Turning a Blind Ideology

Perhaps, like me, you've noticed an overlap into a specific ideology within the Skeptic community, as they're sometimes referred to. There's this distinctly pro-industry mindset among certain people who are very cozy with the Skeptic crowd (as well as being rampant among the Skeptics themselves). These aren't your typical celebrity Skeptics, we're talking about people that Skeptics use as sources, and run in the same social circles.

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:

Their former president, Hank Campbell, mentions our friend Zaruk here in this totally bizarre article about Astroturfers and Friends if they were a Dungeons and Dragons team. In addition to keeping such stellar company, Zaruk harbors a dirty little secret that's not so well kept about the Skeptic community.

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!

Ridley isn't the only climate change denier Folta has publicly praised. Patrick Moore, founder of Golden Rice Now, (not Greenpeace) has been mentioned by Kevin on Twitter also.

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?

Whose One-Liner Is It Anyway?

The scientific method is vital to knowledge development. It has helped the human race to save lives and do and discover many amazing things. Science is a hot topic these days. Scientific findings like climate change have been embroiled in controversy and politics, leading to more exposure in the news media also television shows like Cosmos, and events like the March for Science have helped to popularize it.

Sadly, scientific literacy is being diluted down to soundbites and axioms by the pop science Skeptic movement. How often have you heard phrases like these?

The plural of anecdote is not data

Everything is a chemical

Correlation is not causation

The dose makes the poison

Science doesn't care what you believe

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

These one-liners are designed to make the person delivering them sound sciencey and smart, but when someone is using a phrase like this it often belies a facile understanding of a complex issue.

Sigh. I feel your pain, kid.

This particular quote is often used to dismiss people's observations as having no value. While one anecdote alone isn't concrete proof of something, observational data is in fact very useful. The humorous example in the British Medical Journal of the article entitled Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials reminds us of this. That's even aside from the fact that this commonly used aphorism is being badly mis-quoted. The original version comes from a man named Raymond Wolfinger. In a 2003 email correspondence, Wolfinger relays the story behind his famed quote:

"I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement-by another student or me-as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder."

Isn't it strangely ironic then that the Skeptic crowd would popularize the exact opposite of what the phrase was meant to convey?

Buy this sticker and you too, can pretend to be science literate.

This one generally gets whipped out when people use the term chemical to refer to a synthetic or manufactured substance, food additives or those products made by the chemical industry...what do they call those things? Oh yeah, chemicals.

Yes, all matter has a chemical structure. No, not all chemicals are bad. Shouting that 'everything is a chemical' in the middle of a conversation is about as helpful as shouting 'the sky is blue' in the middle of a conversation about airplanes. It might be correct, but it doesn't really serve to inform anyone.

The louder you shout it, the more scientific you sound.

Correlation alone is not proof of causation, this is true. But a correlation is also not a claim of proof either. And many times, what is mistaken as simply correlation is actually part of a collection of data that reinforces itself statistically. A correlation is a part of scientific investigation and it is pseudoscience to demand proof before an hypothesis can be fully tested. Imagine where we would be if every time a scientist noticed a correlation in some collected data they just waved their hand and said, 'No need to research this any further, correlation does not equal causation!'

Yes, because PCBs and asbestos are the same as potatoes and pears.

This one is a classic - literally. The axiom comes from the 16th century 'father of toxicology' Paracelsus. The original quote is, "All things are poison and nothing (is) without poison, only the dose makes that a thing is no poison." Does dose matter? Of course, but keep in mind Paracelsus lived before we knew about things like low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses. Other factors influence toxicity too like individual susceptibility, timing, sequence, and accompanying exposures. The idea that low doses are always too low to be harmful betrays an ignorance of some of the most basic toxicological science. And as in the example above, it is used frequently by the chemical industry to confuse consumers and distract from the science surrounding their products that exhibit worrisome toxic effects.

A phrase so popularized, it even has its own Facebook page. It's all Oprah's fault, I'm sure. 

Science isn't a person, so no, of course it doesn't care what you believe. Don't be a fucking asshole.

Not to be confused with the poster on Mulder's office wall. 

While Sagan has done more for science literacy than he hasn't, we still could have done without his popularization of this one. First it lacks any real context. What defines an extraordinary claim? What would be accepted as extraordinary evidence?  Does this mean the evidence required to prove the existence of a new earth species is different or less than that to prove the existence of an alien life form? It doesn't seem logical that the required scientific evidence for proof of claims should be on some kind of arbitrary Skeptical Sliding Scale.

