The pathetic thing is that it’s the same old tripe. Emily Yoffe writes “Gloom and Doom in A Sunny Day” and rehashes the same tired old anti-GW tripe.
We start with the use of an idiotic example of misunderstanding climate change to mock global warming:
Boingboing puts it eloquently:
I’m deeply saddened by the results of the most recent Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of students. The so-called “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case was decided in favor of the school.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner case — a split decision that limits students’ free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation’s highest court.
The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority’s written opinion called a “sophomoric” banner. (Watch the banner unfurl and launch a legal battle Video)
“It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use– and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority.
You hear that? Free speech is OK until it promotes something the government doesn’t like. For instance, drug use. When the hell did we become so obsessed over illegal drug use, even pot (for Jesus), as advocated in this sign that students can’t legally speak about it? Off school grounds no less? This is a bizarre case. Even though student free speech tends to be limited relative to political speech outside the school, the fact that he had the banner across the street from the school, to me at least, should have protected him from any disciplinary action.
I think Stevens summarizes just how I feel though in his dissent:
Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority’s broader free speech limits on students.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.”
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
This leads me to another point, and a topic I think we’ll discuss in the future here at denialism blog. And that is the anti-drug science that comes out of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse or NIDA. While not truly junk science per se, it tends to always be misinterpreted and twisted to present a uniformly anti-drug message. I consider this the political abuse of science by the government, and hope to write about it when it comes up in the future.
The Brits have decided that Intelligent Design creationism, is well, creationism. It will not be allowed in science classes in the UK.
The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.
It has also defined “Intelligent Design”, the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with “creationism”.
…
The petition was posted by James Rocks of the Science, Just Science campaign, a group that formed to counter a nascent anti-evolution lobby in the UK.
He wrote: “Creationism & Intelligent design are…being used disingenuously to portray science & the theory or evolution as being in crisis when they are not… These ideas therefore do not constitute science, cannot be considered scientific education and therefore do not belong in the nation’s science classrooms.”
No. Can’t have. Not science.
I for one salute Gavin Newsom for refusing to waste government money on bottled water.
I have never bought bottled water. It’s silly to spend good money on bottled water when throughout this country it’s possible to drink clean potable water for free or a tiny fraction of the cost of bottled water – and it’s far more environmentally sound.
Penn and Teller, of all people, covered this issue the best.
(more…)
Mingle2 – Online Dating
I actually try to be less potty-mouthed since I joined science blogs. I’m trying to differentiate myself from PZ.
Tara points out that we missed a nice little article in Science last week about our friends at AidsTruth. They discuss their ongoing efforts to counter HIV/AIDS denialism on the Web.
Launched by AIDS researchers, clinicians, and activists from several countries, AIDSTruth.org offers more than 100 links to scientific reports to “debunk denialist myths” and “expose the denialist propaganda campaign for what it is … to prevent further harm being done to individual and public health.” The site also has a section that names denialists and unsparingly critiques their writings, variously accusing them of homophobia, “scientific ignorance of truly staggering proportions,” conspiracy theories, “the dogmatic repetition of the misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or mischaracterization of certain scientific studies,” and flat-out lies. “There was a perceived need to take these people on in cyberspace, because that’s where they operate mostly, and that’s where the most vulnerable people go for their information,” says immunologist John Moore, an AIDS researcher at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City.
Peter Duesberg, a prominent cancer researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, whom colleagues have pilloried ever since he first questioned the link between HIV and AIDS in 1987, remains unswayed by the Web site, which he derides in an e-mail interview as a “scientifically worthless mix of ad hominems, opinions, intolerance, and religious energy–instead of a theory and facts.” Duesberg maintains that “many essential questions” about what he calls the “HIV-AIDS hypothesis” remain unanswered.
Aww, poor Duesberg. They’re persecuting him! It’s religious dogma! I’m like Galileo!
