Weasel-words and Phrases

By Rich Kozlovich

Editor's Note:  I published this some years back, and again in 2016, but I think it's worth publishing once again. RK

When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual…. they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.

>

I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing.  You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that are making outrageous claims against chemicals.  Actually, these words and phrases are the same boilerplate stuff turned out by the greenies that's deliberately vague for every one of their environmental crusades

1. Might cause
2. Studies suggest
3. Could cause
4. The long term effects are unknown
5. Linked
6. Voiced concerns about 
7. Expressed some concern
8. Experts fear
9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
10. Negligible concern is still expressed
11. Minimal concerns 
12. Still leaves doubts
13. Warning of a great cause for concern
14.  Some scientists were critical
15.  Researchers hypothesize
16.  Suspected hormonal imbalance
17.  Many scientists say 
18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
21. May make women more likely to
22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations 
23. Probably to blame
24. Ecologists are worried that
25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that 
27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
28. Have the potential to significantly promote
29. This one is my favorite
30. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people 
31. Factors suggest
32. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. (This turned out to be a lie)
33. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
34. There is a serious connection to….
35. “Scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies.”
36. Contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
37. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
38. "Is'' becomes "maybe;'' "proves'' becomes "validates;''
39. Providing mechanistic plausibility.
40. May be more susceptible
41. Are associated with

I guess that the 100 to 300 million dollars (and that number keeps going up) spent by chemical companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide into the environment is meaningless.  Then again....perhaps I am being too concerned about that which is factual, truthful and provable.  Oh...wait!  It just dawned on me.  Perhaps I can get in on this 'grant money express'. 

 

Let's give this a try......

 

There is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are unknown due to possible links to some unknown substances that some have expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed, studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.

 

Some scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected, or even an unsuspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem with something.

 

Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.

 

Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.

 

The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.

 

What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started to study “something”?

 

It sounds reasonable to me.

Andy McCarthy at Horowitz's Restoration Weekend

From the Clinton emails to the Mueller investigation, now what?
 

November 30, 2018 Frontpagemag.com 

It was actually after I prosecuted the Blind Sheikh after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and after that, they began to be afraid in the Clinton Justice Department of a hypothetical problem.  They worried that the government would take its counterintelligence powers and use them pretextually in order to conduct a criminal investigation when there was no evidence of a crime. 

When there was no rational basis to believe that a crime had occurred, a lot of us took great umbrage at that, and I was one of them.  I was one of the people there saying that would never happen, and the reason I was so confident that it would never happen was very simple.  The adults in the Justice Department and the FBI, that is, the high-ranking officials whose job it was to manage, to supervise, to impose order on the investigations that are done throughout the country would never allow it to happen.  If there were some rogue agent who tried to carry that out, who tried to use national security powers as a pretext to conduct a criminal investigation, there would be somebody in the upper ranks of the FBI and somebody even higher in the upper ranks of the Justice Department to tell them no.

There's one thing I didn't think about and that is what happens when the adults decide to take over the investigation themselves.  Who is it that can tell them no?  And I think what we're finding out is that the answer is no one, and the story of what has happened in this country in connection with 2016 elections, a continuum that goes from Hillary Clinton email Investigation all the way through what we're dealing with today, the Mueller Investigation, which is not only going on and on, but we hear may even have new indictments to file this week. 

That is a story of what happens when the FBI and the Justice Department, for our own good of course, decide that they know more than we do who should be running the country, and they decide that their take on that is so important that they need to do what they never otherwise do, which is take over investigations at the headquarters level.........To Read More.....

CBS Hawks Another Antarctic Climate Scare Based on a Lot of ‘Maybe’

Stephen Kruiser

 

Whenever I read the latest dire warning from scientists about melting this or rising that, I’m tempted to print the article up and mark all of the qualifying words with a highlighter. If I were more patient, I’d do that with every post I read for a year and publish the results. This post from CBSNews.com is a perfect example.  It begins with the requisite alarming headline:

Antarctic ice shelf could collapse within 100 years, scientists warn

It then follows with boilerplate wordiness that is mostly hollow vagueness disguised as explanation.   A massive iceberg splintered off one of West Antarctica’s largest glaciers last year, and now, scientists have discovered the “troubling” reason why, they said.

In 2015, an iceberg measuring almost 225 square miles broke off from the Pine Island Glacier, which forms part of the ice shelf that bounds the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Recently, while reviewing satellite images taken before the giant iceberg broke off, researchers found evidence of a rift at the very base of the ice shelf. This suggests that the sprawling glacier broke apart from the inside out, the new study said.....To Read More....

 

Weasel-words and Phrases

By Rich Kozlovich 

Editor's Note: I published this some time back, but I think that it is worth publishing once again with some updates. RK

When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.

