The left’s science deniers
Posted: February 28, 2013 at 3:32 a.m.
If this column appeared under the headline, “Massive defeat for the anti-science forces,” you would naturally assume I’m talking about some kind of setback for conservative Republicans, right? And you would be completely wrong.
This story is only available from our archives.
Editorial, Pages 14 on 02/28/2013
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
Power to change
As families, businesses, institutions and governments scale back and redefine how they invest, hire, lend, fund and spend resources, a new era of frugality is being ushered... Read »
Next Story »
Fingerprints, please
The gun lobby and its acolytes in Annapolis are mounting an allout assault to subvert Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s bill to establish what would be among the nation’s mos... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
"Virtually no nuclear-power plants have been built in the United States during the past four decades, the result of continuous left-wing scare stories."
No, the reason is that investors find them too expensive.
Posted by: Coralie
February 28, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Environmental and conservation issues are not left-wing.or right-wing.
Posted by: Coralie
February 28, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Greenpeace has more of a case against Golden Rice than pure Luddism. They say:
"The media hype was more robust than the science, however, and our analysis revealed that people would need to consume 12 times more ricethan normal to satisfy the minimum daily adult requirements of Vitamin A.."
Greenpeace has scientists too.
http://www.greenpeace.org/internation...
Posted by: Coralie
February 28, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It took me about 30 seconds to fact check some of the stinkers in this. Why can't reporters do this themselves? Are they dishonest, or dumb?
Somebody's gonna git a spank'in. Later. Lunch break over, back to work.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
February 28, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Just an opinion:
Glenn Garvin writes part time for the Miami Herald and works full-time as in invester in and salesman for Golden Rice.
Genetically enhanced baseball players and cyclists have been banned for life, why not crops?
Global warming is a fact, whither it is caused naturally or by man is a subject for debate.
Posted by: Moneymyst
February 28, 2013 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Glenn: "If... the headline [read], “Massive defeat for the anti-science forces,” you would... assume... setback for conservative Republicans, right?">>
Yep. And 90% of the time, you'd be right. Glenn is tired of his conservatives being tagged for being anti-science nuts. Oh well, then stop being nuts. If anything, they haven't been called out enough.
Glen: "troops of progressivism like Greenpeace.">>
Thus begins the false equivalence fallacy. The formal name is "Tu quoque' but it's basically: "But... you did it too." Glenn can't deny the basic fact that his conservative groups are chock full of anti-science nuts, that's too obviously true. So he's going to try and pretend that his embarrassing situation is something remotely like the Demo side of the aisle. It isn't.
Imagine a mile long parade of elephants. This is the anti-science republican parade. That he can point to a couple, smallish, insignificant donkeys in the bunch, doesn't change this fact.
I don't know that Greenpeace has done much useful in a while. They got a little goofy in the early 90's and I stopped supporting them. They did a great expose' of the Koch bros. secretly funding climate change quackery: http://tinyurl.com/68lngwa
But no one should be getting their science from groups devoted to solely to political advocacy. I think genetically engineering vitamins into food will be useful in the future. It doesn't scare me, but I also understand that people have concerns with the questions it raises, and Monsanto having so much power.
Glen: "...rice that contains Vitamin A. “Golden rice,”...">>
Nice to see MM catching Glenn's conflict of interest here (if true). And here's a nice rebuttal to his claims about greenpeace and his rice:
"Glenn Garvin Presents Exactly Half of the Story!" http://tinyurl.com/a662aaf
Glen: "Every time some lone Republican nut from Hooterville makes a jackass statement about rape or evolution, [blame to] entire GOP">>
I have no sympathy for Glenn here. The GOP anti-science stripes are well earned, and they're proud of them. Let's look at just the line up of "jackasses" on the rape question alone. All in one chart: http://www.alternet.org/files/story_i...
Comments like this one: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...
are cranked out daily by the GOP. It's not "some lone nut from Hooterville" as Glenn would like to pretend.
Glen: "But liberal resistance to science is far more organized, far more destructive...">>
That's just complete nonsense. There is no comparison.
cont....
Posted by: fayfreethinker
February 28, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Glen: "Millions... refused to have their children vaccinated... after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [article] in Rolling Stone...">>
Ludicrous. Here's a tip, don't get your science from that air-head RFK, and don't get it from the Rolling Stone, and for the same reason you don't get it from Bill "tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that" O'Reilly. The anti-vax movement was around before Glenn was born and has long had a firm footing in his religious conservative camp. An example from 1929:
"Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows seeds of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccinations is a crime, an outrage, and a delusion." --"Golden Age" (1/5/1929), predecessor to the "Awake!" magazine
RFK's article was stupid, but it was just repeating run of the mill stupid that was already laying around.
Glen: "Barack Obama... 2008 campaign. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included.”>>
That one didn't smell right, just on the basis that Obama is too darn smart of a politician to say something unnecessarily anti-science. Turns out, it's a complete distortion based upon not revealing that the person he was referring to, wasn't him. WaPo has a nice unpack here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact...
I wouldn't normally poke McCain on this, because I don't expect politicians to be experts on all these things, but as this article points out, someone did say something entirely false about vaccines, and it was Glenn's own McCain:
"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines." --John McCain, Feb. 29, 2008. Ibid.
Glen: "Virtually no nuclear-power plants have been built in the US during the past four decades,...">>
Coralie dealt with this. It's largely NIMBY and the cost. And actually there are about half a dozen that are planned and/or under construction: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf...
