Judging science.


One persistent problem in commenting on scientific matters is that my knowledge is so limited in many areas I cannot tell serious science from politicised nonsense - but there are times when an example of the latter might make a mistake so blatant as to reveal the ignorance of the writers. Take as an example this this piece from the anti-environmentalist blog Not Evil Just Wrong.

This week he is in Uganda where he writes about Malaria and DDT. However instead of illuminating us on the subject he perpetuates the same worn out myths that continue to cause enormous death across the world.
We know a lot about Malaria in Uganda which kills 370 children a day. It is a painful death. It kills mostly pregnant women and children because it is particularly fatal to those with compromised immune systems.

But this death toll does not illicit an emotional response from Mr Jackson. However one aspect of this issue does alarm him. The use of DDT to stop the spread of malaria is a serious problem for Mr Jackson.

And so on - it's the standard old argument: That environmentalists are allowing children to die because they will not permit the use of the strong pesticides best suited to controlling the spread of malaria. I don't know if this is true or not - I'll admit ignorance on that. I don't know much about the commonality of malaria, the effect of intensive pesticide usage on mosquito populations, how long DDT lingers, how bioconcentration might effect it, or anything much about it's toxicity. On this issue I am completely ignorant.

The last line reveals that the writer of that page is just as ignorant though:

Perhaps the readers were alienated by reporters who shudder at the use of a harmless compound but remain emotionless at the daily slaughter of 370 children.

Harmless? DDT is harmless? Now, I don't know exactly how harmful it is, but I am quite sure it cannot be fairly described as 'harmless.' If it were harmless, there wouldn't be any debate over this at all. The very purpose of DDT is to kill insects, and it only takes a little googling to find a long list of suspected or confirmed long-term effects. The UN classes it as "moderately toxic" and the WHO as "moderately hazardous."

So when NEJW calls DDT "harmless" this is clear evidence that the writer has no more knowledge of the subject than me - that he is making scientific claims, while unfamiliar with even the most basic areas of the science.

What this mistake tells me is that NEJW isn't attacking the ban on DDT because they have analysed the numbers and determined the lives lost to malaria outweigh the lives saved and environmental gains. They are attacking the ban on DDT because environmentalists support it, and what environmentalists support, NEJW is obliged to oppose.

This fits in very well with the NEJW style. My characterisation of it as 'anti-environmentalist' was not intended in sarcasm. The purpose of the blog is to promote a film of the same name which criticises the environmentalist movement for placing the interests of conservation above those of economic development. It's a well-deserved criticism, but if the intellectual standards of the blog are anything to go by, I would not trust the film to be honest or trustworthy either. I have not yet seen it, but to base my judgement on the writings of it's associated website I would expect it to contain lies, emotional manipulation, personal attacks and mockery rather than honest analysis in the scientific flaws of prominent environmental policies.

Another blood donation, and another renewal of my right to act superior to everyone else. Because if I'm going to spend an hour walking and get sharp objects poked into me, I insist on at least getting to boast about it for a while.

Michael Jackson has died.

I do not care in the slightest.

But, for all of those who are now striving hard to ensure he is remembered as the King of Pop, I ask that they remember also what he turned into - he died not as a great star but as Wacko Jacko. I can see no way better way in which he should be remembered than by mocking the tribute to himself that he produced.

Hello!

A conspicuous silence.

On June 3rd, the state of New Hampshire passed a bill legalising gay marriage. I waited at the time for the FRC's response, anticipating an entertaining read. Their traditional response to states legalising gay marriage is to complain about courts overruling the will of the people, but no such option for them exists in this case.

I have grown impatient though. It is now the 10th, and yet no word from the FRC on the subject. I thought perhaps I had skimmed without realising, but a check through my email trash and spam folders finds no mention at all - though it does find emails prior to the 3rd calling upon supporters to oppose the bill, there is nothing following it's passage.

This silence seemed curious, so I checked the FRC's website and blog. Again, I found the same. There are mentions from before the third, but not a single mention afterwards. As far as the FRC is concernd - in website, in email, in Action Alerts and in blog - the bill never passed.

It is impossible for the writers at the FRC not to be aware of the successful passage, so they must have chosen to remain silent. I can only assume this is because either they do not feel their rhetorical skills are up to the task of claiming a legislature exceeded it's authority by passing an act, or because their defeat is too humiliating to speak of.

