What do you get when you cross a "schlemiel" (the yiddish term for "foolish person" or "simpleton") with the American news media? What else?! Schle-Media! Below are journalists who are either intellectually bankrupt (e.g., have been duped by junk science) or morally bankrupt (e.g., use junk science to promote political agendas to an unwitting public). I hazard to guess which journalists fit which category. You make your own call.
Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer (11/17/97). On November 16, 1997, Bruce's interview with Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory about EPA's "proposed" clean air standards was published. But the "proposed" standards were finalized last July.
John J. Fialka, The Wall Street Journal (11/17/97). In his article titled Energy Researchers Focus on Carbon Dioxide Disposal, John writes that carbon dioxide can be a killer, pointing to an instance when "a huge, invisible bubble of carbon dioxide seeped out of a volcanic lake in Cameroon and flowed down a mountain, suffocating some 1,700 people." While true, what does this have to do with the rest of his article which is about how global warming hysteria has Department of Energy researchers studying how carbon dioxide can be disposed so it doesn't build-up in the atmosphere? Was John suggesting that, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, carbon dioxide will suffocate the rest of us?
Lawrence K. Altman, The New York Times (11/14/97). In his article Heart Checks Urged for Users of Diet Pills, Lawrence says that "Use of [fen-phen] was linked in an earlier study to heart valve damage, and preliminary evidence from five surveys indicates that about 30 percent of those who used the drugs had heart valve abnormalities..." But if Lawrence had been diligent about his reporting he wouldn't have forgotten to mention more recent surveys which have cast doubt on the FDA's action against fen-phen--surveys that report rates of heart valve damage among fen-phen users not that different from the general population.
William J. Broad, The New York Times (9/8/97). In his article Saturn
Missions's Use of Plutonium Fuel Provokes Warnings of Danger, William
writes about the October 6, 1997 launch of the Saturn-bound Cassini spacecraft.
The spacecraft's use of plutonium as a power source has the knee-jerk anti-nuke
nuts up in arms. Ostensibly Cassini foes are concerned that an accident during
Cassini's launch, its orbit around Earth for a booster rocket firing, or its
scheduled August 1999 swing past Earth could cause a plutonium release that
could kill or injure as many as 200,000 people. Click
here for William's article. But William errs in failing to question whether
plutonium is as dangerous as the anti-nukes say it is. Click here for
some perspective on plutonium.
Sam Howe Verhovek, The New York Times (9/7/97). In his article Racial
Tensions in Suit Slowing Drive for 'Environmental Justice', Sam writes about
residents of Kennedy Heights (Houston, Texas) who are suing Chevron for
illnesses allegedly caused by oil sludge that seeped into their water supply.
Apparently, their homes were built on top of oil pits abandoned 30 years ago by
Gulf Oil. Because the homes were marketed originally to blacks, the case is seen
as a major test case for the concept of "environmental justice" -- an
unsubstantiated theory that racial minorities are disproportionately subject to
pollution hazards.
In any event, Sam writes "And while Kennedy heights might ultimately take its place on the nation's roll of toxic horrors, with Love Canal in Niagra Falls, N.Y., and Times Beach, Mo...." Sam should know that no adverse health effects were ever linked (scientifically, that is) to chemicals at Love Canal or Times Beach. Yes, Love Canal and Times Beach were horrors, but not for the reason Sam thinks. Love Canal prompted passage of the disastrous Superfund law (high costs, few cleanups). Times Beach prompted EPA to waste more than $200 million of taxpayer money in a needless buyout/cleanup of the entire town.
John J. Fialka, The Wall Street Journal (8/26/97). In his article
titled Gore Faces Cool Response to Issue of Global Warming, John labels
carbon dioxide a "pollutant." Perhaps John would have us place
pollution control devices on animals (including John) who emit carbon dioxide
during respiration or on organic material as it decays. Of course this may be a
problem for plants which require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. But why
sweat the details, right John?
Bette Hileman, Chemical and Engineering News (8/25/97). In her
article titled Hormone Disrupter Research Expands, Bette says "Endocrine
disrupters are chemicals that mimic or otherwise interfere with the activity of
natural hormones. Some of the known endocrine disrupters are some types of
pesticides and plastic. Often they interfere with estrogen, but they can disrupt
other hormones as well." Excuse me Bette (and I'm apologize for picking on
you two weeks in a row), BUT endocrine disruption is a mere THEORY, not a FACT.
And of course, Bette forgot to mention the
retraction of the Tulane endocrine disruption research, hardly a trivial
omission.
Bette Hileman, Chemical and Engineering News (8/18/97). In her
article titled Fossil Fuels in a Greenhouse World, Bette starts off "If
the world's governments eventually decide to stabilize the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a huge reduction in the missions of carbon
dioxide will be required." But since Bette presumes to write about the
climate change issue she should know some basics -- like the fact that about 98
percent of greenhouse gases are natural and not manmade. It follows that it will
be kind of hard (impossible, actually) for the "world's governments"
to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases when such a small
percentage is manmade.
William K. Stevens, New York Times (8/8/97). In his article titled "Industries
Revisit Global Warming" (Aug. 5), Stevens parroted the nonsense that
British Petroleum (BP), the world's third largest oil company, broke ranks with
other oil companies on the climate change issue because BP believes there is "enough
scientific evidence to warrant concern about whether... the burning of fossil
fuels... is changing the Earth's climate."
In reality, the implementation of climate change emissions limits would be HUGE competitive advantage for BP (and the rest of the European Union and Japan) over U.S. companies. Emissions limits would adversely impact U.S. businesses more than European buineses, resulting in a net gain for the Europeans and Japanese. For example, there is relatively more nuclear power use among EU nations and Japan; so relatively less coal and oil are burned. Lower greenhouse gas emissions from electric power generation would permit more greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline combustion. Whose gasoline? BP's! Sure BP believes in climate change. But not because of science, just economics.
Jocelyn Kaiser, Science (7/31/97).
Madeleine
Jacobs, Chemical and Enginering News (7/2/97).