 Speaking of arbitrary and illogical...

This segues nicely into our last one-liner from Skeptic sourpuss, Chris Hitchens. "That which can be asserted with out evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." How the hell can anyone take this nihilistic shit seriously? You can't just make up your own rules as you go along and pretend it's somehow evidence-based to absolve yourself from presenting any evidence at all. This is the height of intellectual laziness, and we should pity any person who repeats this rubbish.

Science literacy is more than memorizing a series of catchy phrases, and skepticism is a discipline of thinking which cannot be accomplished by oversimplifying complex issues which is exactly what these expressions do. Make sure not to be seduced by this flashy style fake skepticism - there are no shortcuts here. Learning about science takes time and effort, but it's worth doing right.

Stand Up For Critical Thought

It's likely you've heard this popular quote from celebrity astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

But is science really just a collection of incontrovertible truths? Or is there more to it than Tyson's clever sound bite?

Science is a method of gathering knowledge. Through the scientific method we collect information about the world around us. Sometimes conclusions about this information change or are challenged as we continue to compile more data and make new observations. Sometimes we are only partway through investigating a subject, or an observation has not yet been investigated at all. Just because there is little or no evidence for something, does not mean we can draw a conclusion that it is false or does not exist. This would be pseudoscience. An ethical skeptic applies a philosophical approach called epochè when this is the case. This means they would suspend judgement on the topic while it has a chance to be investigated via the scientific method. An ethical skeptic asks what step is next, in contrast to a fake skeptic who uses a lack of evidence to dismiss things he or she dislikes while using a flawed methodology to enforce favored conclusions. This does not mean that all of their conclusions are wrong, nor is this an excuse to employ denial of evidence regarding established knowledge like that of evolution or climate change. Critical thinking and skepticism is about how we think not about what we conclude.

It is the fake skeptic's method that is the pseudoscience, not necessarily the conclusion itself although there are examples of where they have been wrong in the past. See the story behind the father of hand washing, Ignaz Semmelweis for a cautionary tale about dismissing an observation before the scientific method can be fully applied. "Doctors are gentlemen, and a gentleman's hands are clean." This chilling quote from one of Dr. Semmelweis' colleagues, Charles Meigs parallels the hubris and incompetence we see demonstrated today, especially regarding some of the misunderstood medical issues of our time.

Plenty of examples of dogmatic conclusions abound in what I've observed as a popular pastime for fake skeptics - list making.

Also available as a mug!

It's vitally important that science literacy be taught to the public, and made as accessible as possible. This is how we move beyond fringe ideas like flat earth and the like, but also how we make progress against serious threats like climate change denial. Saturating people with lists of conclusions, calling them truths, and treating them as dogma is not going to accomplish this. It may make some people feel better about themselves to share or wear things like this, but we must realize that standing up for science is about protecting the integrity of the method, using it to help others and solve urgent problems.


“There is a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system, or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor.” – Rupert Sheldrake

5 More Astroturf Groups: Part 2 Electric Boogaloo

And now, the long awaited follow up to 5 Astroturf Groups You Should Stop Sharing From - ok, maybe not. Regardless, here is another list of some fake grass front groups pushing industry junk science on the unsuspecting public.

#1. ENDOCRINE SCIENCE MATTERS

Well, yes it does. And it matters where you get your science from, like independent endocrinologists or the chemical industry. Guess who is behind Endocrine Science Matters? Spoiler alert: it's not independent scientists.

On the ESM about page; "Endocrine Science Matters is a project of CropLife International and its global network, which are the voice and leading advocates for the plant science industry."

CropLife's members?

Surprise!

It's evident that the Big 6 (for now, anyway, pending mergers) and friends have a rather strong financial interest in NOT having any of their chemical products declared to have endocrine disrupting effects.

Here they are trying to throw shade on a recent study looking at declining sperm counts in Western countries by sharing a link from the very aptly named Junk Science website run by Steve Milloy. Similarly, they seem extremely bothered by estimates of human cost burden from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) calling them "grossly exaggerated" on their website along with half a dozen or so tweets making similar accusations about research conducted by NYU scientists. The 'experts' they cite are Gregory Bond a former Dow Chemical employee, and Daniel R. Deitrich, who has received funding from industry as well as working closely with chemical companies like Dow and Bayer.

One might notice too that their logo is not so dissimilar to that of the Endocrine Society, a legitimate science organization - you have to wonder if this was purposefully done to confuse the public.

If you're looking for endocrine science that matters, best to skip over this industry front group.

