By Hank Campbell
December 2nd 2014
Imagine a scenario where a group of people get together
to frame the debate about science and even set out to conspiratorially place
papers in highly-respected journals, selecting the ideal names to have on the
paper and which publications would be most likely to publish it.
It must be those evil corporate chemical shills again, right?
It must be those evil corporate chemical shills again, right?
Not this time, it was the International Workshop On Neonicotinoids in 2010 and it explains a lot about how the anti-science contingent has managed to maintain so much mindshare in media: they know how to work the system and created a 4-year plan to do just that.
The meeting notes start off as you expect - how to use Haber's Rule in order to force risk assessment using the US National Research Council's “Red Book” (NRC, 1983) guidelines for studying possible health effects of chemicals on humans and ecosystems. Haber's Rule says that multiplying the same concentration of a chemical compound by the same duration of exposure will yield the same biological response……To Read More….
My Take - Great article and this needs to be forwarded to everyone. This is the real "science" behind green activsts claims. All false narratives, and this has been going on for decades. Many years ago Madeleine Pelner
Cosman, Ph.D. noted there are seven steps to this unscientific process activists use to
get products off the market and usually follow this pattern:
1. Create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it
As you can see this kind of claptrap has been going on for decades. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring made this "science" minipulation popular, however, the first real first test for creating these false scientific narratives was the 1959 Great Cranberry scare, except in those days farmers were a lot more important to the politicians than activists so this kind of scheme didn't work out over the long haul, although it cost farmers tons of money. The big difference was the ban on DDT. That gave them the finances and power to influence politicians. Activists need to be sued for the losses they create and laws have to be created to make them accountable for what they promote and the damage they cause. You also may wish to take a look at my 2009 article The Great Cranberry Scare of 1959.
1. Create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it
As you can see this kind of claptrap has been going on for decades. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring made this "science" minipulation popular, however, the first real first test for creating these false scientific narratives was the 1959 Great Cranberry scare, except in those days farmers were a lot more important to the politicians than activists so this kind of scheme didn't work out over the long haul, although it cost farmers tons of money. The big difference was the ban on DDT. That gave them the finances and power to influence politicians. Activists need to be sued for the losses they create and laws have to be created to make them accountable for what they promote and the damage they cause. You also may wish to take a look at my 2009 article The Great Cranberry Scare of 1959.
No comments:
Post a Comment