• #35
    I'm so glad you pointed that out. That is exactly what climate skeptics have been saying for at least ten years.
  • #57
    @Realthinker the earth gets hot & then it gets cold.. that's climate chang.. the radioactivity coming from the solar flares help increase the earth temperature and planets around it.. that's something man can do nothing to control..our environment is ever-changing and is a science that continues to change.. so what are you saying..
  • #70

    Except that climate skeptics are not the same as deniers. All scientists are supposed to be skeptics, but denial is another matter.

    That which is paid for by the corporations that stand to profit should be subject to great skepticism.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    The "National Center for Public Research" is a conservative think tank group. They recieve a good chunk of their funding from the Carthage foundation which is directed by Richard Scaife.... the oil tycoon.

    The center also takes funding from the Sarah Caife Foundation. Another Richard Scaife foundation.

    They also took in $450,000 from Exxon Mobil from 1998 - 2008.
  • #7
    Excellent point. Many conservatives will dismiss climate studies on the basis of their funding. Wonder if the 'funding' door swings both ways.
  • #11
    And, that is different from liberals? How? Oh, I see, you're a liberal and don't want any conservative view heard.
    How about this....I believe this story is just a liberal agenda lie. I support the use of fossil fuels. I believe in second amendment rights and oppose further gun control.
    Oh, yeah....I'm a DEMOCRAT.
  • #13
    @Wafflecone spot on. Once I saw the word Texas in this article, I knew it had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely scientific.
  • R Load more replies

  • #88
    They paved the way for denial campaigns for decades. Some of the same firms are being used today by big oil.
  • #145
    Or the scientists that produced red dye #2, or the Doctors that preferred cigarettes with a asbestos filter, or Al Gore teaching the Scientists. I first smelled a rat when Nobel gave him the prize.
  • #1
    Its sad when people can't trust anything any more.

    On one side we can't trust thd people who are trying to"help" us because they might have an agenda.

    On the other hand we can't trust science because they might have been "bought" out by a corporate interests.

    On the left foot we can't trust government because its about as corrupt as a steel can left out from the sixties.

    On the right foot we can't trust media because they might have a political agenda.

    Bah humbug!!!!
  • #22
    On the other other hand, there are organizations designed to look like consumer oriented groups that are really fronts for an industry or wealthy individual trying to confuse whatever issue they care about for their own benefit.

    You can trust science, you can't trust those who pervert science for their own purposes.
  • #78
    I agree, the systematic undermining of our institutions which started during the Vietnam War has continued it's onward march unabated.

    We can't trust any research coming out of corporate groups because they have a hidden agenda to maximize profits at any costs.

    Then again, research coming out of the consumer groups is typically funded by Lawyers, Insurance companies and Luddite environmentalists...with their own maximize profits.

    Or you have research coming out of government funding, who's objective is to maximize control and taxation over the populace.

    Basically, in this day and age, you need to have teh wisdom of Solomen to know who is going to F!%k you over the least.
  • #123
    I believe this is more accurate than "craythegray" on comment number 1. Excellent comment Cincinnatus.
  • #146
    Cincinnatus, disinformation is what Alinsky was good at. Have you seen a parallel to the Obama administration or are you not familiar with his work?
  • #170
    @JackinVienna Oh, that was too cute. I am busy minimizing everyone's profits so I can financially survive.
  • R Load more replies

  • #59
    "Remember when the Consumer Product Safety Improvement act banned ATVs and sport bikes designed for youth because of lead in the engines? The rationale, if one could call it that, was that lead in the batteries presented a risk to children, since children are known to mouth their toys."

    No, I don't. They have exactly one scare campaign to claim, one I have never heard of, one that is so absurd as to suggest they invented it. So I looked it up. It only affected toys for children under 12, and was intended for toys they could put in their mouths.

    Now at what age do children start riding ATVs and Motorcycles? What parts do the put in their mouths?

    This is a scare campaign over one segment then set up to frighten people about regulations on chemicals damn few know anything about. Since when does a ban on lead in motorcycles have anything to do with BPA, phthalates and parabens? How many of the readers even know what these are?

