I Looked For "The Store"!

I don't know if you've seen this meme floating around, but it's frequently used by many fake skeptics when trying to shut down an argument, or simply to troll people if anyone happens to share a link from one of these sites.

It comes from a Skeptic Facebook page called Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes. I've noticed this used even when the topic at hand is not vaccines, as it seems to be used to discredit these sites with the argument that they are just trying to sell you something. I definitely think it's fair to be skeptical of that, and each one of these websites used as examples would need their own discussion to ascertain whether or not the information found there is generally reliable, of course.

I think it's interesting that they are making the assertion that 'pro-science' sites are 'just trying to give you the truth.' Since so many Skeptics claim to be pro-science, evidence based and refer to  themselves as 'science communicators', I decided to apply the same reasoning to their own websites.

Lo, and behold - look what I found!

 

They have stores! Shops! T-shirts and affiliated books to sell! Oh, my!

The question I am left with is why is it okay for them to have a store, and for them to sell things, but not okay for others? That feels fairly hypocritical.

This is not to say, that I think selling something automatically discredits someone. I do think you need to base it on more than that, and the argument - look for the store! - is not a very effective one.

Some fallacies that apply here:

Bias Blind Spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases and faults in others than in oneself.

Ingroup Bias Projection – when citing superior morality, rationality or intellect as traits more likely characteristic of members of one’s own group.

"Pro-science ones are just trying to give you the truth."

Ingroup Bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others, or the ideas of others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

Giving preferential treatment in this instance by using the existence of a store or product to discredit someone, while not applying it to your own group. The implication that it's okay for Skeptic websites to have stores, but not okay for ---> these people.

Inverse Argument from Authority – because it says something in Breitbart, Fox News, ad absurdum, therefore it follows that it’s false. Inverse of Argument from Authority, possessing the same flaw.

Using the meme to discredit an entire idea proposed as false because the website has a store - instead of addressing the idea itself.

"When in doubt just look for:  The Store™"



In conclusion, while it's always a good idea to be skeptical of anyone trying to sell you something, it's  important to apply that skepticism equally. That includes questioning those who claim to be pro-science, since they are just as likely to be selling something as anyone else. One can buy, sell, or receive compensation for what they do in many forms - it's not always just about money. Having a store - or not - isn't the best way to determine if a source is credible.

Sci Babe's BSpocalypse

Today we take yet another look at one of my favorite ultracrepidarians, SciBabe aka Yvette d'Entremont.  After noticing a pattern in her Facebook shares - I felt like some documentation was in order.

SciBabe makes a lot of posts about bees. In particular, honeybees. You may have heard about a phenomenon termed colony collapse disorder or CCD?

Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is the phenomenon that occurs when the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear and leave behind a queen, plenty of food and a few nurse bees to care for the remaining immature bees and the queen.

Managed honeybees in the US have had their share of difficulties. In 2006 some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. Some losses are expected but these numbers are extremely high. Losses continue to remain at a high rate, forcing beekeepers to split colonies and purchase new queens to compensate. This is why the number of honeybee colonies does not reflect the actual number of losses, nor can it account for the health of those bees. Pathogens, parasites, management stressors, and environmental stressors all play a role in this issue to one degree or another but the exact cause of CCD remains unknown.

Pesticides, specifically a class known as neonicotinoids (neonics), are another factor shown to cause harm to both honeybees and to wild pollinators whose numbers have also been declining. Pesticides are poisons, so we can hardly expect them to be good for bees. Insecticides like neonics, are designed to kill insects, which bees happen to be. Whether or not pesticides are the sole driving factor in bee declines is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually harmful. Enough evidence exists to suggest that pesticides are indeed toxic to bees at both an acute and a sub-lethal dose. Pollinators being as important as they are to the ecosystem and to our survival, it really isn't unreasonable to be concerned about the current situation.

So, leave it to SciBabe to give us her own very special take on the pollinator issue.

 

A couple things going on here. First, it sure seems like SciBabe is intent upon absolving neonics of ANY implication at all in harm to pollinators, and second, she is using the number of managed honeybee colonies in the US as an indicator of losses.

