Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the Past Decade [Archive]

View Full Version : Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the Past Decade

Bulldogcakes

04-08-2006, 04:19 PM

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189706,00.html" target="_self" title="story">Story</a>Agent Orangecell phone-induced brain cancerFears that electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) created by power lines and appliances caused cancerTulane University researchers published a 1996
study claiming that combinations of manmade chemicals (pesticides and
PCBs) disrupted normal hormonal processes, causing everything from
cancer to infertility to attention deficit disorder.EPA air pollution rules issued in 1997 governing
airborne particulate matter (soot) are estimated to cost $10 billion
annually. The EPA claimed soot in ambient air causes tens of thousands
of premature deaths every year.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
added to our bodyweight panic in 2004 by announcing that obesity kills
400,000 people annually, a number approaching the death toll attributed
to smoking (440,000). Criticism of the estimate from CDC’s own
statisticians caused the agency in 2005 to back-off the estimate –
adjusting it downward by 93 percent to 25,814 annual deaths

1999 full-page <a target="_blank" href="http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/mouseear.pdf">ad</a> in the New York Times
attacking genetic engineering. Placed by a coalition including
Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, the ad featured a photo of a shaved
laboratory mouse with what looks like a human ear attached to its back. The
caption stated, “This is an actual photo of a genetically engineered
mouse with a human ear on its back.” As it turned out, it wasn’t a real
ear and it had nothing to do with genetic engineering and drumroll please. .  .  . 

The Mother of all junk science controversies. The most important junk science story of the
last 10 years is global warming. Though climate varies naturally and
ongoing climate change is within that natural variation, the global
warming lobby seems bent on railroading us into economy-killing
regulation. The Kyoto
Protocol is being ignored by its EU signatories. Global warmers admit
that the drastic and impossible step of halting all greenhouse gas
emissions would have no impact on climate.   Some people just need to read this. And use it as a reminder the next time some story gets big media play. Like the bird flu stories making the rounds now. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189706,00.html" target="_self" title="story"></a>

DarkHippie

04-08-2006, 06:00 PM

I don't know, I smell an agenda.

suggums

04-08-2006, 06:32 PM

dude its fox news why would they have any sort of agenda whatsoever?

suggums

04-08-2006, 06:52 PM

from wikipedia's entry on steven milloy:  Steven Milloy is a columnist for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News" title="Fox News">Fox News</a> and a paid advocate for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Morris" title="Phillip Morris">Phillip Morris</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil" title="ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a> and other corporations....Milloy runs the website <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science" title="Junk science">Junkscience</a>.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" title="Global warming">global warming</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT" title="DDT">DDT</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_radicalism&action=edit" title="Environmental radicalism">environmental radicalism</a> and scare science among other topics.<a href="http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm" title="http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm">[1]</a> His other website, CSRWatch.com, is focused around attacking the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility" title="Corporate social responsibility">corporate social responsibility</a> movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Tom Borelli....In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January" title="January">January</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006" title="2006">2006</a>, Paul D. Thacker reported in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic" title="The New Republic">The New Republic</a> that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Morris" title="Phillip Morris">Phillip Morris</a> company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil" title="ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a>. A spokesperson for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News" title="Fox News">Fox News</a> stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."   no bias, no agenda, no nothing. except for the pocketfuls of cash he's been raking in for the past 15+ years...i think skepdic.com says it best: 
 "Milloy
has toned down his language a bit. Until recently, he posted the
following description of junk science: 
[quote]
 'Junk science" is bad science used to further a special
agenda, such as personal injury lawyers extorting deep-pocket
businesses; the "food police," environmental Chicken Littles
and gun-control extremists advocating wacky social programs;
overzealous regulators expanding bureaucratic power/budgets;
cut-throat businesses attacking competitors; unethical businesses
making bogus product claims; slick politicians; and wannabe scientists
seeking fame and fortune. 