    Above all, there is nothing in the article to tell us just why these chemicals are under attack, or who says they are safe. So, always remember, when it comes to safety, the critics do not have to prove a new chemical unsafe, the proponents must prove it safe.
  • #148
    thank you.

    this trash article by Steier is one of the most cynical things ever written. Even for an industry shill like him, working for a sham like the National Center for Public Policy Research, this is disgusting.
  • #42
    The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a right-wing organization that believes in virtually no regulation. It is not a credible source.
  • #359
    @skywatcher888 California, New York... lived in all three states... if you haven't then you pretty much are just a parrot and would be better off just sqwacking "Polly need moar koolaid"

    Poor poor Texas... Budget surplus (actual, not projected like California's of 8 billion)
    Voted best state in the country for business 10 years running... The only thing I see happening in California and New York is businesses running away... yes, poor poor Texas...
  • #66
    I agree with the premise, but the chemical companies are the wrong ones to protect. If anything they need far more strngent oversight. For example, did you know the poison ingredient in Agent Orange is still being marketed in the US and around the world, albeit in smaller quantites? It's in Roundup!
  • #157
    You are confused-Roundup contains glyphosphate, which was not in Agent Orange. What you've been reading about are the claims that a new weedkiller (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), which was in Agent Orange (but not associated with the toxicity), is being considered for use as an alternative to Roundup because weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup (BTW, it has been used for many years in weedkiller formulations). There are pros/cons to both, but the scare tactics used by environmental groups, and the marketing strategies by the large ag companies, really confuse the science behind the technology. Unfortunately, the consumer is ill-equipped to really evaluate whether the benefits of the technology outweigh the risks (part of all analysis for new technology). My best advice is to do you homework with healthy skepticism of the source of any data, and don't get swept up in these frenzied debates.
  • #45
    Look what the cotton and wool industry told us about hemp. Look at the e-cig controversy the tobacco industry is starting.
  • #44
    Some very cogent points made in this article - we really have become subject too often to the screaming of the "loudest voice" ... and, also too often, it's not the right voice. In cases such as this, the *real* science does need to be the guiding factor, and not the all-too-emotional appeal of activism.
  • #87
    And how does one tell 'real' science? Especially when that science is bought and paid for by huge companies and the results are known before the science has even begun?
  • #110
    It's a fair question. However, when you ask that, you must also acknowledge that most all science is "bought and paid for" - it's simply a matter of by whom. And insofar as you would seem to condemn that purchased by "huge companies" for "results [already] known," this is no better measure of actuality than it would be to condemn all science performed as being under similar circumstances.

    I would tend to say that 'real' science is better found when divorced from emotional and political expectation of ANY kind, and when thoroughly grounded in proper scientific skepticism - which should ALWAYS be questioning and testing the results; it is when it does not - or worse, acts to squelch such - that we should always be concerned. As such results can be found in many places, ranging from public to private, it were improper to dismiss any of them out-of-hand ... certainly not without first testing them for the above issues.
  • #142
    @AceLuby Suspect it is junk science when they get caught lying. That is what I did with GloBull warming. I now require a higher standard of proof other than how many degrees you have.
  • #163
    @Curmudgeon That is certainly one very good example.

    Science can and will only succeed when the environment it operates is open to thorough questioning and review of all data and methods. Anything which restricts - or worse, prohibits - this exercise, no matter what the excuse or reason, cannot in honesty truly call itself science. That, in the end, is key - more so than the money question.
  • #172
    @AceLuby You tell real science by learning real science. Most people either trust scientists blindly or distrust them blindly because they can't be bothered to learn a little about the scientific facts involved. The anti-vaccine morons are a good example; they hear only whazt they want to hear but refuse to check out the research. Due to their ignorance, kids are getting sick with things that we'd all but eradicated even when I was a kid.
  • #36
    The problem is that to date, most manufacturers get to test their own products. Should be 3'rd party non-profit.
  • #16
    "Consumers are finding it difficult to keep track of chemicals that were proven to be safe by the FDA"
    If we believe that evey chemical compound the FDA approves is safe, then why do medications designed to treat illnesses and conditions come with so many warnings of side-effects that are far worse than the illness they're designed to treat? Common sense should be our first line of defense but when someone is not well or when we're looking for convenience we're not paying attention to the warning signs.
  • #33
    @charliegirl Because side effects, like dry mouth, or drowsiness, aren't necessarily harmful, just unpleasant.
  • #37
    @Realthinker True, but other things like the medications that cause teenage boys to grow female breasts or when things start falling off and your asthma medication causes a heart condition or pneumonia it's a bit more than unpleasant.
  • R Load more replies