Her overwhelming message seems to be 'bees are fine, neonics are not an issue.' By using the strawman argument of 'a Beepocalypse' she attempts to knock down any genuine concerns over pollinator health and numbers. Not everyone is guilty of using hyperbole, and even if they were, it does not change the fact that genuine concern and investigation is warranted. Her assertions that 'bee populations are growing' 'losses didn't continue' 'bee populations bounced back' and 'bee populations are rising' are flat out false - and she never even mentions wild bee populations.

This however, has not gone unnoticed by followers of her page.

And when Yvette is questioned about her extremely questionable sources, she doubles down.

Sometimes, sarcasm really says it best.

One can only speculate on the reasons for SciBabe's bias on this subject. Perhaps her past employment at Amvac Chemical Corporation is a factor, or perhaps her freelance speaking engagements at agricultural events influence what she promotes as 'facts'? We really don't know. What's evident here is that once again Yvette proves herself to be a biased and unreliable source for information.

In all fairness, she's not the only one promoting this misleading info on bees. In addition to Jon Entine of GLP and Julie Gunlock of IWF, fellow 'science communicator' and Skeptic Kavin Senapathy has thrown her hat in the ring on pollinators as well.

Notice any similarities? In this piece, Kavin is outraged about seed company advertising and marketing ploys (no irony there), calls pollinator losses 'perceived', uses Science 2.0/ACSH as a reference, bemoans hyperbole, and then uses it herself. But then, what do you expect from a woman who either can't grasp a relatively straight forward concept like the precautionary principle - or purposefully misrepresents it. From a Forbes article called "How Marketers Use Fear Of Chemicals For Profit: 3 Easy Steps":

The real precautionary principle is a bit different.

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

Now I'm not claiming to have all the answers regarding bees, CCD and wild pollinator declines, but it seems rather evident that there is cause for concern regarding this issue. There is also plenty of cause for concern over the info SciBabe and her ilk are presenting to the public. Whose interests do they serve?

Not yours, not mine, and definitely not those of bees.

Bad Science Debunked - Or Just Bad Science?

Famously, last March, 2015 the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer came out with monograph volume 112 listing glyphosate as a class 2A carcinogen.

The GMO and Pesticide Cabal immediately shit their pants and went on a rampage trying to minimize and even 'debunk' the findings of the scientists at the IARC. Monsanto immediately released a statement in which they criticized the IARC findings and attempt to confuse the issue on the rankings.

"It’s important to put IARC’s classifications into perspective. IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook."

By including things classified under 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans, this statement is a sneaky sleight of hand. Only the last two are listed under 2A - probably carcinogenic to humans. In order to clarify for you more, this chart from Compound Interest gives a quick overview:

 As you can plainly see the rankings are based on evidence of carcinogenicity - not on how carcinogenic something is. It's not really accurate to compare different substances, even those in the same ranking - the mechanisms by which they cause cancer, and the risk they pose are going to be unique to each.

None of this is reason to dismiss the classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. Unlike the regulatory bodies who continue to approve use of glyphosate based herbicides, the IARC looked at the independent science, instead of relying on unpublished industry studies to base their conclusions on - which is precisely why their conclusions differ and should be taken seriously. Not only that, being that glyphosate herbicides are now so ubiquitous, and our exposures continue to increase, having concern over the long term effects of such a thing is quite rational. We need to continue to scrutinize the science behind this pervasive chemical. It is prudent to do so given the current evidence - as well as the lack thereof. And yet...

It is evident that the confusion over these rankings is being amplified by Skeptics. In particular, the blog of computer programmer Mark Alsip, named Bad Science Debunked stands out. Mark aims to point out the 'hypocrisy' of the $39 billion dollar organic market by targeting the usual punching bags like Food Babe and Dr. Mark Hyman. While they are public figures and should be used to all sorts of scrutiny from the Big s Skeptics by now, Mark takes things a step further by pointing the finger at small business owners for their supposed hypocrisy.

Apparently he got into a twitter conversation over one of his blogs about Vani Hari. This Etsy store owner and organic farmer got sassy with him so he decided to hold her to the same standard he applies to Vani.

Aside from the ridiculous statement about glyphosate being poorly linked to cancer, I noticed Mark makes a blunder about the substance being referred to in that tweet. It's about 2, 4-D - not about glyphosate. Regardless, he still uses that tweet to rationalize using glyphosate as a comparison to an ingredient in Farm Fairy Crafts organic lavender calendula cream to point out their 'hypocrisy'. The caffeic acid present in tiny amounts in their organic rosemary and grapefruit seed preservative is listed by the IARC in category 2B as the evidence is limited in animals, and no evidence was available for humans.

