"Environmental Wars"

[Jeff Wagg]

For those who haven't heard, the Skeptic Sociey is hosting their annual convention at Cal Tech first weekend in June. It's called "the Environmental Wars" and more info can be found here: http://www.environmentalwars.org/

I'll be attending.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll be attending.

Is that supposed to be an incentive for the rest of us? :p

[Ducky]

Is that supposed to be an incentive for the rest of us? :p


It is for me, Jeff's got a nice butt!

[Mattfn]

From the above website:

Saturday, June 3rd: 7:30–10:00 pm

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: John Stossel, Michael Crichton, Adam Savage (Mythbusters), and James “The Amazing” Randi

I'd just like to note that THAT is a keynote speaker lineup! I'm working on it, literally working on it. Maybe the numbers and some gifts will come together. Now there's something to look......well, something anyway. And, oh, look! Another geology outing on the Sunday!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/mattfn/Smileys/hyper_smiley.gif

I'm ignoring Fowlsound's comment really hard!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is for me, Jeff's got a nice butt!

I saw him first you hussy!

[RSLancastr]

I registered!

I would prefer a different theme, but you can't have everything, and it will force me to actually learn a few things. I'm determined to read a book by each of the speakers before the conference.

[BrianSI]

I registered!

I would prefer a different theme, but you can't have everything, and it will force me to actually learn a few things. I'm determined to read a book by each of the speakers before the conference.

I was thinking of the same goal. I'm also in the LA area, so maybe we could form an accountability partnership to acheive it. I get easily distracted by new topics to read. Obviously, I prefer reason to hysteria, so I'd like to have facts to calm people down with regarding this hot topic, so it would be a good one to focus on for a while (especially around here).

[Steven Howard]

From the above website:

Saturday, June 3rd: 7:30–10:00 pm

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: John Stossel, Michael Crichton, Adam Savage (Mythbusters), and James “The Amazing” Randi

I'd just like to note that THAT is a keynote speaker lineup!

A tabloid TV reporter, a bad novelist, a movie special effects technician, and a magician are the keynote speakers for a conference about climate change. Huh.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A tabloid TV reporter, a bad novelist, a movie special effects technician, and a magician are the keynote speakers for a conference about climate change. Huh.

Don't go.

[Steven Howard]

Don't go.

That's good advice. I hadn't even considered not going until you suggested it.

[Jeff Wagg]

Actually, those people are the "Special Guests," not the keynote speakers.

The speakers include:

Jonathan Adler
Ronald Bailey
David Baltimore
Gregory Benford
Brian Fagan
David Goodstein
Paul MacCready
Chris Mooney
Donald R. Prothero
and
Tapio Schneider

[Steven Howard]

My bad. Should have read more carefully.

[LostAngeles]

I'd go since it's right there, but I doubt I'll have the funds for the registration.

However, since it's right there and I'm right here, if any of y'all want to flip off the Scientology Center, lemme know.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anyone have any thoughts about the Sunday geology trip? Is it worth going?

[RSLancastr]

Anyone have any thoughts about the Sunday geology trip? Is it worth going?I've signed up for it.

It ends up at the Griffith Park Observatory (http://www.griffithobs.org/), which is a pretty cool place.

It isn't clear whether or not the Observatory will be open though. It has been closed for rennovations for the past couple of years, but is scheduled to reopen in the last half of this year, so perhaps it will be open for the tour, or perhaps they have enough connections to get us inside even if it is not yet open to the public. That would be nice.

While the Skeptics site mentions some of the interesting historical facts about the Observatory (it is where the speed of light was first measured, etc.), it neglects to mention that it is where the Colossal Beast (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052378/) was killed.

For that reason alone - to pay your respects to the Colossal Beast, the trip may be well worth it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For that reason alone - to pay your respects to the Colossal Beast, the trip may be well worth it.

Wow, is this a sequel to the Colossal Man movie? How did I not hear about this? :(

[RSLancastr]

Wow, is this a sequel to the Colossal Man movie? How did I not hear about this? :(Yup. I believe it was originally titled Revenge of the Colossal Man.

[Kitten]

Sounds like a great conference. I wish I could go!

