Last year I wrote a piece criticizing reporter Gary Chittim of KING-5 in Seattle, exposing his bias in uncritically, and ignorantly, accepting the claims of "environmentalists."
At the time what set me off was his blind acceptance, and repetition, of the false claim that PBDEs are "toxic," and his unverifiable assertion that certain workers had no ulterior motives in going public with claims about a military base dumping chemicals.
Today he was on Up Front with Robert Mak, and he even more clearly demonstrated his unprofessional bias. When discussing the presidential candidates and global warming, he told another whopper. And I am not even talking about his assertion that "[cap and trade] has been used successfully in European nations" to reduce carbon, although that was bad enough. As was his claim that cap and trade is a "free market within the market," which is nonsensical (it uses market forces, but they are anything but "free"). But he said something even more obviously ludicrous
[McCain's acknowledgment of climate change] alienates some on the very right wing fringe of the Republican Party. As you get more moderate in both parties, into the middle, everyone kinda says, "OK, I kinda see that we do have a problem here."
Except, of course, that skepticism of climate change, and alienation by McCain's statements on it, is mainstream in the Republican Party. It's typical liberal environmentalist dishonesty: attempt to convince people your opponents are wrong by marginalizing them, pretending that they are on the fringe. This is what many advocates of the IPCC do: pretend that this is the consensus of the best minds in the world, ignoring the best minds that were not invited to participate, or those that were participating and left the IPCC because of its politicization.
I don't know whether anthropogenic global warming is real. I suspect it is likely not, but I don't know. But I do know that no one else knows either, and that the left lacks just about sense of honesty when debating the issue.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 18, 2008 11:51 AM | Email ThisBut they've picked a losing horse, because it's getting colder, not warmer, and as more scientists get fed up with the hoax, they are disproving it with sound research and empirical data. The Sun and the Pacific Ocean aren't going to cooperate with the left. So they'll ride this until it becomes painfully obvious that they've failed.
And then they'll try again with some other Marxist folly amd their MSM organ to back their BS.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 18, 2008 12:03 PMBut what if they're wrong? Then we've put all our eggs in one basket, and we're totally unprepared for natural climate change!
Posted by: John Bailo on May 18, 2008 12:54 PMAre we healthier as a result with this addition to our flesh?
Characterizing marginalizing your opponents as "typical liberal" dishonesty is a bit narrow isn't it - just read the posts on this blog...
If we can find a way to travel further, produce more, and waste less per unit of energy it would seem that is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with trying to be clever.
I'll bet $4/gallon gas is unleashing a whole range of innovation in the market place while wringing out waste. Let's give credit to our fellow citizens that will respond to this input and be creative - sure beats politicians running around the planet begging for more oil.
Posted by: BA on May 18, 2008 01:10 PMIf you are only trying to persuade barking mad loons like Jeff B., whose reaction to everything is to cry "Marxist!" or "statist!" just like the hapless lackwit Kevin James crying "appeasement!", then mission accomplished.
If you are trying to expand your right-wing base with arguments such as this, then your efforts are sure to meet with well-deserved failure.
Gregoire's up 11 in the Rasmussen poll, rightards. Prepare your butts for a big footprint this fall.
Gregoire will lose unless she cheats. She is the worst Governor in this state in decades, and even Democrats understand that it is time for a change. Polls, schmolls. The only "poll" that counts is the election. Polls are a tool of the religious left to change the topic away from a discussion of the issues. I wish the media would steer clear from polling.
Posted by: AP on May 18, 2008 02:09 PMWe should go slow on banning materials used for purposes of safety like PBDE. Unless you have a readily available effective substitute that is as well known in its effects and fates, hasty action can have bad consequences. Home fires probably kill lots more people than PBDE has despite its wide use for over 40 years. With some research, one could probably do a cost to benefit evaluation and come to a reasonable decision before very long about the issue. Unfortunately, some groups also yell jump whenever society is on the cusp of a decision.
Remember how we banned cyclamates too soon and wound up keeping saccharine on the market because it was all that was left when it really was less satisfactory in every way. Look at how the Canadians kept cyclamates and had no ill effect. We also banned Red Dye no. 2 before red dye no. 14 the substitute had nearly as much data of safe use available. At least those chemicals were not direct safety issues like the fire retardants used in home furniture and clothing.
The Rasmussen poll was very disappointing given that their previous one had a very close race. Both Rossi and McCain have fallen considerably in the last month or so in Washington. Does anybody in the Sound Politics community have any good data on why the dramatic change?
