Eco Poseurs

From our friends at Zero Hedge: The head of the CDC was behind the big gulp soda ban In NYC

George Washington's picture

Submitted by George Washington on 10/16/2014 08:38 -0400




Hey Bloomberg,<br /> here&#8217;s a big gulp of&#8230;..FREEDOM.</a></p> <p>by Anthony Freda“Hey Bloomberg, here’s a big gulp of…..FREEDOM” by Anthony Freda

NANNY COLABloomberg the Nanny, by William Banzai

Libertarians were outraged by New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s “Big Gulp” ban (which a state court ultimately struck down). They slammed it as a “Nanny State” measure.

But it was current Centers for Disease Control head Tom Frieden who was actually behind the ban.

The New York Times reported in 2004:


Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner,
has turned out to be an active policy advocate among the city’s
department heads, the outspoken architect of some of the Bloomberg
administration’s more controversial policies.


Although Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is more closely associated with a
law that bans smoking citywide, the legislation was actually developed
by Dr. Frieden, who was also given responsibility for helping to push it
through the City Council.




Even Mayor Bloomberg’s partnership with Snapple to sell juice in vending machines in schools has not gone without his notice.


"I would have preferred water,” he admitted, although he added that he liked the money that the agreement will raise.


He is almost certainly the only city agency head who keeps a bowl of condoms in the reception area of his office.

And the Daily Caller reported in 2010:

  • In 2009, Frieden took to the pages of the New England Journal of
    Medicine to sell the need for a soda tax. “It is difficult to imagine
    producing behavior change of this magnitude through education alone,
    even if government devoted massive resources to the task,” Frieden
    wrote. “Only heftier taxes will significantly reduce consumption.”
  • In 2010, after Obama tapped Frieden to head up the Centers for
    Disease Control, Bloomberg announced his support for a soda tax. “The
    soda tax is a fix that just makes sense,” he said in a March 2010 radio
    address. “It would save lives. It would cut rising health care costs.
    And it would keep thousands of teachers and nurses where they belong: in
    the classrooms and clinics.” Three years earlier, Bloomberg said he was
    opposed to a soda tax.



From ACSH: Upholding its tradition, a new Lancet piece on chemicals aims to scare rather than inform

The current issue of Lancet Neurology has a “sky is falling” alarm about the alleged ever-rising threat of environmental chemicals for our children’s neurological development. The authors are well-versed in this subject: not toxicology or neurology, no, we mean they are experts in the subject of trying to scare parents and the media about remote or hypothetical chemical threats. In this case, they wave the skull-and-crossbones banner of a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.”  If they hoped to garner media attention — and they surely did — they succeeded beyond expectations: fright is in the air. 

The authors — Drs. Philip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York and Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health — are long-time “toxic terrorists,” whose careers have been devoted to finding (or at least seeking) chemical toxins in the environment. Here, writing in Lancet Neurology, they have assessed the environment for the presence of certain chemicals they believe to have toxic effects on the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants, toddlers and children. They have also taken note of the increasing frequency of diagnosing certain conditions related to brain function among our nation’s youngest demographic, and have perceived an increase in both the number of “chemicals of concern” (to them) and the number of young people diagnosed with ADHD or autism-spectrum disorders. Since their tabulation finds increases in both parameters, they have concluded a likely cause-and-effect relationship. Their proposed solution to this problem: tightened chemical regulation, and a national (or, better, international) “clearinghouse” to assess all known chemicals for neurotoxicity, discover unknown chemicals lurking with the same threat, and test anything entering the marketplace before deeming it safe (or at least safe enough).

“How such a baseless assault on ‘chemicals’ can find its way into the pages of an esteemed peer-reviewed journal such as The Lancet — Oh excuse me, I can’t stifle my laughter any more,” said ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross, “Wasn’t it this same ‘esteemed’ journal that published Wakefield’s fraudulent opus on autism and vaccines?  The whacko editor, Horton, has still never assumed any responsibility for the devastation and deaths that decision caused. Now, there’s this piece of…junk does it too much honor.

“I give the authors credit, so to speak, for having passed some science or math course at one time, so they should (you’d think) know better than to toss some known environmental and actual chemical toxins in a mix with their own made-up variety and call it a ‘study.’ Sure, lead is an ongoing problem, although of markedly diminished impact compared to Landrigan’s classic reviews dating from 30 years ago. And sure, methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin: so what? The authors make no mention of dose-response, as though the mere presence of a chemical is enough to tag it as a cause of some disorder. Then they feel that just mentioning other alleged ‘toxins’ make them guilty by association (DDT? Really?).

“They also fall for the ages-old fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: if some outcome follows some environmental change, the latter must have caused the former, as if opening an umbrella causes it to rain. Other ‘experts’ may have found a similar increase in neurological ailments based on the skyrocketing consumption of organic food, with as much relevance to public health as this nonsense:  check out this tongue in cheek graph which shows a correlation between organic food consumption and autism.

This piece in essence is simply a call for the precautionary principle: if there is ‘concern’ about a chemical — or substance, or behavior — then ban or restrict it until/unless it can be proven ‘safe.’ But when applied to the tens of thousands of chemicals in our environment, our commerce, and our consumer products, if applied as these authors demand, it would require a complete abandonment of our way of life, period. They don’t seem to care, or even take notice. But why should they: they got what they wanted, publicity and scare-mongering adherents.”


