Skip to comments.Science Reporting No Different Than Activists' Own Hype
Posted on 11/03/2012 5:56:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Following Hurricane Sandys massive devastation across the northeast, many were quick to tie it to climate change (you know, what global warming and the new ice age used to be.). In a blog post on Tuesday, former Vice President Al Gore wrote Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.
Meghan McCain sarcastically weighed in on Twitter, So are we still going to go with climate change not being real fellow republicans?
As his city struggles in the Sandy aftermath, Mayor Mike Bloomberg endorsed President Obama because he says one candidate sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.
As if climate change believers arent practicing their own brand of politics. Im sure they are already writing that with this kind of consensus between the two parties, the science is settled!
Of course, Gore, Bloomberg and McCain arent the first liberals (yes, liberals) to use the devastation of a hurricane to push the climate change agenda. Following Hurricane Katrina, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote on The Huffington Post, Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.
But, our children arent the only victims. Rich liberals are also suffering. Al Gore was unable to attend Bette Midlers French-themed Halloween party in hurricane-struck New York this week. Midler tweeted, k, the man we invited to address us te #globalwarmingisreal could not make it because of GLOBALWARMING!! So sad, Al Gore..see you soon xox
In Godless Ann Coulter wrote, Warm trends prove global warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman.
Yet no one in the mainstream media questions the science of climate change. Instead, they amblify it.
Such is the case with Bisphenol A, also known as BPA. Like climate change, BPA is blamed for myriad health woes, none of which have ever been proved, and we only hear about the evidence that confirms a particular and negative view. For awhile now Ive followed the reporting on BPA because its illustrative of the emergence of reporters picking and choosing scientific studies to further a political agenda. The anti-BPA agenda seeks bans or further regulating of BPA, which can be found in water bottles, food can liners (it prevents botulism and spoilage), thermal register tape and many other products, in order to have their foot on the neck of every business that produces BPA and every business that makes a product that contains BPA.
There have been numerous studies by the FDA, CDC, World Health Organization, and European Food Safety Authority that have found that BPA is easily and quickly metabolized and does no discernible harm to humans of any age. However, the agenda-driven media hypes any study claiming negative effects from BPA. In their latest attempt, activists and the hysterical media jumped on a study by the University of Californias Michael Baker. The Baker study used a computer model to show the effects of metabolized BPA. The media jumped on the study with hysterical headlines like BPA is Bad to the Bone, Now We Know Why, and New studies add fuel to concerns over BPA. But in an odd twist, the researcher who approved the hyped-up news release now says neither BPA nor its metabolites are harmful.
In a lengthy think piece on Forbes.com, science writer Jon Entine wrote, The news reports shared a common themeasserting or at least suggesting that the Baker study was a smoking gun and perhaps the final scientific word that activists have been awaiting to confirm their long-held belief that BPA is harmful and should be banned or sharply restricted. The irony is that the Baker study, when analyzed, does not support that view. Rather, it provides additional confirmation of the unlikelihood that BPA or many other so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals pose serious health threats.
Entine called Baker for additional background. He found out that Baker had no prior experience researching BPA. Additionally, Baker confirmed that he and those promoting the study to the press were aware of the slew of popular and research reports damning BPA as dangerous, which shaped the tone and wording of the release. Baker also admitted that he approved the release.
Baker also said to Entine, Im not an expert on BPA, by any means. Its possible, that the metabolite that I studied would not have any effect on humans and I have no evidence, none at all, that BPA causes any problems in humans. This was a theoretical exercise, and it would be trumped by what actually happens in the real world. Based on what I know now, neither BPA nor its metabolites are harmful. I am upset that my structural study is misused by some.
Entine also contacted California Watch, an environmental group that targets BPA producers. They admitted that the Baker study offered no new information to suggest that BPA was dangerous. Yet they reported on the study in near-hysterical terms.
Its now common knowledge that the profession of journalism has morphed into political activism. We have outfits like Politico, MSNBC, ABC and CBS on the left and Fox News, Breitbart.com and Daily Caller on the right. A media segmented by ideology is easier to embrace when the general public has enough knowledge to make an informed decision on what media to consume. Unfortunately, in the field of science reporting were starting to see the same segmentation by ideology, but the public isnt as informed as they should be.
Activists on the Left and their cohorts in the media want to pin the worlds diseases and disasters on one enemy: humans.
As I listen to all is these Global Warming and climate change nuts coming out of the woodwork, it struck me that they are nothing more than modern, educated pagan worshippers.
:: I am upset that my structural study is misused by some. ::
But, hey, thanks for interviewing me in the MSM. This can only help my tenure-track position.
Yeah, I could go on ranting, but where’s the prophecy, as opposed to the making the excuse about knowing the storm long after the fact. I have a term for it...
Just a minute...