[Hamradioguy]

I've signed up for it.

It ends up at the Griffith Park Observatory (http://www.griffithobs.org/), which is a pretty cool place.

While the Skeptics site mentions some of the interesting historical facts about the Observatory (it is where the speed of light was first measured, etc.), it neglects to mention that it is where the Colossal Beast (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052378/) was killed.


I seem to recall that "Rebel Without A Cause" had a scene or two with the Observatory in it as well. I'd like to make the meeting but the Left Coast is quite a trip......Hey, maybe I could stowaway in Jeff Wagg's suitcase.

[RSLancastr]

I seem to recall that "Rebel Without A Cause" had a scene or two with the Observatory in it as well.Yes, and a bunch of other movies as well. (http://www.imdb.com/List?endings=on&&locations=Griffith%20Park%20Observatory,%20Griffit h%20Park%20-%204730%20Crystal%20Springs%20Drive,%20Los%20Angel es,%20California,%20USA&&heading=18;with+locations+including;Griffith%20Par k%20Observatory,%20Griffith%20Park%20-%204730%20Crystal%20Springs%20Drive,%20Los%20Angel es,%20California,%20USA)

[Mattfn]

As response to one person's opinion of the keynote speakers, all 4, whatever else you think of what they do, are in tune with how the public at large tends to view scientific information because of the feedback they receive in their lines of work. It is interesting to me, as one with a Sociology degree. I think good advice has already been given if such doesn't interest you. If the other speakers do, that evening could be a great chance to sightsee or go to a show in the area instead.

A question too. Obviously, you think Randi is more than just a magician, or you wouldn't be on this site, so why belittle him and the others? There was a more polite way to say you thought there could be better keynote speakers and/or disagree with me. The two speakers I have met would not speak of others in the same manner unless warranted.

Mattfn :moose:

[Steven Howard]

"One person"? I guess that's me. I have a name, you know.

I think I was pretty clear: none of those four men are what I would consider an expert on the issue of global warming.

Stossel has shown on numerous occasions that he's willing to lie and distort facts in pursuit of his political agenda. Recently, he's taken to shilling (http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52765) for Crichton's anti-environmentalist tract State of Fear. (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp) So right there, half of the "special guests" have been outspokenly critical of conventional scientific thought on this issue. Have the other two been equally outspoken in the other direction? Not to my knowledge.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have every reason to expect, given their general attitudes, that Adam and Randi would defend the mainstream scientific view, but their names do not leap immediately to mind as a balance against Stossel and Crichton.

Oh, and I live in Long Beach, so I don't really need a conference as an excuse to "sightsee" in Pasadena.

[Mattfn]

That's a bit more like it. You have mentioned valid reasons for your opinion on the first two, and admitted you don't have too much on the second two. That's what I was looking for, and expecting here. Thanks for responding.

Mattfn :moose:

[Jeff Wagg]

Oh, and I live in Long Beach, so I don't really need a conference as an excuse to "sightsee" in Pasadena.

I'm going DESPITE the location, rather than because of it.

[aargh57]

Stossel has shown on numerous occasions that he's willing to lie and distort facts in pursuit of his political agenda.


Could you site some of these lies and distortions please.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Could you site some of these lies and distortions please.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

[Steven Howard]

Could you site some of these lies and distortions please.

Sure.

"It's logical to worry about pesticide residues, but in our tests we found none on either organic or regular produce." -- John Stossel, 20/20, July 7, 2000. As it turns out, no such tests were ever performed. Stossel was forced to offer an on-air apology.

"Parkinson's [Disease] ... kills more people [than AIDS]" -- John Stossel, 20/20, October 11, 1999. AIDS killed 16,000 people in the US that year, compared with an estimated 4,000 for Parkinson's Disease.

"98% [of Catholic school students] graduate, vs. 49% for the public schools" -- John Stossel, 20/20, November 12, 1999. No state reported a public school graduation rate so low. Using the most recent figures that would have been available to Stossel at that time, the numbers ranged from 53.2% in DC to 89.9% in Vermont.

