By the way, all conventional wisdom is wrong
You have to turn to the Science section of the New York Times to find out that most of what the front page has said for years is entirely bogus. In fact, most of what constitutes the conventional wisdom in most mags and sites is just media frenzy, or as the story in question puts it: "The more fear, guilt or angst a news story induces, the better."
So I recommend you read the whole article by John Tierney: 10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List:
1. Hot Dogs aren't bad for you. Saturated fat consumption turns out to make you thin.
2. Running your car AC leaves a smaller carbon footprint than driving with your windows open.
3. Food imported from afar uses less energy than food grown locally. Art, you were right.
4. Cellphones have no carcinogenic qualities. Amazing that anyone ever bought into this nonsense.
5. Plastic bags are fantastic for the environment, using less energy to make, pollute air and water less, and take up less landfill space than any alternative.
6. Plastic bottles are not toxic. Again, this is only news to the extremely gullible.
7. Deadly shark attacks hardly ever happen: one last year. (Privatize all beaches and there would be none.)
8. The Arctic is not melting; in fact, there is more ice up north this year than last.
The last two concern something about the universe's missing mass that it not missing and something about the myth of wormholes - but I don't understand either. And they seem pretty far flung.
In any case, you might notice that the regular consuming American citizen pays no attention whatever to these various hysterias, which is a scandal to the tender sensibilities of neo-puritanical socialists who want to ban all comfort and joy.
Comments (21)
Salt.
It doesn't give you high blood pressure. The act of paying more attention to ones diet, eating less, losing weight, these are what worked. Salt was the scape-goat.
Published: July 29, 2008 10:03 AM
I also recommend this program.
Have you ever seen this already?
Global warming swindle
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKLOvtAUDk&feature=related
Published: July 29, 2008 10:17 AM
How about the fact that recycling (except in certain cases, like with aluminum cans) consumes more energy than it saves?
Published: July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
Daniel Coleman:
I picked up on the semi-economic blog timworstall.com (from the UK) that, over there, they not only have draconian penalties for not sorting the recyclables properly (and a host of other nit-picking violations) but many of the recycling stations, once having received the stuff, simply re-mixes it together and sends it to be land-filled.
Published: July 29, 2008 3:20 PM
"5. Plastic bags are fantastic for the environment, using less energy to make, pollute air and water less, and take up less landfill space than any alternative."
They are also fabulous for picking up the doggy poop.
Published: July 29, 2008 3:51 PM
"1. Hot Dogs aren't bad for you. Saturated fat consumption turns out to make you thin. "
I think you're falling for another myth here: that being "thin" means you're healthy.
Published: July 29, 2008 7:30 PM
Government calendar? What a mess!!
January: Janus (Roman god of gates, doorways, beginnings and endings)
February: Februus (Etruscan god of death) Februarius (mensis) (Latin for "month of purification (rituals)" it is said to be a Sabine word, the last month of ancient pre-450 BC Roman calendar). It is related to fever.[25][26][27]
March: Mars (Roman god of war)
April: "Modern scholars associate the name with an ancient root meaning 'other', i.e the second month of a year beginning in March."[28]
May: Maia Maiestas (Roman goddess)
June: Juno (Roman goddess, wife of Jupiter)
July: Julius Caesar (Roman dictator) (month was formerly named Quintilis, the fifth month of the calendar of Romulus)
August: Augustus (first Roman emperor) (month was formerly named Sextilis, the sixth month of Romulus)
September: septem (Latin for seven, the seventh month of Romulus) 7 month? HaHaHA!!
October: octo (Latin for eight, the eighth month of Romulus) 8 month!!!!!
November: novem (Latin for nine, the ninth month of Romulus) 9 month!!!!
December: decem (Latin for ten, the tenth month of Romulus) 10 month?!!!!!!!!!!
Published: July 29, 2008 8:03 PM
These are amazing. I love all of them and the article is well written and entertaining as well.. .
Published: July 29, 2008 9:21 PM
I believe there is a major fallacy in statement 1. "Saturated fat consumption turns out to make you thin". Whist it may be true hot dogs are not as bad or even bad at all for the human body, this statement is not nor will not be found chemically true. If that is the conclusion gathered from the study by this poster, then the results were grossly misunderstood, or someone fails to understand statistical analysis and clinical trial arrangement.
And very true that thin doesn't mean healthy, but obese certainly does not!
Published: July 30, 2008 12:43 AM
Karen de Coster said:
"5. Plastic bags are fantastic for the environment, using less energy to make, pollute air and water less, and take up less landfill space than any alternative."
They are also fabulous for picking up the doggy poop.
