Voodoo science | Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

“Not Evil, Just Wrong” opens to thunderous silence

October 24, 2009

It’s the air conditioning one hears, not applause.

Did your local newspaper review the movie? Odds are the movie didn’t play in your town (did it play anywhere other than local Republican clubs?).

“Not Evil, Just Wrong” promoters and producers appear to have abandoned hopes for a wide-scale debut of their film on October 18, instead choosing direct-to-DVD release in order to salvage something from the effort.

Well, they can take solace in the fact that the John Birch Society, itself trying to rise from the dead, liked the film according to the comments in The New American. But even the Birch Society reviewer watched it on DVD, not on a big screen.

At the Birch Society site I responded, and will be astounded to see if it stays (in three parts). The review started out noting that if one asks a friend to explain the cap-and-trade system of controlling carbon air emissions, one is not likely to find that one’s friend fully understands the ins and outs of government regulation of air pollution, commodities markets, and deep economics (why should they?).

Ask a friend or associate, “Can you explain ‘cap and trade?’” More than likely you will be astounded at what a poor grasp (if any) he or she has of the subject, even though the future of our economy and even our country hinges to a large extent on whether or not cap-and-trade legislation passes or not.

I said:

Ask a friend to explain the right to bear arms, and you’re likely to get a bad explanation, too.

Does that mean the Second Amendment is evil? I don’t think so.

This movie [“Not Evil, Just Wrong”] is greatly riddled with errors, and it presents a false portrait of science, history, and government.

For example:

In one scene that made one want to throw bottles at the TV set, a well-to-do environmentalist showed no concern to a Ugandan mother, Fiona Kobusingye-Boynes, over the loss of her child to malaria, a disease that was almost eliminated by the use of DDT, but then resurged when the EPA banned DDT’s exportation and insisted other countries adopt the same policy.

When DDT was heavily used in Africa, about two million people a year died from the disease. Today? About one million die. The rates aren’t low enough, but does the movie need to lie about history to make a point? Why?

Malaria was never close to being eliminated with DDT. Most of the nations that got rid of malaria did it with the combination of better housing (with screens), better health care, and concentrated programs to attack mosquitoes to hold populations down long enough that the pool of malaria in humans could be wiped out. Mosquitoes get malaria from humans — if there is no malaria in humans, mosquito bites are benign.

DDT was never used in an eradication effort in most nations of Africa, because the governments were unable to get a campaign to fight the disease on all fronts as necessary. Do we know whether DDT was used in Uganda prior to 1967?

And if it was, are we really supposed to believe that Idi Amin refused to use DDT out of respect for little birdies and fishies, while killing and [it is often said] personally eating his countrymen?

I don’t think that environmentalists are the root of the problem in today’s malaria rates in Uganda, and any perusal of history suggests a dozen other culprits who could not be considered lesser threats by any stretch.

Now the death toll of malaria victims worldwide, but mainly in Third World countries, mostly young children, is estimated by the World Health Organization to be one million per year.

Near the lowest in 200 years.

Recently the World Health Organization, under strong pressure from human rights organizations, particularly in Africa and Asia, rescinded its ban on the pesticide that has been shown in test after test to be harmless to humans and animals, including birds.

WHO never had a ban on the use of DDT. DDT didn’t work well. It’s foolish to require malaria fighting agencies to use tools that don’t work. [Ooooh. I forgot to note the junk science claim that DDT is harmless to humans and animals — were it harmless, why should we use it? It’s odd to see the John Birch Society organ campaigning so actively to kill America’s symbol, the bald eagle. Are they really that evil, or just that poorly informed?]

The environmentalists continue to push to overturn this ruling, regardless of its toll in human misery and death.

[Gee. I should have responded, “The environmentalists continue to push this goal even as malaria deaths and infections drop — regardless the improvement in human health and reduction of misery and death.”]

Environmentalists have been lobbying since 1998 to allow DDT use in extremely limited circumstances, with controls to protect human health (the National Academy of Sciences notes that DDT, though among the most useful substances ever created, is more dangerous than helpful, and must be eliminated). [I should have noted here, “Opposition came from the George W. Bush administration.”] In the past three years opposition to DDT use in Uganda has come from large agricultural companies, tobacco growers and unnamed groups of “businessmen” who sued to stop DDT use.

Africans have been free to use DDT since the substance’s discovery, and some nations used it extensively throughout the period since 1946. Interestingly, they also experienced a resurgence of malaria anyway. If Africans want to use DDT, let them use it.

In the interim, tests across Africa demonstrate that bed nets are more effective than DDT, and cheaper. DDT alone cannot help Africa much; bed nets alone help a lot. But eradicating malaria will require great improvements in the delivery of health care to quickly and properly diagnose malaria, and provide complete treatments of the disease in humans to wipe out the pool of disease from which the little bloodsuckers get it in the first place.

This film is not interested in helping Africans, however. The film’s producers are interested in trying to make hay besmirching the reputations of people who campaign for a clean environment.

How long is this film? 90 minutes, IMDB says. UNICEF notes that a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. So while you watch this film, 180 children will die from malaria, and you will have done absolutely nothing to stop the next one from dying.

Send $10 to Nothing But Nets instead.

Look at it this way: Every sale of the DVD of “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” deprives Nothing But Nets of a donation of two more life-saving bed nets. So every sale of this DVD more than doubles the chances that another kid in Africa will die from malaria.

Help ban ignorance about world affairs:

4 Comments | Africa, Cost of Green, DDT, Disease, Environmental protection, Green Politics, Health care, Public health, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science, WHO - World Health Organization | Tagged: Africa, Cost of Green, DDT, Disease, Environmental protection, Green Politics, Health care, Politics, Public health, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, WHO, World Health Organization | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Watts falls victim to Monckton’s voodoo

October 19, 2009

Among those who call themselves “skeptical” of claims about climate change, Anthony Watts has distinguished himself from time to time for often using solid science and raising good questions. His campaign to look at the placement of weather reporting stations indicates an understanding of the way science should work (though we haven’t seen results).

So, what’s Watts doing repeating Monckton’s hysterical, inaccurate rant? We already know Monckton’s testimony is impeached.

Is Watts so politically naive as to think any nation would cede sovereignty on an issue of climate change? One more indication that people should stick to their knitting, and not venture into areas where they have no expertise.

2 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Conservation, Cost of Green, Green Politics, History, Hoaxes, Presentations, Science, Tinfoil Hats, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Accuracy, Anthony Watts, Climate change, Cost of Green, Green Politics, History, Hoaxes, Monckton, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science

October 18, 2009

When Monckton claimed that Jackie Kennedy was responsible for malaria in Africa, I thought it a great stretch.

Holy cow! Monckton gave a speech in Minnesota, and if this quote is representative, it was a one man re-enactment of the Burlington Liar’s Club quarterfinals for 2002 through 2008 (he was disqualified for lack of humor). Monckton spoke at Bethel University in St. Paul on October 15, 2009:

Here is an excerpt from his speech:

Here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question that he asked, “what is the truth?” is the question which underlies every question and in the end it is the only question that really matters. When you ask that question what you are really asking is “what is the truth about the matter?” And we are now going to see why it matters morally, socially, and politically, as well as economically and scientifically. That the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should inform public policy on this question. Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film [Cascade Policy Institute film “Climate Chains” was shown prior –ed] what the effect of that ban was. Before the ban, the inventor of DDT got the Nobel Peace Prize because he had saved more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in the Third World had all but been eradicated. There were still 50,000 deaths per year. But when DDT was banned by exactly the same faction, that is now trying to tell us we must close down five sixths of the United States economy that figure is actually in the Waxman- Markey bill. That same faction banned DDT worldwide. The consequences are on the slide there. The number of deaths went up from 50,000 to a million a year and stayed there. For 40 years. 40 million people, nearly all of them children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever. And it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said “Normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito. After pressure from me, among others.

Right there Monckton disqualified himself from ever being a Boy Scout with egregious disregard for the first point of the Scout Law. Oh, Monckton is dependable, but dependable only to tell falsehoods and stink up the place. That excerpt provides the Recommended Annual Dose of both voodoo science and voodoo history. Count the problems with me:

1. DDT has never been the only effective means to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes. DDT was a very effective pesticide, though dangerous — but never the “only effective agent against the malaria mosquito.” The U.S., for one example beat malaria (and yellow fever, and other mosquito-borne diseases) well enough to finish the Panama Canal in 1915 without DDT, by controlling mosquito breeding areas and using screens to protect sleeping workers from mosquitoes. Malaria, once endemic in much of the U.S., was practically eliminated by 1939. DDT was used in limited fashion to complete the eradication in the U.S., after World War II — but most of the work had already been done. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (founded to control malaria) relates at its website:

Control efforts conducted by the state and local health departments, supported by the federal government, resulted in the disease being eradicated by 1949. Such measures included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides.

Aircraft spraying insecticide, 1920s

Drainage activities, Virginia, 1920s

We still have the non-pesticide solutions, and they still work. But 40 years ago, there were other pesticides that worked against the malaria vector mosquitoes.

The national library of the ancient Kingdom of Ghana had volumes on how to eradicate malaria, more than 500 years ago. Monckton can’t even be bothered to Google the topic, let alone visit one of America’s more than 15,000 free county libraries, to get the facts?

2. No Nobel Peace Prize was ever given for DDT, and the prize given wasn’t for saving malaria victims. Paul Müller won the Nobel in Physiology or Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects. There was no Peace Prize awarded in 1948. A chemist working in biological chemicals won the Peace Nobel later — but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Listening to Monckton’s speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error. Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the Medicine Prize that Müller won was not on the basis of DDT’s saving an uncountable number of lives. The chief medical advantage cited was the use of DDT fighting typhus; malaria gets a mention. Monckton can’t be bothered with accuracy on such things, however, as is clearly shown.]