I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing…..You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that make outrageous claims against chemicals.

1. Might cause
2. Studies suggest
3. Could cause
4. The long term effects are unknown
5. Linked
6. Voiced concerns about
7. Expressed some concern
8. Experts fear
9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
10. Negligible concern is still expressed
11. Minimal concerns
12. Still leaves doubts
13. Warning of a great cause for concern
14. Some scientists were critical
15. Researchers hypothesize
16. Suspected hormonal imbalance
17. Many scientists say
18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
21. May make women more likely to
22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations
23. Probably to blame
24. Ecologists are worried that
25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that
27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
28. Have the potential to significantly promote
This one is my favorite
29. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people
30. Factors suggest
31. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. (This turned out to be a lie)
32. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
33. There is a serious connection to….
34. “scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies.”
35. contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
36. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
37. "Is'' becomes "may be;'' "proves'' becomes "validates;''
38.  Providing mechanistic plausibility.
39. May be more susceptible
40.  Are associated with

I guess that the 100 to 300 million dollars (and that number keeps going up) spent by chemical companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide into the environment is meaningless.  Then again....perhaps I am being too concerned about that which is factual, truthful and provable.  Oh...wait!  It just dawned on me.  Perhaps I can get in on this 'grant money express'.  Let's give this a try......

There is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are unknown due to possible links to some unknown substances that some have expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed, studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.

Some scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected, or even an unsuspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem with something.

Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.

Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.

The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.

What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started to study “something”? It sounds reasonable to me.

__________________

The Power of Indefinable Words

By Rich Kozlovich

*-Updated 7-2-11

Words are powerful tools, especially when those words can't properly be defined and evoke a tremendous emotional response. Safe is one such word. Everyone wants their families to be safe. Everyone wants safe products. Well, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that there can be no margin for error? Does that mean that there must be a total amelioration of all pain? Does that mean that nothing must ever go wrong?

Approximately 50,000 people die (*It is claimed that this number has dropped signifigantly over the last 10 years, although it is still high.  The actual number seems to be in question. ) every year on America’s highways. Is driving safe? Every year people die from accidental electrocution. Is electricity safe? Every year a great many children drown. Is swimming safe?

Is it possible to show that any product is safe? NO! You can only prove something is unsafe, otherwise you are asking someone to prove a negative, a factual impossibility. We can only prove what things do, not what they don’t do. It is like asking someone to prove that they aren’t cheating on their spouse. You can only prove that someone is cheating. You cannot in any way prove that someone isn’t cheating.

Yet we are being required to show that pesticides are safe before we use them. This irrational, unscientific demand is made over and over again, and done so without protest. Worse yet it is done with support from many in and around our industry. Why? Because safe is one of those difficult to define words that can unite people in a cause that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy all over, not mention the feeling of moral superiority. After all, who is going to support un-safe products and practices?

These issues surrounding DDT demonstrate such unintended consequences of such emotional causes. Even after all the evidence has shown that most of what Rachel Carson said was inaccurate, even to the extent of misrepresenting the facts; even after everything she predicted turned out to be wrong; even after all the pain and suffering that has been, and is still being caused by the ban on DDT; people will not properly connect the ban with the disasters banning DDT caused.

There are those who will still defend the ban with fallacious arguments and demand more bans and more restrictions in the name of safety...especially "for the children". They simply refuse to admit they were wrong, in spite of all the pain and suffering, and mostly to the children. Why? It isn’t simply a matter of pride either. This refusal to admit that which should be obvious to the most casual observer is being driven by a misanthropic philosophy called environmentalism. Call it an “organic” philosophy, call it a “green” philosophy, simply call it IPM, it doesn’t matter; the goal is to eliminate products that allow more people to live longer, healthier lives; and they do it with fallacious health claims about pesticides.

Thomas Sowell, in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, defined logical fallacies in the following manner. “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment-

Let’s take the Fallacy of composition.  It goes like this; DDT is found in birds. DDT killed the birds. Let’s ban DDT. Since DDT was a pesticide, and it was found in birds that died, all pesticides must kill birds; let’s ban all pesticides. Pesticides are chemicals and pesticides were found in dead birds so chemicals must kill birds; let’s ban all chemicals.

Our industry is so hot to be green and yet we don’t seem to have a clue as to what “going green” is going to mean to society as a whole. GO GREEN! GO GREEN! is the cry, but where is this leading? The activists never seem to have to explain their motives or ultimate goals. What are those goals? Let us have no doubts that the elimination of pesticides is one of them.

Actually it should be immaterial to intelligent, insightful, compassionate people whether they explain their goals or not. We should be able to see what their motives and goals are by the devastation they have wrought in the rest of the world.

We now know that environmentalism isn’t safe. Tell me; do you think that environmentalism should be banned?