As mentioned before, comparing even two substances in the same category doesn't work to clarify anything. Bacon and cigarettes are both in category one. You can't compare those two things any more than you can compare a substance that is naturally occurring in plants and a synthetic herbicide. I am still trying to figure out how this inane comparison helps anyone to become more science literate.

Does it really make Farm Fairy Crafts hypocritical for selling organic lavender calendula cream and tweeting about the IARC classification of an herbicide? Heck no. I just took a spin around their Etsy site and Farm Fairy Crafts lists their ingredients and origins, their farming practices and pretty much anything you'd want to know about their products...meanwhile, Monsanto Company, creator of Roundup brand herbicide and Roundup Ready seeds has spent more than $22 million on blocking labeling of their herbicide treated crops in food products. If we are going to hold people to the same standards, why not apply it equally to Monsanto or any of the other companies selling pesticides and genetically engineered seeds? The criticisms are not only myopic, but also begin to wear especially thin as seen in our second example.

This gem of a piece on the small business owner Dr. Ena Valikov - a veterinarian who also happens to have a degree in biochemistry and be a very vocal critic of the anti-organic crowd - is unintentionally hilarious in that Mr. Alsip totally missed the joke Dr. Valikov was making here. Note the date on the post:

This just so happened to coincide with the release of the film Jurassic World. As IMDB describes it:

"A new theme park is built on the original site of Jurassic Park. Everything is going well until the park's newest attraction--a genetically modified giant stealth killing machine--escapes containment and goes on a killing spree."

Now go back and look at Ena's post. The only thing Dr. Valikov is guilty of here is making a joke. I'm imagining killer bee/ants, ant/bees (bants?) attacking people like the scene in Tommy Boy where the cops pull them over...and I'm laughing about it. Well, your firearms are useless against them.

So far what we've learned from from Bad Science Debunked is that Etsy store owners are not allowed to talk about IARC rankings and veterinarians are not allowed to make jokes. How this will contribute to a science literate society, I'm still not entirely sure, but thank goodness Mr. Alsip is there to guide us. And troll us...

 and deny he has a product...

 

like this one...

which probably has a chemical in it listed by the IARC...


...but the bants are swarming again and I have to go make sure my perimeter is secure.

 

Until next time, ladies and gents!




DISCLAIMER:
Before you get your panties in a wad: All images and image captures are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is free to the public and is intended to provide commentary, critique, and entertainment.

DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS:
1. I have purchased a product from Farm Fairy Crafts for personal use and received samples of the aforementioned organic calendula cream, and you know what? It's fucking fantastic. 2. My pets are not patients of Dr. Valikov's clinic, but we do follow each other on twitter and for the record, I think she has a great sense of humor.
 

5 Astroturf Groups You Should Stop Sharing From

After a hefty helping of inspiration from blogger Dawn's Brain's series on Facebook pages that people need to stop sharing from, the impetus for this post was born. Now, Dawn chose some pretty low-hanging fruit for her lists - Natural News, InfoWars, David Wolfe, Freelee The Banana Girl - she's shooting fish in a barrel. Instead of kooky Facebook pages though, I'm heading in a different direction...

In her second post in the series she blasts some random commenter on a post about Roundup about how wrong they are about glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world's most widely used herbicide.

"You’ve got the Lethal Dosage (LD50) all wrong, Facebook commenter. Glyphosate has a toxicity at 5,600 milligrams per kilogram, which is safer than table salt and baking soda.

Facebook fear-mongers love to throw around the meaningless term “endocrine disruptors” to sound like they know what they are talking about. Please, tell us the mechanism by which the trace amounts of glyphosate that humans ingest might disrupt our endocrine systems."

The first link is a blog post from Cami Ryan whose info isn't wrong, so much as it is misleading in this context. It's not giving you the whole story. There is so much more to toxicity than how much you need to ingest to kill you. That's like smoking a cigarette, and proclaiming it is without harm because you have not dropped dead. Many substances have chronic effects, and not all substances follow a linear dose response. This lack is even acknowledged in the comments to the article, lest you think I'm just pulling this out of my ass. Cami's affiliations (she works for Monsanto) are pretty clearly laid out and listed on her blog. She's actually a great example of the intertwining of groups and people and industry, she has connections to sites and groups that will get more of a mention later on.

