The monkey and the organgrinder
At Wikipedia, the fight against pseudoscience and Republican antiscience across a range of articles from global warming to passive smoking to Intelligent design to AIDS reappraisal,to DDT is continuous and bruising.[1]. Editors have learned to detect bogus sources of information almost immediately. One of my fellow-editors at passive smoking pointed me to an interesting letter to Science (paywalled, but I’ve quoted the important bit), shedding unintentional light on the way the disinformation machine operates. It’s from William G. Kelly of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness the front organization founded by legendary Phillip Morris shill, Jim Tozzi (Kelly is employed by Tozzi’s lobbying outfit, Multinational Business Services
Responding to criticism of the infamous Data Quality Act (for more on this see the seminar on Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science, in the sidebar, Kelly offers a classic non-denial denial, saying
Neither Phillip Morris (a multiproduct company) nor any other tobacco company (or nontobacco company for that matter) played a leadership role in the genesis of the DQA. While working with the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness in Washington, DC, I was personally involved with the development of the DQA, and no industry entity contributed to its formulation.
While we’re at it, can I point out that Henry II was nowhere near Canterbury Cathedral when Thomas Becket met with his unfortunate end. The whole point of having people like Tozzi and Kelly, and groups like CRE is that corporations don’t have to play a leadership role in promoting their own interests in Congress.
This kind of thing is the reason why I’m so unimpressed by Cass Sunstein’s arguments about political polarisation and the Internet. The Republicans had established a complete parallel universe long before the Internet was a significant factor, and the Internet, through efforts like Wikipedia and Sourcewatch has done much more to expose this than Sunstein’s “fair and balanced” mass media. The suggestion that presenting the lies of groups like CRE (or CEI, Heritage, AEI, TCS and the rest of the alphabet soup) as one half of a ‘debate’ over scientific, social, economic or political issues promotes some sort of useful consensus is just silly.fn1. Between them, Steven Milloy’s aptly-named Junk Science and Tom Bethell’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (apt if you scan it as “incorrect for political reasons”) give the anti-science position on all four issues, though Bethell doesn’t appear to cover passive smoking and Milloy avoids AIDS reappraisal. These writers provide the basis for mainstream Republican views on most scientific, environmental and health issues, propagated through thinktanks and media outlines like CEI, Cato, Fox News (all of which have employed Milloy), Regnery, Hoover and the American Spectator (which have published or employed Bethell).
John Quiggin: “…and the Internet, through efforts like Wikipedia and Sourcewatch has done much more to expose this than Sunstein’s “fair and balanced” mass media.”
Or, dare I say, any law professor at Chicago?
(and that’s not counting the negative effects of Chicago law professors)
Didn’t Sunstein endorse at least one of Dubya’s delightful SCOTUS picks?
Sunstein seems to be a regular on the list of “reasonable conservatives” who keep pulling the ball away from liberal Charlie Browns afflicted with the craving for dialog with the right.
He isn’t a jerk all the time! And he’s bright! And he’s civil! And he’s professional!
Give it up, guys.
I first encountered Milloy when he was doing some kind of study for U.S. EPA as a contractor, something like a decade and a half ago. I think that I estimated his future career pretty clearly. I mean, why hire different guys for global warming denialism and tobacco denialism? Denialism skills are transferable.
I didn’t know he’d gone into Intelligent Design, though. That must be a laugh. I guess that once people get used to paying you to do whatever they want you to do, it’s more difficult to say that you don’t do that.
Sorry, John E.: Sunstein is a liberal, not a conservative.
The other John continues to show no evidence that he actually has read anything by Sunstein. There’s nothing here that suggests he’s grappled with the argument at all. Maybe before he writes his third post on it he’ll crack it open.
He’s a “liberal” only in the useful-idiot “even the liberal New Republic” sense.
In the case of passive smoking and the related lobbying efforts, I think the correct position would be:
“A pox on both their houses.”