I'm surprised he doesn't advise us to watch out for the <a href="http://junkscience.com/news/charen.html"> feminazis</a> as
well. Using his definition, I suppose we should call his page The Junk
Science Junk Science Page, since he certainly uses analyses of scientific work to further
his political agenda."(p.s

PapaBear

04-08-2006, 09:25 PM

Who has talked about agent orange in the past 10 years?

fezident

04-09-2006, 01:35 AM

Every few years, there is a new food/diet enemy.  I love watching the trends that people pretend to follow. Remember  20 years ago it was all about "counting calories"? Then it switched to Saccharin, then cholestorol, then "good fats and bad fats", then it was all about watching that sodium intake!, then we were all running around saying "NO MSG!", then it stayed on Carbs for a long time.  Now we see "NO TRANS-FATS" on everything.  People just looove having labels and stickers on things.  "Oh, Snackwell Cookies have 30% fewer calories and no transfats?!  Perfect for my new diet....which I will start TOMORROW because I don't waste the food that's currently in my fridge."

PapaBear

04-09-2006, 02:07 AM

fezident wrote: Every few years, there is a new food/diet enemy.  I love watching the trends that people pretend to follow. Remember  20 years ago it was all about "counting calories"? Then it switched to Saccharin, then cholestorol, then "good fats and bad fats", then it was all about watching that sodium intake!, then we were all running around saying "NO MSG!", then it stayed on Carbs for a long time.  Now we see "NO TRANS-FATS" on everything.  People just looove having labels and stickers on things.  "Oh, Snackwell Cookies have 30% fewer calories and no transfats?!  Perfect for my new diet....which I will start TOMORROW because I don't waste the food that's currently in my fridge."calories: easy one... don't consume too many.Saccharin: avoid it if you're a rat.cholesterol: see calories.good fats vs. bad fats: There are beneficial fats. Avoid the bad ones, and don't overload on the good ones.sodium: See calories. Without sodium, you can't live. Too much... you die. Often overlooked.carbs: Stick with "complex" not "simple". again...  see calories.MSG: It's a natural substance. It's not bad, unless you're allergic to it. The problem is, if you are allergic, it's difficult to avoid. It can easily be included as an ingredient in foods, without actually being listed on the label.Trans Fats: The recommended daily allowance of trans fat is ZERO! It was (until recently) an end run around fat level listings on product labels. I'm sure it will be replaced with something else, now that the rules have been changed about the labeling of trans fat levels.Watch out for snack foods that say they are non-fat. They are usually high in sugar (which becomes fat, once it's digested).Side note...  I don't follow any of these rules. I'm overweight, and I eat all the stuff that's bad for you.

Sheeplovr

04-09-2006, 05:25 AM

Steven Milloy is a Biostitiute<img width="212" height="226" border="0" src="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/42/StevenMilloy.jpg" /> Suggums gets Points for researching as everyone should of as soon as they saw the fox news logo load 
the best part is its a collum by a guy promoting his own website but written to look like it's not Suggums should get a prize boxbulldogcakes should be slapped with a fish

Gvac

04-09-2006, 06:03 AM

Simply put, science is basically the art of making a hypothesis and
having teams of researchers set out to either prove or disprove
it.  Nothing is gospel truth in the world of science, and
long-held beliefs that were accepted as fact at one point are often
found to be otherwise.  More often that not it takes years
and years for new theories to be "certified" as facts, and even then
debate will rage within the scientific community as to their
validity.  I'd be willing to bet that if you put the 10 greatest
scientific minds in the world together and asked them to rule on which
of the aforementioned stories is "junk science" you'd get 10 different
answers.

