NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

A bigger problem than global warming

This is why junk science promoters will win
While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.
Full story here.

Without understanding the underlying science of global warming and climate change, we have allowed our legislature to pass laws based on junk science. Laws that are going to have a sever impact on our local economy and personal wealth. It is to your benefit to learn enough basic science to know when the politicians and media are pushing junk science.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

I agree, science education is woefully underdone, thanks to the total disregard for American ignorance expressed by Republican and Democratic education initiatives. But it is in fact the people with more science experience who tend to advocate global warming theories, not less. Why must one's interlocutors be spreading "junk science"? The global warming science is very good and very complex. Compare that to corporate junk science (and there they have a vested interest in lying and hiding the facts), as Ed Herman among others has documented, and a very different picture emerges.

Wed Aug 31, 11:48:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...


Please share some links to some corporate lying. Let's see what you consider lies.

Wed Aug 31, 09:03:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...


I did give you the author, perhaps some research might not be remiss? But let's take the cases where Phillip Morris shares tips to keep kids from smoking or oil companies brag about their ecological credentials or so on... usually as a shield from prosecution or because they were legally required to. Or how about the fluoride debacle, wherein companies claim in collusion with loval governments (despite a wealth of evidence that this is uncertain at best) that fluoride is good for teeth, ignoring that even if it were the fluoride they dump in is the byproduct of corporate production.

A quote: "Thus, the U.S. plastics industry did no studies of the possible carcinogenicity of VC for over 20 years, despite manifold evidence that it caused liver cancer in workers. When in the early 1970s Italian toxicologists found compelling evidence that VC was a potent carcinogen, the U.S. industry, which had entered into an agreement with European producers to share information but not to disclose without prior consent, failed to disclose it to the FDA or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for 15 months. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, this suppression meant that “tens of thousands of workers were exposed without warning, for perhaps some two years, to toxic concentrations of vinyl chloride.”

Wed Sep 07, 05:22:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home