You're Soaking It In Now

About a week ago ATC ran one of those OMG! stories about how poorly educated US students are. The report was sloppy - telling us nothing about differences in the pools of students surveyed or the overall rates of public education in areas being considered. A great deal was made about the superiority of students in Shanghai compared to the entire US public school student population, though an "expert" in the story actually referred to Shanghai as a "country." Whatever shortcomings our public schools may have, US journalism schools are having no problem churning out job-ready knuckleheads for the US media market. (Did someone say Ombudsman?)

The report lamented how badly US students perform when it comes to math and science. Hmmm...I wonder why Americans might be so poorly informed when it comes to science? Could it be that some media outlets constantly present junk science as deserving equal treatment with real science?

That brings us to NPR's Wednesday morning's dirty story about dishwashing detergents that don't have phosphates in them. The phosphates have been removed because more and more states have banned their use because they contribute to water pollution. The gist of the story is that consumers are devastated by the poor performance of non-phosphate detergents in their dishwashers. Here are some of the dire conditions that NPR's Elizabeth Shogren describes:

• "...something was seriously amiss with her dishes."
• "...many people across the country are tearing out their hair over stained flatware, filmy glasses and ruined dishes."
• "...months of aggravation and expense..."

Shogren does at least mention why the dish detergents are phosphate-free:

"Seventeen states banned phosphates from dishwasher detergents because the chemical compounds also pollute lakes, bays and streams. They create algae blooms and starve fish of oxygen."

Not a bad start, but let's pick it up at the end there and see what comes next:

"...and starve fish of oxygen. But dirty and damaged dishes are turning lots of people into skeptics, including Wright."

Ms. Wright: "I'm angry at the people who decided that phosphate was growing algae. I'm not sure that I believe that."

There it is. Just left there as if it's a perfectly rational statement: I'm angry at what scientific research has proven so I just won't believe it.

Probably the most reprehensible part of this whole rehashed, dish detergent story (and it is an old story), is when Shogren - instead of rebutting the ignorance with researched facts (this link was posted in the early comments on the story) or pointing out responsible solutions for frustrated consumers - gives listeners detailed instructions on how they can defeat the ban by adding phosphates to their dishwashing machines...I'm not kidding:

"But not everyone is willing to adjust. Sandra Young figured out a way to undo the phosphate ban, at least in her own kitchen. She bought some trisodium phosphate at a hardware store and started mixing her own formula. "

Who needs clean lakes, rivers and streams? The important thing is to defeat the "nanny state" by any means necessary. Go FOX...I mean NPR.

Making Lemonade from Lemons [and Cupcakes from Cat Poo]

According to Rene Montagne on Christmas Eve morning, "One thing that is clear is that the U.S. and China are no longer observers in the international climate debate, but leaders." How's that for objective reporting?

I had to hear NPR's spin on the essentially antidemocratic Copenhagen "deal" orchestrated by Obama behind closed doors with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. The report by Christopher Joyce essentially tries to lay the blame for the Copenhagen Summit's failure to reach a meaningful agreement at the feet of Venezuela and Sudan (seriously!). Here are highlights from NPR's creative take on the imperial arrogance of the US and the irresponsible behavior of rich countries at Copenhagen.

Joyce: "Many delegations did not view the five-nation accord as a step forward....Nonetheless, many in the climate business say it's lemonade from what was a very sour lemon. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, is in the lemonade camp. She says people had pushed the myth that the world was ready to agree on a new binding treaty, and it wasn't...." (Claussen's lemony position is less than unbiased - given that she worked for the US Department of State).

Joyce: "....delegations from countries like Sudan and Venezuela burned up conference time with procedural tactics and, Claussen says, unrealistic demands."

Claussen: "It wasn't clear that anything could get done because some group of countries or some country was trying to hold up everything, which is why I think the approach of just trying to do an accord with a small number of countries was probably the only way to have anything come out of this at all."

Joyce briefly lets Ray Kopp from Resources for the Future [and Member, U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, 1999 - present] note that China is like the US and doesn't want to be pushed around.

Finally Joyce, in typical NPR fashion - after consulting former State Department affiliated opinion - takes a hard right turn so as to use a bit of American Enterprise Institute quackery for concluding remarks. He trots out "climate expert" Dr. Kenneth Green who make these fair and balanced comments:

"Kyoto has been an albatross around the necks of those - of people who are genuinely concerned about climate change. The first thing they have to do is let go of the failed model, because they're pushing for basically two things countries cannot - democracies, especially - cannot do. It's economic suicide and the exporting of massive amounts of their people's wealth to their enemies or competitors." [No mention of planetary ecocide or of just where some of that people's wealth came from...]