The bizarre claim about saving “more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet” comes from a wacko claim of the Lyndon Larouche cult, apparently based on a typographical error in a 1980 book from the National Academy of Sciences.

3. Malaria rates have been greatly reduced in the 20th century, but malaria has never been “all but eradicated.” In the past 120 years, malaria has always killed more than 900,000 people a year; for most of the past 60 years, the death toll has been more than a million people a year, sometimes as high as 4 million people killed. Annual malaria deaths have never been under a half million, let alone as low as 50,000.

4. DDT has never been banned for use to control malaria. 40 years ago, in 1969, DDT was freely available world wide. Sweden banned the stuff from agricultural use in 1970; the U.S. followed with a ban on agricultural use of DDT, especially sprayed from airplanes. DDT for fighting malaria has always been a feature of the U.S. ban. As a pragmatic matter, DDT manufacture on U.S. shores continued for more than a dozen years after the restrictions on agricultural use of the stuff. In an ominous twist, manufacture in the U.S. continued through most of 1984, right up to the day the Superfund Act made it illegal to dump hazardous substances without having a plan to clean it up or money to pay for clean up — on that day the remaining manufacturing interests declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for the environmental damage they had done. See the Pine River, Michigan Superfund site, or the Palos Verdes and Montrose Chemical Superfund sites in California, the CIBA-Geigy plant in McIntosh, Alabama, and sites in Sand Creek, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and Aberdeen, North Carolina, for examples.

5. Nothing in Waxman-Markey anticipates closing down any part of the U.S. economy. This is a claim Monckton appears to have plucked from between his gluteals. Here’s one summary of the bill (notice the money allocated to boost industry), here’s another, and here’s the summary from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

6. There’s no way to blame malaria deaths on a lack of DDT. As noted, DDT has been available for use in Africa and Asia since its patent. More importantly, malaria death rates have been influenced by the failure of effectiveness of pharmaceuticals against the malaria parasite itself in humans. DDT fights only the mosquitoes that carry the parasite. But the difficulty wasn’t in beating the mosquitoes; the difficulty was in curing humans (from whom the mosquitoes get the parasite to pass along).

7. DDT was restricted on the basis of overwhelming evidence of harms. This is one of those charges that is self-refuting in the hands of DDT advocates and anti-science people. You don’t have to go far to find claims that EPA acted contrary to an extensive hearing record that took months to compose. But then they turn around and claim, as Monckton does here, that there is no such record? The facts are that the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) hearings were conducted under the gun. Two different federal courts had ordered the review, which had been started with the Department of Agriculture before the creation of EPA. The hearing record itself fell out of favor with some officials, and even EPA’s library had difficulty finding a copy of the decision by Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney — but intrepid fact seekers like Jim Easter tracked down the documents and posted them for all to see. Easter notes that the record is clear on harms to wildlife, bio-magnification, and other dangers of DDT. In fact, the only place Ruckelshaus differed from Sweeney was on the issue of cotton. Sweeney thought he couldn’t prohibit use on cotton, Ruckelshaus found authority in the law and did so.

Be clear: EPA banned DDT use on agricultural products, especially cotton, and broadcast spraying. EPA’s “ban” allowed continued manufacture of DDT, and it allowed use for health emergencies and other emergencies.

8. There never was a ban on DDT by the World Health Organization (WHO). So Monckton’s bizarre fiction that “. . . it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first,” and then Kochi ended the ban, is whole cloth.

9. There is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention to Monckton on DDT, but Monckton took credit for the imaginary end of the imaginary ban: ” After pressure from me, among others.” There’s a distant possibility that Monckton might have written a letter to WHO — but let Monckton produce the thing from the archives of WHO. Until that time, we should classify Monckton as an emboldened prevaricator, perhaps a victim of Munchausen’s Syndrome (not by proxy in this case). I’m calling Monckton’s bluff. Let’s see his cards on this issue: When did he say anything to WHO about DDT, to whom, and what did he say? He’ll not be able to produce any documentation, I’ll wager — and I’ll bet he can’t even produce hearsay testimony.

Nine falsehoods in a paragraph — a rate of falsehood not equalled even by Jon Lovitz’s pathological liar character. What is wrong with the excrement detectors of the people who sit in those audiences with this guy?

How far out of bounds is Monckton? Even the shrill discussion at Little Green Footballs puts Monckton in the not-to-be-taken-seriously category.

Monckton, the Burlington Liars Club called: They want their good reputation back. Check your answering machine, too — the Bethel College group should be calling any minuted, to ask you to pay for the exorcism of their building after you spoke there.

By the way, how do we know Monckton is a coward?* He has refused to debate me. As he notes, anyone who refuses a debate is a coward. And yet, he refuses each of my challenges. Now he’s refusing to debate a Tenderfoot Boy Scout using Boy Scout Law rules. How much of a coward does that make him?

_______________

* Of course that logic is flawed. But he uses it against Al Gore. Monckton can’t get Gore to suffer him, and so, Monckton, a moral pipsqueak, calls Gore a coward. The “Freemarket Institute” people ate it up. It’s more likely that Gore simply refuses to get into a urination contest with a known skunk. Still, Monckton refuses to debate — what is he afraid of?

No lie!

54 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, DDT, Disease, Environmental protection, Green Politics, History, Malaria, Science, Tinfoil Hats, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Accuracy, Christopher Monckton, Climate change, Cost of Green, DDT, Disease, EPA, Global warming, Green Politics, Malaria, Monckton, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Monckton will lie about anything

October 10, 2009

Lordy! Monckton said to the Winnipeg Sun (in Manitoba, but you knew that) :

He continues: “Remember DDT, the pesticide used to kill mosquitoes that carried malaria. Jackie Kennedy read a book saying it was harmful, got her husband the president to bring pressure to have it banned and in 40 years 40 million people, mainly children, died. Now we’ve come to our senses and re-introduced it but only after the fashionable left did their damage.

Not so fast. Here are a few of the errors.

1. Key phrase: “the pesticide that used to kill mosquitoes that carried malaria.” It’s not very good anymore. Mosquitoes acquired alleles that allow them to digest DDT, rather as food, instead of getting poisoned by it. This evolutionary response was speeded when DDT was overused (abused, that is) by big farmers. The World Health Organization had a campaign to use DDT to knock down a mosquito population for about six months, quickly treat all the humans who had the disease, and so when the mosquitoes came roaring back after six months, there would be no malaria for them to get from one person to spread. WHO stopped the program when the quickly-evolving resistance to DDT made it impossible. This was in the years 1964 through about 1966. DDT was not banned, and production and use of the stuff continued around the world.

2. President Kennedy was asked about DDT at a press conference. He said he’d read the book. It wasn’t “meddling” by Jackie Kennedy — though she would have been right had she done it. Jackie Kennedy proved her mettle later as an editor of books, a real force to be reckoned with and a woman of great judgment.

(Yeah, I had sound trouble with it, except for the press conference with Kennedy.)

3. Kennedy didn’t act against DDT.

President John F. Kennedy at a press conference on August 29, 1962; he announced the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter and the appointment of Arthur Goldberg to replace him; in questions, he was asked about DDT and Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring.

4. Kennedy did ask the experts to check out Carson’s book. The President’s Science Advisory Commitee (PSAC) (including Nobel winners) spent several months studying the book and its footnotes, and checking with other experts. In May 1963 they issued a verdict: Carson’s book, Silent Spring, was accurate and true, but suffered one flaw: Carson’s alarm wasn’t loud enough nor demanding action quickly enough. PSAC urged Kennedy to act immediately to slow or stop the use of DDT. Alas, he was assassinated six months later. (Full text of the PSAC report is available on this blog, here.)

5. Though the federal government stopped massive use of DDT on its side, large agricultural interests used it extensively. After a decade of devastation across the country, in two separate trials federal judges ruled DDT a dangerous substance — they withheld injunctions when the newly-formed EPA promised to expedite hearings on tighter regulations for the stuff which had been floundering for a few years. So it was that in 1971, more than seven years after John F. Kennedy’s death, a full administrative hearing on DDT began at EPA. DDT had been fully available world wide for 9 years after Carson’s book.

6. In 1972, still under court order, the EPA administrative law judge Edmund Sweeney ruled that a new label for DDT would be adequate control. Under the new label, use would be severely restricted, and broadcast spraying on crops would be prohibited, but DDT would be freely available. If someone wanted to, they could buy DDT and broadcast it themselves. Under the labeling rules, nothing could be done to such violators. Judge Sweeney carefully documented in his hearings all the benefits and drawbacks of DDT. A more restrictive proposal, such as a ban, would not do much more than the new label (if the label was followed), and Sweeney said that he did not find that EPA had the power to do any more. EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus got a more detailed review of the law from his legal team, and concluded that EPA could indeed ban broadcast use, and so he did. At least two of the DDT manufacturers sued, claiming there was no scientific basis for a ban. Under U.S. law, if the scientific data do not back up such a rule, the courts are obligated to overturn the rule. Both courts granted summary judgment for EPA, meaning that even if all the evidence were interpreted to favor the pesticide manufacturers, they would still lose on the law. There were no further appeals.

7. The EPA ban allowed DDT to be used in emergencies, especially if there were an emergency involving malaria or other insect-borne disease; specifically, EPA’s order allowed DDT use against any insect “vector” to fight disease at any time, for indoor residual spraying (IRS) the preferred method of fighting malaria. The EPA ban did not cover manufacturing, and U.S. DDT manufacturers ran a lively export business through 1984. On the day before the Superfund law took effect in 1984, requiring manufacturers to clean up toxic wastes they had dumped in violation of law, several of the DDT manufacturers declared bankruptcy, leaving the Superfund to clean up DDT sites in Texas and California, and other places. Clean up continues today, 25 years later, costing tens of millions of dollars a year.