Iirc, the Glaeser/Sunstein NBER paper (13687) notes that the “polarization effect” is at least as severe with conservative readers.
Strange he doesn’t bother to mention that in more public venues.
Not for you to say, Thomas. If you don’t say Sunstein is a liberal, I won’t say
HitlerIdi AminMussoliniAdlai Stevenson was a conservative. Deal?1. Quiggin—what’s your evidence that Republicans have anything to do with HIV skepticism?
2. Also, what’s your evidence that the “Data Quality Act” deserves the label “infamous,” rather the label “innocuous” (which is what it seems on a first reading; your links don’t demonstrate otherwise).
3. Certain purer-than-thou liberals here should consider that Cass Sunstein personally conducted a retreat in which he (and others) advised Senate Democrats on how to block Bush’s judicial nominees. He’s a bit like Obama—he makes respectful noises about conservatives from time to time, but his every action is done in the service of promoting the Democratic agenda.
I was also surprised to see “AIDS reappraisal” on the list—I had no idea that was something the right wing anti-science crew had an interest in. And shouldn’t DDT be on the list?
I’ve added DDT - how could I have missed it
My admittedly casual impression is that anti-environmentalism is the overwhelming focus with everything else—except maybe the smoking stuff—just a smokescreen.
“Strange he doesn’t bother to mention that in more public venues.”
Posted by Ken Houghton
It must be us not having read it, Ken – certainly a ‘liberal’ would have mentioned that. It’s not like he’s somebody who’d sh*t all over liberals, while claiming to be a liberal. Such people don’t exist, except in the Evul BDS’d Mindz of Librul Fashitsz.
OK, so in looking for bad stuff about this “Data Quality Act,” I find this Chris Mooney article. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.mooney.html
Here’s why I’m not impressed with his almost entirely ad hominem approach (“Bad guys want this; therefore this is bad and I don’t even need to consider the merits”):
Hmm. It’s actually pretty common for statisticians to say that a relative risk of less than 2 in epidemiological studies can be very unreliable. The National Cancer Institute, for example, once pointed out that “[i]n epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret.” Notably, it made this statement as part of a determination that studies linking abortion and breast cancer were not reliable.Mooney and his ilk should pick their poison. Do you want to allow massive regulation of every small relative risk? Then you also have to be willing to regulate abortion because of a small relative risk of breast cancer. Or do you want to throw out the abortion/breast cancer research because the relative risk is too insignificant? Then you have to be willing to apply that same standard to environmental regulation as well.
What’s not cool is when people accuse Republicans of being “anti-science” both for promoting the abortion/breast cancer link (“Relative risk is too small! That’s anti-science!”) and for wanting a higher relative risk as to tobacco studies (“Wanting a higher relative risk is anti-science! We’d have to throw out all environmental law if we demanded a higher relative risk!”). Sure, many Republicans are inconsistent partisan hacks, but you’re just proving that you’re a partisan hack yourself if you take equally self-contradictory positions just so that you can oppose Republicans on every front.
Lemuel: “I was also surprised to see “AIDS reappraisal” on the list—I had no idea that was something the right wing anti-science crew had an interest in. And shouldn’t DDT be on the list?”
Yes, it should be. As Rich pointed out in comment 4, once one’s taking money for deliberate lies, what’s the difference?
“My admittedly casual impression is that anti-environmentalism is the overwhelming focus with everything else—except maybe the smoking stuff—just a smokescreen.”
There’s a common thread – these guys have simply decided that public science is not to their benefit. The backers might still pay for proprietary work, for corporate purposes, but non bought-and-paid for scientists who can speak out in publich without fear are just not tolerable.
The common thread extends to the greater wingnutosphere beyond the US, as well. Witness Stephen Harper recently abolishing the post of science adviser.