Posted by: KW64 on May 18, 2008 02:49 PMPudge, given a choice, who would want to have PBDE's accumulating in their bodies regardless of what is known now about them?
Are we healthier as a result with this addition to our flesh?
Given a choice between truth and dishonesty, I want truth. If we decide to ban PBDEs based on FACTS, fine. Based on lies? Not fine.
If we can find a way to travel further, produce more, and waste less per unit of energy it would seem that is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with trying to be clever.
As with above, that is not the point. The point is about the debate itself, and facts and honesty. I am all for more efficient energy use. But what has that got to do with Gary Chittim's obviously false statements?
ivan:
The false claim that PBDEs are toxic?
Yes. It is a false claim.
Who am I to believe, Pudge, a semi-professional liar like yourself, or a report from the National Institutes of Health, conducted during the Bush Administration, reported in full here?
ivan, you have never in your life shown me to lie about anything. Your claim to the contrary is itself a lie.
As to the report, you are ignorant and don't understand it. In fact, it does not claim PBDEs are toxic. Indeed, it says up front that they DO NOT KNOW whether PBDEs are toxic. The conclusion is, "Very little information is available as to their human toxicity, carcinogenicity and behavioral effects."
We have more evidence of water toxicity in humans than PBDE toxicity. Pretty much everything -- yes, including water, I wasn't joking -- can be toxic at high enough levels, so merely calling something "toxic" in general is false unless the evidence backs it up ... and it doesn't, as your own link to a government report shows.
I am not saying I want PBDEs all around me. I am not saying they should not be banned. I am just asking for honesty. And seeing none, I report that fact.
If you are trying to expand your right-wing base with arguments such as this, then your efforts are sure to meet with well-deserved failure.
So you're saying that my statements of proven fact are not going to sway anyone? I didn't realize you disrespected the intelligence of the voting public so much. (Actually, I did realize that.)
Gregoire's up 11 in the Rasmussen poll, rightards. Prepare your butts for a big footprint this fall.
Shrug. Keep thinking that. I won't try to stop you.
Posted by: pudge on May 18, 2008 03:18 PMI am sure, and you are too, that ingesting PBDE's in sufficient quantity will kill you just as ingesting too much water will.
The point is that PBDE's have not been shown to be toxic, which is different than concluding they're not toxic.
The reporter was sloppy and simplified the information to the point of being wrong. You have the benefit of more time than the report had (months as you point out) , and you're asserting more critical thinking too.
So, why then isn't your point that the chemical accumulates in humans, it has not been shown to be toxic, and further studies are being done? All factual.
Then, to make your political point, stay silent about the facts that the chemical has been banned in other countries, at least one state, and the US is the user by far of this chemical in the world.
Then be ready to defend the facts you report, and the ones you don't. (While pretending you have no bias shaping your selection of facts).
This is all irrelevant. Who gets ANY factual news from television!
Posted by: BA on May 18, 2008 04:26 PMCompare the two if you get a chance. It'll be obvious after just a few minutes. Sure, there's a leftie bias to some degree, but not the angry desperation of the Seattle TV "news".
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 18, 2008 04:31 PMPudge is right, the mainstream of the GOP hasn't accepted humans as the cause because we've heard this same boy cry wolf before...about population control, etc.
At the same time, dumping more and more CO2 (liberal bad breath) into the air isn't good. Anyone with any sense can agree to that.
McCain's answer is actually quite sound. Market-based approach to reduce carbon emissions and investment in science, not government control. That's the quickest way to achieve two very conservative goals: reduce dependency on foreign oil; and calm the global warming hysteria.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on May 18, 2008 04:40 PMNo, I did not argue that water IS toxic. I said water CAN BE toxic, in extreme circumstances. There's a big difference: if I said water IS toxic, that implies that drinking large amounts of it in a day -- say, a gallon -- will be bad for me. But of course, that's not true.
The point is that PBDE's have not been shown to be toxic, which is different than concluding they're not toxic.
I never concluded they are not toxic. I said that it is false to claim that they ARE toxic. Again, big difference. I fully and very readily concede that they MAY BE toxic, in some extreme circumstances.
The reporter was sloppy and simplified the information to the point of being wrong.
Exactly. That is the beginning of my point. The rest of my point is that he does it out of ignorance and bias.
You have the benefit of more time than the report had (months as you point out) , and you're asserting more critical thinking too.
No, not any more time. Far less, actually. DURING his report -- which was, if I remember correctly, the first time I had heard about PBDEs -- I questioned whether PBDEs were, in fact, toxic. I looked up the data at that time and found out that his claim was unsubstantiated, and therefore false. This happened over the period of a couple of hours, tops.