Manufacture of DDT today is chiefly in India and China. Pollution problems abound near those sites.

8. DDT use was never banned in Africa, especially for use to fight malaria. Considering mosquito resistance and immunity, however, Africans generally chose not to use DDT. DDT’s reputation was further tarnished when it was revealed that broadcast outdoor spraying had killed food fishes in several places, leading to near starvation for local populations. South Africa used DDT right up through 1996, then stopped. When mosquitoes with malaria flowed over the border from neighboring nations without adequate disease control programs, malaria rates shot up, and DDT was again used as a last-ditch defense.

9. Generally, malaria infections and malaria deaths continued to decline in Africa and Asia after Silent Spring, and after the U.S. banned DDT use on crops. Malaria in Africa rose after 1985 when malaria parasites developed immunity to the pharmaceuticals used to treat the disease in humans. Without an effective drug regimen, death rates rose, too. DDT could not offer any help in this fight.

10. One of the greatest barriers to fighting malaria in Africa has been unstable governments. For example, it is difficult to believe that Idi Amin, the horrible dictator who ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979, and claimed to have eaten some of his executed enemies, refused to spray DDT because he wanted to be environmentally friendly. If Monckton wants to make such a claim explicitly, he’s nuts (he may be nuts anyway, but this unspoken claim of his is particularly insane). Other nations had less spectacular misrule, but the effect was the same: When governments could not, or did not mount fights against mosquitoes and malaria, malaria spread. This had nothing to do with DDT, nor with a lack of DDT.

11. When WHO suspended their campaign against malaria using large-scale DDT spraying out of doors, malaria killed about two million people annually, down from a peak of nearly four million 15 to 20 years earlier. Today, malaria kills about 900,000 people annually. Monckton says the lack of DDT has been responsible for 40 million deaths in the last 40 years. That’s a good trick, really — it’s a lower rate than others have claimed, but it assumes that every malaria death could have been prevented with DDT, something we know is not the case. More, it assumes that the U.S. ban on spraying DDT on cotton in Texas in 1972 somehow caused Africans to stop using DDT in 1965, a neat feat of time travel, and an astounding feat of regular travel, Texas being about 10,000 miles from most of Africa, too far for mosquitoes to migrate.

In three sentences, Monckton crammed in 11 grotesque falsehoods. And that paragraph was not even the topic of the article. And what is it about these propaganda attacks dead women? Unholy attacks on Rachel Carson are bad enough — now Monckton goes after Jackie Kennedy, too? Do these guys carefully choose targets who cannot respond, and who, because dead, cannot sue for libel?

Is it true that a Lie can get halfway around the world before Truth gets its boots on? Isn’t there some Truth Police who could stop Monckton from spreading that crap?

Oh, and while I’m thinking about it:

Spread the word, stop the madness:

19 Comments | Africa, Bogus history, DDT, Disease, Environmental protection, Malaria, Rachel Carson, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Africa, Christopher Monckton, DDT, Disease, Malaria, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Denying Darwin’s God

September 3, 2009

While we’re at it, note that Cornelius Hunter is both a propagandist, and a bit of a coward. Truth wins in a fair fight, so Hunter can’t afford to allow a fair fight to break out in the comments section of his blog.

I don’t know what his readership is, but were he to open his blog to comments, he could learn a lot. As it is, he’s spreading false information a lot. Let’s hope his readership is small, as are his arguments against science.

Seriously: Does he really believe in point #1 that DNA does not demonstrate family relationships? Or is this just his subtle way of saying no one is legitimate, trying desperately to avoid the “b” word?

The blog is an embarrassment to Christians.

Oh, but now I see why. He’s a fellow at Discovery Institute. It’s normal for those who can’t be embarrassed by their own errors.

4 Comments | Creationism, Evolution, Hoaxes, Voodoo science | Tagged: Cornelius Hunter, Creationism, Darwin, Discovery Institute, Evolution, Hoaxes, Intelligent Design, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

New junk science movie: “Not evil, just wrong”

August 16, 2009

I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.

“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.

The film is both evil and wrong.

Errors just in the trailer:

Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
“They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
“They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.

When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
“Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
“They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
“I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]

That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.

Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”

It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“

Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:

Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):

Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.

Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?

More:

Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:

Please spread the word:

522 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, Cost of Green, DDT, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, Junk science, Rachel Carson, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Al Gore, Climate change, Cost of Green, Environmental protection, film, Global warming, Green Politics, Junk science, Politics, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Global cooling? That would be good news for the forests

August 12, 2009

Climate change denialists (sorry, Mr. Watts – denialism is what it is) frequently argue that since the peak heat year of 1998, the planet has been cooling, and may be in a long-term trend to a much cooler planet.

Has anyone told the beetles?

Has anyone told the pine bark beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) that are devastating North American forests?

Colorado conifers affected by pine bark beetles (brown trees are dead) - image from Chad Crawford, Homebrewed Christianity

I was interested to find this photo and this post at Homebrewed Christianity, by Chad Crawford.

But my trips to the mountains are always simultaneously joyful and mournful. The story I want to tell is about seeing the effects up close of the North American pine beetle outbreak. It’s devastating the Rocky Mountain forests in the U.S. and Canada and growing exponentially each year. The epidemic is occurring because our winters have not been cold enough to stop the beetles from multiplying. Bark beetles are good for the ecosystem, but not in this amount. The fall colors in our evergreen forests are telling us that global warming is no longer something our kids will face; it’s happening now. And it will accelerate if our forests disappear.

Mr. Watts, it’s not me you have to convince. There are several millions of beetles in Colorado who must be persuaded the climate is not warming — and they’ll be a tough sell, since a colder climate means death to their future generations.

A greater challenge for you, Mr. Watts: Not one of those beetles reads your blog. How will you reach them?

Crawford went to Colorado and saw Fr. Thomas Berry. Maybe we should buy a ticket to Colorado for Watts.

9 Comments | Biology, Cost of Green, Disasters, Environmental protection, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, Global warming, Green Politics, Politics, Reason, Religion, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: Climate change, Climate Data, Colorado, Cost of Green, Disasters, Global warming, Green Politics, Pine Bark Beetles, Politics, Religion, Ridiculae, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

No, WHO is not taking over the world with swine flu scares

August 9, 2009

Turn up the craziness that is opposition to health care reform, and you get genuine, full-blown “hot zone” conspiracy wholly ungrounded in reality.

Like coathangers, hoaxes multiply in the closet! Put ’em in the dark, they’ll invent stuff beyond your wildest imagination. It’s a perfect storm of voodoo science, voodoo history, paranoia and just plain hysteria.

TinFoilHatArea sign

But they’ll swear it’s true.

A new hoax claims the World Health Organization (WHO) got a secret law passed to allow them to take over the world just as soon as they can get a few more people to catch swine flu. No, really.

Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world including the USA, in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency and replaced by special crisis committees, which take charge of the health and security infrastructure of a country, and which are answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.

If the Model Emergency Health Powers Act is implemented on the instructions of WHI, it will be a criminal offence for Americans to refuse the vaccine. Police are allowed to use deadly force against “criminal” suspects.

Through their control of these special pandemic crisis committees with the power to enact legislation to be set up most countries, the WHO, UN and EU become the de facto government of a large part of the world.

Mass murder and death will also bring economic collapse and disruption, starvation and wars – and these events will lead to a further population reduction.

Absolutely false. WHO has no such plans. Check with your health professionals, they’ll tell you swine flu is a real concern (even though it looks like swift action has prevented a lot of trouble so far, and may prevent a lot of ill health later).

If you made up this sort of stuff for a movie, they’d tell you “Dr. Strangelove” pushed the envelope as far as parody would go, and you should give up writing comedy, even dark comedy.

Did you notice the typographical error there in the second paragraph, where “WHO” turns into “WHI?”

That’s a DNA-style marker for this hoax. Watch for it as it shows up at other sites where tinfoil-hat bedorned people mindlessly copy this chunk of fiction and pass it along as if it were just news about the new shopping center going in around the corner.

Much of the nuttiness appears to originate at WakeNews, from someone named Jane Bürgermeister who has grabbed .pdfs of a couple of WHO memoranda on the dangers of swine flu, and claims that instead of warnings about swine flu based on research, they are textbooks for how to use swine flu as a weapon of war against civilians. Or it may be originating at a website she may run, Case About Birdflu (this is the url, I kid you not: http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/) (This post, about her being fired, and with lots of “attagirls” from too-willing nutters, should be a roadmap for Prozac salesmen.)

Do not any of these people ever stop to wonder, “Hmmmm. Curious about how this doesn’t appear on the WHO website, and how there are no links to anything that sounds even tangentially rational — I wonder if it’s true?”

Wall of Shame: Here are sites that repeated the hoax blindly, without even bothering to correct the typo (notice how few of these sites will allow you to point out an error):

Socio-economics History Blog
The Tree of Liberty discussion board
Farmwars
The Universal Seduction (unable to resist being seduced itself . . .)
Citizens for Legitimate Government
World News Bulletin (hoping somehow to spread the truth of the Bible by spreading untruths)
Battalion of Deborah
One Radio Network
Educate Yourself
Heidi Lore
Conspiracy Central (finally truth in advertising!)
TruInternational
SOTT.net (signs of the times)
[watch for updates; this hoax rumor is multiplying like maggots on a roadkill armadillo on a hot Texas day]
Labor Day update: If Dr. Mercola at Mercola.com has a doctorate to practice anything — medicine, law, psychology, cosmetology, barbering — it should be yanked. He is misinforming people with feeble minded tendencies on this issue for his own profit (see his sales section). I think one can make a good case that a physician advising patients as his blogging does, would be open to malpractice. (Thanks for the warning in comments, Angeleyeslady.)