In reality, there is very little ad hominem attack, but at a certain point, it’s hard not to point out that he’s a monster. In fact, AidsTruth is a nice resource for debunking the claims of the major HIV/AIDS denialists with essays from top researchers, real science papers, and very thorough analyses of how the denialists are using the tactics. And there’s good evidence they’ve had an impact:
To the delight of Jefferys and others, a Supreme Court judge in Australia in April cited a debunking article on AIDSTruth.org in a closely followed case that involved a man convicted of endangering life for not revealing he was infected with HIV to sexual partners. The man appealed, claiming that no studies prove HIV causes AIDS. His defense consisted of two “expert” witnesses, one of whom was extensively questioned about allegations that she had misused a researcher’s results on sexual transmission of HIV. The questions were inspired by an editorial posted on AIDSTruth.org. The judge concluded that neither defense witness–both of whom are branded as denialists on AIDSTruth.org–was qualified to express opinions on these questions. “There’s a constant concern that by rebutting these things, you’re giving them more credence–there’s a thin line between slaying the monster and feeding it,” says Jefferys. “The judge’s decision made the Web site seem really worthwhile.”
He also seems to understand the nature of the crank:
“The denialists tend to be grotesquely inaccurate,” says Richard Jefferys, an activist with the Treatment Action Group in New York City who also helped start the site. “It’s almost like the more outrageously inaccurate the claim is, the more they repeat it.”
Maybe it’s because they were kind enough to host my crank HOWTO! I’m flattered.
Bible Belt Blogger brings us this excerpt from the Family Research Council’s “Dear Praying Friends” letter:
Surgeon General Nominee under Fire – Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, has been harshly condemned by pro-homosexual activists for a 1991 paper he wrote for the Methodist Church describing male gay sex as unnatural and unhealthy. Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) attacked Holsinger and President Bush saying, “…The Surgeon General’s office is no place for bigotry…that would trump sound science.” But Holsinger’s work catalogued the obvious. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that of over 600,000 American men with AIDS, the largest category is men who practice homosexuality. Other diseases such as hepatitis, cancer, gonorrhea, and syphilis are increasingly prevalent in the homosexual community. Dr. Holsinger’s credentials are impeccable. He served as Kentucky’s health secretary, chancellor of the University of Kentucky’s medical center, has taught at several medical schools and spent over three decades in the Army Reserve, retiring in 1993 as a major general. Holsinger is being subjected to character assassination for doing precisely what a Surgeon General should do, bring health facts to light. (see Resume, Negative Effects, Fairness)
Pray that Dr. Holsinger will receive an honest and fair hearing from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
May the larger effort to make approval of the homosexual lifestyle a qualification for public office not succeed (Pr 6:16-18; 17:15; Ps 31:11-13; Zec 8:16-17; Eph 4:25; Rev 12:10).
For those of you interested, here is what Holsinger wrote about homosexuals here – and see our previous discussion. It’s interesting, many religious groups have refused to endorse or challenged Holsinger. Notably, Fred Phelps and his band of merry Baptists is supportive of Holsinger’s nomination. You know it’s bad when you need support and the only people who show up are either the KKK, or the crazy preacher who holds up the “God Hates Fags” signs.
This is also why I consider the Family Research Council a denialist organization. In support of Holsigner’s bad science they have claimed that such research is sound, citing such research as this. Such research is by no means the mainstream view of medical science, is actually quite the opposite of what most doctors and medical experts believe, and Box Turtle Bulletin shows why Holsinger’s report is the classic compilation of cherry-picked data, misrepresentation and lies about scientific findings.
It would be one thing if the just said they don’t like gays or that they believe it’s immoral. So what? People are going to be bigots, there is very little one can do, and it at least would be an honest position. But it’s completely different when groups like these try to suggest that science is on their side when it clearly is not. It is completely absurd to assert that there are scientific reasons homosexuality should be immoral or is fundamentally unhealthy, and such misrepresentations and lies are a testament to the “values” these family organizations truly hold to. That’s why the fake family values organizations aren’t just bigots, they’re denialists too.
Write you senator, oppose this nomination, the Surgeon General should not be a homobigot.
And Cordova has used the conflict between molecular and fossil data to attack evolution.
Sigh. To busy to write about everything wrong with this. Go ahead and use this as an open thread to mock Cordova for being a predictable, quote-mining, dishonest creep. Also note, in line with perfect crank behavior, they’re still harping about junk DNA, and the findings in marsupials that they still don’t understand.
It’s up at Relatively Science.
Swing by and show them some love.