I’m not sure what definition of “liberal” some people are using. Sunstein writes for the American Prospect in addition to TNR. He’s a partisan Democrat. The fact that he’s not entirely dishonest shouldn’t be enough for you all to chase him out.
thomas-
Sunstein wrote about oh, 1 article a year for The American Prospect, nearly all of them on the topic of the Supreme Court. Charles Krauthammer writes for TNR, and Jonah Goldberg has a weekly web-video on the TNR website. I guess they are liberals (and, by definition, fascists) too.
At this point functional is clearly a junk science proponent. The risk ratio > 2 is something developed by Steve Milloy & Co.
See: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/91/11/1742
Milloy doesn’t do much on ID, but what he has written is straight on the ID line (see his Wiki article).
AIDS reappraisal is, I think, something of an idiosyncrasy of Bethell’s and Regnery. It’s featured in the Regnery Politically Incorrect Guide he wrote, and doesn’t seem to have caused the consumers of that series any problems. And as Rich pointed out above, the skills are transferable, and the line is the same.
One of the more interesting features of Wiki science fights is to watch people pushing identical arguments on all these issues, using the same sources, while vigorously resisting any suggestion that they are connected – the anti-AGW guys hate being tied to the passive smoking skeptics even though their leading advocates (Singer, Seitz, Milloy and others) are the same, and they both hate being tied to ID and AIDS reappraisal.
On RR>2, Barry is spot-on. Of course, individual studies with RR near 1 must be treated with caution since the conclusions are more fragile wrt non-sampling error, but the idea that this translates to a general requirement that RR>2 is a Milloy special. Wikipedia covers all this, and the breast cancer abortion stuff very well.
Finally, as regards Sunstein, I don’t really care whether he is a Democrat. I am, as he would presumably wish, engaging with his arguments. On this issue and on capital punishmnent, I’ve found them unimpressive, but maybe he has done better on other things.
Your link doesn’t remotely establish your claim that Milloy “developed” the relative risk argument. As I pointed out, the National Cancer Institute has argued that relative risks under 2 are treacherous to interpret.
But I don’t really care so much whether you look at relative risks under 2. What I care about is whether you’re consistent. That is, don’t accept low-relative-risk research when you find it politically convenient (certain environmental studies) but then reject low relative risks when looking at the abortion-breast cancer link. You can’t have it both ways.
Mooney and his ilk should pick their poison. Do you want to allow massive regulation of every small relative risk? Then you also have to be willing to regulate abortion because of a small relative risk of breast cancer. Or do you want to throw out the abortion/breast cancer research because the relative risk is too insignificant? Then you have to be willing to apply that same standard to environmental regulation as well.
Let’s see, in one case we have two unrelated things: abortion and breast cancer. In the other we have second hand smoking. We know that smoking causes lung cancer. We know that this comes from the carcinogens in the cigarrettes. We know that you inhale these carcinogens when you inhale second hand smoke. If you think that doesn’t lower the threshold of evidence for a study confirming that a lifetime of exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer, you don’t understand statistics.
As regards Milloy and RR, just use Google. Like you, Milloy cherrypicks statements about single-study, small sample estimates of RR to formulate a general principle.
But I’m unclear whether you’re
(i) claiming the scientific community got it wrong in rejecting the abortion-breast cancer link
(ii) claiming the scientific community got it wrong in accepting the passive smoking-breast cancer link
You say one must be wrong, but which one? As you say, you can’t have it both ways.
BTW, functional, thanks for adding the breast-cancer abortion example to the mix. As you say, it’s another case where Republicans oppose the findings of mainstream science, and it’s also been the subject of vigorous debate at Wikipedia, along the same lines as the other examples.
I don’t mean to get sidetracked by the ridiculous and uninformed speculations about the man’s politics. He’s a liberal. But John has it right: this should be about the arguments. Unfortunately, John hasn’t engaged on those. Yet, I should say. I’m hoping for the third post to actually talk about the book. Should we take up a collection and order it for you? Or would you like to request it from your university library?