Reality: No plans to take over the world; tough plans to fight swine flu

Swine flu, more specifically the H1N1 virus, poses severe threats to real people, including you. WHO has plans to combat the disease and its spread — laid out publicly here, for example. There is even a Center for Strategic Health Operations (SHOC in the odd acronymical lexicon of the UN).

Preparations to fight epidemics and pandemics are part and parcel of public health operations around the world. Almost every county in the United States has a public health office that makes plans for how to protect the local community from such diseases, and how to treat people who get the disease to help them survive. Those who spread these hoaxes rarely know that they have people in their towns to do this work — the United Nations and WHO have no authority to intervene in these cases.

What about the Model Emergency Health Act? Proposals under that name exist — none allow people to be executed for refusing vaccinations. As a matter of U.S. policy, almost all health legislation includes an out for religious objectors — Christian Scientists, for example, generally refuse vaccinations and much other treatment. Jehovah Witnessses refuse transfusions. In almost every case, those religious beliefs can be accommodated so long as the rest of us bother to protect ourselves against disease.

All of the proposals are designed to help public health officials fight disease. Public health officials might be described as the embodiment of the name Milquetoast. They are rarely in the forefront of your run-of-the-mill power-mad megalomaniac. Former public health officials who rose to power in any circumstance can be counted on one hand, if there are any. Contrast that with former religious officials, or former business executives, or former college presidents, and you begin to see reality. WHO is not populated with people who wish to take over the world á la Pinky and the Brain. WHO does not answer to people who resemble Pinky or the Brain in any way, either.

You may review the first (and most worrisome) draft of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in .pdf here. Note carefully the strong defense of the rights of individuals recognized in the preamble to the draft bill. The 2003 version of the Model Act can be reviewed at Alaska’s site; you can also find a section-by-section analysis and other explanatory material.

This document tracks state legislative actions so far — I dare anyone to find the trampling of civil rights and lunatic claims made at the websites listed above. If you do find troubling actions, please note them in comments here. Note well that the documents in the previous three links are maintained by officials at the State of Alaska — Sarah Palin’s appointees and public health team. It’s unlikely that Sarah Palin would be involved in a massive, international conspiracy to imprison millions of citizens just because they are not immune to influenza. Of course, maybe you know Palin better than I do and you think she’s a megalomaniac just looking for her chance to play Mussolini in America — but I doubt it.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are deeply involved in preparations for influenza outbreaks, and swine flu is no exception. CDC features a page showing international preparations for swine flu; note that plans to round up recalcitrant non-inoculants for execution are not in the program. From that page you can get to the WHO page on international preparations, and there you can link to to international health regulations on the issue. WHO’s “edict” so far:

Concerning public health measures, in line with the Regulations the Director-General is recommending, on the advice of the Committee, that all countries intensify surveillance for unusual outbreaks of influenza-like illness and severe pneumonia.

That’s it.

There is an Emergency Committee set up to deal with H1N1 specifically. The group has met four times; here is the report from the fourth meeting, in June:

11 June 2009

DG Statement following the meeting of the Emergency Committee

The Emergency Committee held its fourth meeting on 11th June 2009.

The Committee considered available information on transmission of New influenza A (H1N1) in a number of locations in countries in different regions of the World Health Organization, and concluded that the criteria for a pandemic have been met.

Following the advice from the Committee the WHO Director-General decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from the current phase 5 to phase 6. At this early stage, the pandemic can be characterized globally as being moderate in severity.

As previously recommended by the Director-General, countries should not close borders or restrict international traffic and trade.

Countries should assess their specific situation and make a timely transition from focusing national efforts on containment to focusing on mitigation measures, including appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions.

WHO remains in close dialogue with influenza vaccine manufacturers. It is understood that production of vaccines for seasonal influenza will be completed soon, and that full capacity will be available to ensure the largest possible supply of pandemic vaccine in the months to come.

You can see that the paranoia reflected in the sites on the Wall of Shame, is unwarranted.

Coda: You gotta love the guys who quickly see a way to make a buck on this fear. Here’s a guy who will sell you a “smartroom” decontamination unit to retrofit any room in your home to make you safe from swine flu — just $1,899! Crazy with dollar signs in his dreams.

The SmartRoom is designed to protect you and your family from all viruses and bacteria. It can be quickly and easily installed. The SmartRoom is lightweight, compact and is totally collapsible for storage.

The SmartRoom features an Ultraviolet Biological Airlock that you attach to any room entry in your home or office. The Smartroom Tri Filter Biological Filtration Unit creates a Biological Saferoom under positive air pressure or a Quarantine Room under negative air pressure.

If it were only so easy to protect from swine flu. If only it were so easy to protect ourselves from the conspiracy crazies.

Update, August 11, 2009: More than 19,000 tinfoil hatters (TFH) have signed a petition against WHO’s imagined mandatory vaccine campaign. Sign a petition against a problem that doesn’t exist!

Update, September 12, 2009: See this debunking of pseudoscience anti-vaccine claims at Respectful Insolence.

Friends don’t let friends be hoaxed: Don’t be fooled! Share the news.

251 Comments | History, Hoaxes, Junk science, medicine, Paranoia, Tinfoil Hats, United Nations, Urban Legend, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: FEMA, H1N1, Hoaxes, Mandatory Vaccinations, Paranoia, Politics, Public health, Swine Flu, Tinfoil Hats, United Nations, Urban Legend, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Newsmax turns to medical quackery?

July 30, 2009

You are surprised that Newsmax would engage in medical quackery? They make their money engaged in news quackery, they are principal exponents of political quackery, they practice history quackery, they support science quackery in schools — is this a trend yet?

FDA, FTC, where are you?

To the extent this is not quackery, it’s known, published material your physician has access to and can advise you on. To the extent this is not known, published material, it’s quackery. Where the information is good, it should be a violation of journalistic ethics to package this as somehow secret, unknown or suppressed by the medical establishment and news organizations — and available to you alone, if you only pay the fat fee demanded. Where the information is suppressed, it is suppressed because it is dangerous to patients — the real problem with quackery.

Do not ever think that Newsmax is engaged in news, after this.

Here’s the e-mail text Newsmax sent out today — the only thing missing is their actually calling this stuff “snake oil”:

Dear Newsmax Reader:

David Brownstein, M.D., one of the foremost American practitioners of conventional as well as holistic medicine, has some urgent health information that could dramatically affect your health and well-being. Please take a moment to read his information below.

Newsmax.com

How to Prevent Arthritis, Cancer and Alzheimer’s!

Try this simple remedy for rheumatoid arthritis!

Use this mineral to protect against skin cancer!

See what to do now to prevent multiple sclerosis,
Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s!

Plus, why a deficiency in this nutrient puts you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke!

Dear Friend,

Today I’ve got important news for you on preventing heart disease, stroke, skin cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s . . .

I’ve got an update on which vitamins (in addition to calcium) can strengthen your bones and fight osteoporosis . . .

I’ve got a simple, inexpensive, and almost entirely overlooked remedy for rheumatoid arthritis . . .

Plus, the risks of diuretic drugs, the importance of detox, and why most people are dehydrated and don’t know it!

Hi, I’m Dr. David Brownstein, editor of Natural Way to Health, the newsletter for folks looking for real solutions, not more drugs with harsh side effects.

In one moment, I’ll show you how to get a FREE copy of my latest report, “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health,” covering all the topics above . . .

Plus, full access to all of my previous reports, including the two most popular ones, “The Biggest Fraud In Medicine: Cholesterol Leads to Heart Disease” and “How To Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally.”

But first, let’s look at how I successfully treated one of my patients for rheumatoid arthritis, and also how to safeguard against multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Crippled by Arthritis But Now
Up and Out of the Wheelchair

My patient Susan had suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for 20 years. Her hands were swollen and deformed. Harsh drugs were robbing her of energy. And her painful joints had forced her into a wheelchair.

Susan had tried many conventional treatments, including taking large amounts of the steroid drug Prednisone, but nothing much helped.

“I really did not know what to do,” she told me. “My rheumatologist had nothing good to offer me . . . just one toxic medication after another that I could not tolerate.”

The conventional treatment for rheumatoid arthritis is anti-inflammatory agents such as Naprosyn, Motrin, and Voltaren. But as the disease progresses, conventional doctors prescribe harsh drugs such as methotrexate and Plaquenil.

Unfortunately, these immune-suppressing drugs have bad side effects, including depressed bone marrow function, low white blood cell count, low platelet counts, anemia and loss of energy.

Newer drugs like Enbrel and Remicade are no better . . .

They block a protein the body produces as part of the inflammatory response. But blocking this protein for any length of time increases your risk of life-threatening infections and even cancer.

A Safer and More Effective Course . . .

The first thing I told Susan is I wanted to test her for a bacteria that has been associated with rheumatoid arthritis since 1938 (see your FREE report for details).

Sadly, most physicians, even specialists, never bother to test for this bacteria because conventional medicine focuses myopically on expensive drugs that treat only symptoms (see why just ahead).

When I told Susan that her test came back positive for this bacteria, and that I could prescribe an inexpensive antibiotic to treat it, she was overwhelmed . . .

“I began crying when I found out that I was positive,” she said. “It was the first time that I could connect the dots on why I have rheumatoid arthritis.”

In your FREE copy of “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health,” you’ll get the name of this bacteria (so you can ask your doctor for the test), as well as the name of the antibiotic (and dosage) I prescribed that has proved successful in treating it.

