this sounds like:

* subjecting the scientific record to the uncertainty that comes with changing federal budget priorities and bureaucratic meddling with definitive versions; and

Well this one is easy:

Going through the Prism Principles I found more fodder for the cards. We have

* Scientific knowledge should incorporate new research as part of the scholarly record based on merit alone-not tradition, ideology, or political expediency. Society is best served when the pursuit of scientific knowledge takes place in an environment of intellectual freedom-where objectivity and independence are guaranteed, and where published expression is protected from governmental or other controls, and is free of censorship or bias.

* Scientific knowledge must be documented and preserved in perpetuity, free of alteration, political or ideological pressures, or the threat of uncertain funding.

* Research funding is best spent on new and important research studies, and should leverage rather than duplicate the valuable publishing infrastructure built over decades by private sector publishers working in partnership with the research community.

I know that one:

* Society is best served by sustainable business models and reasonable copyright protections that provide positive incentives for publishers to continue innovating in their distribution of scientific knowledge, investment in peer review, and exploration of preservation technologies.

* The free market of scholarly publishing is dynamic and competitive, responsive to the needs of scholars and scientists, and balances the interests of all stakeholders in making research widely available. It encourages publishing innovation and diversity, and should remain free from government mandates that favor particular business models.

Nope, not impressed with PRISM. Seems like the classic industry lobbying tactics applied to protect publishers' profits against a business model they can't compete with. No real substance here, just a plea for government protection of their business model.

denialism Tue, 08/28/2007 - 04:31

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

Fake Experts

Science

This is why we love the deck of cards! It makes it so nice and clear (and pretty!).

I love the deck. Perhaps I am naieve but I think that the way to go is something the ACS model where you can have open access but the author has to pay for it. Comparatively, this is a pretty small fee to throw into a grant application.

I think that the censorship comes from the idea that if publishers would have to start living on ad revenue they would be beholden to those who put up the money. Not sure, but it's still probably a red herring, the rest of the media lives on ad revenue too, with few problems.

In no particular order.

They also claim they are working hard to make papers available (but how hard can it be?) under the current NIH voluntary system: 10S Self Regulation.

Then there's the expropriation of copyright: AC Our Rights.

The 'Myth vs Fact' page: "(PRISM) is committed to challenging key misconceptions about scholarly publishing as put forth by those who simply do not know the facts": 10H You Don't Understand Us.

One angle I'm surprised not to see is that open access would also allow non-US taxpayers (and non-taxpayers generally) to access research free - that's got to be Danger (KS) and Unamerican (AH). The threat of junk science is pretty much a danger cry in itself.

In my little corner of the research world our researchers have 4 main field specific journals. One of them is OA and was started about 5 years ago. It has done quite well although most of the work is not very patient oriented (although I am in a very patient oriented -- translational field). I am pushing hard for our main society journal to move to OA and while the momentum has been slow to build, it is starting to grow. That journal is much more patient oriented (more translational findings with less very basic research) and I think it could make a major impact with patients if they could get the info free of charge from any internet portal. Hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later.

As a frequent consumer, author and reviewer of the primary scientific literature I do not find a single argument made by PRISM to be credible (aside from their basic statements about scientific research -- which have nothing to do with the publishing houses).

Amazing how frequently capitalists employ the government to "protect" their "free market" business model. And how when anybody else but them engages in this behavior, they call it "socialism".

Evil Monkey, you are not the first, and you will not be the last, to notice that. As Ed Brayton said, free market exists at the level of the taxi cab driver, or the hotdog salesman at the corner, but if you move a little higher than you will invariably find companies that are utterly dependent on the government to protect the statu quo.

On a light-hearted note, you could engage in a bit of journal-terrorism: say that "If you do not make your journal (title X) open-access after 12 months maximum from the date of publication, then we, the People's Front for Free Access to Journals, will collectively pay for a full subscription to that journal and disseminate the password everywhere. You do not know us. You cannot stop us."

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Spades, "We'll Lose Money!"

choofnagle — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:51:02 +0000

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Spades, "We'll Lose Money!"

And finally, we come to the final card. Perhaps industry's strongest card--"we'll lose money"--is not really denialism, but it is what motivates so much of the bad rhetoric in public policy debates.

And of course, the truth is more nuanced. Proposals for reform create new opportunities, and many businesses have thrived under the very proposals they said would wreak havoc.

"Wall Street...has greeted practically every important market regulation introduced in this century with howls of dismay and predictions of disaster. In 1934, the head of the New York Stock Exchange told Congress that if the Securities Exchange Act, which became the foundation of market regulation in the U.S., was made law there was a chance that stock trading in the U.S. would be "entirely destroyed." Needless to say, it wasn't. In 1975, when the S.E.C. abolished fixed commissions, the Street claimed that its business would be demolished. Instead, after transaction costs fell, trading volume shot up. And in 2000, when the S.E.C. required companies to disclose material information to all investors, rather than just to insiders, we were told that this would strangle the flow of information to the market and make stock prices swing wildly. But, as numerous academic studies have found, it has actually done the opposite..." James Surowiecki, Over There, New Yorker Magazine, Feb. 2, 2007.

choofnagle Fri, 06/08/2007 - 02:51

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

...Don't forget the fuss the automotive industry has made over how companies would suffer, every single time a new safety standard has been required. And yet, oddly enough, Ford and Chevrolet are still around, making a very nice profit.....