Junk in the Air and Junk on the Air

Readers of this blog busted David Kestenbaum (pictured above) for airing crap about climate change during his coverage of the UN Copenhagen Conference. As "doggydaddy" writes,

"This [link to the Tuesday morning story] may help explain my antipathy towards Kestenbaum this AM. Of all the stories one could file from Copenhagen, he gives credence to hack skeptic Lomborg who has been thoroughly discredited. [link to a point by point refutation of Lomborg's "science."] What a doofus and a tool is the Kestenbum."

Given that Bjorn Lomborg has been debunked, refuted and exposed as having only one goal - pushing for "the pressing need to do nothing about global warming" - one can only conclude that Kestenbaum shares this mission. This would explain his 2008 adoring [and shameless] piece on a teen global warming skeptic.

So how does a groovin', Yale-Harvard hipster like Kestenbaum top a scoop interview with Bjorn Lomborg? He does it by using his Thursday morning slot to sneer at and ridicule the attendees at the conference for contributing to carbon pollution by using air travel to get to the conference - how cutting edge! As "Woody" wrote in the comments,

"I nearly went inside the radio this AM, when I heard that lame-ass report on the "carbon footprint" required to host the Climate Summit, and the ever-so-condescending snarkiness of the lazy, smirking, sold-out creeps and asswipes reporting it.

Just once, I'd like to hear some proper context, like what is the size of the carbon footprint of just one day's operations by the USer military in Central Asia."

Ah yes, the footprint of the US military in Central Asia, that would be interesting. In fact would have been great fun to hear Bjorn Lomborg asked about the bloated US military spending that could be used for those humanitarian projects that he supposedly cares so much about.

Soft, Plastic Science

At first I thought it was an April Fool's joke. Sadly, it wasn't. ME on Wednesday ran a story by Jon Hamilton, lamenting the Congressional ban on phthalates--chemicals used to soften plastics--from being used in children's toys. For some reason, Hamilton appears to really, really like phthalates. Either that, or he just turns to mush when he sees a lab coat, because he basically just turned the story over to the government researcher (Dr. Wind) who claims the chemical is not a problem for children who ingest it.

To be certain, at no point does Wind say that phthalates aren't toxic, only that most children probably don't chew on plastic long enough each day to warrant banning the chemical. Hamilton explains that another form of phthalate had been found to cause cancer. Bizarrely, he somehow interprets the fact that the plastics industry had been forced to "voluntarily" stop using the chemicals as evidence that this new version must be safe, even though it was linked to liver disease. The article ends with a joint quote from Wind and Hamilton criticizing the ban on the chemical: "Sometimes people don't listen to the good science...even when it comes from the government scientists we pay for good advice."

Where has Jon Hamilton been living for the past eight years?!! It is as if he has never heard of any of the myriad perversions of science and policy that occurred under the Bush Administration (during which the studies on phthalate were finalized) where politics overruled science and health concerns in everything from asbestos dust at ground zero to FEMA trailers to global warming.

Now, I'm not a chemist or a physician, and I certainly don't claim to have any particular insight into the health risks posed by phthalates, and I'm not saying that the good Dr. Wind is wrong. I'm just saying it seems insanely credulous of NPR to simply take the word of a government administrator during the Bush administration who says the chemical is good to eat, and to dismiss out of hand anybody--including scientists and researchers outside the government--who says otherwise.

It took me a little less than 30 seconds to turn up a report by the National Academy of Sciences that says that the federal studies may seriously underestimate the risks posed by phthalates by failing to adequately account for cumulative effects. And I suppose it should be no surprise that the article included not a single mention of the fact that phthalates are banned in Europe under the EU program that requires manufacturers to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it can be used in commercial products.

From the Bart Simpson School of Journalism

Whew! talk about dumb. On ATC NPR reported on Obama's lifting of the stem cell research ban and played some decent clips of President Obama speaking to scientists who loudly cheered him. Michele Norris then turns to Joe Palca, one of NPR's expert science reporters to ask, "Now why did this order on scientific integrity draw cheers from the crowd?"

Seems like Norris must have woken Joe up from a nap or interrupted him during an intense round of Tetris. He answers:

"Well, I think Aretha Franklin captured the idea when she said, 'R-E-S-P-E-C-T.' I think scientists have spent the last eight years feeling dissed. That's the way they felt; it wasn't true a hundred percent of the time, but that was the gestalt in the scientific community. And I think now they're saying, they're hearing a president say, 'We love you, and we respect your ideas,' and you know - that feels good."