"Factory wages were up, too -- up 70% [from 1983 to 1998]" -- John Stossel, Greed, February 3, 1998. The real figure was 55%, without adjusting for inflation. Adjusted for inflation, factory wages decreased by 6% during those years.

"America now spends about $40,000 a year on every family of four below the poverty line" -- John Stossel, 20/20, January 27, 2001. Stossel apparently arrived at this figure by totalling up federal spending on all social welfare programs, including things like Medicare and Medicaid that don't necessarily go to people below the poverty line.

On August 12, 1994, Stossel railed against the FDA for not approving the "Sensor Pad" -- a device that supposedly would help detect breast lumps, saying that in Canada, "they approved this in less than 60 days." In fact, the device was never approved for sale in Canada because the makers never supplied any data demonstrating its effectiveness.

On his September 19, 1999, special Is America #1?, Stossel used a quote from economist James Galbraith ("There might be a moment for the European to learn from us, rather than for us to be studying them.") in a context that made it seem as though Galbraith were agreeing with Stossel that American-style laissez-faire capitalism was the answer to Europe's high unemployment rates. In fact, Galbraith said later (Extra!, Nov-Dec, 1999), "My point is quite different from the one Stossel makes in the lead-in ... Europe could, in short, benefit from adopting some of the continent-wide transfer mechanisms, such as Social Security, that we have long enjoyed in the United States."

[Rob Lister]

Steve, could you please provide links to your references.

I think your references are great, btw, but links are even greaterestlyer

thanks

[Piggy]

Steve, could you please provide links to your references.
Or better yet, can you come over to my house with tapes and play Stossel's shows for me on my VCR? And bring along everyone else you cite -- I'd love to meet Galbraith!

Sorry, Rob, but I couldn't help it. SH has provided dates, quotations, and explanations. I think that's sufficient on his part. This is enough information for anyone to easily prove him wrong if he's not accurate. Asking for links to Web sites is a bit much (and a bit lazy) especially considering that online cites may not exist and that, if they do, they may provide no particular validation.

[Steven Howard]

Steve, could you please provide links to your references.

I think your references are great, btw, but links are even greaterestlyer

thanks

They're mostly cribbed from here (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1133), here (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134), and here (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1727).

[Piggy]

SH covered the lies (although, given that they're sourced by FAIR, I'd say they still need verification, but SH has given enough information for anyone to do that)... here are a couple of Spinsanity articles regarding distortions:

Stossel resorts to rhetoric (http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-5.html#30)

John Stossel and the "liberal media orthodoxy" (http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200107-2.html#09)

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger will be there! (And not just because the next victim on my list happens to be attending.)

I was hoping to join in on the Geology tour, but it's sold out, at the moment.

If anyone has a spare Geo Tour ticket, I'd be willing to buy it off you for a reasonable price!! (PM me, if you'd like to sell.)

[aargh57]

SH,

Thanks. I'm a little sceptical of Fair as I didn't see any cited sources but definitely worth looking into. I'm not a huge Stossel fan but a co-worker had his book so I started reading it and so far it is a very good read. I'll tell you right now that I am a believer in the free market system but that doesn't mean that I'm going to discredit what you (or FAIR) says because of that. I'll try to look into it a little more when I get the time.

[Piggy]

FAIR's record is dicey, which is why I was concerned that posting links might not provide any further illumination and independent verification would still be required.

Here are a couple of articles involving FAIR from Spinsanity:

Foul Cry (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020701.html)

Pundits won't stop spinning Clark's phone call (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030903.html)

[aargh57]

It's hard to check the quotes on FAIR because it just lists the shows and the transcripts from 20/20 costs $15 each so I wasn't able to verify if the quotes were genuine but I'll take their word for it that the quotes at least are accurate. However, just from looking up a few things I've found a few holes.

John Stossel defended the pesticide thing by saying that he did indeed err in that story. They tested for bacteria but never for pesticides but incorrectly took the word of one of his producers that said they had those test results. Basically he claims that the main crux of his piece is true. Namely that organic food is no better for you than nonorganic foods. Yes, he did make an error in that report but he maintains that the important part of the story was correct.