Quiggin: “Just use Google” is not an answer to anything, especially when I’ve cited particular instances of respected institutions—completely different from Milloy—arguing that relative risks under 2 are at least a bit treacherous (you are misreading me if you think I’ve claimed that there is a flat “rule” against looking at such relative risks).
I’m not saying that the “scientific community” is wrong on anything. What I AM saying is that if you want to throw out the numerous abortion/breast cancer studies because the relative risk is so small (1.1, for example), then you have to be similarly prepared to throw out any environmental study that shows a similarly low relative risk. If this means that you’d end up “barring regulation of nearly any environmental toxin,” as Chris Mooney seems to fear, that’s what not-being-a-hack would demand. You can’t set up a different and lower standard for the things that you like.
Perhaps two quick examples will help sort whether Sunstein is liberal or conservative (I’m saying he’s liberal):
He wrote a book titled The Second Bill of Rights which is subtitled “FDR’s unfinished revolution and why we need it more than ever.” Not a particularly conservative position.
His position on the Second Amendment also differs from other noted, liberal legal scholars like Jack Balkin, as he lays out in this talk on “The Constitution’s Most Mysterious Amendment” (his point is that, until very recently, a reading of the 2nd amendment as an individual right would have been considered a joke).
We know that smoking causes lung cancer. We know that this comes from the carcinogens in the cigarrettes. We know that you inhale these carcinogens when you inhale second hand smoke.
A serious question.
Maybe I’ve been taken in by Milloyism, but I seem to recall that there is a genuine puzzle here: There is clear statistical evidence for increased cancer risk from second-hand smoke, but the amounts of carcinogens actually inhaled seem to be much too low to explain the increase.
Paul Ewald, who is certainly not a shill or a crank, argues that one possible explanation may be a currently unrecognized infectious origin for lung cancer, at least in some cases. An interesting implication of this theory is that the “second-hand smoke” risk would actually come from exposure to smokers, not smoke.
Anyone else heard of this?
The way to deal with single studies showing RR modestly greater than 1 is to do more work, then use meta-analysis.
As the Wikipedia articles show, meta-analyses of large numbers of studies have
1. Supported the conclusion that passive smoking raises lung cancer risk
2. Rejected the claim from a handful of studies that abortion raises breast cancer risk
Science 2, Republicans 0.
Thomas, I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t made any personal criticism of Sunstein, and have directed everything I’ve written to arguments by him, most recently in his Public Choice paper on blogs.
We know that smoking causes lung cancer. We know that this comes from the carcinogens in the cigarrettes. We know that you inhale these carcinogens when you inhale second hand smoke. If you think that doesn’t lower the threshold of evidence for a study confirming that a lifetime of exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer, you don’t understand statistics.
Though inhalation of cigarette smoke is the prevalent cause of lung cancer, it is by no means the only cause of lung cancer, there are genetic and environmental causes.
Lemuel, I hadn’t heard of this. But a big problem for studies of passive smoking is that it is hard to measure exposure. I’m also aware of some continuing dispute over the magnitude of RR based on the same kind of concern. But no-one serious takes the Milloy/tobacco line that relative risks less than 2 can be disregarded.
The massive saturation of tobacco in the field and warehouse with essentially unregulated pesticides, immune from most regulation even in the US because tobacco isn’t a “food” product, surely has had some part to play in the cancer rates both of primary and second-hand smoke inhalers.
The residue of severely carcinogenic pesticides in commercial tobacco products seems to be pretty much an unknown quantity in the discussion. So the causal link between the use of tobacco and ensuant cancer is left by default to the product itself. Because cigarettes are as everyone knows made from tobacco.
You’d think there’d be a graph somewhere…
I’m still amused by the ID connection. Milloy likes to present an image of engagement with real science, relative risks and so on. Having to support ID must just be humiliating.