And yes, I think more critically than Chittim. This goes without saying, and is a big part of the problem.
So, why then isn't your point that the chemical accumulates in humans, it has not been shown to be toxic, and further studies are being done? All factual.
I don't understand the question. Why isn't YOUR point about the price of tea in China?
It's not my point because it's not my point. My point is something else. I have a keen interest in the honesty and accuracy of journalism, and that is what I wrote about. Am I not allowed to choose to write about what interests me? Perhaps I should ask you what I should write about in the future? :-)
Then, to make your political point, stay silent about the facts that the chemical has been banned in other countries, at least one state, and the US is the user by far of this chemical in the world.
None of that is worth mentioning, as it does not have anything to do with my point.
As I said already, I am not here to defend the use of PBDEs. I couldn't care less about PBDEs. I am simply attacking the dishonesty used by Chittim and other environmentalists to BAN them. If you ban them while being honest, fine. If you ban them with dishonesty, that's not fine at all.
Someone may have given The Goracle a statue, and he may have spoken at the Academy Awards, but he did NOT win an Oscar. He is not listed as winning an Oscar on the Academy's website.
I'm going to stand by my statements. At least until it gets too uncomfortable and I have to apoligize for them and say "I did not mean to offend and my words were taken out of context."
Then I will blame my adversaries for purposefully twisting my comments to avoid dealing with the heart of the issue, which is what the American people really want us to focus on.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on May 18, 2008 04:55 PMDancing around is a poor substitute for clarity.
You said "We have more evidence of water toxicity in humans than PBDE toxicity".
Now you say "I did not argue that water IS toxic. I said water CAN BE toxic".
Word games.
I agree that more accuracy would be great in reporting - especially TV reporting which is arguably more entertainment than journalism.
Write about whatever you want - this is your show not mine.
I'm not suggesting that you need to be more accurate either - you're making no claim that you are.
Posted by: BA on May 18, 2008 05:02 PM2) The reason the Republican party is having so many electoral issues right now is that their "mainstream" has been hijacked by people who hate people like John McCain (moderates).
3) Of course nobody "knows" whether anthropogenic global warming is real. That is the nature of science. You form a hypothesis and test it to see if it holds. I haven't personally run any tests, but a lot of people have, and most of them seem to agree that our carbon emissions are heating the planet.
I never danced around anything. You are still incorrectly assuming my point is something other than it is, that I am somehow talking about PBDEs instead of actually talking about journalism and good science.
You said "We have more evidence of water toxicity in humans than PBDE toxicity".
Now you say "I did not argue that water IS toxic. I said water CAN BE toxic".
Word games.
I said exactly what I meant to say. All of that is absolutely correct and not in the least bit inconsistent. It is not "word games" to distinguish between something being toxic in some cases, and something being toxic in general. It is actually an important distinction, one that Chittim did not make, and that you admit he was wrong about.
I'm not suggesting that you need to be more accurate either - you're making no claim that you are.
Shrug. I was entirely accurate.
Posted by: pudge on May 18, 2008 05:49 PMFlame retardants save thousands lives. Nobody has died from PBDE's except lab rats exposed to doses far higher than any person outside of a lab where PBDE's are used or stored will ever encounter.
Pudge's main point here is that gaia worshipping luddites have elevate yet another minor environmental by-product of our society to the level of a "threat to the planet".
The same bag of lies is used by the environmental left to demonize plasticizers (the stuff that makes plastic soft and pliable) and disinfection byproducts (a by-product of what makes water safe). None of these has ever been tied to human illness or death.
The core of their claim is that minute risks of substances (that are modeled on reactions in lab rats to massive doses) to people are sufficient to ban their use.
In climate science this idea is called the "Precautionary Principle". This principle holds that even if a minuscule risk is present, the source of the risk must be banned.
This is ludricrous. Life is full of risk. Risk is what justifies rewards.
If people had never taken risks where would we be? Simple - still in caves. Though would more likely extinct.
Posted by: deadwood on May 18, 2008 06:15 PMThat question doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps I didn't clarify all of this. "Toxicity" is the ability of something to cause damage in an organism. As I said, pretty much EVERYTHING can be toxic, including water and oxygen.
However, in his report, Chittim used the word "toxic" with its more colloquial connotation: that it is dangerous in relatively small amounts. There's no way he would have called water "toxic" in the same context. So he was intending to imply something that the science does not back up: that PBDEs cause damage to humans in relatively small amounts.