#2. CAMPAIGN FOR ACCURACY IN PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH (CAPHR)

This is a group I've written about before more extensively, but I'll give a short recap here. The CAPHR is somewhat unique in that they are focused on the findings of one group of independent scientists - the International Agency for Research on Cancer arm of the World Health Organization, known as IARC for short. CAPHR is a project of the American Chemistry Council and its members who happen to be exactly who you would expect them to be.

Here they are making the argument that out of the hundreds of compounds and agents evaluated, only one has been categorized as probably not likely to cause cancer.

Inadequate evidence to classify the carcinogenic potential of caffeine is impacting enjoyment of pumpkin spice lattes everywhere. It's a crisis of epic proportions. 

If you listen to the pumpkin spice latte enthusiasts over at the CAPHR, it would seem as though IARC just chooses things at random to evaluate simply so they can scare people into avoiding benign substances, such as asbestos, tobacco, or plutonium.

This of course isn't really the case. IARC explains on their monograph Q&A about how they choose which agents to evaluate:

IARC works with international experts to identify priorities from among agents suspected of causing cancer, based on the availability of scientific evidence of carcinogenicity and evidence that people may be exposed to the agent. Priority can be given to a wide variety of agents or substances with different impacts on public health. For example, air pollution has a high public health impact because everyone is exposed, even if exposure levels are generally low. On the other hand, occupational exposures, such as those involving vinyl chloride, may be very high and can therefore have a marked impact even if very few workers are exposed.

So, they are evaluating things that are already suspected of of causing cancer in the first place, which would explain why only one has been found to be probably not carcinogenic to humans and placed in group 4.

IARC's mission is in the interest of public health, by categorizing hazards that health agencies around the world may use for conducting risk assessments. The science they rely on is available to the public and peer reviewed. Their monographs are updated periodically as new data emerges. While constructive criticisms are warranted with most any large scientific group and how they operate, it's not very hard to see the picture that the CAPHR paints is heavily biased towards the interests of the ACC and its members.

#3. PEEL BACK THE LABEL

This is a relatively new organization, launched in August 2017 by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). It seems that a major impetus for this campaign is Dannon's pledge to remove genetically engineered ingredients from its supply chain for many of their major products, as well as providing labeling indicating whether a product is produced with genetically engineered ingredients. The long term goal seems to be to transition all products "towards the use of fewer and more natural ingredients that are not synthetic and non-GMO.' 

This change isn't going over so hot with the dairy industry, in particular the NMPF. They've publicly challenged Dannon and other food manufacturers on what they call "deceptive food company marketing claims." They base this argument on the fact that some foods are being labeled 'non-GMO' like orange juice for instance. They use as one example that "Florida's Natural adding a Non-GMO Project certification to its orange juice labels, despite the fact that there are no commercially-grown, genetically modified oranges."

There are in fact no GE oranges on the market (yet). But it's a bit hard to follow how this is deceptive. The oranges have not been genetically engineered - so how is it 'deceptive' to label them as such? I've seen no explicit statements like, 'no genetically engineered oranges used in Florida's Natural products' and that I could see as implying that there is a commercially available counterpart. But labeling a non-GMO product as non-GMO?

This seems like quite a stretch. Honestly, as a consumer, a non-GMO label can only tell you so much and sometimes it seems redundant on certain products - but do consumers really need the dairy industry to sweep in and protect them from labels? Kosher labels are not relevant to a gentile like myself, but even I can appreciate that they are there for informational purposes, even if I am not using the information for myself. The real issue Peel Back The Label has with this doesn't seem to be about consumer welfare as much as it is about protecting the supply chain.

In their open letter to the Dannon corporation, NMPF states, "Your pledge would force farmers to abandon safe, sustainable farming practices that have enhanced farm productivity over the last 20 years while greatly reducing the carbon footprint of American agriculture." Would it surprise you to know that the letter was co signed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, and U.S. Farmers and Rancher's Alliance?

No? Then it should also come as no surprise that the campaign is taking a cue from none other than the Astroturf Kingpin Rick Berman with another of their arguments against GMO labels. Leaked audio of a speech Berman gave reveals his tactics for manipulating public opinion and discrediting opponents. His 7th commandment? Push "fear and anger". PR Watch reports, "Berman talked about pushing people's emotional buttons...stating: "you could not get into people's heads and convince them to do something as easily as you could get into their hearts or into their gut to convince them to do something. Because, emotions drive people much better than intellectual epiphanies."