I wonder what the next inconvenient science will be? Let’s see who can think up a campaign against something that’s a) widely scientifically accepted, b) against corporate interests, or, at a pinch theocratic-allied-with-corporate interests, c) funny to have to oppose. Hmm:
1. Geocentric cosmology. The Earth is the center of the universe, because God created it that way, and only godless humanists say otherwise. Therefore, the Sun goes around the Earth. Did you know that there are uncertainties in astrophysical observations? All of this Earth-going-around-the-Sun junk science—it’s because of the Day Heat Island effect.
2. Bumpers. Air bags, what a pain. And seat belts. But really does anyone need a bumper on their car? The relative risk of not having a bumper on your car with regard to accidents is less than 2, maybe because the lesser weight makes you more likely to dodge your car out of the way of a collision. Don’t believe the fake studies that say that your car needs bumpers.
3. Radioactive waste is good for you. (Never mind, that one already exists. The Bush administration killed satire.)
4. Cell theory reappraisal. All right-thinking people know that human life begins at conception. That’s because people are made out of people, not “cells”. The whole idea of “cells” is to make you think that the fetus is this non-human thing rather than a little person that just gets bigger and bigger. Have you ever seen a cell? Sure, scientists say they’ve seen cells under microscopes, but really, don’t you think that scratches on glass get magnified when you use one of those things? You put a slide in, there are scratches on it, and there you have “cells”. Is this unproven theory really borne out by experience?
John, I can’t access the Public Choice paper, but I’d be surprised if Sunstein argued for a “’fair and balanced’ mass media” there, and I’d be surprised if he argued for presenting lies in the hopes of building consensus. But that’s how you describe his position. Would you care to excerpt those parts?
rich, you’re way behind. Check out the Australian libertarian party (LDP, stands for Large Dense Pricks I think). They have a committed platform of abolishing speed limits, including in school zones, on the basis that speed doesn’t kill, bad driving does. Their policy platform includes the fact that racing car drivers don’t get hurt very often, which surely has to be up there with “where I live it was colder this winter than last winter, so global warming can’t be true”.
The next obvious political campaign, which is already underway, will be against attempts to reform the western diet so it’s actually healthy. This is going to be a big drag on our economy in future, so we need to fix it up, but any solution is either going to involve some kind of cost incentive, or major nanny statism. I think you’ll find the LDP are already ahead of the curve on this one too…
Thomas, this Salon interview is, I think, not paywalled, and is a pretty clear indication of the kind of thing I’m reacting against in this and other articles. Money quote
Sunstein regards the claims of AEI and so on regarding Kyoto and similar issues as being just as valid as those based on mainstream science. Obviously, he doesn’t call them lies, but that’s what they are.
John, I don’t think “mainstream science” takes a view on policy issues, such as whether Kyoto was “a terrible idea” for the US. I think that’s probably what Sunstein believes as well, but of course I don’t mean to put words in his mouth. He’s clearly on record saying that global warming is a serious problem. (See, e.g., this article in the WaPost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701188.html ) (“Sensible people now agree that climate change creates major risks and that the world should be taking significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”)
I think he even wrote a book that deals extensively with climate change (“Worst-Case Scenarios”), but I haven’t read it.
A brief follow-up: I still don’t see anything that would support the claims you made about Sunstein arguing for a “’fair and balanced’ mass media” and arguing for presenting lies in the hopes of building consensus. (Sunstein could be mistaken about particular factual claims without making supposing that consensus should be built on false claims.)
As for the bit from Salon you emphasize, obviously you think it’s wrong. But it isn’t obviously wrong, and the repeated suggestion that it is obviously wrong seems to me to be an additional reason to think it is true.
“rich, you’re way behind. Check out the Australian libertarian party (LDP, stands for Large Dense Pricks I think). They have a committed platform of abolishing speed limits […]”
Drat, I thought that I was ahead of the curve (so to speak) with cell theory reappraisal. (Remember: cells are just a theory.) Not to mention undoing Copernicus. I really can’t think of anything else. Young Earth Creationism? Already exists.