Bulldogcakes

04-10-2006, 04:34 PM

Fine, if you dont like Fox here's an article from the Telegraph. (BTW-No one once addressed the substance of the story, just the source) <a title="link" target="_self" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html">Link </a> <img width="8" height="1" border="0" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif" alt="" />

 <table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="center" colspan="3"> </td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>
<table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td width="334">

 There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter (Filed: 09/04/2006) For
many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large
and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem
is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political
fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature
records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,
that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not
increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate
that differs significantly from zero). <a target="_top" href="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/event.ng/Type%3dclick%26FlightID%3d12529%26AdID%3d14779%26T argetID%3d3299%26Segments%3d118,188,381,406,475,49 1,663,964,998,1057,1063,1088,1418,1428,1532,1695,1 703,1792,1824,1840%26Targets%3d154,3171,3303,2700, 3274,3314,3339,3356,3397,2950,3408,3299,3425%26Val ues%3d30,50,60,72,78,82,100,110,150,196,197,198,13 93,1478,1503,1566,1899,2012,2096,2098,2262,2336,24 23,2500,2542,2614,2619,2621,2629,2630,2631,2632,26 33,2664,2666,2667,2683,2906%26RawValues%3d%26Redir ect%3dhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/aos"></a>

Yes, you did read that right. And
also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide
with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet
more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In
response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say
"how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in
the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long
period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a
dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by
the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred
between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world
industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at
precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their
greatest rate. Does something not strike you as
odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of
earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all
odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long
appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming
bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such
short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the
public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 4-10-06 @ 8:35 PM

Death Metal Moe

04-10-2006, 04:35 PM

Everybody's got a fucking agenda.  Can't ANYONE just be honest for once?  Jesus, I just don't want my fucking air and water to kill me.  Is that too much to ask?

Bulldogcakes

04-10-2006, 04:37 PM

Niether do I, I just dont believe its happening. And I think the people with the agenda are the ones pushing unproven theories.

Death Metal Moe

04-10-2006, 04:39 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Niether do I, I just dont believe its happening. And I think the people with the agenda are the ones pushing unproven theories. Sorry BDK, but you post political stories with an agenda too.

HBox

04-10-2006, 04:41 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Fine, if you dont like Fox here's an article from the Telegraph. (BTW-No one once addressed the substance of the story, just the source) <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html" target="_self" title="link">Link </a> <img width="8" height="1" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif" />

 <table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="center" colspan="3"> </td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>
<table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td width="334">

 There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter (Filed: 09/04/2006) For
many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large
and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem
is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political
fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature
records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,
that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not
increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate
that differs significantly from zero). <a href="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/event.ng/Type%3dclick%26FlightID%3d12529%26AdID%3d14779%26T argetID%3d3299%26Segments%3d118,188,381,406,475,49 1,663,964,998,1057,1063,1088,1418,1428,1532,1695,1 703,1792,1824,1840%26Targets%3d154,3171,3303,2700, 3274,3314,3339,3356,3397,2950,3408,3299,3425%26Val ues%3d30,50,60,72,78,82,100,110,150,196,197,198,13 93,1478,1503,1566,1899,2012,2096,2098,2262,2336,24 23,2500,2542,2614,2619,2621,2629,2630,2631,2632,26 33,2664,2666,2667,2683,2906%26RawValues%3d%26Redir ect%3dhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/aos" target="_top"></a>

Yes, you did read that right. And
also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide
with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet
more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In
response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say
"how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in
the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long
period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a
dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by
the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred
between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world
industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at
precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their
greatest rate. Does something not strike you as
odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of
earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all
odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long
appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming
bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such
short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the
public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?</td></tr></table></td></tr></table> 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 4-10-06 @ 8:35 PMThe University of EAST ANGLIA?What, the University of West Trapezoidia was busy on something else?

Death Metal Moe

04-10-2006, 04:41 PM

And may I say, I am glad this wasn't about scientific studies of guy's junk.

