Junk science has exploded thanks to the Internet.  It’s easier than ever to strike fear in the hearts of consumers by using words like “toxic” or worse, “cancer” in association with a given product.  Some of you may remember the Alar hoax. Nowadays, junk science finds willing advocates in form of uninformed celebrities who endorse their misguided causes. The latest example of embracing myth and fear over truth and reason is Dr. Mehmet Oz.

Dr. Oz has cynically leveraged his celebrity status into becoming an irresponsible spokesman against products Americans use daily, whose safety is beyond question.  He’s disgraced his status as physician by becoming an agent of fear, rather than an agent of healing.

Even worse, the mainstream media perpetuates junk science without vetting anything Dr. Oz says.  They report his nonsense, but never the criticism of it.  Nor does the MSM bother to investigate the anti-capitalist group supporting him.

Dr. Oz has irresponsibly generated public fear about dozens of safe products…and by “safe”, I mean scientific studies with rigorous protocols that have determined they are exactly that:

Apple Juice

What the … ? Is he serious?  I’m afraid so.  He recently made the outrageous assertion that apple juice is unsafe because of the amount of total arsenic found in it.  The EPA, he says, permits 10 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic in water, but has no standards for apple juice., so he uses the same 10ppb as the toxicity level for apple juice.

Water is not apple juice.

Not only does the FDA permits 23ppb of total arsenic in apple juice, but virtually every step along the supply chain tests for arsenic levels.  Even in China, farmers are trained on how to properly cultivate apples and arsenic levels in soil are measured.  When the apple concentrate arrives in the U.S., the FDA conducts random checks.  Manufacturers then rehydrate the concentrate into juice, and test every lot.  If total arsenic exceeds 23ppb, they toss it.

Oz’s report was so misleading report that the FDA took the unprecedented step of debunking the claim publicly.  The FDA also reminds us that only inorganic arsenic, as opposed to organic arsenic, is toxic, and that dearest Dr. Oz tested for total arsenic. In addition, the FDA did the same testing on one brand’s apple juice that Dr. Oz did, and came up with results that showed ninety percent less total arsenic.  As the FDA responded to Oz, “The analysis of foods can pose a challenge to analytical laboratories and seemingly minor variations in sample treatment and analysis can have a significant effect on results.”

No kidding.

As Rick Cristol, President of the Juice Products Association told me, “The Juice Products Association, its member companies and even the FDA provided Dr. Oz Show producers with substantial information to develop a factually accurate program.  Yet, Dr. Oz chose instead to frighten the public with misleading and inaccurate information, that the former Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control, and now a broadcast reporter, described as yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

Yet the mainstream media pays no attention to any of this.  They just perpetuate the fear by reporting on what Dr. Oz had to say — not his critics.

(more…)

This morning, Andrea Seabrook of National Public Radio cast Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry as “against science.” Seabrook’s report cites their support for creationism being taught alongside evolution in schools, and their skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, as evidence of their “skepticism.”

Seabrook’s story sets the stage for tonight’s Republican presidential debate, hosted by NBC and Politico at the Reagan presidential library, by portraying the GOP primary race as being dominated by “socially conservative, religious Republicans.” She paints Perry and Bachmann as particularly extreme in their views, using laggard John Huntsman as a foil to demonstrate that “[t]here are many in the GOP who strongly support scientific research and evidence-based policy making”–as if Bachmann and Perry do not.

One episode Seabrook uses to illustrate Perry’s supposed lack of support for science is a campaign stop where, she says, “a child asked Perry what he thinks about evolution.”

Seabrook neglects to mention that the child was being used as a political prop by his mother, whom Perry politely ignored as she prompted her son with questions: “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.” Seabrook replicates the mother’s bias exactly.

The sleight of hand in Seabrook’s story is evident in her attempt to describe “skepticism” of a scientific theory as hostility to science itself. In fact, skepticism is the very essence of science. (more…)

Just when you think that they can’t come up with anything else, the global warming hoaxers unveil something new in their attempt to scare the public into believing their global redistribution of income scheme.

The latest claim is those horrible, massive tornadoes which caused over two-hundred deaths in America this week were spurred by global warming (a claim that was quickly refuted by both FEMA and the NOAA Storm Prediction Center among others).

The other day, Peter H. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute wrote in the AOL/Huffington Post about the connection between the tornadoes and climate change. When his words are examined carefully it is clear that his article was simply meant to frighten not to explain. He begins:

Violent tornadoes throughout the southeastern U.S. must be a front-page reminder that no matter how successful climate deniers are in confusing the public or delaying action on climate change in Congress or globally, the science is clear: Our climate is worsening.

On first glance he is saying that there is a connection between the warming hoax and the tragic weather; that’s what he intends for the reader to think. But look again at the carefully-scripted paragraph. He argues that the weather should remind you that the climate is getting worse. Well… that and the fact that people who don’t buy into the scheme are horrible people.

(more…)

Al Gore’s much ballyhooed Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has recently announced that it will no longer be engaging in carbon trading, an activity that was the sole purpose that it was created. This is an utter failure of purpose in global warming hysteria yet the Old Media is almost completely silent on this colossal failure.

Why has the media remained utterly quite on this abject failure after unleashing on the public an avalanche of stories that touted the creation of the CCX back in 2000 — and since for that matter? Roger L. Simon and David Thomson wonder just that.