How about this? Continental infallibility. The continents are as they are because that’s how they emerged from the mind of God, and all this talk of “drift” and “plates” is just measurement error. So there’s no need for all this expensive refitting of California homes and businesses for earthquake resistance. Earthquakes are caused by sunspots, and will never get any worse than they are now, and records of great quakes from previous times are just from the shoddy building materials they used then.
I knew a smart guy in college—a young conservative of the type Chicago’s well-known for—who was really unhappy about the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt. “Where’s the evidence,” he used to say. “Comets show up occasionally so there’s this theory that there must be billions of them out there even though they’vve never been observed. That’s not science!”
It seemed weird and crankish to me until I realized the logic to it: We only need to hypothesize a vast reservoir to explain the comets we see if the Solar System is billions of years old.
1. Geocentric cosmology. The Earth is the center of the universe, because God created it that way, and only godless humanists say otherwise. Therefore, the Sun goes around the Earth.
Nice try, Rich, but not wingnutty enough. How about: The United States of America is the center of the universe, because God created it that way etc. Just s the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth, the rest of the Earth revolves around us, gazing in admiration, awe, and envy.
I believe there are some religious types with an axe to grind against Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, because they see in it the root of moral relativism.
Perhaps we might convince some of the fire-and-brimstone types that extremophile organisms are works of the devil, and that hell is leaking out through hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor.
The way to deal with single studies showing RR modestly greater than 1 is to do more work, then use meta-analysis.
But if the problem is, say, omitted variables, more studies of the same type are going to have the same omitted variables and the same bias. Often, the real solution is to do different types of studies.
An example I’ve followed closely are studies that find that the painkiller Vioxx causes heart attacks. Here, the RR is around 2, although this comes from “gold standard” randomized trials, unlike the smoking studies Quiggin seems to be discussing. Still, I don’t think these studies would be completely persuasive if scientists didn’t also have a very good understanding of the biochemistry. That is, not only do we observe that Vioxx-takers have a higher risk of heart attack, but we also have a chemical explanation of the mechanism through which Vioxx might cause harm (for example, by suppressing anti-clotting factors in the blood).
I suppose that in the case of second-hand smoke it goes without saying that scientists have a good understanding of how second-hand smoke might cause lung cancer. Still, if you’re discussing first principles, this is a key one: epidemiological studies that find small RRs are a lot more persuasive when backed by studies of the underlying mechanisms.
The way to deal with single studies showing RR modestly greater than 1 is to do more work, then use meta-analysis.
But if the problem is, say, omitted variables, more studies of the same type are going to have the same omitted variables and the same bias. Often, the real solution is to do different types of studies.
An example I’ve followed closely are studies that find that the painkiller rofecoxib causes heart attacks (I’d call rofecoxib by its better-known trade name V—xx, but then my comment would be flagged as spam). Here, the RR is around 2, although this comes from “gold standard” randomized trials, unlike the smoking studies Quiggin seems to be discussing. Still, I don’t think these studies would be completely persuasive if scientists didn’t also have a very good understanding of the biochemistry. That is, not only do we observe that rofecoxib-takers have a higher risk of heart attack, but we also have a chemical explanation of the mechanism through which rofecoxib might cause harm (for example, by suppressing anti-clotting factors in the blood).
I suppose that in the case of second-hand smoke it goes without saying that scientists have a good understanding of how second-hand smoke might cause lung cancer. Still, if you’re discussing first principles, this is a key one: epidemiological studies that find small RRs are a lot more persuasive when backed by studies of the underlying mechanisms.
“[Wikipedia e]ditors have learned to detect bogus sources of information almost immediately.”
But last I checked, Wikipedia’s “Neutered Point of View” still ensures that the articles on global warming ‘skepticism’ and ‘skeptics’ are hopelessly neutered. To see what I mean, just check out the Wikipedia article on Steven Milloy.
Sourcewatch is better for such things.
