Some are really easy to spot - they hate activists, non profit consumer groups, journalists who investigate corporate malfeasance, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and they love to defend industry.
If you were to do a Google search for someone who fits that bill, like David Zaruk for instance, he shows up with numerous Skeptics, like Dr. Kevin Folta, and Cameron J. English "freelance science writer" in addition to the Consumer Choice Center, a tobacco funded astroturf group.
Cameron is also the creative force behind the American Council on Science and Health website called Deniers for Hire where the ACSH attacks journalists and others who question industry tobacco science tactics.
ACSH has been described in Monsanto internal emails as such:
They give a free pass to climate science deniers...so long as they toe the line on the other fundamental conclusions of modern fake skepticism.
One example of the hard line they take on scientific topics can be found in this graphic that been distributed online.
This graphic came from GMO apostate Mark Lynas' website where he uses Celeber Cavilla and nutpicking to discredit critics of industrial agriculture by taking an explosively hot button issue like vaccination and comparing it to the polarizing issue of agricultural biotech. Glenn Stone appropriately calls the rhetorical weaponry Lynas regularly engages in "discursive ventriloquism–appropriating your opponents' voice to cast their position in an unfavorable light." In this case, he tries to portray anyone who is critical of genetic engineering as an insane tinfoil hat-wearing kook.
Skeptics insist that if you are pro science - you cannot question vaccines or GMOs. "You can't criticize one while believing the other." Let's be real, anyone who questions or criticizes GMOs or vaccines at all will immediately put themselves on the outs with Skeptics, being labeled an "Anti." (This is easily testable, scoffers.) Same with evolution. No (insert label here) allowed in Skeptic Club!
So if we apply the logic of Mr. Lynas and look at the other unquestionable conclusions of modern skepticism, what do we find?
 |
| Course taught by Celebrity Skeptic Kevin M. Folta at UF |
Consistently, we come across these main four, but many such similar lists exist with slight variations.
 |
| Share this meme to show the world how you Critical Think all by yourself! |
 |
| Do not worry about the PCBs and PFAS in the water behind me though... |
Despite these lists of conclusions Skeptics are obliged to pledge their uncritical and undying allegiance to should they want to be seen as "science literate" and "critical thinkers" there is the one issue mentioned at the outset where those social rules get a little bit loosey goosey. Climate change.
David Zaruk is not the only friend of the Skeptics whose ideas on climate change goes against club conclusion (and against the overwhelming scientific evidence). One can only speculate on why this is exactly.
Not only do Skeptics regularly use several of these people as sources, but they also promote them and vice versa, as well as attending events with them as I have documented here before.
Recently, writer and coal baron Matt Ridley who was once described as a "climate-change-denier villain" wrote this steaming hot fucking garbage pile published in the UK Spectator. Genetic Literacy Project picked it up of course, and our good friend Kevin Folta sang Matt's praises on Twitter.
 |
| Folta: This needed to be said 'because he's defending Roundup, er, ah, I mean science! Yes that's right! |
 |
| The POTUS Tweets Moore's comments about climate change. |
 |
| Folta promotes Moore's organization. |
 |
| You are the wind beneath my wings. |
Another fine example of discursive ventriloquism is found in this We Love GMOs and Vaccines, graphic.
Clearly a copycat of the meme Mark Lynas shared on his website above, the theme of nutpicking and zero tolerance for deviation from the Skeptic belief set continues.
And yet, the creator of this list also turns a blind eye to a couple of climate change deniers when it suits his beliefs.
The Intercept reports that Dick Taverne has "argued in the House of Lords that as much as 80 percent of global warming might be attributable to solar activity, even though that theory had been discredited two years earlier."
We Love GMOs and Vaccines has also promoted an article written by Bjorn Lomborg who has been granted the distinction of being in a top ten list of climate change deniers.
To be fair, We Love GMOs and Vaccines founder did wag his finger at a couple other climate change deniers once with this exercise in virtue signalling that was basically ignored by other Skeptics. Because blind eye, you know.
Mark Lynas mentioned earlier, plays similar games when it comes to deniers. Owen Patterson (brother-in-law to Matt Ridley) spoke at an Alliance for Science event in 2016.
How likely then are we to see them host someone with differing views on say GMOs, then?
Some fair criticism as usual. Popped up in my google alerts for my page.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue a lot of this goes both ways, but you would probably just call it whataboutism. Or, that is part of your point.
Just a couple small fact checks.
1. The Anti-GMO/Anti-Vaccine graphic is old. Pretty sure it originated with Chuck Lasker in GMOLOL, which is where I first saw it many moons ago. Do with that as you will.
2. Many of us didn't know any of these people when we first started doing this. I stopped using Llomberg, Traverne, Moore, etc.. when I read more by them and I saw them for what they were, hence those graphics being several years old. Pretty sure the same is true for Kavin Senapathy, Jenny Splitter, and other Sci Moms in regards to Independent Women's Forum. When you start something new, people grab you and take advantage.
3. The only thing I wouldn't call a fair criticism is the part about hosting "someone with differing views on say GMOs". I can't speak for Lynas' reasoning on Patterson, as I have only communicated with him a handful of times briefly. But, the alliance for science has in fact invited an anti-GMO speaker in the same way they invited a climate change denier. https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16466-surprise-cornell-is-taking-the-gmo-safety-debate-to-a-new-level Food Evolution appears to hold panels with those on both sides quite frequently. Even "Monsatan" invited critics to tour their facility. https://www.motherjones.com/food/2016/04/what-i-learned-my-five-hour-tour-monsanto-hq/
My assumption about Patterson is that he is a politician. And to make policy change happen, you just have to work with politicians.
On a personal note, thanks for not naming me specifically. I may be the "public face" but I'm not the only admin posting. 3/4 of the Taleb stuff comes from someone else entirely for example.