It was specifically the second link there that provided the inspiration to write this series, because of the extraordinary irony of it. Here, in a blog post about social media pages that spread misinformation, Dawn is using a link from a known astroturf group as her proof that endocrine disruption is just a 'meaningless term.' The link is from 1998 and a stupefying testament to bullshit artistry.

Just the first line alone should set your spidey senses tingling...

"In 1997, endocrine disruptors joined radon, Alar, dioxin, asbestos in schools, and electromagnetic fields in the rogues’ gallery of environmental hoaxes."

Of course, each thing they've named deserves its own discussion, but grouping these together and calling them 'environmental hoaxes' is absurd. I've hyperlinked each subject to a credible source.

So comparisons aside, is endocrine disruption truly as they say, 'in the rogue's gallery of environmental hoaxes'? Well, the National Institutes Of Health, World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, Harvard School Of Public Health researchers, and many other scientists all support the existence of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

I think it's safe to say Dawn may have been cherry picking a little bit there.

And so, this begins the list of an entirely different kind of bullshit that you really ought to stop sharing - and seriously question the credibility of anyone who shares from them. Astroturf groups.

Simply put, astroturf groups are defined as "...apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms."

These organizations give themselves an air of legitimacy, but in reality, they are pushing an agenda - and it's not for the benefit of consumers or the public.

Sharing anything from these groups or their members is an affront to honest scientists and endangers science literacy and public health.

#1. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

These guys are kind of like the Grandaddies of astroturf. Home to Henry I. Miller, frequent Forbes contributer and former tobacco science purveyor, as well as Gilbert Ross MD who just happens to be a convicted felon, the ACSH is a colorful cast of heartwarming characters. Even Orac thinks so.

Their Facebook page description says they are "Trusted guides on complex science and health issues since 1978."

Well, I could claim to be Beyoncè, but it still wouldn't make it so.

Leaked documents show ACSH's funding from corporate donors is extensive, and lines up with the issues they tackle. Not only that, documents reveal that they have deliberately solicited donations in exchange for favorable reports on donor products. From a 2013 report in Mother Jones:

"ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust."

Sample bullshit:

 

 Who needs regulations?!

Look over here at this death mistletoe! Pay no attention to the lead painted toys from China!

Oof. Not sure letting Gil write this one was the best choice...

Other sites connected to ACSH:

Science 2.0

which has now merged with ScienceBlogs much to the chagrin of many

Science Codex

Scientific Blogging

Deniers For Hire, a collaboration with Cameron J. English

#2. GMO ANSWERS

Got questions about genetic engineering? GMO Answers to the rescue!

After spending milllions fighting a labeling initiative in California in 2012, Ag & Chem industry execs announced plans to create a campaign to change public opinion on GMO's.

From their website: "GMO Answers is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta."

Supporting partners are listed as follows: The American Council on Science and Health (déjà vu!), The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, Ohio AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, The U.S. Beet Sugar Association, and Western Sugar.

The Council for Biotechnology Information has hired the public relations firm Ketchum
(owned by Omnicom) famous for their representation of human rights violators, to run the site and oversee their 'independent experts'.

While the above description makes it seem like ONLY independent experts will be answering your questions, when you look at who is on the list, you'll find that a good portion of the experts are not independent but in fact are employed by the same corporations funding the site.

One of the 'independent' experts there to give you answers happens to be Kevin Folta, who came under fire recently when it was found through FOIA requests that he was given a $25k contribution from Monsanto company, despite denying repeatedly that he had anything to do with them. Kevin continued to maintain his innocence even after being caught in this lie. The ensuing criticism led to his stepping out of the public eye for a time, though he remains listed as an independent expert on the GMO Answers site and has recently announced his podcast is set to resume.

Other 'independent' experts listed on the site, include Bruce Chassy, Jennie Schmidt, Monsanto test farmer and prize winner, and Mary Boote, CEO of Truth About Trade & Technology among others.


So, this website, funded by an industry with a financial stake in selling GM seeds and the pesticides that pair with them, run by a public relations firm that represents human rights violators, wants to answer your questions about genetic engineering used in agriculture with their 'independent' panel of experts....

Alright then.