Ford and Chevrolet are still around, making a very nice profit...

Well, they're both losing boatloads of money these days, but for reasons having nothing at all to do with safety standards.

You forget about the argument that the abolishment of slavery would lead to economic ruin. It didn't, of course.

It is amazing to think western economies are like eggshells, ready to crack: yet, in Canada at least, that is principle argument advanced by the government, and the press, for doing little to nothing, and over ridiculously drawn out periods, in dealing with reducing green house gasses. Economies are not going to crack, in the short term, no matter what is done about green house gasses. Even in the longer term, it is hard to argue about hugely negatively disrupted economies, even if the face of large-scale global warming. The economies that are most likely to lose, either way, are those that are right now not much developed -- the third world economies.

It is amazing to think western economies are like eggshells, ready to crack

No, but it is possible for them to go into recession, especially if you start introducing massive, punitive taxes.
but then:

Even in the longer term, it is hard to argue about hugely negatively disrupted economies, even if the face of large-scale global warming.

Please try to maintain consistency. at least within the same post.
eggshells, yet not eggshells...

Good lord, but the libertarians -- crazy right wing relatives of the Republicans -- seem to have descended.

I have to cackle whenever I hear the stories about libertarians that used to vote for republicans and now going back to libertariansm out of disgust. It must be a long trip traveling that distance from right to ultraright, to and fro repeatedly.

No, but it is possible for them to go into recession, especially if you start introducing massive, punitive taxes.

You don't say? How's that work? The punitive tax part I mean. Is that like minimum-wage laws drive up unemployment and punishes the poor?

And of course, the truth is more nuanced.

Of course the truth is more nuanced. Sometimes companies complain accurately that they'll lose money because they lose access to special government favoritism and monopoly, but sometimes the argument is accurate and regulations are bad for the economy. And sometimes the "new opportunities" created by proposals for reform are themselves the results of government corruption and favoritism for a few companies that exploit the regulations but add little value. Think of how, e.g., complicated tax laws and loopholes create "new opportunities" for some accounting firms and Wall Street businesses, but aren't good for the economy as a whole.

Certainly, though, a company may be completely right that reform will destroy their business, but it still may be the right thing for the economy, because other opportunities will arrive in other businesses. For example, repealing the stupid sugar tariffs will absolutely make certain businesses lose money, but will provide opportunities in other areas. The proper analysis for the government should never be the fate of an individual company, but that of the economy as a whole.

As you admit, almost all the these arguments are cogent ones that are indeed legitimate in certain circumstances-- and should in some cases carry the day. Like any legitimate argument, though, they can be made in situations where they're aren't accurate. There is no argument so noble that it can not be abused by scoundrels.

Is that like minimum-wage laws drive up unemployment and punishes the poor?

Looks like we have a denialist posting here, of the sort that likes to ignore the consensus of studies in the field, seizing on one here or there that confirms his results.

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Diamonds, "Communism!"

choofnagle — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:48:37 +0000

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Diamonds, "Communism!"

Suricou Raven guessed it--after calling your opponent "Unamerican," you call them "Communist." Here, use loaded phrases, such as "the proposal smacks of the paternalistic 'command and control' of Communism."

choofnagle Thu, 06/07/2007 - 03:48

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

Or militant (the commentariat touches on 'communist' as well).

You are running out of cards, and I haven't seen "If we do that, the terrorists will have won" yet. ;)

@xander--that's the King of Spades, "DANGER!"

From xander's comment, I went back and looked at the whole deck (the link by your photo). I can't see the four of hearts, or any of the fives except the hearts. Am I missing something?

From xander's comment, I went back and looked at the whole deck (the link by your photo). I can't see the four of hearts, or any of the fives except the hearts. Am I missing something?

It's a conspiracy! I knew something was fishy!

@coturnix, you're right...I'll fix Saturday. C

I think this calls for some high quality PDFs and a visit to the nearest print shop for some Denialist Top Trumps! :)

@coturnix, you're right...I'll fix Saturday. C

Caught redhanded playing with a short deck. For shame. In the olden days, there'd be a necktie party.

For the world, I'm not sure that being called a "communist" or "socialist" is an insult these days. Although old guard communism has withered, their educated children -- social democracies have flourished. I didn't really care for the ultra-wide boulevards anyway.

Saw the republican debates a few days ago and they characterized the democrat positions on health care as "socialist". Oooh! No..., anything but that.

Fact is the mainstream US democrats are nowhere close to what "liberal" goes for in many places in the world.

@Ted, the deck is actually a card short...that's one of the jokes. But I've unintentionally shortened it by a couple of cards. Will fix.