The reason the Republican party is having so many electoral issues right now is that their "mainstream" has been hijacked by people who hate people like John McCain (moderates).
Um. No. These days, when Republicans act conservatively (1994), they win elections. When they don't (2006), they don't. The biggest reason why the Republicans are having problems is because Bush and Congress have not acted conservatively for several years. Bush has been a left-wing President, and has had a left-wing Congress.
And there has been no "hijacking." The Republican Party has always -- well, the last hundred years, anyway -- had a large number of moderates (Roosevelt, Nixon) and conservatives (Taft, Reagan).
Of course nobody "knows" whether anthropogenic global warming is real.
You should tell Al "The Debate Is Over" Gore that.
I haven't personally run any tests, but a lot of people have, and most of them seem to agree that our carbon emissions are heating the planet.
Read the IPCC report (or the summaries of it). The conclusion of the "best minds" in science, that all the environmentalists point to, actually says that there is only at best a 90 percent chance that man is causing any significant amount of global warming. And this is a heavily politicized document to begin with! They stack the deck in favor of global warming and they still only agree that it's a 90 percent chance.
My point is not that global warming is, or is not, real. My point is that people who try to tell us that it absolutely IS real, and that the debate is over, are lying or stupid.
Again: my point here is about honesty and accuracy. As long as you're honest and accurate, we can then have a reasonable discussion about what to do. If you're not, we cannot.
Posted by: pudge on May 18, 2008 06:21 PMExactly correct. 100%.
Posted by: Cliff on May 18, 2008 07:59 PMAt the start is a WWF (wwf.org) commercial pandering for donations because polar bear populations are dwindling due to global warming.
The polar population has doubled in the last 50 years.
The fact is these cult fanatics have no facts and this is our generation's version of heathens yearning to toss a virgin into a volcano to appease a manufactured angry God.
One only wishes they could turn their affliction to a more private type of inner loathing and self hatred.
Posted by: Andy on May 18, 2008 08:02 PMLinked from icecap.us - So many scientists, so many "deniers"
http://www.climateaudit.org/
What is the left so afraid of? The truth? This planet has seen far more than what this generation has thrown at it and yet, it the earth still rotates on its axis, gives us life (unless we throw out CO2) and provides sufficient resources.
Of course we need to take care of our home, but the planet "arms" race that is going would be amusing if it weren't so telling of how some folks are trying to get power over the earth's natural resources. I guess when you have nothing else to believe in, AGW is the next best substitute.
Posted by: Phyllis Steen on May 18, 2008 09:33 PMMost Americans could not care less about Global Warming. They quite reasonably see no effect from it on their lives despite a decade of environmentalist propaganda. The problem is that Americans do not see the danger in the legislation proposed to combat AGW. They care about the high price of gasoline but they don't connect it environmentalist policies that the Senate and Congress have enacted. Just a few days ago the Senate once again refused to open ANWR for exploration but instead opted for the worthless alternative of suspending deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The environmentalists are killing us or soon will be. The ethanol scandal is the sort of government mismanagement of energy that will become standard if the AGW legislation proposed by Obama, Clinton or McCain comes to pass.
Nope. It says there is greater than a 90% chance that man is causing most global warming.
And don't we act all the time to prevent catastrophes that have a 1% probability -- let alone more than 90%?
Bruce, that is false. You have been sucked into The Lie.
In the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report (April 2007), the IPCC writes: "A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems."
So we are talking here about whether man is causing significant global warming: not most, but any. That is what "has had a discernible influence" means.
And "likely," as the document explicitly states, means greater than 66% chance, as opposed to "very likely," which means greater than 90% chance. So, between 66% and 90%.
You are the one who is in error. I backed up my claim; you cannot back up yours.
This is my point: the AGW proponents lie to us. They try to convince us that AGW is much more certain than even the IPCC claims it is.
Posted by: pudge on May 20, 2008 07:52 AMThe IPCC report says: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (i.e., over 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." If we're over 90% likely to have caused most of the warming, than the chance that we've caused any warming (which is what you described in your original post) is even higher.
This is so clear that it's hard to imagine you really were trying to get it right.
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf, p.5
Posted by: Bruce on May 20, 2008 05:41 PMYou apparently did not read what I wrote the first time. I'll repeat: "there is only at best a 90 percent chance that man is causing any significant amount of global warming." I chose my words carefully. "Significant" has meaning in the sentence. What would be a significant amount? I intended it to mean enough to cause a "discernible impact on many physical and biological systems," as I clarified later.
This is so clear that it's hard to imagine you really were trying to get it right.
Back at you.