The Peel Back The Label campaign is putting this to use by portraying labels they don't like as 'fear mongering' in fact, they use the word fear quite a bit, it's all over their Twitter feed and website. By positioning the companies meeting consumer demand by dropping GE ingredients, or adding labels to their products as 'fear mongers', they are attempting to do two things - discredit the proponents of labels, and elicit an emotional reaction from the public. Some may feel embarrassed that they have been 'deceived' and don't want to be seen as fearful or naive. Embarrassment is a strong emotion that can motivate behavior - the campaign is readily exploiting this. Watch, as they invoke the Spectre of Fear Mongering - spooky!

Logically, we know labeling an orange or a tomato that is not genetically engineered, as not genetically engineered or 'non-GMO' that this is true, and not a deceptive statement. The Peel Back The Label campaign uses propaganda to emotionally manipulate the public, fights transparency and promotes what is best for their profit margins, not consumers. 

#4. THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY

The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) was launched in 2007, by a PR firm called CMA Consulting. The name is quite similar to that of independent consumer group, Center for Food Safety (CFS). The legal director for CFS Joseph Mendelson, believes this is no coincidence. He is quoted in Food Navigator-USA.com as saying, "The name was obviously chosen to try to distract attention from groups like ours and confuse consumers."

CFI's members include the American Farm Bureau Association, Chik-fil-A, DuPont, Iowa Pork Producers Association, McDonald's, Merck & Co., Monsanto, Purdue Foods, Tyson Foods, Inc., and the United Soybean Board.

A main focus of CFI is on conducting informal research on consumer attitudes to inform their members on what they consider to be 'important food system issues.' The purpose of this research is to 'identify key audiences and insights for Food and Ag to earn trust.' CFI states on their website, "We survey U.S. consumers to measure and track attitudes on important food system issues. Each year's results build on the previous year - culminating in a greater understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the food system, and translating into new CFI strategies to effectively engage, increase transparency, and earn consumer trust."

As a service to their members, CFI also offers 'Influencer Direct Outreach.' Influencers are what CFI calls consumers. They created the website Best Food Facts to 'help consumers make informed choices'.

Best Food Facts website's blog tackles in depth and hard hitting topics like:

Ask An Expert: Is German Chocolate Cake Really From Germany?

How Long Does Halloween Candy Really Last?

and

The Art Of Eating Insects

They also answer your questions about genetically engineered salmon, how 'science' created gene silenced Arctic apples, pesticide use on food, and one post specifically about glyphosate where a professor of crop and soil sciences and a weed scientist (clearly experts on human biology and toxicology) assure you not to worry about this herbicide residue in food, because...wait for it... it's 'safer than table salt.'

Seriously, it's getting old.

The bottom line from them on all of these topics, as you might have guessed, is that everything is fine and dandy in our agricultural and food systems.

Well, the reality is that we are facing some big problems with resource depletion, food waste, land management, antibiotic resistance, and abuse of pesticides. This is not going to go away because you deploy public relations teams to conduct surveys and try to manipulate consumers opinions with fake grassroots looking campaigns.

#5. THE COALITION FOR SAFE AFFORDABLE FOOD

Formed in 2014, the Coalition For Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF) is an industry funded lobbying group that includes members such as CropLife America, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Monsanto Company has even announced their involvement with CFSAF on social media.

As you might have guessed, CFSAF and its members main focus is on food labels that would identify crops or products made with genetically engineered ingredients. They fought mandatory state laws and promoted voluntary labeling like the bogus SmartLabel as a federal standard for disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients. Between 2016-17, they spent at least 360,000 dollars on lobbying efforts through the firm Russell Group who has a very long list of agricultural and food industry clients, along with both the tobacco and chemical industry.

The money spent by the Food and Ag industries on labeling is hard to tally, but one estimate puts the number at about 51.6 million dollars - just for the first half of 2015 alone. Compare that to the spending by what some ironically call 'Big Organic' to lobby for labeling in the same time period that came to just under 1.5 million dollars.

Clearly the playing field is not close to level from even an industry standpoint, never mind consumer representation. Big Food Frontgroups like CFSAF are not doing anything to fight for consumers, transparency or science - only what is best for their members business interests. 

Can you spot the Astroturf? 

Technology isn't deserving of trust - that can only be earned the industry deploying it.

What this industry doesn't seem to understand is that while they can pour millions of dollars into lobbying and campaigns made to look independent and scientific, they can never buy our trust.

My Friend Vance

He's in his early thirties, personable and polite, cheerful and clean cut. He's a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer, holds an undergraduate degree in communications and a Master's Degree in Cross-Cultural Negotiations.