 

#3. GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT

The sister organizations Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and the Center For Media And Public Affairs (CMPA) are both affiliated with the Genetic Literacy Project, designed to promote GMO's. As stated by the website, the mission of the GLP is 'to promote public awareness of genetics, biotechnology and science literacy.' Because, according to them, 'Intricate science scares people who don’t understand risk and complexity.'

GLP's executive director is Jon Entine. He has no science credentials to speak of, though he defends industry interests on a regular basis as - is exemplified in the situation of Syngenta's herbicide atrazine. Entine is listed under 'Third Party Outreach' in an email document from White House Writer's Group to Syngenta about work they had done to influence news coverage and promote atrazine. Entine also authored a book which was published by (guess who?!) the American Council on Science and Health called, Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health. The current president of ACSH, Hank Campbell also happens to be a contributor to the GLP site. Entine insists that he is fully independent, but given his corporate and astroturf entanglements, that's an awfully hard pill to swallow.

Entine's shady rep doesn't end with his industry ties. He's made several science journalists upset by 'borrowing' their work without permission. Keith Kloor publicly complained about what happened to him on his blog last November.  Kloor even took to Twitter with his complaints, and judging by the conversation, Entine's response was less than satisfactory.

From his blog, Kloor's take on the GLP website:

"It’s bad enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline above it."

This statement, and from a pro-GMO journalist no less, isn't very reassuring about the ethical compass of the Genetic Literacy Project.

Sample bullshit: 

I think we know their answer before we even start....

    Excessive use of quotation marks to 'debunk' 'endocrine disruption,' because, 'science.'

Uncle Henry from (surprise!) ACSH, and self-appointed expert on citrus greening disease - stops by to make grand statements about using a soil drench of neonics and genetic engineering.

In which we try to further confuse the definition of transgenics/genetic engineering by conflating it with selective breeding.

Bonus bullshit:

If the Moon were made out of BBQ spare ribs, would ya eat it? 

They seem more like Genetic Illiteracy...than Genetic Literacy.

#4.  CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Known by the nicknames of 'Dr. Evil' and the 'Astroturf Kingpin', Rick Berman is president, executive director and board member at the Center For Consumer Freedom. He is a well known lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, and tobacco industries as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains with his group Berman & Co. who serve clients such as International House of Pancakes, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, Cracker Barrel, Hooters, Steak & Ale, TGI Friday's, Uno's Restaurants, and Wendy's.

Run by Berman & Co., the Center For Consumer Freedom underwent a name change in 2014 to the Center for Organizational Research and Education. A section of their website is titled 'The Center for Accountability In Science'. Begun in 2014, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported on Joseph Perrone's appointment and Berman's apparent flip-flop on UV rays and cancer. Where Berman once defended tanning beds, calling the claims that indoor tanning causes skin cancer 'hype', he now decries the Environmental Working Group's ranking of sunscreens and ingredients by singing the praises of the sunscreen industry's products to prevent a 'much larger threat' - skin cancer. The chief science officer of CAS is Dr. Joseph Perrone. Berman enlisted Perrone to be the guiding force behind this new campaign, but who is he really?

CREW reports:

Who is Dr. Perrone?  According to CAS, he used to be an executive at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and he served as an advisor to the World Health Organization.  Unmentioned by CAS, however, is the fact that Dr. Perrone also has a long record of industry work.  He used to run a consulting company, previously worked at Becton, Dickinson, and Company, a medical technology company, and has been an adviser to several other companies, including Biomedical Enterprises and FASgen.  It’s surprising that Berman’s staff neglected to mention this part of Dr. Perrone’s biography.  It’s not like they take a dim view of industry-backed research.  In fact, CAS has a page on its website highlighting “the importance of industry-funded research.”

While Dr. Perrone may be relatively new to the PR game, Berman is old hat. Back in 2014 the New York Times broke a story about a secretly taped industry talk Berman gave before executives of the oil industry. You can listen to the audio here and view the transcript here. The Cliff Notes version is available from PR Watch, with a short version below:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF RICK BERMAN 

1. Screw your enemy

2.  Marginalize your opponents.

3.  Demolish the moral authority

4.  Make it personal

5.  Brand whole movements as not credible

6.  Being nasty wins

7.  Push fear and anger

8.  Treat public policy as endless war

9.  Give corporate cash total anonymity

10.  Tear down celebrities who speak out 

Sample bullshit:

The 'Chubby Chiplotle' campaign. One can only guess what industry must be paying for this...