They actually pay this guy? Does he have access to Lexis-Nexis? Does he read anything these days? A very short search turns up reams of factual material about the Bush administrations dismal record on science from beginning to end; and it has nothing to do with how scientists feel. And to frame Obama's stance on science as "we love you" is pathetic.

The comment beneath the web story nails this one and is worth a look.

Any Damn Thing Considered

I guess now that President Science himself is gone, NPR feels compelled to take up the slack and give as much airtime as possible to complete creationist BS dressed up as science. For a while it seemed that NPR was expelling some of this Intelligent Design sludge every year or so [e.g. May 2007 and April 2008], but - gad! - it's getting to be a weekly thing now [e.g. Feb. 13th and today]. I guess this is how Fair and Balanced NPR celebrates the centenary of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Today features Jon Hamilton presenting a typical "he said, she said" debate on Intelligent Design and the "problem of the mind." Now, those of us who actually use our minds are well aware that the mind is a complex and mysterious entity, and if you are a believer in God or a nonbeliever like me, hopefully if fills you with wonder and curiosity to know more. But if you are a creationist always angling for a way to present your bankrupt ideas (or a news organization wanting to promote creationists as legitimate skeptics) then the fact that "scientists don't know [exactly] how the brain causes the mind" is a golden opportunity. As Hamilton explains "here's where the Darwin doubters come in." He might as well have added that the doors to NPR studios are also where the Darwin doubters come in.

I don't have a problem with NPR covering the resurgence of creationism under its various guises - it's a sad and important phenomenon in our country. But to treat this warmed-over creationism again and again as legitimate scientific skepticism and to give it equal footing with the the scientific community is both irresponsible and misleading.

You just have to love the neurosurgeon creationist NPR turns to in this report. We are told he believes that "an intelligent designer that had a hand in producing not only the brain but all living things and certain features of the universe." According to Hamilton, this man believes that "without this designer, the brain would be just a meat computer made up of brain cells." Given the content of NPR of late, maybe he's got a point!

Junk News Loves Junk Science

NPR do have a thing for "controversial" non-science:

• April 2008's selling of something Ben Stein expelled.
• April 2008's celebration of a global warming wunderkind skeptic
• May 2007's commercial for the creation "museum."

So I guess it's no surprise that this afternoon on ATC Larry Abramson provides almost no background and context for the Louisiana "Science Education Act" - ( another Trojan Horse of creationism lovingly crafted by the theocratic Louisiana Family Forum).

Abramson introduces the piece claiming that the Science Education Act "protects teachers who engage in what's known as critical thinking about all controversial science - about climate change, cloning, and - of course - evolution." He also tells us that a school administrator and proponent of the law "never brought up God or creation...he and others appear confident that they can use the idea of critical thinking to poke holes in the theory of evolution without bringing God into the equation. That may be why Darwin defenders are so worried."

Abramson simply adopts the Orwellian "critical thinking" language of the law. He also calls sound science "controversial" (which it is if you are in favor of reactionary ignorance). It is also odd that Abramson labels those who want to base the teaching of science on - well - science, as "Darwin defenders" (earlier he described them as "supporters of evolution"). Once again NPR pretends that there are two equally valid sides on this issue. I don't want to waste my time rehashing the mountains of scientific consensus against these anti-science efforts (much of what I posted on the Ben Stein story applies to this piece as well). What I will note is some of what Abramson could have done:

• He could have talked to NPR's own Ira Flatow who has an excellent chapter on the Dover creationist case in his new book Present at the Future.
• He could have investigated the Louisiana Family Forum and it's sugar daddy in Washington and their recommended creepy "additional materials" (textbook addendum and DVDs) that the Louisiana law allows teachers to bring into their science classes.
• He could have spent 15 minutes researching the National Center for Science Education website.
• He might have tried reading Scientific American's article on the issue.
• He could have consulted the Louisiana Coalition for Science featuring the writings of Barbara Forrest who was an expert witness in the Dover case (and Trojan Horse author).

OR

He could be sloppy and lazy and spend most of the report talking to an administrator and a science teacher who want to challenge that wild-eyed, seat-of-the-pants, riddled-with-errors theory of evolution.