The AIDS/Parkinsons thing looks to me to be pretty dishonest on the part of FAIR. Here's part of that article:
"In fact, AIDS killed more than 16,000 people in the United States in 1999--down from 43,000 in 1995. Parkinson's, which is not itself generally fatal but contributes to other illnesses, has a mortality rate of 2 per 100,000 to less than 1 per 100,000, depending on the demographic group (BC Medical Journal, 4/01)--which works out to a death toll in the United States of less than 4,000 per year."

So instead of looking at the actual number in deaths they tried to extrapolate a number. Why not just go to the CDC (like I did) and find out how many people really died? In fact, Stossel told a whopper on this one. According to the CDC, 14,802 people died due to HIV while 14,593 died from Parkinson's. http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
Stossel was off by about 200, FAIR was only off by 10,593. Close enough.
(Incidentally, for 2003 Parkinson's ranked 14th and HIV/AIDS ranked 19th)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Basically he claims that the main crux of his piece is true. Namely that organic food is no better for you than nonorganic foods.

I think this is pretty much common knowledge by now. For most of us, it was the working assumption from the very beginning.

[aargh57]

Scrutinizer,

Just arguing Stossel's point. I never thought that organic food was better.


One other thing. I'm only up to page 95 or so in his book but in it he says "Am I missing something? Why is it a good thing to spend 10 times more on AIDS than on breast cancer or prostate cancer? Or, for that matter, 25 times more than on Parkinson's, which kills more people?"

Compare that with FAIR's quote of Stossel:

"Stossel's errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air. In a 20/20 report on medical research (10/11/99), Stossel complained that too much funding was going to AIDS research, claiming that spending on the disease was "25 times more than on Parkinson's, which kills more people."

Notice that FAIR quotes him as stating that Parkinson's kills more people. Isn't it very possible that he said the statement just like in the book, as a question? Now, it may sound like splitting hairs but isn't that what FAIR's doing. Even if they didn't misquote him they still fudged the numbers to make it look like Parkinson's kills far fewer people than it actually does. Then it muddies the water's further by saying " Parkinson's, which is not itself generally fatal but contributes to other illnesses". Hey, wait a minute. If you want to really get technical couldn't you say that AIDS really doesn't kill people, it just breaks down their immune systems so much that people die of other, often pretty simple, illnesses?

Anyhow, I agree with Stossel. If we're going to give funding for reasearch it shouldn't go to the disease that gets the most media attention/senators/celebrities. So far it looks like FAIR is the one lying and distorting things.

[Godmode]

I buy organic vegtables from a local farmer. It's not because I'm worried about pesticides so much as I find it tastes better. Particularly things like tomatoes, which actually HAVE flavour, unlike the ones from the supermarkets. Also, supermarkets only carry usually one or two varieties, bred for size and colour. I don't care about size and colour, and the amount of waste these stores produce is insane. They won't buy anything that's not exactly the size and shape they want. It's crazy. (This is in the Uk)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Scrutinizer,

Just arguing Stossel's point. I never thought that organic food was better.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I was just re-inforcing what he (via you) said.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They won't buy anything that's not exactly the size and shape they want. It's crazy. (This is in the Uk)

Correction. They won't buy anything that's not exactly the size and shape the consumer wants.

[brodski]

Correction. They won't buy anything that's not exactly the size and shape the consumer wants.
I think it is slightly more complex than that, as consumers have shown that they are prepared to pay much more for foods which are of non standard sizes and shapes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it is slightly more complex than that, as consumers have shown that they are prepared to pay much more for foods which are of non standard sizes and shapes.

Not in America.

[brodski]

Not in America.
the post you "corrected" was specifically talking about the UK.

[Rob Lister]

I buy organic vegtables from a local farmer. It's not because I'm worried about pesticides so much as I find it tastes better. Particularly things like tomatoes, which actually HAVE flavour, unlike the ones from the supermarkets. Also, supermarkets only carry usually one or two varieties, bred for size and colour. I don't care about size and colour, and the amount of waste these stores produce is insane. They won't buy anything that's not exactly the size and shape they want. It's crazy. (This is in the Uk)

Save yourself some money and by locally from non-organic producers of the same product. It isn't the "organic" part that makes them taste better, it's the type that you're buying. Certain types are good for wide distribution but flavor is lost in the balance. Other types are good for local distribution but shelf-life is lost in the balance. Organic or inorganic plays no part in that. Organic does increase the cost of the product because more are lost to pests. That cost must be passed on to the consumer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

the post you "corrected" was specifically talking about the UK.