Center For Consumer Freedom's Facebook page is Farm Babe approved, but Chipotle reacting to consumer demand is not. Bad, bad Chipotle. 

A defense of triclosan, an antibacterial agent found in personal care products.

Look people, consumer products are made with wonderful chemicals that make our clients money. And they have no connections at all to your tumors, hypospadias, low sperm count, or infertility. Also, science.

 Does it even need to be said that it's a bad idea to get your science news from Dr. Evil?

"Marginalize" your opponents

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.Sample bullshit:

#5. INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

Rising like a hot pink phoenix from the ashes of Women For Clarence Thomas, comes the Independent Women's Forum, described in a New York Times editorial as "a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."

IWF has received funding from several sources with ties to the Koch brothers, as well as Exxon Mobil and quite notably began a group called Balanced Education for Everyone in 2010 whose goal it was to stop the teaching of global warming 'junk science' in schools. It is their opinion that:

"Parents need to ask their children's teachers, 'What are you doing for Earth Day this year?'" said IWF President and CEO Michelle Bernard.  "Too often, our children are being subjected to terrifying lectures on global warming...while being told they represent settled science.  That's just not the case.

 
As part of their campaign, hundreds of signatures were gathered by Balanced Education For Everyone in May 2010. This was in support of a movement to ban teaching climate science in classrooms in Mesa County, Colorado. Those signatures were presented at a school board meeting on May 25, 2010. The Huffington Post reported that forty of the people who appeared at the hearing to support the group dismissed global warming as "junk science." The petition they presented was aimed at preventing teachers from imparting their "personal, political views in the classroom," according to Tea Party movement adherent and author of the petition, Rose Pugliese.

On their website, IWF tackles mostly political issues, healthcare, economics, education etc... but they do a little 'science' reporting with their 'Culture Of Alarmism Project' in which they seek to paint anyone with a concern about manufactured chemicals, pollution, food additives and the like as alarmist chemophobic 'enviro-Nazi's.'

Sample bullshit:

Yes. Yes they did. They made a frivolous Nazi comparison.

 Snarky climate science denial post, using Christopher Booker, a man who has a Prize for Bullshit named after him as a reference. How apropos!

 How on earth will people stay slim and healthy without their beloved diet drinks???

It's easy to see how the IWF site is really just a space for a conservative and industry agenda - and not a place to go for unbiased science information.

Of course, this doesn't stop 'Science Defender' Kavin Senapathy, and 'Decimator of Woo' Yvette d'Entremont from attending IWF events, as seen in this public photo album.

Frequent Forbes contributors Kavin Senapathy and Tara Haelle with Julie Gunlock, Senior Fellow at IWF, 'SciBabe' Yvette d'Entremont and Michelle 'Shelly' McGuire, a recent Monsanto study collaborator.

In top row: Shelly McGuire, Janice Person, Online Engagement Director for Monsanto Company, Anastasia Bodnar of Biology Fortified, Julie Gunlock, and Monsanto's Social Sciences Lead Cami Ryan who is mentioned prior in the intro. In bottom row: Tara Haelle, Kavin Senapathy, Yvette d'Entremont.


These photos were from a trip to DC where such notable folks as Kevin Folta, Elizabeth Held of the White House Writers Group, Ms.Senapathy's 'The Fear Babe' co-author, computer programmer Mark Alsip, Julie Kelly, writer, frequent Henry (Miller) collaborator and wife of lobbyist John Kelly, and Grounded Parents contributors Jenny Splitter and Emily Sexton add to the sampling of the public faces of SSkeptics who spent time fraternizing at various events over a two-day period.

This particular IWF event was pitched to - surprise - both Monsanto and the American Chemistry Council for funding.

These sort of associations don't do much to advance the 'cause' of science literacy. IWF has demonstrated themselves to be an unreliable source, and an eyebrow (or two) should be raised at the relative ease in which these groups orbit around each other.

It's very important that we get our science from independent sources, as it's a well know fact that industry funding taints research. And in that same way, it can also taint a message. Even an 'independent' and unpaid message - if they are drinking from a poisoned well.

In closing I leave you with these words of wisdom:

Always check your source. Check your source's source too. And their source's funding. Astroturf is everywhere.