The CCX was the brainchild of Northwestern University business professor Richard Sandor, who used $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based left-wing Joyce Foundation to launch the CCX. For his efforts, Time named Sandor as one of its Heroes of the Planet in 2002 and one of its Heroes of the Environment in 2007.

But as of the October 21 announcement that carbon trading would end, the Old Media is nowhere to be seen on the story.

(more…)

Has the so-called global warming crisis been propped up in the media and on the internet as the result of a single phrase?

Astute Breitbart readers will know the IPCC theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is crumbling apart at an exponential rate, as can be seen in a daily roundup of the news at web sites like ClimateDepot.com, WattsUpWithThat, SPPIblog, and PlanetGore. That’s the skeptic scientists at work, exposing the faults of the IPCC and all the people surrounding it, but has news of this been seen anywhere in the mainstream media?

No. Why not? A single phrase made famous by an enviro-advocacy group and its anti-skeptic book author “star” may have been the primary reason the MSM felt a compulsion to exclude any news of, debates of, and discussions with skeptic scientists. What was this phrase?

“Reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” Not exactly a smooth sounding sentence. If the average disinterested citizen was presented with compelling evidence that human activity is not causing global warming, and compared it to Al Gore declaring the debate over, he or she would probably say something more like, “We should show how the global warming debate isn’t settled yet.”

Back in late 1990, that is essentially exactly what happened, except that the specific people who wanted to counter-argue Al Gore’s surging rhetoric were members of a coal producers’ association. They formed the Information Council on the Environment (ICE) sometime around January 1991, and one of the documents used by its public relations personnel did not contain the more mundane sentence I have above. Instead, its #1 sentence on a strategies page was this verbatim version: “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” It’s #2 sentence was, “Target print and radio media for maximum effectiveness.” The #9 one was, “Use a spokesman from the scientific community.” Most anyone would interpret this paper to be what it is, pointers for PR workers to follow. A scan of the paper can be seen when you click on the page 10 thumbnail at Greenpeace archives here. (more…)

That’s us on the left, as seen by NASA’s deep-space Messenger:

Today is the American Life League’s (ALL) third annual The Pill Kills Day, which focuses on the various harmful effects of the birth control pill. All focus this year is on the Pill’s harmful effects on the environment.

But it turns out, just as Feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti wrote in a May 30 Washington Post op ed that one cannot be a feminist without supporting abortion, neither, apparently, can one be an environmentalist without supporting the right toxins.

Attacking Sarah Palin’s brand of feminism, Valenti wrote:

But, of course, Palin isn’t a feminist — not in the slightest. What she calls “the emerging conservative feminist identity” isn’t the product of a political movement or a fight for social justice.

It isn’t a structural analysis of patriarchal norms, power dynamics or systemic inequities. It’s an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women’s rights, who want to make abortion and emergency contraception illegal…..

Now comes Carol King at the Ms. magazine blog, who’s “amused” by the pro-life side’s “antics” to draw attention to the fact that waste estrogen from the birth control pill is harming the environment, a point which, King writes, “sent me into howls of laughter.” (more…)

In case you’ve been in a coma over the last few weeks, we’ve had a bit of problem on the Gulf Coast. While the oil leak that developed after the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up is indeed a disaster, this tragic event is unprecedented and its causes complex. As is usually the case when it comes to a complex issues, the MSM has spent a lot of time finger-pointing without much of an idea what they’re pointing at.

For example, a May 6 AP story entitled “Feds let BP avoid filing blowout plan for Gulf rig” featured this lede:

Petrochemical giant BP didn’t file a plan to specifically handle a major oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project because the federal agency that regulates offshore rigs changed its rules two years ago to exempt certain projects in the central Gulf region, according to an Associated Press review of official records.

Sounds ominous, and while those carefully chosen words are perhaps technically true, they are also meaningless. (more…)

Hard as it to imagine, a recent government report was so ridiculously hysterical that even the New York Times noticed. The President’s Cancer Panel’s released a report entitled “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk,” which led to this Times’ headline:

U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks.

The verb “overstating” doesn’t go half far enough, but coming from theTimes that’s still pretty damning. The report was a collection of conjecture, unrelated factoids and, more than anything, a shrill call for more: more government, more studies and, of course, more money. Even the American Cancer Society found it a bit over the top. From the Times:

Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the cancer society, said in an online statement that the report was “unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,” and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact.

(more…)

On Thursday, the Associated Press breathlessly reported that babies in America are getting diaper rash. I swear I am not making this up.

Thursday’s story centered around what is described as “a handful of reports” to the Consumer Product Safety Commission from mothers whose babies have come down with a bad case of diaper rash. But instead of getting the Desitin out of the medicine chest and keeping baby’s bottom nice and dry, these parents have decided to blame the disposable diapers. In this case, it’s the Pampers Dry Max diaper. So far, the CPSC has received what it calls “a handful” of reports.

Let’s put this into context for just a moment. We have this “handful” of reports of diaper rash with moms blaming the diaper rather than the fact that babies just get diaper rash sometimes. Now, compare that fact with this statistic (taken from an alarmist website I’d rather not link to) from Pampers spokeswoman Jodi Allen: (more…)