Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
Try JunkScience.com for genuine information, for starters.
|
Yes, because there you can hear opinions of people like this...
here's (in part) the scoop on Mr. Singer, as an example of the "experts" available on that site:
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz.
He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views."
Yep, thanks for that Mr. Singer - we all now know the wisdom of your words: Second hand smoke never hurt nobody - why that's just "JUNK SCIENCE"....
Hm... I wonder who gets more financial mileage out of the discussion on global warming? Seems if I were to pick the profitable angle, I'd jump on the "junk science" campaign, I'd be much more in demand as a (very rare) speaker against human impact than the throngs speaking about human impact....