This is not as illegitimate as you make out. Communism is/was the unrestrained implementation of a command economy. The evidence is in: it doesn't work.
Besides, the evidence is in that any time you implement a fully socialist social structure, it rapidly morphs into a dictatorship.
There are empirically valid ways to run a good economy. High levels of regulation, as per socialism and communism, is not one of them.
What sort of science blog is this?

And unrestrained capitalism solidifies social stratification and leads to abusive oligopolies and monopolies as those that have raise the barriers to entry ever higher for those that have not. As a general rule that leads to corporate dictatorship. So laissez-faire capitalism obviously doesn't work too well either.

So the question is: what next? Social democracy seems a good place to start -- what can we do about the tax issues there while maintaining the social safety net? (That's the problem of most Westernized countries. The left is trying to get a rudimentary safety net in place, but the right would rather squabble over prayer in classrooms, the right to own an entire gun shop's worth of weapons, and whether or not the fossil record actually says what it looks like it says.)

And unrestrained capitalism solidifies social stratification

You give capitalism too much credit! Social strata are everywhere, whether you're talking democracies, monarchies, or communist dictatorships.
This is one reason why "Animal Farm" is such a clever book, because it illustrated this truth.

But seriously, yes, I agree with you. Implementing a social safety net or wanting to keep an eye on corporations isn't "socialism", much less communism.

Mark, I was checking out your deck of cards, and many of the cards are standard conservative tenets - market forces, rights, technological innovation, job creation, small government, etc.
Your deck of cards looks more like a criticism of conservatives than a criticism of anti-science crusaders.
And most of your rhetoric is about dealing with leaders of industry. Guess I should have dug deeper before getting excited about the mission of this blog. It's not what it seems.
I guess that explains why you don't give a toss about vaccination deniers, fluoride deniers, or other public health policy deniers that jeopardise people's lives every day: these are boring to you because they don't fit into your political mission. Climate change, on the other hand, fits right in because it's a big stick for you and your realclimate buddies to beat evil capitalists with.
Should have left here two days ago. Cya round.

As you say, one missing.

Bated breath.

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Hearts, "Unamerican!"

choofnagle — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 06:46:19 +0000

Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Hearts, "Unamerican!"

Almost any proposal can be styled as "Un-American." Typically this is bundled with wild, inaccurate claims about European regulations (i.e., you can't do business in Europe at all). You'll wonder if the denialist has even been to Europe!

Update: Mark H provides this article as an example of "Unamerican" in today's Wall Street Journal. It contains, among others, this great example:

The German took the floor first. His was a bold thesis: The economic transformation required to address global warming will bring huge energy efficiencies--and hence huge economic benefits--even if there is no global warming problem. But vested interests in the energy sector stand in the way of that transformation. "We cannot," therefore, "wait for the industries that in many cases will be the losers . . . to make the necessary changes," he told the audience of American and European industrialists.

To this American ear, this smacks of the tales about the man who invented a car that runs on water, but was bought out by Detroit to protect their market. But from a European perspective, it makes more sense.

choofnagle Wed, 06/06/2007 - 02:46

Tags

Denialists' Deck of Cards

To those of us who live in Europe, "Unamerican" is either cringe-inducing, evidence that USAians are aliens from the gods knows where, ironic, or some combination thereof (and possibly a few other things besides). And that's before you start to wonder what is meant by "Europe": The EU? The landmass? Greece? Luxemburg? Northern Ireland? Black-and-white newsreels from the Second World War? Redcoats two centuries ago in the northeastern colonies? â¬? ...

blf,

On the flip side, as an ex-pat living in the U.S., I find it odd when every virtue is labeled as an "American virtue". Bravery. Self-sacrifice. Honesty. You name it, I've heard it all. It's very odd. I would have never thought to connect any of those things with nationalism, but here it comes quite naturally to people.

@blf

Unamerican = anything vaguely French.

We're now in favor of "New Europe" here. Ha!

factician,

Good point. A similar example is when a USAian visits and starts bad-mouthing the health services (there's lots to criticise, but it's rare to hear sensible criticism). Of course, I (we?) are now in danger of doing the sort of over-generalisation being commented about.

What gets really annoying is when the newspapers (on both sides of the pond) do this sort of over-generalisation. I myself get very irked at the description of "USAians" which seems to correspond more closely to politicals(?) in NYC and/or DC and ignores the rest of the country. Which, I suppose, is essentially the "Europe" problem in reverse; e.g., France is part of most definitions of Europe, but that doesn't mean this-or-that "French" trait is European.

Dont forget the related claim - call 'socialism' or 'communism.' Most of the US population has no idea what either term means (and considers them interchangable), but the cultural leftover of the cold war is still strong enough for them to taint anything nearby.

Examples:
A public health servies: Socialised medicine, unamerican!
Open source software: It attacks ownership, its communist and unamerican.
Minimum wage increase: Government supporting the poor is communist!
Environmental protection: The environment is property, for its owners to do with as they wish - and saying that the collective can protect land is like endorsing communism.

In any area where increased government involvement is proposed, the spectre of the Red Menace can be resurrected to scare people away.

@Suricou, "Communism" is the next card!