  • #234
    This article is clearly written by industry shills. Junk science, regardless of its source, should always be vigorously fought. Never forget, however, to follow the money.
  • #241
    And who is Jeff Stier and The National Center for Public Policy Research?

    The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative think tank

    He's a lawyer and lobbyist who pretends to be an authority on science.
  • #43
    As a scientist myself, I am all for people having the information to make their own decisions. Whether it is related to GMO, pesticides, chemicals etc. From what I have seen first hand advocacy groups have agendas much deeper than protecting a "group". Often it is financial.

    For example the anti-GMO debate started with "Organic" farmers. By creating the anti-GMO hype they can charge a premium for their products. Simple fact is our bodies break down foods into the same proteins, fats and carbs regardless of the GMO vs. non-GMO, as simple point that has been lost.
  • #68
    " Simple fact is our bodies break down foods into the same proteins, fats and carbs regardless of the GMO vs. non-GMO, as simple point that has been lost. "

    Until GMOs kill people. Which has happened.

    Note that GMOs sold to the public don't actually contribute much if anything to anyone other than the patent holders.
  • #79
    I'm not necessarily worried about the GMO's themselves, it's what the GMO's are used for; namely so they can pump a ton more pesticides, herbicides, and chemical based nutrients into my 'food', not to mention the ecological dangers food that can't naturally propagate brings to the environment.

    Organic farmers already have the Organic name, plus they are a tiny minority. To think that it's these farmers and not the numerous countries banning Monsanto products, plus the millions Monsanto pumps into anti-GMO labeling campaigns, plus the shady practices they use to keep a stranglehold on the market; I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to maybe be a bit cautious when discussing them or their practices.
  • #117
    @BobFromDist9 water kills people. It's called drowning. Show me a peer reviewed study with a definitive correlation between a GMO food and a death.

    Of course in a broad sense a GMO itself could cause death. In that same sense all resistant bacterial strains are non-lab generated GMO. It's all in how the word is used . Advocacy groups like to spread fear.

    Give consumer info. Let them choose.
  • #118
    @AceLuby organic doesn't mean pesticide free. GMO foods can be drought resistant. Something CA could use this year.

    Debating Monsanto ethics is beyond the scope of this forum so I am not going to go there.
  • R Load more replies

  • #147
    Just becasuse you read it on the internet doesnt mean it is true.

    For example, the nonsense this author spouts is just a bunch of propaganda that he is paid to write for his industry-sponsored job. The "National Center for Public Policy Research", to which this cretin belongs, is nothing more than an industry front. They put out disinformation to get consumers to buy products, they lobby congress to keep their industry partners unregulated so they can continue to poluute and exploit, they ignore science, they dont care about you or your family.

    The ban on leaded gasoline was not put in place because "kids mouth their toys". That is asinine. It was put in place because breathing vaporized lead was found, through hundreds of studies conducted over a decode or more, to be directly linked to mental disorders, early death, and increased health care costs, as well as environmental damage that was killing wildlife and increasing the lead content of fish, waterfowl that we hunt.
  • #77
    Many times, these groups that were originally formed for a good purpose - such as the anti-smoking groups - take on a life of their own. When they achieve their goals, they need to find something new to go after in order to keep their jobs.

    Just look at e-cigarettes. Most scientists and doctors say they believe they are safe, but are calling for more scientific studies to be done. Not so, sayeth the the consumer groups. According to them, these are just as unsafe as tobacco cigarettes and they want to ban them in the name of "protecting the children" meaning they don't want kids to think that smoking is normal, even if what is being smoked is safe. The one study they point to was done in a hurry in the UK by a group attempting to ban their use, which showed that a couple of e-cigs from a couple of manufacturers contained TRACE AMOUNTS of possible carcinogens.