He is your classic boy next door - except for one thing. He's 'Director of Millennial Engagement' for Monsanto Company. His name is Vance Crowe.

Translation: I'm a PR guy.

The chemical and biotech industry are investing a lot of money into public relations in recent years, though this isn't exactly a new strategy. Unlike in the past, they have come to adopt more subtle techniques. Chances are, you've been exposed to industry messaging and didn't even know it. That's where people like Vance come in.

He speaks of connecting networks of people, and that is what I'd like to shine a spotlight on. If you have ever read the famous book by Edward Bernays, you would know that he advised his clients to use (exploit) already existing movements to their benefit.

"Tribes" clockwise from top: Agriculture, Food, 'Pragmatic Environmentalism' (aka Ecomodernism aka Bullshit), Skeptics, Science, Computer/Techno

Vance wants to connect people to 'important networks' like the Science Moms and MAMyths among others.

It has become abundantly clear that the Skeptic movement is being used to spread industry messaging. This has been discussed here before, in the post Useful Idiots. Ol' Vancey Pants has done us the favor of detailing and documenting his public relations game. Behold:

Vance with Mary Mangan, Kevin Folta, & Kavin Senapathy

Vance with Talking Biotech & UF's Kevin Folta

Vance with SciBabe/Yvette d'Entremont, A Science Enthusiast/Dan Broadbent, You Tuber @chubbyemu, climate change denier and food columnist, Julie Kelly.

Vance thanks Kevin 'nothing to do with Monsanto' Folta, and Science Moms documentary creator Natalie Newell

I actually made this face.

The latest Science Mom to ignore the poor state of our children's health. She also seems to have no control over who she associates with, or what messages she disseminates.

Whether it's being done 'for industry' or not - it still benefits industry. Willful blindness is a choice.

It's more than evident that Vance is wielding influence in the Skeptic community. He's hobnobbing with an array of people, attending Skeptic events like CSI Con and even doing speaking engagements with Skeptic groups.

He's doing interviews and podcasts with Skeptics who have a large social media following. He is using the already established Skeptic movement to advance favorable messaging about Monsanto company and their products. That message is a simple one: Those who oppose or question the biotech industry do so because of misguided fear stemming from (insert scapegoat). Only those who walk in lock step with their technology and products are 'pro-science'.

Do you want to be looked at as reactionary, hysterical and fearful? Or do you want to be someone who is admired because they 'stand up for science'? When the debate is posed this way, it sure makes the 'pro-science' side sound like the obvious choice. But this isn't reality. This is what is known as a false dilemma or bifurcation fallacy: i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available.

Fear isn't always irrational, or based on emotion. Healthy fear, like the fear of falling, drowning, or being mauled by a tiger, keeps us safe. And, rejecting a technology or a product isn't anti-science. People have their own individual reasons for not wanting to purchase something - it is their right! And those reasons will vary from person to person. 

When an industry have a long track record of causing illness and polluting our environment with their chemicals - is being wary of them a healthy or unhealthy 'fear'? When this same industry dominates our food system with products designed to kill (pesticides) and 'substantially equivalent' engineered crops, is it any wonder why people might be skeptical?

There comes a time when a line is crossed and no amount of Millennial Engagement can take back the death and destruction you have left in your wake over the decades. Good luck, Vance.

Gen X isn't falling for your shit.

Post Script (4/4/17)

Unexpectedly enough, I have had quite a lot of reactions to this post on Twitter.

When writing this piece, I didn't think it would be particularly controversial in that all of this is public information, and easily observed. The job of a public relations person is to disseminate messages on behalf of his/her employer, and I have pointed out some of the ways in which Mr. Crowe (now forever to be known as Vancey Pants) is doing this. I'd also like to clarify, as there seems to be confusion in this regard, that I've not accused anyone of being a 'shill' and I do not believe that any of the people mentioned in this piece aside from the subject work for Monsanto or any other biotech or chemical company. To be quite clear, I am simply noting the influence of this one industry employee on different groups, particularly Skeptics.

What seemed to garner even more attention was a graphic I made to go with this post. I typically make a funny picture to go with each new blog to keep my posts from getting buried in people's Twitter feed.

I'll be there for you.

I just riffed off the title of the blog and had some fun with it. Les Fausses Sceptiques lost their collective shit over it, sharing it and saying it was 'hilarious'. David James aka Stort Skeptic even made a gif out of it. I figured I might as well share it here for everyone to enjoy, before working on my next post.