The public MUST NOT let TBFS slip slowly into oblivion. Nina’s first story should create an outraged public that demands the following:
Government-sponsored nutrition must be totally terminated.
Freedom of information in valid nutritional sciences must be made widely available.
All citizens must have the right to design their own nutrition plans.
A primary prevention program based on eliminating the causes of diseases must be implemented.
It won’t happen unless we make it happen. It has to become a political issue. Attacking Michelle’s school-lunch tyranny would be a good start.
[Update a few minutes later]
And yet the USDA is still spending millions to propagandize us about low fat:
The USDA also proposed a study on changing how food is described on menus, labeling low-sodium and low-fat versions as “regular,” and “framing regular versions of certain snack products as high-fat or high-sodium.”
I’d like to see someone on the Hill make an issue of this.
We got what looks to be very good news today. While the appeals court didn’t actually rule on our case, they did issue an opinion in BuckleyBurke, which is closely related, as it has to do with the right to an interlocutory appeal under collateral-order doctrine in an anti-SLAPP case. Their arguments largely mirror the ones we make in our brief, and they seem to be quite aggressive in their defense of the First Amendment, so it seems likely that there’s a very good chance that they’ll actually address our merits, and perhaps ultimately end up dismissing.
[Daturday afternoon update]
Sorry, had the name of the case wrong. Here‘s Les Machado’s take:
Takeaway: the headline here is the Court’s conclusion that the denial of a special motion to quash is immediately appealable. While the Court was careful to not extend its ruling to the denial of a special motion to dismiss, parties who are currently appealing from the denial of special motions to dismiss have to be buoyed by the decision.
This seismic shift in melanoma care — largely brought about by enlisting the immune system in the fight — might eventually be used to treat other cancers, researchers said. Smoking-related lung cancers, among others, are now starting to respond to similar treatments, according to research to be presented at this week’s conference.
“We really are in a historical time right now,” said Dr. F. Stephen Hodi, director of the Melanoma Treatment Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “Cancer treatment five years ago compared to five years from now — it’s going to be completely different.”
Faster, please.
I found this a little sad, though:
“Someone with metastatic melanoma, I used to tell them to ‘eat whatever you want.’ Now, I’m saying ‘you should watch that cholesterol,’ ’’ said Dr. Patrick Hwu, chairman of the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
It’s amazing and frightening how ignorant the medical profession is about diet and cholesterol.
Over at First Things, John Murdock has some thoughts (including a discussion of me, Mark and the Mann suit), but there is also a howler:
Big decisions, whether in the life of a person or a nation often boil down to trust. America has been hemming and hawing for a while now, trying to decide if the 97 percent or so of climate scientists who say we have a big manmade problem are looking out for our best interest or are self-serving quacks.
Sorry, but this number has been debunked multiple times. It is simply false that 97% of scientists say that we have a “big manmade problem.” You can only get to such a ridiculous number by watering down what the “consensus” is about. Most scientists (including me) believe that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Period. Once you get beyond that, to whether or not we are causing a significant change in the climate with emissions, let alone whether or not the results will be catastrophic, and need to be addressed with immediate public policy, the “consensus” falls completely apart. Anyone who believes in that nonsensus needs to go read this.
The science of climate change on decadal to century timescales most definitely is not settled, in spite of the IPCC’s highly confident proclamations. There are so many interesting and unsolved issues in climate dynamics. At this point, climate science seems relatively irrelevant for energy policies – the goals of carbon mitigation are in place, and whether anything meaningful can be achieved in the near term is doubtful. However, climate scientists are (in the words of Pointman) in a hurry towards some finishing line only they could see, and acted accordingly. I suspect that the IPCC becoming less and less relevant to the UNFCCC agenda.
I’m hoping that at some point soon, climate scientists will get fed up with trying to play politics with their science and get back to researching and debating these fundamentally interesting and unsolved issues in climate science, rather than attacking their colleagues for suggesting that there are other ways of thinking about climate change.
I have heard that a number of leading scientists are pretty disgusted with the way Bengtsson has been treated and see the larger issues of concern about the social psychology of our field. People are talking about writing blog posts for professional societies, trying to get signatures on a statement, etc. I hope that these individuals follow through, and that the ‘climate’ for climate research can improve.
This is a very welcome change from the 2009 reactions to Climategate, which reflected most silence, but solidarity with the climate scientists whose emails were made public.
With regards to Pielke Jr’s statement: “anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today — dirty, nasty, destructive.” I agree with this statement. As someone participating in the in public debate on climate change, I certainly expect barbs from the media and advocacy groups. What concerns me greatly is other scientists behaving in a dirty, nasty and destructive way, in other words, playing dirty politics with their science.
Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?
Probably not. Not until they suffer some truly adverse consequences for it.