Wikipedia seems to have a liberal point of view. For instance articles on Bush or Rumsfeld or the like will go into details of criticism, while there is less of that for people like Carter. Also, in many cases, there are actual recititations of arguments: for instance “Bush was pro-war, but did not go to Vietnam”. This may be an interesting point, but it’s not encycolpedic. It belongs in an op-ed, not a biographical entry. And it’s clearly self-serving as the person writing it (I will “Bayesian bet” is NOT a Bush supporter writing bad things about Bush, but the converse.)
The whole thing turns into edit wars…and it’s just a buzz-kill to play that game.
The WSJ already published an article on how going to the DISCUSSION section is worthwhile if you want to hear more opinions.
Ragout, I agree. The quotes that have been cherrypicked by Milloy to support a general claim about RR>2 make this point as well.
A single study, with RR near 1 and no convincing mechanism, is unlikely to be taken as more than indicative of a risk. You need multiple studies, attention to omitted variables and a causal story.
All these things are present for passive smoking.
TCO, as debates at Wikipedia have shown, reality has a liberal bias. Perhaps you should try Conservapedia, where inconvenient truths can be conveniently forgotten.
Q: If I dislike liberal bias, why would I like the converse?
A: I find about 95% of people are willing to believe, validate and use sophistry on “their side”, sometimes even admitting it and excusing it based on retaliation. And your answer fits in with that sort of weltschauung. I must prefer conservapedia if I cite problems with wikipediea. Actually, if I had to pick one or the other, it would be a no-brainer to go for Wikipedia. But none of that changes my points made, my assessments based on observation. Which you have not bothered to consider.
;-)
Even Philip Morris doesn’t continue to deny that second hand smoke causes things like heart disease, respiratory problems and lung cancer. Take a look at their recently changed web page on that subject.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
As far as I’m concerned it’s getting harder and harder to take the second hand smoke deniers seriously.
TCO, on the topics discussed in the post its reality&Wikipedia vs Republicans&conservatives.
As regards the entries on president, the summary of Carter’s legacy is “While at the time he left office Carter’s presidency was viewed by many as a failure, his activities since leaving office, especially his many peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, have led to a more favorable view in some circles, but his foreign and economic policy continue to be viewed as disastrous”
which is more critical than anything in the Reagan article.
The article on Bush is, I think, far too kind, reflecting the difficulty of assessing a currently active politician in an encyclopedia. In future editions, he will be correctly ranked among the worst of US presidents.
Phil:
Didn’t ExxonMobil announce that they’re no longer denying the harm of anthropogenic climate change, even while they continue with their old antics?
= = =
TCO:
“for instance ‘Bush was pro-war, but did not go to Vietnam’. This may be an interesting point, but it’s not encycolpedic. It belongs in an op-ed, not a biographical entry.”
Which Wikipedia policy says it’s not “encyclopedic”? Both parts of this statement are matters of fact which have nothing to do with what the writer thinks—Bush is either pro-war or he’s not, and Bush either did go to Vietnam or he did not. These aren’t matters of opinion.
“I find about 95% of people are willing to believe, validate and use sophistry on ‘their side’”
Not 99%? Or 80%? How do you know?
“none of that changes my points made”
And your “points made” have nothing to do with whether the material on Wikipedia agrees with reality. A sticking point which you continually ignore.
= = =
(By the way, I’m planning to turn my web site into some sort of encyclopedia on global warming
denialismskepticism. If anyone would like to help out, please do. :) )Quiggan: It’s not up to the articles to be kind or unkind. They are not supposed to be assessments of worth. But reports.
And I persist: Based on being 42 years old, having read a lot and written a lot: I find that Wikipedia is full of silly flame wars and of people from both sides trying to get in digs.
Quig: As far as the articles here (while I’ve not checked them in depth), I’m inclined to agree with you. My comment about the liberal “digs” getting slipped in was meant more as another flaw of wikipedia (in parrallel) rather than some sort of “liberals do it too”. That’s honestly not how my mind works. Or at least not how I try to make it work. Facts are facts. I don’t believe in a conservative OR liberal Pravda (truth is what serves the party). I believe in some sort of Newtonian spheres wheeling around like a mobile.