But it is the same for the US. The store buys stuff that is exactly the right color and shape, not because they think it is fun, but because the consumer demands it.

[brodski]

But it is the same for the US. The store buys stuff that is exactly the right color and shape, not because they think it is fun, but because the consumer demands it.
actually not strictly true, with "fresh" produced that is packages in certain ways, uniformity of size makes it easier for automated packing. However consumers will but from "farmers markets" which are not necessarily organic, but do offer food which has been selected for taste rather than uniformity of shape and size. yes consumes demand is an important factor in all cases, but it is not a simple relationship.

[Steven Howard]

One other thing. I'm only up to page 95 or so in his book but in it he says "Am I missing something? Why is it a good thing to spend 10 times more on AIDS than on breast cancer or prostate cancer? Or, for that matter, 25 times more than on Parkinson's, which kills more people?"

Compare that with FAIR's quote of Stossel:

"Stossel's errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air. In a 20/20 report on medical research (10/11/99), Stossel complained that too much funding was going to AIDS research, claiming that spending on the disease was "25 times more than on Parkinson's, which kills more people."

Notice that FAIR quotes him as stating that Parkinson's kills more people. Isn't it very possible that he said the statement just like in the book, as a question?

First of all, I agree that FAIR is wrong about Parkinson's Disease. The CDC does list it as a direct cause of death (14th overall in 2003). (On the other hand, some sources (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/parkinson_disease/page11_em.htm) say things like "Parkinson disease reduces the length of your life, but it is not fatal." Somebody who read any article like that might not bother trying to look up death statistics, since they wouldn't expect there to be any. Also, I don't know if the CDC listed Parkinson's as a cause of death in 1999 or not. But now I'm just making excuses.)

However, just because the sentence in which it occurs is a question doesn't change the fact that Stossel made the claim. If I say "Why don't we go to the store on Main St., which is closer than the one on Third St.?", I'm explicitly making the claim that the store on Main really is closer than the one on Third.


Anyhow, I agree with Stossel. If we're going to give funding for reasearch it shouldn't go to the disease that gets the most media attention/senators/celebrities.

I'm a bit disappointed in FAIR, not just because they got the facts wrong about Parkinson's Disease, but because they failed to address Stossel's implicit argument that the raw mortality figures are the most important criteria in allocating funds for medical research. There are a number of reasons to spend more on AIDS research that Parkinson's research. AIDS is contagious, for example, while Parkinson's is not. In the mid-1990s (which would be the most recent data available when Stossel made his claim), there were more new AIDS cases in the US each year than new Parkinson's cases. 85% of people diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease are over 65, and they typically survive another ten to twenty years. Only about 25% of people with AIDS live past age 45. And these are all US figures. Neither disease is an American-only phenomenon, and the worldwide incidence of AIDS does affect American interests, however much that may bother the isolationists among us.

And finally, yes, allocating public funds is a political process. There's no way around that.

[Steven Howard]

Anyway, all this stuff about organic food and Parkinson's Disease is rather beside the point. The fact remains that Stossel touts Crichton's novel as if it were a science text.

Inviting Michael Crichton and John Stossel to a conference on the environment is like inviting Dan Brown to a symposium on medieval European history.

[aargh57]

I thought the point was that Stossel "lied and distorted" things. I guess I was wrong.

[aargh57]

SH,

You're right about the fact that research shouldn't be given based just on one statistic. I would also say that research into certain disease could have a greater chance to save lives even if less people died each year. If it took 1 million to save 100 lives from disease X and 10 million to save the same amount from disease Y then reason would dictate we allocate more for X even if more people die per year than Y. (Of course I'm sure that things like this aren't as easy to quantify). However, Stossel's point is that it shouldn't be allocated on how much publicity a disease gets. Shouldn't we allocate resources based on reason rather than on emotion? I realize it's a political process. I would argue that this is not a good thing.