    I have news for them - the hot dogs you eat contain TRACE AMOUNTS of possible carcinogens. So does water.

    If it turns out the e-cigs are unsafe, then so be it - ban them - but do it because they are TRULY unsafe, not because a few people pushing an agenda need to raise money and fight something to be able to keep their jobs.
  • #80
    Not accurate -- there is a lot of nicotine in e-cigs, and that is already established to be bad for kids -- it is both addictive and a vaso-constricting agent. E-cigs are pushing flavored eciggaretts -- CANDY flavors, designed to appeal to kids.

    Your premise that these are just good groups gone bad is false, and without any validity supported by factual sources.

    This IS about something being truly unsafe, and targeting a vulnerable market of kids --- and that this product affects kids differently than adults is sustained by neuroscience research already.

    You are completely wrong about pushing an agenda for the reasons you give. You failed to review enough information as to why the groups have opposed this. It is the nicotine; AND it is other chemicals. But it is also the neuroscience of child and adolescent brain studies.
  • #90
    last research I say was the same chemicals are present is e cig side stream smoke as in traditional cig side stream smoke. I have no problem with what you put in your body as long as you keep it to yourself. I saw the report on d (discover) news
  • #106

    Which one of these groups do you represent?

    If you want to ban nicotine, fine. But I want caffeine banned also. Or would that interfere with your daily Starbucks fix? Let me guess - that's different, right? Caffeine has been proven to be harmful.

    Banning the sales of e-cigs to minors is one thing, that is just common sense. Banning them altogether because you don't like anything that even LOOKS LIKE smoking is un-American.
  • #111
    @JWeinstein Thanks, but I went decaf a long time ago, and I've never smoked -- however I have seen the damage that both the tar AND nicotine can do to the body.

    I don't have a problem with stricter licensing (not banning) of e-cigs. I also dislike the prohibition on marijuana - and I have never smoked or otherwise consumed that either. Rather it is the prohibition of marijuana that has paralleled the bad experience we had with trying to prohibit alcohol -- there are better ways to regulate it. I'm all for high taxes on alcohol and tobacco - and pot.

    However, I found your broad condemnation of the groups that oppose harmful - not safe, not useful products - to be a flawed one, and not factually driven.
  • #150
    @DeeGee Groups target Blacks with higher alcohol content beer and have been for years. No one is complaining. It's like the 12 year old having sex with his teacher, what is the hurry to do anything comes into play. It's only when impartial people take a stand...
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    This...should be viewed with great skepticism. The points made are valid - there is plenty of scare-mongering going about by everybody with an agenda, which is pretty much everybody.


    There's precedent *not* to trust corporate interests with consumer health, even when backed by 'science'. There are probably thousands of examples you can find in 10 minutes of Google searching, but if you want an entertaining while enlightening telling of one particularly important example, watch "The Clean Room" episode of Cosmos (it talks a lot about the events that lead up to lead's toxicity being realized).
  • #149
    "This...should be viewed with great skepticism. "
    understatement of the year.

    Steier is nothing more than an industry shill trying to lobby for deregulaiton of toxic chemicals his industrial clients want to use in their products.
  • #238
    Jeff and his "think tank" organization believe that Corporate backed consumer groups and their "scientists" are now getting the word out that the hazardous materials their companies produce are not so bad? I can understand that the Texas Consumer Association may think that petroleum products are good to breathe in or eat, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute apparently takes a broader view - what's good for corporate America is good for long as it advances liberty from law suits.
  • #119
    Only fools would agree to this nonsense.

    While it is certainly true that some consumer groups go overboard banning substances that pose a questionable risk to people, but the converse of that question is why put people at risk?

    Second, the conflict of interest of corporations to keep hazardous chemicals in use by funding a favorable study is without question the most significant danger to human health. It is far more important that a study be funded by an independent agency than that it be "scientific" or "peer reviewed."

    They're all in cahoots anyway. Talk to an engineer and there's nothing mankind does that is in the least bit harmful to humans.

    Better to be SAFE than sorry.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more comments...