Glen: [Chernobyl] "Actual death toll, according to the UN’s... less than 100.">>
That's very unlikely to be true, but the reports are all over the place: http://tinyurl.com/37khpc
Glen: "Actual birth defects: zero.">>
That's a bright and shiny clue that Glenn is 100% delusional. (see ibid)
Glen: "scientific consensus,... mysteriously irrelevant when they’re discussing nuclear power or genetically enhanced crops.">>
I have no problem with either of those, within reason, but I don't think conservative apologists like Glenn should be allowed near them because folks like Glenn only appeal to science when it doesn't contradict their religion or is convenient for a product they are selling. In this case, Golden Rice.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
February 28, 2013 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I bet that rice could be useful in feeding those starving. I'm not so sure that MR. Garvin doesn't have a point about some inequity either.
RE-
"Here's a tip, don't get your science from that air-head RFK"
Oh, you mean the attorney with a degree from Harvard specializing in environmental law?
AGAIN on this site: different rules for different sides. Typical spin.
RE-
"Environmental and conservation issues are not left-wing.or right-wing."
Your right, neither are a lot of things people, er lobbyists and/or ecoterrorist organizations, politicize.
Posted by: Tankersley101
February 28, 2013 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
>>It took me about 30 seconds to fact check some of the stinkers in this. Why can't reporters do this themselves? Are they dishonest, or dumb?<<
Glen Garvin is, or was, a reporter. However, his day job is reviewing tv shows. He gave "My Name is Earl" a 100 :
http://www.metacritic.com/critic/glen...
I suppose Glen is going for an EMMY, he discovered that reality tv is not really real:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changi...
Posted by: cdawg
March 1, 2013 at 1:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
>>. Australian physician Helen Caldicott has become a folk hero-21 honorary degrees and a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize-for her anti-nuke campaign, the centerpiece of whichis that the explosion at the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl nuclear reactor led to nearly a billion deaths and countless hideous birth defects.<<
-GG
Way off so far it's beyond funny, it's an outright lie.
"With the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl falling on April 26, a debate is brewing over the estimated death toll from the nuclear disaster. The debate has erupted with a heated exchange between prominent British columnist George Monbiot and anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott.
Monbiot claims the “official death toll” from Chernobyl is 43. Caldicott puts the death toll at 985,000. Someone's wrong. Perhaps they both are."
.....
A study by Cardis et al. reported in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths.
British radiation scientists Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Sumner estimate 30,000 to 60,000 deaths.
A 2006 report, commissioned by Greenpeace and involving 52 scientists, estimates a death toll of about 93,000.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/4735...
Conclusion: no one can concisely say but it's higher than 43 and no where " nearly a billion deaths " as Garvin falsely attributes to Caldicott.
Posted by: cdawg
March 1, 2013 at 1:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I said: "Here's a tip, don't get your science from that air-head RFK [junior].">>
Tank: "Oh, you mean the attorney with a degree from Harvard specializing in environmental law?">>
Yep. That's the one. On matters of environmental law, he would have expertise. On matters of the science regarding vaccinations (and a few other things), not so much.
See the difference?
Tank: "AGAIN on this site: different rules for different sides.">>
Nope. Same rules. Perhaps pay closer attention. Watch more Dr. Maddow, she'll teach you how to think more clearly.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 1, 2013 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT,
Watch more O'Reilly, he'll teach you how to knock off the spin.
Posted by: Tankersley101
March 1, 2013 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thanks for the research, freethinker. Readers on this website are so fortunate to have access to your astounding ability to sort through the trash and reveal the truth.
Posted by: FrankLloydLeft
March 2, 2013 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"Bill O'Reilly is apparently on al Qaeda's death list. al Qaeda said they don't even think of him as an infidel. They just want to cut off his head, so he'll shut up." --Bill Maher
Posted by: FrankLloydLeft
March 2, 2013 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FLL: "Thanks for the research, freethinker.">>
You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. One does what one can.
Let me say a bit more on RFK Jr.,. He's not an "airhead" of course, that was a poor choice of words. I'm sure he's very intelligent. His article (and positions) on vaccination are wrong, profoundly wrong and indefensible. He also wrote an extensive piece on the Bush/Kerry election that I later found out was completely full of holes. So I don't trust him anymore. He's let his ideology carry him away.
In response to my criticisms of RFK Jr., Tank said above:
"AGAIN on this site: different rules for different sides. Typical spin."
Which of course is just idiotic. My being willing to strongly criticize a lefty like RFK Jr. shows the exact opposite of that. Same rules for both sides.
It's almost like Tank doesn't think about things before he posts them.
D.
------------
Bill O'Reilly proves the existence of God:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states...
This 3 1/2 minute Colbert clip is one of my all time favorites. Highly recommended. We played it at a meeting a couple years ago and people were laughing so hard they were having trouble breathing. Might as well laugh at stupidity as cry about it.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
March 3, 2013 at 12:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Great stuff from Colbert! Thanks, freethinker.
Scrolling down, we find some additional terrific video demonstrating new meaning for Tank's comment about knocking off the spin, and explaining the answer to one of O'Reilly's questions - "Where'd the moon come from?"
It's not surprising that O'Reilly seems to have a blank spot in his mind where rudimentary science would be in a normal brain. Sadly, this blank spot seems to be a prerequisite for what's called conservative thinking.
Posted by: FrankLloydLeft
March 3, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Colbert is funny. Maher not so much.
Posted by: Tankersley101
March 3, 2013 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.