Now this is somethjing Ill never understand.
why on earth do greenie enviro-conscious dogwalking types on the beach or wherever see no irony in scooping up what is arguably the most biodegradable stuff there is, and then carefully seal it in a plastic bag to be preserved for as long as the bag lasts, wherever it lands up?
I think its fairly safe to assume that none of them go as far as transferring the contents to the septic tank or sewerage works, or compost, and clean the bag for its next step in recycling - as they should if they want to be consistent with their 'dont breathe too deeply' carbon-footprint minimisation ethos.
Published: July 30, 2008 5:23 AM
I think that you misinterpreted the first point, the only thing the article says is that saturated fat isn't as bad as it seems and carbohydrates are a bigger problem to health if you're worried about weight loss that is...
Published: July 30, 2008 7:39 AM
And how are plastic bags "fabulous" for the environment? Just because they could be argued to be better than the a few alternatives does not make them good. That is like saying compared to the mighty Vogon Death Ray of Destruction, nuclear warfare is much less destructive, so it must be fabulous for the environment. Simply Fallacious.
Published: July 30, 2008 7:46 AM
"they not only have draconian penalties for not sorting the recyclables properly (and a host of other nit-picking violations) but many of the recycling stations, once having received the stuff, simply re-mixes it together and sends it to be land-filled."
The stated goal is to save the planet. The actual goal is to instill the habit of blind obedience to pointless commands. Think of the whole country as a giant boot camp.
Published: July 30, 2008 3:31 PM
If you want a good laugh, Google Penn & Teller Recycling
Published: July 30, 2008 6:14 PM
Jeff, it seems to me that your summary has garbled and left out a few things:
2. Tierney talks about a study that shows that - at 65 mph - using a car's A/C uses less gas than the drag of having car windows open. Results are likely to be different at lower speeds - but who cares? I leave decisions like that up to the driver.
5. A conclusion that plastics bags, generally, have a smaller environmental impact than paper bags doesn't your summary that "Plastic bags are fantastic for the environment". Plastic bags and other plastic materials are cluttering up our seas and oceans, and certainly pose a hazard to marine life, such as sea turtles.
8. Both you and Tierney are being sloppy about "The Arctic", which certainly IS melting. Tierney means only that it looks like summer ice melt of Arctic OCEAN pack ice looks like it will not surpass last year's record (it will still be far above average). The Arctic generally continues to warm generally, and melting in Greenland continues to quicken.
More on the ice sheets here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/16/marlo-lewis-cei-serves-up-refreshingly-distracting-climate-science-and-policy-distortions.aspx
Published: July 31, 2008 5:15 AM
Poor turtles. I just don't know what I'll do without them
Published: July 31, 2008 2:50 PM
Tom
What happened to all the polar bears when the Vikings lived in Greenland in the 12th Century (when there was no ice cap)? (Don't tell me that they all relocated to Sea World Miami and San Diego!)
Published: July 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Walt, glad to see that you apparently agree that the Arctic is melting. Beyond that, I'm having difficulties figuring out what point you're trying to make that is relevant to the thread. Care to clarify, or is it my responsibility to guess?
Published: July 31, 2008 11:07 PM
TokyoTom
Sorry to be obtuse! The thread mentioned that the polar ice cap was not in fact melting. There has been an endless "save the polar bears" campaign implying that a melting polar ice cap is detrimental to polar bears. It is a known fact that there was much less polar ice in the 12th century when the Vikings lived in Greenland. People, including you (forgive me if I am wrong), have been insinuating that if the polar ice cap melts in the summer that this will be a bad thing . I am asking you to explain why you think that this would be a bad thing. My point is that the polar bears survived last time. I'm asking you since you always post back thought provoking replies.
Thanks - Walt
Published: August 1, 2008 12:11 AM
Well, Walt, the polar bears are obviously still around now because they were not extinguished before - perhaps, as Roger might say, because Noah came by in the Ark!
However, from what I understand of the evidence, Greenland certainly didn`t entirely (or even significantly) melt, and the melting that occurred earlier was not as widespread throughout the Arctice as what we are experiencing now. It certainly does sound like a good time to be a pioneer in Greenland.
Published: August 1, 2008 10:27 AM
Well, Walt, the polar bears are obviously still around now because they were not extinguished before - perhaps, as Roger might say, because Noah came by in the Ark!
However, from what I understand of the evidence, Greenland certainly didn`t entirely (or even significantly) melt, and the melting that occurred earlier was not as widespread throughout the Arctic as what we are experiencing now. It certainly does sound like a good time to be a pioneer in Greenland.
Published: August 1, 2008 10:27 AM