Interesting. The same individual I just cited in a global warming rebuttal has now provided the same kind of politicized "scientific proof" for his rebuttal of Luther's recent DDT commentary. I.e., basically, everything Wonker and Luther are saying on these topics is based on "myths" manufactured by the right. All neat and clean and "proving" forever that when it comes to science, conservatives are merely mythmakers.
Well, too bad. They myth factory has in fact long been the province of the left, and the wordgames manufactured in this arena don't survive very long on this blog. Wonker did a little research on this individual's DDT comment and came up with some interesting stuff which he deposited in the commentary section for Luther's piece.
But for the sake of our readers who might not find it, here's a slightly augmented version of my comments on this person's rebuttal, re DDT:
We here at HazZzMat always try to deal with folks graciously here. But I've gone to the trouble of tracing your links, allegedly "proving" that Luther's analysis of the DDT issue is incorrect. As I suspected, the trail of your information sourcing, after a few twists and turns, leads, ultimately, to the Tides Center, a leftist advocacy group that's been the recipient of major donations by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Tides is set up as a "charity" so it doesn't have to out the subgroups whose leftist political activities it funds, very probably in violation of IRS rules governing the use of funds by such organizations. For more on this organization, and its links to others, just click here.
Your arguments, derived from postings at a lefty advocacy site run by a fellow who calls himself "Jim Norton" are nice, but ignore or simply dismiss compelling counter arguments. "Jim" is just channeling the propaganda he wants to feed, but is pretty sneaky the way he links to one or two rightie sources to cloak his tactics. (I traced his own info links to the lefty Environmental Working Group, known for its 24/7 warfare against chemical companies, and thence to the Tides Center.)
But as I've indicated in a post now up, and as you well know, science is not really your point here. It's advocacy politics, which you're cloaking in an argument that superfically appears well researched but is not. Biased links and citations are not proof. They only offer the appearance of proof. Luther and I are onto this stuff and will continue to expose the propaganda and mythology that's put out by your side and disguised as science.
What you're really doing here on our blog is what Rush Limbaugh calls "seminar calling," a concerted attempt by one or more lefty individuals to exploit the wide listenership and readership of conservative radio shows, commentaries, and blogs to subvert them and to promote leftist points of view free of charge--essentially parasitizing the sites, programs, or blogs the organized left finds threatening. Many organizations have a cadre or rapid attack squad that seeks out and instantly attacks (oftentimes in a way that appears "reasonable"), in pre-arranged, pre-written speeches or verbiage, anything that violates their orthodoxy. No opponent is ever left unchallenged. (The Clintons were pretty good at this, too, having an instant attack ready for everything.)
Having jumped on my "global warming" comments, you, our "disinterested" "scientific" commentator, were alert to our violation of dogma, and were ready to pounce with your pre-cooked argument and instant citations. Wrong target, my friend. We weren't born yesterday, and we know how this works.
I'd suggest you find someone else to propagandize. You won't get to first base with either of us or with our increasing base of intelligent and skeptical readers. The only thing you've proved is your bias.
--W
3 comments:
Direct hit!
Ufonzo
Wow! I am apparently part of some vast left-wing conspiracy that I didn't even know about! You don't seem to be able to dispute the substance of my remarks so instead you fall back on some six-degrees-of-separation thing of saying this site links to that site which has links to the Tides Foundation or whatever! Heck, I bet you can even link it back to Kevin Bacon if you try hard enough!
You apparently have defined biased information as any information that does not correspond to your right-wing world view, irregardless of whether that information comes from Science magazine (which along with Nature is considered the two most prestigious multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journals on the planet) or comes from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (the organization that was set up in large part to make sure that actual science rather than political drivel masquerating as science guides public policy).
On one thing we agree though, which is that I am rather unlikely to make any headway in convincing you two or your readership. So, it is probably not worth my time to try to inject some facts into your blog here.
Dear "Joel,"
Knew you'd be back, and your remarks are predictable. Try to turn things back on me, without addressing what I said, while trivializing it and refusing to acknowledge your leftwing ammo. Doesn't work. Always change the subject, the standard counterattack of the left.
Biased information is information largely derived from politically selective studies, scholarship, and polls, which yours is and which mine isn't. I traced your sources, and it bothers you. Too bad. (And I wasn't able to turn up Kevin Bacon. But I'm still looking.)
We live in an age where the source of every piece of information has to be checked in order to determine its validity or bias before drawing a conclusion. I.e., if something comes out of Brookings, it will almost certainly slant left. Likewise, if something comes out of the Hoover Institute, it will almost certainly slant right. In this light, I checked out your information flow and wasn't surprised to see where it came from. Indeed, I'd have been more surprised if the sources would have been diverse.
You already knew this, however, and don't like your obvious bias being exposed. Your tactic was to present your observations as "scientific" and "disinterested." They were neither, and you are aware of this, which is why you've evaded this fact and chose to ridicule it in your first graf.
BTW, don't try the "argument from authority" on us here. Peer-review is far, far less than it once was, and is no longer necessarily the last word on an academic subject.
"Prestigious" doesn't impress me at all. You need to understand that I've actually worked at the National Science Foundation and have worked on technical documents with NAS experts, and I know how things function in those organizations. So don't give me any horse-hockey snow jobs about the peer review process--peer reviews can be politicized like anything else, either to flog a political point of view or steer an R&D grant to a valued colleague.In the past, science remained remarkably free from this kind of political taint, but in the past decade or so things have begun to radically change in this regard and not for the better.
Furthermore, once prestigious information sources can become so tainted that they no longer convey intellectual value. The American Bar Association effectively programmed themselves out of the Supreme Court vetting process years ago by their leftwing bias and obvious lack of objectivity. Likewise, the Nobel Prize for Literature and the entire Pulitzer Prize system have been transformed into a reward system for those writers most skilled an advancing an anti-American agenda. "Science" magazine is approaching that status now as it ratchets up its "global warming" crusade.
I agree, you should head on to another blog and see if you can impress them with your weird science that relates only one side of the argument. Your biased factoids are simply not going to gain traction here. Although you choose to define your observations as "facts," calling them so does not make them so. That's why we're here. To point this out.
Post a Comment