Next, I also addressed Susan’s diet because she was making her arthritis worse by eating refined foods and sugars.

Most people don’t realize how devastating sugar is to their bodies and how it leads to serious problems such as arthritis, arrythmia, arteriosclerosis, edema, and Type 2 diabetes (see your FREE report for details).

How’s My Patient Doing Today?

Within four weeks, Susan began to feel significantly better. After eight weeks, we began to wean her off the anti-inflammatory and steroid medicines.

And the best news of all: On her last visit, she told me, “Now I feel I can get out of the wheelchair.” That’s exactly what she’s doing and today she’s in therapy to strengthen her leg muscles!

You’ll get Susan’s full case study in your FREE copy of “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health.” And I hope you’ll share it with everyone you know who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis.

But why didn’t Susan’s rheumatologist test her for the bacteria? And why didn’t he discuss nutritional alternatives that would’ve helped her?

What Your Doctor Doesn’t Know Can Hurt You

I’m sorry to report that conventional doctors have no knowledge of — and thus very little interest in — natural therapies. And that’s because “health and nutrition” are NOT taught in medical school.

What is taught there? The two Ds: Disease and Drugs.

Physicians are trained to diagnose illness and disease, and then to prescribe the approved drug (or drugs) that will treat that illness or disease. People are often surprised to learn this but . . .

The emphasis is on disease, not health. And on drugs, not nutrition. Nothing is taught about how to achieve optimal health or prevent disease.

How did we get such a narrow-minded medical system in America? In the early days of medicine here, drug makers formed an alliance (some say an unholy one) with the newly founded American Medical Association.

The drugmakers provided education (on drug use) to AMA-affiliated doctors and also helped this fledgling organization win out over its competitors to become the dominant force in American medicine.

In return, the AMA endorses Big Pharma’s drugs and teaches drug therapy in their schools (generally disparaging other therapies).

Don’t get me wrong: Drugs play an important role in medical treatment, and there are times when they literally save your life . . .

But they are not the best solution for every problem. And drugs that do more harm than good should never be promoted in favor of natural therapies that are both safer and more effective.

And yet that’s exactly what happens every single day because of this unholy alliance between the AMA and Big Pharma.

But you don’t have to be victimized by this narrow-minded approach even one day longer. I believe . . .

You deserve to know how to really prevent heart disease, cancer, fatigue, diabetes, arthritis, weight gain and many more health problems!

You’ll discover several of them today, but before we return to these subjects, let me just say . . .

I’m going to extend a special offer to try my Natural Way to Health for just 14 cents a day. That’s not a misprint — I really mean 14 cents a day!

Each month in Natural Way to Health I routinely . . .

Expose the hidden dangers in common foods and medicines . . .

Reveal the truth about conflicting medical reports in the press . . .

Offer safer and healthier alternatives to harsh drugs . . .

Give easy tips for preventing disease and feeling your best!

And by signing on today . . . you’ll not only get 12 monthly issues of Natural Way to Health for just 14 cents a day but also gain access to all of my previous health reports, plus receive FREE copies of my three most popular health books, just go here now.

But first, let’s get back to the important remedies in today’s report . . .

Today’s Epidemic of Dehydration

This one will surprise you . . .

Today, the majority of people are going through their lives in a constant state of dehydration. And that’s putting them at greater risk for several serious diseases . . .

Heart disease . . . Stroke . . . Multiple Sclerosis . . . Parkinson’s . . . Alzheimer’s are all linked to a sustained state of dehydration. Let’s find out why.

Your body is 75 percent water. Your brain is 80 percent water. Because of your body’s high water composition, you need sufficient water intake to achieve optimal function at the cellular level.

In my own practice, I’ve found that every patient suffering a chronic illness also was dehydrated. Every single one! Can this be a coincidence? No.

We are all creatures of habits, and we’ve developed some bad ones over the years.

Typically, when I ask new patients how much water they drink a day, they tell me they don’t drink much pure water, but they do drink plenty of coffee, soda pop, juice, and even beer, so they’re sure they’re getting enough.

No, they are not! Coffee, soda pop, juice, and alcoholic beverages are all dehydrating. If you’re drinking them, you need even more water!

Caffeine, especially, is a potent diuretic, forcing the body to expel water. It’ll also over-stimulate your adrenal hormones, exacerbate hormonal irregularities, and weaken your immune system.

Are you also fatigued? See your FREE REPORT to find out why!

Of course the sugar in soda pop, in juices, and in alcoholic beverages causes dehydration. And that holds true for what you may think of as healthy fruit juice.

Check the sugar content on that carton of orange juice in your refrigerator; you’ll see it’s got more sugar in it than the ice cream in your freezer.

Another problem with sugar is that it leads to a number of degenerative diseases, including heart disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes, and even cancer.

Did you know that cancer cells thrive on sugar? See your FREE report.

How about diet sodas? Worse yet. The sweeteners NutraSweet and Splenda have their own bad side effects that can lead to serious health problems (see your FREE REPORT for details).

Okay. How much water should you drink a day?

In your FREE copy of “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health” I’ll give you a simple formula that’ll tell you exactly how much water to drink based on your weight, and also what kind of water to drink.

Yes, you can have other beverages, but get your water first. And here’s why it’s vitally important . . .

Dehydration, Toxic Buildup, and Disease

Remember, your brain is 80 percent water. It needs sufficient water to bring nutrients in, and it needs sufficient water to flush toxins out. Neurological disorders such as . . .

Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis are occurring at epidemic to pandemic rates today for a reason . . .

Widespread dehydration is causing a buildup and concentration of toxins in the brain, and this problem worsens over time.

Remember, we are bombarded every day with poisonous lead, mercury, aluminum, cadmium, arsenic, and bromine. These toxins are in our food, air, water, and thousands of consumer products, even in medicines!

Your first line of defense is the work your liver and kidney do to remove these toxins. But they can’t do their jobs without an abundance of water. Water makes detox possible.

And if you’re not getting enough water (most people aren’t), toxins will build up over time and become concentrated in your tissue and organs. That’s how disease gets started.

See your FREE report, “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health” for complete details on the link between dehydration and neurological disorders — just go here now.

The Link Between Heart Health and Water

Few people know that dehydration is also an independent risk factor for heart disease, and one that is far more critical than “elevated cholesterol.”

Dehydration promotes thicker blood. And thick, sticky blood is more prone to plaque buildup and eventual clotting that can cause heart attack and stroke.

For more than 30 years, heart disease has been the No. 1 killer in America, and we’ve made very little progress against it. Why? Because we do not treat the underlying causes of heart disease.

The culprit is not “elevated cholesterol.” And if you’re taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, you’re wasting your time. You’d be far better off just drinking more water.

But there’s more you can do . . .

Be sure to read my two most popular reports — “The Biggest Fraud in Medicine: Cholesterol Leads to Heart Disease,” plus “How to Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally” (details on getting FREE copies just ahead).

But look here . . .

In your FREE copy of “A Simple Way to Radically Improve Your Health,” I’m going to show you the startling results of a six-year study in Vienna that compared the amount of water intake to the incidence of heart attack and fatal stroke. After you see these results, you’ll know how much water to drink and why.

Want to know more about these and many more important health issues?

Try Natural Way to Health
For Just 14 Cents a Day

Each month in my advisory letter, Natural Way To Health, I report on the most important issues regarding your family’s health, sorting out what’s really useful to you, even life-saving, and also what’s harmful and sometimes life-threatening.

I don’t take anything away from what’s good about conventional medicine — and much is good. But . . .

Those who practice conventional medicine want to make drugs the solution to every problem, even when those drugs are harmful and ineffective. And again, that’s because of the unholy alliance between Big Pharma and the AMA.

You should know that, in many cases, there are safer, gentler, and more effective natural solutions. And you will know once you start reading Natural Way to Health each month.

Yes, I went to medical school and received the conventional training, but I’ve also spent the last 17 years studying holistic medicine.

Today at my clinic, The Center for Holistic Medicine in West Bloomfield Michigan, I’m integrating the best of conventional medicine with safe and natural therapies that in many cases work even better.

I’d like to share these good results with you. And that’s why I’m extending this special offer to try Natural Way to Health for just 14 cents a day. It’s a great time to join us because . . .

Today’s offer includes 12 monthly issues, three of my most popular books FREE (see titles just ahead), full access to all of my previous reports (titles to follow), plus a FREE copy of today’s report . . .

A Simple Way to Radically
Improve Your Health

Discover the bacteria associated with rheumatoid arthritis and the inexpensive antibiotic that kills it!

See which foods are anathema for arthritis sufferers and why!

Find out why most people are dehydrated and don’t know it!

See why multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s are on the rise, and the simple way to protect yourself!

Find out why a deficiency in this nutrient dramatically increases your risk of heart attack and stroke!

Also in Your FREE Report . . .

See a study showing how a Vitamin B-6 deficiency increases your risk for colon cancer!

See why high doses of both types of Vitamin K should be included in every osteoporosis treatment plan!

Discover which mineral produced a 57 percent decrease in skin cancer in an eight-year Australian study!

Find out the risks of diuretic drugs, plus how you may be able to get off of them by following a different plan!

See how age-related macular degeneration can be avoided by adopting a healthier diet!