The FRC has been on a prayer binge recently - publicising a 'Call to Fall' mass prayer event, and holding organised pray-ins to supernaturally defear such things as gay marriage in New Hampshire. It must be greatly discourging to see that their pray-in was ineffective - perhaps they realise that to report on it's failure would demoralise the followers.

More Tiller

And I hope the last of it. The worst of the fuss has passed, as Tiller's murder fades from the headlines - nothing left for me but to check the aftermath.

Operation Rescue continues to handle the event with skilled PR - after carefully excising the murder's posts from their own website in their effort to avoid all apparances of being associated, and the making of a well-crafted denounciation, they have even gone so far as to issue a disclaimer of their founder's rather more offensive comments.

They have also had the foresight to disable comments on the newer Tiller stories on their front page. A sensible choice - it would not do for their expression of regret for Tiller's death to be followed by pages of celebrating readers.

However, this decision came after their first post, for which comments were enabled - so it is at least possible to see a small sample of what the readers of Operation Rescue's website have to say on the matter.

The general theme of the comments can be summed up as 'I don't support the murder, but I'm not at all sorry it happened.'

Some of my favourite highlights:

Get ready; now the hammer falls. This is all the excuse Obama, Napolitano and jackbooted “law enforcement” at all levels need. This shooting will be spun by the anti-life lobby to demonstrate that all pro-lifers are latent terrorists.

A successor rises:

Some days I don’t know if “peaceful, legal means” would ever get the job done with such an inactive court system here in the U.S.

Witness the birth of a conspiricy:

I wouldn’t put it past Obama and Napolitano to have done this so they have an excuse to start rounding up pro-life “radicals” and “terrorists”. Fits right into the way they seem to operate.

I had just been praying every night for two weeks when it came to abortion to save their souls or slay them dead! and now Tiller is dead!

Now I know God does NOT condone murder and this was not an order from God’s thrown…yet God ALLOWED it to happen. Even though Tiller was a heartless murderer of children I DO feel sad that he was killed. He was a human life too and now he is forever cut off from God. He never repented and you can read in the Bible what lies in store for those who do not repent of their sin (ANY sin–not just “big” ones) Tiller’s killer will suffer the same fate if he doesn’t repent of his sin too!

To say I am conflicted over this murder is an understatement. I am vehemently opposed to abortion and everything Tiller did. He killed over 60 THOUSAND babies during his “career”.

Every legal means was employed to stop him and every time, he walked away free. Had this not happened, he probably would have killed yet another 60 THOUSAND babies.

I am curious how strictly Operation Rescue is moderating these comments - they have so far demonstrated a high level of PR skill, so I imagine that they have someone going through and deleting all the really gleeful ones. As a test, I'm about to post a celebratory one-liner myself to see if if OR allows it to stand.

EDIT: Or not. It appears Operation Rescue has disabled the posting of new comments entirely. Very sensible.

Two things to post in this quickie.

First, a correction: In my last post I claimed that Tiller was one of only three doctors in the state of Kansas willing to perform late-term abortions, even in those rare cases when the life or health of the women would be at risk otherwise. I have since learned that Tiller is actually one of only three doctors in the entire US willing to perform these abortions.

Secondly: A self-proclaimed moral organisation has done something that is by far not stupid, if viewed from the persepective of their own interests. Operation Rescue, the organisation accused by many (espicially me, in my last post) of implicitly encouraging violance against Tiller, has been doing some revision of history. Following the discovery that probable murderer Scott Roeder was a regular poster to the public forums of the Operation Rescue website, OR has now taken the precaution of erasing every occurance of his name and every post he has written, in an obvious attempt to hide any association with him. In addition the Tiller Watch section of the website was taken down for some days. I do not know exactly what changes were made during this time, but my educated guess is that Operation Rescue has been toneing down their previously published articles - removing the references to Tiller the Killer, the places where they refer to his clinic as the Murder Mill, and the frequent comparisons of him to the Nazis.

This could be called revisionist, manipulative or underhanded - but I do admit that it's great PR. To deny stiring up violence is one thing, but to actually revise post-dated webpages is one of the few occasions when the adjective 'Orwellian' actually applies.