Exposing Themselves

If you've linked to any stories lately on NPR's website you'll know that they heavily advertised Ben Stein's cinematic misinformation, Expelled. This has justifiably raised a few eyebrows - and hackles. For a thorough debunking of Stein's anti-science, religious-right, dishonest movie visit the Expelled Exposed website.

It's bad enough that NPR makes money airing such slimy advertising, but they take it to the next level Tuesday morning with Greg Allen reporting on the Florida legislature which has passed a creationism bill for its public schools. NPR's report is a disgrace, from it's web title "Bill Lets Fla. Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives" (name one legitimate alternative!) to the overwhelming pro-creationist content of the report. As the late Stephen Jay Gould lamented back in 1981 (!) - must this utterly bankrupt, non-scientific fraud of creationism be taken seriously again and again - and yet again?

Renee Montagne sets the frame for the piece, stating that "the Florida legislature has been considering evolution...passed bills that would allow or require teachers to present alternate theories of how life evolved. Proponents say at issue is academic freedom, critics say the bills would introduce religion into public schools." It just kills me to see the two "sides" of this issue held up as if they deserve equal credibility and respect. NPR also just accepts -and uses!- the far right's fraudulent terms of "academic freedom" and reports as if there exist legitimate scientific "alternate theories" of evolution.

Greg Allen's coverage of the Florida bills gives brief time to Democratic critics, but the bulk of his report is filled with advocates for junk science. We hear frequently from Republican state representative Allen Hays. Including a soundbite of Hays boldly asking, 'What are you afraid of? Are you afraid our students are going to learn how to critically analyze a theory.'

Allen tells us that "the bill passed by a wide margin in Florida's house on Monday. It requires teachers to provide their students with quote 'a thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis of the theory of evolution.'" Informing the public would require a serious journalist to seek out and include representatives of the scientific community who would note that the actual "scientific, critical analysis" of evolution is exactly what has established it as the only scientifically accepted theory of life's development, diversity and dynamism.

Instead of seeking scientific opinions, Allen presents "one of those pleased by yesterday's vote was John West of the Discovery Institute, that's a group based in Seattle that promotes intelligent design and has long worked to raise questions about evolution. West says Discovery has written model legislation on this issue of academic freedom for states to consider." We hear West speaking about how 'that model legislation certainly has influenced debates in various states and in the senate version of the Florida bill, parts of it were adapted from this model language.' " Apparently on NPR, any group of far-right, anti-intellectuals who have money and and clout are treated as a legitimate voice for "academic freedom," and are given unchallenged air time to promote their cause.

Sadly, Allen's not done serving the anti-science lobby. His next act is to embed a commercial for the movie Expelled into his report. He states that "similar bills are also being considered in Louisiana and Missouri. In Florida the precipitating factor was the adoption, earlier this year of science standards for public schools that for the first time mentioned evolution. And as that idea was being discussed in Tallahassee a new film came to town." This is followed seamlessly by an audio trailer for the movie - complete with a music track, sound effects and voiceovers:

'I made a movie.' 'Join Ben Stein in this year's most controversial documentary film.' 'If they value their careers they keep quiet about their intelligent design views.'

Then it's right back to Allen reporting that "the sponsor of the bill in the house, Helen Hays, was one of the legislators who attended a private screening of Expelled, a movie by conservative economist and social critic, Ben Stein. Hays says if people wonder if there's a scientific controversy about the teaching of evolution they should see the film." How nice of Allen and his sound editors to include that little plug of "they should see the film."

The irony of NPR running this fundamentalist-friendly coverage as news and then later in the show having Steve Inskeep scoffing at Iran's top prosecutor warning against the influence of "western" toys is priceless. Hard to see what's so funny for smug Inskeep since NPR has no problem with religious fundamentalism - as long as it's of the "christian" variety.

ASSIGNMENT ALERT: I have a little homework for the nitwits at NPR who were involved in producing and airing this report. Go online and read (for free!) the book Science, Education and Creationism before you produce your next piece on the religious right's assaults on education. I realize it might offend your dutiful commitment to giving equal time (and more) to any right-wing position regardless how unfounded and spurious it is, and yes, I know it the book is produced by those wacky, partisan folks from "The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States" - but it will do you good to expose yourself to what the nutty scientific community actually thinks...however difficult and painful this might be for you.

Some Scientists May Cringe

Profiling a 16 year old nonscientist who claims that human activity is not a factor in global warming, David Kastenbaum flatters himself, saying "some scientists may cringe to hear this story." Actually, anyone who wants to think about the complexities of climate disruption will cringe to hear Tuesday morning's sloppy feature offered up as part of NPR's series on "climate connections."