There’s more in your FREE copy of “Simple Nutrients and Foods That Can Save Your Life,” too. And don’t forget when you take advantage of my 14-cents-a-day subscription offer today, you’ll gain full access to all of my previous reports, including:

Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally

The Biggest Fraud in Medicine: Cholesterol Leads to Heart Disease

A Safe Effective Vitamin (B-12) That Can Change Your Life

Hidden Dangers of Popular Stomach-Acid Drugs

Big Pharma’s Big Lie About Osteoporosis and Aging

Simple Nutrients and Foods That Can Save Your Life

As a valued Newsmax customer, I don’t want you to get tainted health news, bad advice, or to be strictly limited to drug-based conventional medicine when safer, gentler, and more effective natural therapies are available!

Once you start receiving Natural Way to Health each month, you’ll get the valuable information you need to make smart healthcare, nutrition, and lifestyle choices for yourself and every family member. Now look here . . .

Special Reports and 3 Valuable Books FREE!

Today, you can get a one-year subscription (12 issues) to Natural Way to Health for just 14 cents a day. And your no-risk subscription includes the valuable report we’ve been discussing today, access to all of my previous reports, plus three of my most popular books, ALL FREE!

With your one-year subscription, you’ll receive THREE FREE BOOKS worth $60.00!

You’ll not only get Dr. Brownstein’s newsletter and current issue “Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally” . . .

You’ll also receive three of Dr. Brownstein’s most popular books — Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, The Guide to a Gluten-Free Diet, and The Miracle of Natural Hormones (each one a $20 value).

In fact, we’ll even pay the postage for you!

No kidding . . .

You’ve already seen some of the health answers you’ll find in Dr. Brownstein’s issue “Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally.”

But you haven’t seen anything yet.

Just look at all the additional information you’ll read about in your three FREE books . . .

FREE BOOK #1
Drugs That Don’t Work and
Natural Therapies That Do

In Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, you’ll see why some of the most commonly prescribed drugs today may be harmful to your health . . . and why you should consider natural therapies in your treatment program for these six common obstacles to wellness:

Elevated cholesterol levels — Discover how you can lower your cholesterol
naturally . . .

Osteoporosis or brittle bones — See how to maintain healthy bones without inflammation-causing drugs like Fosomax® and Boniva® . . .

Stomach problems such as heartburn, reflux, and ulcers — See why you should use antacids only as a last resort. (Plus, holistic steps you can take to treat common digestive complaints) . . .

Depression — Discover how to raise your serotonin levels through diet and amino acid supplementation, the natural antidepressant treatment . . .

Inflammation — Hear about numerous simple and natural alternatives you can use to relieve the pain, stiffness, and other symptoms of arthritis . . .

Imbalanced hormonal system — Find out how to balance your hormonal system safely to improve your well-being, slow your aging process, and even reverse many chronic conditions . . .

FREE BOOK #2 —
The Guide to a Gluten-Free Diet

In The Guide to a Gluten-Free Diet, Dr. Brownstein will show you why ingesting gluten from wheat, barley, rye, and other grains could be detrimental to your health.

In fact, one in six people suffers from a serious illness that has a safe, effective, and inexpensive remedy: avoiding gluten.

In this eye-opening book, you’ll see:

How gluten sensitivity is not being diagnosed properly in nearly 97% of patients suffering from chronic illnesses . . .

Why gluten sensitivity may be responsible for such diseases as cancer, depression, obesity, ADD, autoimmune disorders, acid reflux, thyroid disorders, osteoporosis, and many others . . .

What you can eat — and still be gluten-free . . .

How to determine whether you or a loved one might be sensitive to gluten . . .

Simple strategies to transition to a gluten-free lifestyle . . .

Gluten-free meal and snack ideas, tips, and recipes to get you started . . .

And much more . . .

FREE BOOK #3 —
The Miracle of Natural Hormones

In your third free book, The Miracle of Natural Hormones, Dr. Brownstein describes the natural hormones he uses in his own clinical practice — and shares over 50 case histories of the amazing medical successes he’s witnessed in his own patients.

Look at the valuable health tidbits you’ll find between the pages of The Miracle of Natural Hormones:

10 chronic health conditions dramatically improved with natural hormone therapy — some even cured for good . . .

How your risk for pulmonary embolism skyrockets to more than 2,100% with these synthetic hormones . . .

The No. 1 reason conventional doctors don’t prescribe natural hormones (it has nothing to do with your health at all) . . .

A deficiency of this one powerful hormone can short-circuit your whole endocrine system . . .

Two natural remedies for the relief of menopausal symptoms — you’ll be surprised by how simple they are . . .

Who knew this natural male hormone could benefit women, too?

Plus much, much more . . .

All three of these easy-reading books (a $60 value) are yours FREE with your one-year subscription to Dr. David Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health.

And just so you know, this is a limited time offer — and only available to those who order from this special letter, so claim yours today!

I Don’t Want to Miss Out On My Three Free Books — Sign Me Up Now!

But along with the savings and book bonuses, our Newsmax guarantee should help make your decision a little easier, because . . .

You’re Covered by Our ‘No-Questions-Asked,’
Money-Back Guarantee . . .

I want you to take your time — read your brand-new Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health at your own pace. (Remember: You can have it delivered right to your home in print form or as a convenient digital download; your choice.)

Absorb what you learn to help yourself and those you care about. If you’re not completely wowed by all the health-saving information you receive in every report, just let Newsmax know within the first 90 days.

Every penny you invested will be refunded, no questions asked. (After 90 days, you’ll still qualify for a pro-rated refund of any unused portion of your subscription.)

Whatever you decide, you can keep the 3 Free Books you received with our thanks, just for giving the newsletter a fair try. How’s that for a deal?

What could be easier?

You have absolutely nothing to lose by saying ‘yes’ to your trial subscription to Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health newsletter. In fact, when you come right down to it, you just might be making money on this deal!

So, come on — sign-up today.

You know, your health is all you really have in this life. And if you don’t take care of it — nothing else is possible.

And if you’ve read this far, I’m sure you take your health very seriously — and want to do whatever you can to live your best life possible.

Go ahead, you have everything to gain by taking advantage of this limited-time offer.

To Your Lasting Health,

Christopher Ruddy
Newsmax CEO

P.S. There’s nothing more valuable than knowing the truth when it comes to your health. Make the decision right now to take charge of your health by claiming your report, Stop Heart Disease In Its Tracks, Naturally, full of critical, life-altering information you don’t dare miss.

You’ll also get your own free copies of Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, The Guide to a Gluten-Free Diet, and The Miracle of Natural Hormones ($60 value) with your one-year no-risk trial of Dr. Brownstein’s new newsletter — a Newsmax exclusive. Don’t wait — Subscribe today!

* * * * *

This e-mail was sent by:
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

I repeat, do not ever think that Newsmax is engaged in news, after this.

53 Comments | Business Ethics, cancer, Health care, Journalism, medicine, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

India accepts climate junk science; U.S. suffers

July 25, 2009

It would be good news were it not so bad: India, usually considered a threat to U.S. dominance in science, has turned its back on climate science and instead, citing junk science claims, rejected overtures to reduce pollution that affects climate. India appears to have fallen victim to the hoaxters who claim climate change is no big deal.

From the Financial Times:

A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday.

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions.

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

As if the atmosphere of the Himalayan range is unaffected by emissions from Europe or Asia. As if the glaciers in the Himalayas, and the snowfall, and the water to India’s great rivers, come independent from the rest of the world.

Deadly air pollution obscures the India Gate, New Delhi, India, November 2008 - NowPublic.com

It’s interesting to see these issues play out politically. India and China both understand that the U.S. and Europe have much more to lose from climate change than either of those nations. Climate damage to the U.S. wheat belt, for example, would chiefly close off U.S. production of wheat for export, opening markets for others — like India and China. Critically, such damage also hurts U.S. ability to offset balance of payments issues, providing economic and finance advantages to China’s banks. U.S. ports are much more vulnerable to climate change damage, from increase storms and changing ocean levels, than are ports in India and China — and there are more ports that are vulnerable in the U.S. and Europe.

India’s inaction and recalcitrance should not be used as justification for the U.S. to do nothing, thereby slitting its own patriotic throat.

But watch: Climate denialist blogs, “hate-America-first” outlets like World Net Daily, and Osama bin Laden will hail India’s inaction.

Let’s hope cooler heads prevail, lest we run out of cooler heads.

Shake of the old scrub brush to Brown Hell and Watt’s Up With That.

If this is important to you, please share it; click on the button you choose below.

7 Comments | China, Climate change, Cost of Green, Economics, Energy, Environmental protection, foreign affairs, Global warming, Globalization, Green Politics, Hoaxes, India, Junk science, Natural resources, Politics, pollution, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Science, Voodoo science, War on Science, Water | Tagged: Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Fighting Back, foreign affairs, Global warming, Junk science, National Security, Science, Sovereignty, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Hoax exposed: “The Great Global Warming Swindle’s” swindle

July 14, 2009

Nicely done, too, I think; this is one more alarm bell to tell us why there will be no Nobel Peace Prize for global warming deniers.

From the same guy who so brilliantly brings us the Global Warming Crock of the Week:

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tim Lambert at Deltoid.

23 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Hoaxes, Junk science, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Junk science, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

More Christo-totalitarianism: Science not welcome

July 10, 2009

Ooooh, I guess I push the buttons on these guys.

I’ve been banned from two more blogs run by smiling Christo-totalitarians, Dr. Doug Groothuis in Denver (second or third banning, I can’t recall), and another pontificator of Christography, Paul Adams in Arizona.

My sin? I dared call their hand as they post false bloviations from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer in Meyer’s national anti-science campaign. Adams claims I violated his guidelines. Since I was polite, but sharp, I assume that they regard any dissent as “ad hominem” or discourteous.

And, since they banned me, they wiped out my posts. No need to answer the difficult questions if they can just pretend the questions don’t exist.

They especially do not like my noting creationism and intelligent design as voodoo science, and the bizarre accounts creationists tell of the origins of evolution theory as voodoo history. Truth hurts too much, I guess.