Oh please, TCO, stop pretending.
Tell me again why “Bush is pro-war but did not go to Vietnam” is “not encyclopedic”?
Is it because it’s unsourced? (That’ll be a valid reason.)
Or is it because they’re inconvenient facts which you prefer not to deal with?
Can I put in a plug for “delusionism” as the appropriate label. It sidesteps the question of whether “denialism” should be reserved for the likes of David Irving while repudiating the undeserved presumptions of honesty and rationality implicit in “skepticism”.
The anti-AGW movement is all about the manufacture and consumption of convenient delusions.
I don’t really like “delusionism”, actually. The people who put out this stuff aren’t deluded, they’re propagandists. Nor are the people who like it really deluded by it, in the main.
Let’s stick with denialism. If they think it’s unfair that they are being put in the same category as David Irving, well boo hoo. They are in all likelihood going to be responsible for the deaths of a lot of people; Irving, no matter how noxious his denialism is, probably is not going to actually get people killed.
I think I also prefer “denialism”, since “global warming delusionism” doesn’t make it very clear which ‘side’ is being bogus. (Though I think the people who pump out this stuff are quite deluded — I can’t imagine how they can actually believe that they’ll be immune to the effects of global warming!)
For my part, I’d also like to introduce a new term of my own: “un-denialism”. This’ll refer to people who deny that they’re disputing the consensus position on global warming — even while they do exactly that! Folks such as the AEI will fall into this group.
“Though I think the people who pump out this stuff are quite deluded — I can’t imagine how they can actually believe that they’ll be immune to the effects of global warming!”
That one’s easy, bi: the money they get for being denialists has a much greater effect on their individual lives than the generalized harm that will come to people who are alive now through global warming. And, being evil, they don’t care about future generations.
bi: “Bush is pro-war but did not go to Vietnam” would violate Wikipedia standards on grounds of “No original research”. While “Bush is pro-war” and “Bush did not go to Vietnam” obviously aren’t original research, WP:NOR also excludes novel interpretations of existing facts. Therefore, characterizing those as being somehow related, or inconsistent and requiring explanation, would violate policy.
(To give a past example of such a violation, the Liberalism article used to say something like, “With all land on the earth claimed, and nowhere else to expand their empries, the major world powers were forced to turn against each other to secure further resources, culminating in World War I.” While the events are valid to include, and the timeline is correct, characterizing history in this fashion would be original research and non-neutral.)
Now, to the extent that people criticized Bush for this, and that criticism was notable, that should be included, if those critics can be cited.
To summarize:
acceptable:
-listing Bush’s National Guard involvment during Vietnam, and how he never went to Vietnam in his Bio
-listing Bush’s position on the Iraq War and policies he advocated
-listing criticism of the above two as inconsistent
not acceptable:
Saying in the article’s normal prose, “Bush avoided combat in Vietnam but is prowar”.Didn’t intend the strikethrough to be there.
Great job, guys, having a preview box that doesn’t give an actual preview, NOT letting me view any actual preview, and interpreting my input via a little-known standard, making markup under that standard mandatory when it’s supposed to be optional.
No wonder you guys think Macs have good user interfaces…
That’s the most far-fetched piece of Wikipedia lawyers I’ve ever heard.
Sorry, I meant “lawyering”, not “lawyers”.
Walt:
Heheh.
I can see why it’s wrong to argue that the lack of land caused World War I—the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But “Bush is pro-war” + “Bush didn’t go to Vietnam” = “Bush is pro-war but didn’t go to Vietnam”? Where’s the fallacy in that? Atque hoc ergo… atque hoc?
But anyway, you have to admit that wikilawyering is more fun than simply asserting based on nothing that such and such is “not appropriate” and “not encyclopedic”. :)