The story employs the odd vocabulary of "some scientists" and "mainstream scientists" to legitimize the type of junk science usually offered up by ExxonMobil. Kastenbaum surely knows that it's not just "some scientists;" it's a consensus of scientists that accepts human activity as a major contributor to global warming. And "mainstream scientists"? As opposed to who? By "mainstream," does he mean scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or at the National Academy of Sciences, or just those environmental advocates over at the Union of Concerned Scientists?

You have to love how Kastenbaum honors the science deniers with the term "skeptics." We're told that the girl being featured "has a quality you want in a scientist, she is skeptical" and that "skeptics loved the web site" she constructed to present her views. Skeptics? I guess it's those same famous skeptics who have debunked evolution and Wikipedia!

Kastenbaum's piece (and most anti-intellectuals) also exploits the complexities and open nature of scientific hypotheses to imply that everything about a theory is up in the air. Near the end of the piece he tells us "the truth is, for people who want to try to get down into the details, climate change science can get very hairy - there are oceans to consider, which can absorb heat, water vapor, clouds..." and that "scientists disagree on some of the details..." So?

As one reader of this blog pointed out, the areas of disagreement would have made an interesting feature story (including Q & A with with actual climate scientists). Instead NPR chose to focus on a social phenomena of the decidedly anti-scientific culture existing in the US now, and to treat this particular example as a legitimate challenge to serious scientific inquiry. Bushco would be proud.

Non-journalism Meets Non-science

NPR had a great opportunity with the opening of the creation "museum." NPR could have interviewed scientists who would have laid out the overwhelming case that there is no science in this farce "museum" just as there is no science in the creation "science" movement. NPR could have contacted the NCSE for some experts and information, instead of turning things over to the woefully ill-informed Steve Inskeep and Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

This statement of Inskeep's is a stunner: "A scientist might argue, a conventional scientist might argue, he or she is looking at the evidence and following that evidence where it goes. Your starting point is that it’s already known that the world is only 5000 years old and that it was created in seven days and you must look at the evidence in a way that fits what you already take as true." Notice how Inkseep says, "A scientist might argue" but then corrects himself and says "a conventional scientist might argue." The implication is that "conventional scientists" are just one version of scientists, no more worthy of legitimacy than so-called creation-scientists!

Hagerty is no better - maybe even worse. She says that one of the literalists touring the facility "drove from Lancaster Pennsylvania to see evidence for what she already believes...that God made the universe in six days..." There's one problem here: there is NO EVIDENCE! Hagerty also states that "the vast majority of scientists say dinosaurs predated man by 65 million years." Like Inskeep, Hagerty is sadly confused. The fact is that ALL legitimate scientists agree that dinosaurs predate humans. Yes there may be a few who insist on the fiction of human coexistence with dinosaurs just as there may be a few scientists who think that the Apollo missions were faked or that the sun revolves around the earth. Vast majority implies that there is legitimate scientific debate about creationism - there isn't.

Of course this is all taking place within the context of an idiot President who hates scientific research and truthiness (as Colbert so aptly puts it.) It's sad to see NPR give these anti-rationalists a stage in which they are presented as one side of a reasonable debate.

Wikipedia v. Wackopedia

sciIn NPR's wide world of center-right relativism, reason and reality should never get in the way. If it had been April 1st I could have understood the serious and respectful coverage given to the Eagle Forum's favorite spawn, Andy Schlafly, as he promoted his rightist-Christian Conservapedia.

This would have been a great opportunity for NPR to do a little contextual analysis of the far right Christian movement and its neofascist tendencies (see for example Esther Kaplan's book or Chris Hedges new book). Instead NPR allowed Schlafly to control the discussion and make his points with little confrontation.

Robert Siegel never identified Schlafly as a member of the Eagle Forum and never challenged Schlafly's argument that Wikipedia has a "liberal" bias because its surveyed editors are more "liberal" than the American public. He should have insisted on Schlafly producing evidence of consistent distortions of facts in favor of a leftist point of view on Wikipedia instead of attacking the supposed point of views of the editors! Furthermore Siegel actually could have used the interview to point out that reality-based and factual knowledge (such as can be found in encyclopedias) generally undermine many beliefs sacred to the far right such as "creationism" or the supposed moral goodness of the free market. As the Daily Show often illustrates, reality does have a decidedly progressive anti-authoritarian bent to it.

Illinois blogger, ArchPundit has an excellent post regarding Conservapedia.