Creationism might be on its last legs, when otherwise Christian people are driven to totalitarian actions like this, baby camel nose that it is. Christianity generally flourishes when it’s oppressed. When Christianity is the basis of oppression, however, the faith falters. There is a darker possibility: It may be Christianity that totters with creationism gnawing at the legs and tunneling through clay feet of the Christian monolith.

You may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get patently offensive. One, their inability to muster rational arguments to defend their unholy War on Science always exposes them. And two, there is always some hope that they might see the light, open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears — at least there is hope on my part.

Both Groothuis and Adams are otherwise edified philosophers (which only makes their actions more amusing). What is it about philosophers that makes them try to philosophize away the world they do not like?

On principle I am open to Groothuis or Adams trying to defend their assault on science in comments here, if they can. This is an invitation to them to discuss their claims. I ask them to keep it clean and polite. Since there is no rational or factual basis to their claims of intelligent design, they will have little to say. Nor will they bother, I predict. Creationism, including intelligent design, can only function in a fawning, unquestioning atmosphere filled with ignorance of science.

If you want some good clean fun and you can stand a little aggravation when they get all huffy about it, Dear Readers, stroll over to Groothuis’s inaptly named Constructive Curmudgeon or Adams’s In Christus, and post the facts of science that Stephen Meyer wishes to ignore. Be aware, they are likely to censor comments and ban commenters who assault them with science. Even Christians with Ph.D.s fall victim to Ray Mummert’s disease.

These are two men who should know better. These are two men whose faith claims should prevent them from supporting voodoo science, junk science, and the War on Education.

Vampires of fiction and cockroaches of reality are negatively phototropic. They avoid light generally, they cannot stand sunlight, the light of day. Oddly, creationists share that trait.

Update: Adams, whose philosophy appears to include neither manners nor good science, will not do me the courtesy of saying why he banned me despite two e-mails, but he will respond at his blog when a fellow totalitarian writes in, leaving off any evidence of what he claims is true. Adams said today:

I spent some time crafting my guidelines and intend on holding to them, expecting everyone to do same.
They’re not optional. Perhaps I should change to “Rules.”

In my estimation, Mr. Darnell committed the ad hominem fallacy violating guideline #2 when speaking to Doug’s inability to respond, rather than addressing the content/substance of Dr. Meyer’s presentation.

How convenient that is. Adams can claim that I posted nothing of substance against Meyers’ unscientific diatribe, and then Adams doesn’t have to answer. As best I can figure it, when I note Meyer’s errors, Adams regards that as “ad hominem.” If Adams were consistent, he’d take down Meyer’s piece. Meyer cannot talk without ad hominem, especially since he has no science to back his claims. Don’t take my word for it. Go look at Adams’ blog — warning, he’s unlikely to leave your post up if you point out any of Stephen Meyer’s many errors, or rudenesses, or ad hominem claims — and see for yourself. If you think for a moment or two that Meyer starts making sense, keep that thought and go look at a serious review of his claims by professionals, here. Adams can’t tell you why he completely disregards Dr. Gotelli, nor will he explain why a link to Gotelli’s critique of Meyer is unacceptable on his blog. There is no good reason other than Adams’ bigotry against science. Gotelli, of course, is a practicing scientist in the field in which Meyer polemicizes about.

64 Comments | Evolution, Intelligent Design, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Religion, Science, Science and faith, Totalitarianism, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Creationism, Douglas Groothuis, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Ray Mummert's Disease, Religion, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

David Barton: Mediocre scientists who are Christian, good; great scientists, bad

July 9, 2009

I’m reviewing the reviews of Texas social studies curricula offered by the six people appointed by the Texas State Board of Education. David Barton, a harsh partisan politician, religious bigot, pseudo-historian and questionable pedagogue, offers up this whopper, about fifth grade standards.:

In Grade 5 (b)(24)(A), there are certainly many more notable scientists than Carl Sagan – such as Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse, etc.

Say what? “More notable scientists than Carl Sagan . . . ?” What is this about?

It’s about David Barton’s unholy bias against science, and in particular, good and great scientists like Carl Sagan who professed atheism, or any faith other than David Barton’s anti-science brand of fundamentalism.

David Barton doesn’t want any Texas child to grow up to be a great astronomer like Carl Sagan, if there is any chance that child will also be atheist, like Carl Sagan. Given a choice between great science from an atheist, or mediocre science from a fundamentalist Christian, Barton chooses mediocrity.

Currently the fifth grade standards for social studies require students to appreciate the contributions of scientists. Here is the standard Barton complains about:

(24) Science, technology, and society. The student understands the impact of science and technology on life in the United States. The student is expected to:

(A) describe the contributions of famous inventors and scientists such as Neil Armstrong, John J. Audubon, Benjamin Banneker, Clarence Birdseye, George Washington Carver, Thomas Edison, and Carl Sagan;
(B) identify how scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as the transcontinental railroad, the discovery of oil, and the rapid growth of technology industries have advanced the economic development of the United States;
(C) explain how scientific discoveries and technological innovations in the fields of medicine, communication, and transportation have benefited individuals and society in the United States;
(D) analyze environmental changes brought about by scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as air conditioning and fertilizers; and
(E) predict how future scientific discoveries and technological innovations could affect life in the United States.

Why doesn’t Barton like Carl Sagan? In addition to Sagan’s being a great astronomer, he was a grand populizer of science, especially with his series for PBS, Cosmos.

But offensive to Barton was Sagain’s atheism. Sagan wasn’t militant about it, but he did honestly answer people who asked that he found no evidence for the efficacy or truth of religion, nor for the existence of supernatural gods.

More than that, Sagan defended evolution theory. Plus, he was Jewish.

Any one of those items might earn the David Barton Stamp of Snooty-nosed Disapproval, but together, they are about fatal.

Do the scientists Barton suggests in Sagan’s stead measure up? Barton named four:

Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse

In the category of “Sagan Caliber,” only von Braun might stake a claim. Wernher von Braun, you may recall, was the guy who ran the Nazi’s rocketry program. After the war, it was considered a coup that the U.S. snagged him to work, first for the Air Force, and then for NASA. Excuse me for worrying, but I wonder whether Barton likes von Braun for his rocketry, for his accommodation of anti-evolution views, or for his Nazi-supporting roots. (No, I don’t trust Barton as far as I can hurl the Texas Republican Party Platform, which bore Barton’s fould stamp while he was vice chair of the group.)

So, apart from the fact that von Braun was largely an engineer, and Sagan was a brilliant astronomer with major contributions to our understanding of the cosmos, what about the chops of the other four people? Why would Barton suggest lesser knowns and unknowns?

Matthew Maury once headed the U.S. Naval Observatory, in the 19th century. He was famous for studying ocean currents, piggy-backing on the work of Ben Franklin and others. Do a Google search, though, and you’ll begin to undrstand: Maury is a favorite of creationists, a scientist who claimed to subjugate his science to the Bible. Maury claimed his work on ocean currents was inspired at least in part by a verse in Psalms 8 which referred to “paths in the sea.” Maury is not of the stature or achievement of Sagan, but Maury is politically correct to Barton.

Joseph Henry is too ignored, the first head of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry made his mark in research on magnetism and electricity. But it’s not Henry’s science Barton recognizes. Henry, as a largely unknown scientist today, is a mainstay of creationists’ list of scientists who made contributions to science despite their being creationists. What? Oh, this is inside baseball in the war to keep evolution in science texts. In response to the (accurate) claim that creationists have not contributed anything of scientific value to biology since about William Paley in 1802, Barton and his fellow creationists will trot out a lengthy list of scientists who were at least nominally Christian, and claim that they were creationists, and that they made contributions to science. The list misses the point that Henry, to pick one example, didn’t work in biology nor make a contribution to biology, nor is there much evidence that Henry was a creationist in the modern sense of denying science. Henry is obscure enough that Barton can claim he was politically correct, to Barton’s taste, to be studied by school children without challenging Barton’s creationist ideas.

Maria Mitchell was an American astronomer, the second woman to discover a comet. While she was a Unitarian and a campaigner for women’s rights, or more accurately, because of that, I can’t figure how she passes muster as politically correct to David Barton. Surely she deserves to be studied more in American history than she is — perhaps with field trips to the Maria Mitchell House National Historic Landmark. It may be that Barton has mistaken Mitchell for another creationist scientist. While Mitchell’s life deseves more attention — her name would be an excellent addition to the list of woman scientists Texas children should study — she is not of the stature of Sagan.

David Rittenhouse, a surveyor and astronomer, and the first head of the U.S. Mint, is similarly confusing as part of Barton’s list. Rittenhouse deserves more study, for his role in extending the Mason-Dixon line, if nothing else, but it is difficult to make a case that his contributions to science approach those of Carl Sagan. Why is Rittenhouse listed by Barton? If nothing else, it shows the level of contempt Barton holds for Sagan as “just another scientist.” Barton urges the study of other scientists, any other scientists, rather than study of Sagan.

Barton just doesn’t like Sagan. Why? Other religionists give us the common dominionist or radical religionist view of Sagan:

Just what is the Secular Humanist worldview? First and foremost Secular Humanists are naturalists. A naturalist believes that nature is all that exists. “The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be.” This was the late Carl Sagan’s opening line on the television series “Cosmos.” Sagan was a noted astronomer and a proud secular humanist. Sagan maintained that the God of the Bible was nonexistent. (Imagine Sagan’s astonishment when he came face to face with his Maker.)