Death Metal Moe

04-10-2006, 04:42 PM

HBox wrote: The University of EAST ANGLIA?What, the University of West Trapezoidia was busy on something else?<img height="253" src="http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/strange-car-crash.jpg" width="330" border="0" />

HBox

04-10-2006, 04:55 PM

BTW, I went to the University of East Anglia website, specifically the website for the Climactic Research unit.<a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/" target="_blank">I found this within seconds. </a><img width="600" height="283" border="0" src="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif" /> <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/" target="_blank">And then I found this.</a><a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/" target="_blank"></a>

Bulldogcakes

04-10-2006, 04:57 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Fine, if you dont like Fox here's an article from the Telegraph. (BTW-No one once addressed the substance of the story, just the source) <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html" target="_self" title="link">Link </a> <img width="8" height="1" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif" />

 <table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="center" colspan="3"> </td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>
<table width="468" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td width="334">

 T Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature
records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,
that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not
increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate
that differs significantly from zero).</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>The University of EAST ANGLIA?What, the University of West Trapezoidia was busy on something else? Its a British University that studies climate change. But dont let facts get in the way of your opinion. I'll post it again, since some folks are a little dense BTW-No one once addressed the substance of the story, just the source <strike>When you have some substance, I'd love to hear it.</strike>EDIT-You replied while I was posting  

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 4-10-06 @ 9:29 PM

mdr55

04-10-2006, 04:58 PM

Y2K

Bulldogcakes

04-10-2006, 04:59 PM

Lets do nothing is not an agenda. Let's change everything is an agenda.  The Kyoto Protocol wants us to rearrange our economy so we can meet goals which they themselves admit will likely not do much. Dont fall for environmentalist scare tactics. When I was in college, I was told we wouldn't have enough air to breathe by 1995, because of rapid deforestation of the Amazon. 1995 came, I took a deep breath and said to myself "These people are full of shit". And living an enviro-friendly lifestyle sounds good in theory, but when you look at what it actually means ($5-$6 per gallon gas, Huge increases in all utility bills, across the board inflation related to added energy costs) It's not so appealing.

mdr55

04-10-2006, 05:06 PM

When they changed the formula for Coca-Cola.The Clear Pepsi.

suggums

04-10-2006, 05:06 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets do nothing is not an agenda.   yes it is.  it is part of the agenda that keeps our economic system in place without change.  the base determines the superstructure and the superstructure maintains the base.

Bulldogcakes

04-10-2006, 05:30 PM

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/">And then I found this.</a>  They start exactly where I do. The character of the Earth's climate system is shaped by the
general circulation of the atmosphere and oceans, the winds and
currents that move heat and moisture around the planet. The main
source of the energy that drives these circulations is the Sun. 

So, to identify the reasons why climate varies, we must first
look to the Sun...

<h3>Variations in the Sun's output</h3>

Change in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun is a prime
candidate as a cause of climate variability. And there is no doubt
that on the longest timescales of Earth's geological history, trends
in solar output have played a major role in shaping the Earth's
climate – and will continue to do so in the future.

HBox

04-10-2006, 08:01 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/">And then I found this.</a> They start exactly where I do. The character of the Earth's climate system is shaped by the
general circulation of the atmosphere and oceans, the winds and
currents that move heat and moisture around the planet. The main
source of the energy that drives these circulations is the Sun. 

So, to identify the reasons why climate varies, we must first
look to the Sun...

<h3>Variations in the Sun's output</h3>

Change in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun is a prime
candidate as a cause of climate variability. And there is no doubt
that on the longest timescales of Earth's geological history, trends
in solar output have played a major role in shaping the Earth's
climate – and will continue to do so in the future. And yet there is only one thing on that list which we have any control over.And living an enviro-friendly lifestyle sounds
good in theory, but when you look at what it actually means ($5-$6 per
gallon gas, Huge increases in all utility bills, across the board
inflation related to added energy costs) It's not so appealing.  Thinking of the possible eventual consequences, it's definitely attractive. Besides which, finding an alternative to fossil fuels as soon as humanly possible has many more benefits than just stopping the Greenhouse effect. 

This message was edited by HBox on 4-11-06 @ 12:05 AM