Sagan’s science, in Barton’s view, doesn’t leave enough room for Barton’s religion. Sagan was outspoken about his opposition to superstition. Sagan urged reason and the active use of his “Baloney-Detection Kit.” One of Sagan’s later popular books was titled Demon-haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan argued for the use of reason and science to learn about our world, to use to build a framework for solving the world’s problems.

Barton prefers the dark to any light shed by Sagan, it appears.

More resources on the State Board of Education review of social studies curricula

“Texas Tall Tale,” from the July/August 2009 edition of Church and State
Capitol Annex, with a review of Barton’s paper that notes his incorrect quotes and incorrect citations of Texas law; and here detailing Barton’s falling victim to an internet hoax (which he cites as fact in his review)
Eye on Williamson, “SBOE’s next trick, history with a conservative religious slant”
Off the Kuff, “SBOE’s assault on history”
Three Wise Men said it’s Texas conservatives up to their old, anti-Texas tricks
Louisiana Coaliation for Science calls Barton one of Bobby Jindal’s “friends in low places”

5 Comments | Accuracy, Bad Quotes, Bogus history, Capitalism, Citizenship, Education, Education quality, History, Politics, Public education, Religion, Science, Science and faith, Separation of church and state, Social Studies, Texas, Textbook Selection, Textbooks, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Education | Tagged: Bogus history, Carl Sagan, David Barton, Politics, Science, science education, Separation of Chruch and State, Social Studies, Texas, Texas State Board of Education, Voodoo history | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

I get e-mail from climate denialists

June 30, 2009

I took issue with JCScuba’s characterizing water conservation as “Nazi.” First he purged my posts, and then I started getting e-mails.

The last one — at least I hope it’s the last one from this guy — sic:

Obama is a nazi in the making, don’t tell me what I can write on my blog, you polliticially correct asshole, I think you are doing a great deal of projection as you try to psychoalalyze me. I wouldn’t bother to give you the press, and I doubt if I’ve been on your blog just answere one of your inane remarks. So crawl back under your bed with your blanket and suck you thumb, don’t worry about you bed being wet all Lib’s are bed weters.

He’s forgotten he posted here earlier today, and he thinks Obama, on the way to being a socialist, is also becoming a “nazi.”

Forgive me, but I think he needs to conserve on the stuff he’s mixing with his water. It’s the high cost of denying green. Is this just a manifestation of Denialism Disease? What do you think?

7 Comments | Climate change, Corporal punishment, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, E-mail, Globalm Warming, Rants, Water Conservation | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Godwin’s Law overload: Warming denialist calls water conservation “Nazi”

June 30, 2009

You couldn’t sell a fictional story where people are this nutty.

Go see. The abominable Steve Milloy — a guy so wacky he cannot be parodied (take that, Poe!) — calls water conservation “Nazi.” He complains about a provision in the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Act that encourages innovation in water conservation devices.

Milloy flouts Godwin’s Law right off the bat. You can’t make this stuff up.

And — may God save us from these people — Milloy has followers. Check out the graphic here, with Obama portrayed as a marching Brownshirt. It’s almost too stupid to be racist, but it’s certainly incendiary. He even admits he thinks saving water is a good idea, and he’d like to have one of the devices complained about. (This guy knows he’s in error — he censors posts that question any part of his rant.) See the ugly meme expand, here.

Girl Scout/EPA water conservation badge -EPA image

Water conservation equals flag-waving in America, and has done so for a at least a hundred years. Those of us who grew up in the Intermountain West may be a little more attuned to the drive — Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Flaming Gorge Dam, the Central Arizona Project, the Central Utah Project, the Colorado River aqueduct that carries water to Los Angeles, it’s impossible to live in the West and not be conscious of water’s value, its precious qualities.

Today, the many benefits of controlling water in this way are evident in the extensive development that has taken place throughout the West over the past 100 years. Huge cities have been created and millions of people live, work, and recreate in this desert region. But, as the West continues to grow, we must face the problem of continually increasing demands on a finite supply of water. This includes human population needs and the needs of the environment.

But one doesn’t need to be from the cold northern desert of southern Idaho to figure out that saving water is a good idea.

Most homeowners would like to save money. Americans spend between $600 and $1600 for washing machines that cut water usage by up to 75% (we just replaced our two-decades-old Maytag with a water conserving front-loader). Go to the appliance stores and listen to the conversations. People who could better afford the $200 models discuss how they will cut costs elsewhere to get the water saving versions — because their water bills are so high.

Much of of the rest of America works to conserve water out of necessity. Texas cities have mandatory water conservation laws, like Temple, Richwood, Austin and Dallas. Texas rural areas fight to save water, too. California cities demonstrate that water conservation works, saving investments in ever-grander and more environmentally-damaging water importation schemes, and allowing for population growth where water shortages would otherwise prohibit new homes. Water conservation is a big deal across the nation: In Raleigh, North Carolina; in Seminole County, Florida; in Nebraska; in the State of Maryland. An April drive across Wisconsin a few years ago convinced me it is the most waterlogged state in the nation, Louisiana notwithstanding — but even in Wisconsin, wise people work to conserve water for agriculture, one of the state’s leading industries and employers.

What’s the next step up from Godwin’s Law? These guys like Milloy and his camp followers can only get crazier, benignly, if they head to the meadow and graze with the cattle. Crazier non-benignly? Let’s not go there.

But let us address the odious comparison to Nazis directly. In World War II, when freedom was on the line, there was a drive to conserve resources in America. Americans grew their own vegetables in Victory Gardens.

Poster encouraging patriotic conservation, for the war effort in World War II

Americans collected scrap metal, iron, copper and aluminum, to be made into war machines to save the world. Americans conserved rubber and gasoline by restricting automobile use. There was the famous poster, “When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler.” Conservation was understood to be a patriotic response to the challenges the nation faced.

Bill Maher updated the poster with his 2005 book, When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden. Maher urged civic actions like those that helped the U.S. during World War II, including conservation of gasoline and other resources. Maher understands that wise use of resources is something a people should strive for, especially when in competition with other nations, either in a hot war or in trade or influence. Conservation remains a patriotic behavior, and opposing conservation remains a call to support the enemies of America, in war, in trade, in policies.

Update of the World War II poster, for our times. Image from Barnes and Noble

It’s not just a coincidence that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (in conjunction with the U.S. EPA for the past several years) learn water conservation as integral parts of their programs, chartered by Congress, to promote civic leadership in America’s youth. Those groups charged with teaching actual patriotism understand conservation to be a high duty, a high calling, something that all patriots do.

So, let’s face it. If you crap on a 6-gallon flushing toilet, you crap with Bin Laden. When you shower with a non-flow restricting shower head, you shower with Bin Laden.

Yes, it sounds creepy. It is.

You hope Milloy and the other Neobrownshirts* have parents or other family to pull them back from the brink, but then you see Congress.

* Yeah, the Nazis were the Brownshirts, in Germany. In Italy the fascists wore black shirts. Brown is generally the opposite of green, in political and business parlance — for example, development of a previously undeveloped piece of property is “greenfield development,” while redevelopment of a previously-developed parcel is “brownfield development.” Since Milloy is opposed to anything “green,” I think it only fair that his shirt color match his politics. It’s his choice, after all.

"Well, what about you, Climate Change 'Skeptics?'"

9 Comments | Boy Scouts of America, Conservation, Cost of Green, Environmental protection, Girl Scouts, Government, Natural history, Natural resources, Patriotism, Public health, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Boy Scouts of America, Conservation, Environmental protection, Girl Scouts, Government, Natural history, Natural resources, Patriotism, Politics, Propaganda, Public health, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

	Ed Darrell on We need to celebrate Hubble Da…
	Ed Darrell on Flying U.S. flags in January…
	Mail man's working on We need to celebrate Hubble Da…
	Mail man's working on Flying U.S. flags in January…
	Steve Brockman on Bad quotes = suspect scholarsh…
	Deadly force against… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Ed Darrell on Honoring James Madison in 2025…
	Steve Schwartzman on Honoring James Madison in 2025…
	Some Links - Cafe Ha… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Trump’s word games c… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Trump’s Word G… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Ed Darrell on Rare, new and alternative Chri…
	Ed Darrell on Velsicol Chemical vs. Rachel C…
	Colin Wright on tran… on Quote of the moment: Richard F…
	How undocumented imm… on Based on a true story —…

Help ban ignorance about world affairs:

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Please spread the word:

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Reality: No plans to take over the world; tough plans to fight swine flu

DG Statement following the meeting of the Emergency Committee

Friends don’t let friends be hoaxed: Don’t be fooled! Share the news.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

How to Prevent Arthritis, Cancer and Alzheimer’s!

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

George Santayana (1863-1952)

Who needs a soak in Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub?

Pi Day!

Come often

Follow the Bathtub’s bathing events on Twitter:

Follow Splashings from the Bathtub on e-mail

Hot water (recent posts)

Freshly scrubbed (comments)

Do you hear a tweet? Bathtub splashes to the Twitter stream

Dead Link?

Currently warm bathing (top posts)

Public baths?

Popular Bathtub Toys (categories)

Bathtub Toys (topic categories)

Tub construction (pages)

Down the drain (archives by month since 2006)

Administrivia

Embarrassing Bubbles in the Bathtub

Faucets of Information - Earth - Environment - Well-being

Faucets of Information - Economics

Faucets of Information - Education

Faucets of Information - Geography

Faucets of Information - Government

Faucets of Information - History

Faucets of Information - Law

Faucets of Information - Science

Faucets of Information - Texas

Faucets of Information, miscellaneous

Bubbles in the bathtub

How warm’s the water?

Fly Your Flag Today

Steam from the Bathtub

Where the bubbles drain - Top Clicks

Come clean with the world

CO2 bubbles?

You are here in history:

Statcounter

Pi Day Countdown