Original here.    BTW--"Toxic terrorists" is one term, but I prefer "Science welfare frauds."

Question for the global warming crowd

Today, in the DC metro area, we will experience a nearly unprecedented 42 degree F temperature drop. This is explained by an large Arctic front moving in.

OK, but here's my question: If the atmosphere has a supposed "greenhouse" effect, how is this possible in 24 hours?

Yes, yes, I know. Weather is not climate. Except, the Arctic front (weather) is clearly operating contrary to your ridiculous greenhouse concept. And, either your greenhouse theory applies, or it doesn't.  [In the simplest debunking, no matter how well-insulated your coffee cup might be, it does not cause the coffee to become warmer than it orignally was.]

How can climate be anything BUT the totality of weather?

Please explain. (And don't bother with a begging the question answer such as "The temperature drop would be much greater without the Greenhouse effect.")

A look at fracking

This HND piece examines the Greenie's latest target: Fracking, a superb source of cheap natural gas

As I note:

The attitude of the environmental movement toward fracking is…interesting. You may recall not too long ago, that the Greens spoke with great praise of "clean-burning natural gas." Gas was even referred to as "The bridge fuel to the renewable energy future," and, its much lower carbon emissions were constantly touted. Note that this praise was lavished on natural gas before the rise of fracking.

To find out the simple—if sick—reason behind this, read the complete article.

From Paul Driessen: Our real man-made climate crisis

The crisis is due not to climate change, but to actions taken in the name of preventing change

In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard "the most sacred trust" we owe to our children and grandchildren: "an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate."

Even the IPCC and British Meteorological Office now recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17 years. Little evidence suggests that sea level rise, storms, droughts, polar ice or other weather and climate events and trends display any statistically significant difference from what Earth and mankind have experienced over the last 100-plus years.

However, we do face imminent manmade climate disasters. Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time. We must do all we can to prevent looming climate catastrophes.

But those cataclysms have nothing to do with alleged human contributions to planetary climate systems that have always been chaotic, unpredictable and often disastrous: ice ages, little ice ages, dust bowls, droughts and monster storms that ravaged and sometimes even toppled cities and civilizations.

Our real climate crisis is our responses to Mr. Kerry’s illusory crises. It takes four closely related forms.

Influence peddling. Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold. Major US donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, US foundations alone have "invested" over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in "environmental" efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote "manmade climate disaster" theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just US cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include US or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other "renewable" energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

Politicized science, markets and ethics. The corrupting cash has feathered careers, supported entire departments, companies and industries, and sullied our political, economic and ethical systems. It has taken countless billions out of productive sectors of our economy, and given it to politically connected, politically correct institutions that promote climate alarmism and renewable energy (and which use some of this crony capitalist taxpayer and consumer cash to help reelect their political sponsors).

Toe the line – pocket the cash, bask in the limelight. Question the dogma – get vilified, harassed and even dismissed from university or state climatologist positions for threatening the grants pipeline.

The system has replaced honest, robust, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science with pseudo-science based on activism, computer models, doctored data, "pal reviews," press releases and other chicanery that resulted in Climategate, IPCC exposés, and growing outrage. Practitioners of these dark sciences almost never debate climate disaster deniers or skeptics; climate millionaire Al Gore won’t even take questions that he has not preapproved; and colleges have become centers for "socially responsible investing" campaigns  based on climate chaos, "sustainable development" and anti-hydrocarbon ideologies. 

Increasingly powerful, well-funded, unelected and unaccountable activist groups and bureaucracies use manmade global warming claims to impose regulations that bypass legislatures and ignore job and economic considerations. They employ sweetheart lawsuits that let activists and agencies agree to legally binding agreements that leave out the parties who will actually be impacted by the court decisions.

The green behemoth wields increasing power over nearly every aspect of our lives and liberties, with no accountability for screw-ups or even deliberate harm to large segments of our population. All in the name of controlling Earth’s temperature and preventing climate change

Climate eco-imperialism impoverishes and kills. Climate alarmism and pseudo science have justified all manner of regulations, carbon trading, carbon taxes, renewable energy programs and other initiatives that increase the cost of everything we make, grow, ship, eat, heat, cool, wear and do – and thus impair job creation, economic growth, living standards, health, welfare and ecological values.

Excessive EPA rules have closed numerous coal-fired power plants, and the agency plans to regulate most of the US hydrocarbon-based economy by restricting carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, generating plants, cement kilns, factories, malls, hospitals and other "significant" sources. Were it not for the hydraulic fracturing revolution that has made natural gas and gas-fired generation abundant and cheap, US electricity prices would be skyrocketing – just as they have in Britain and Germany.

EU papers carry almost daily articles about fuel poverty, potential blackouts, outsourcing, job losses, economic malaise and despair, and deforestation for fire wood in those and other European countries, due to their focus on climate alarmism and "green" energy. California electricity prices are already highest in USA, thanks to its EU-style programs. The alarms are misplaced, the programs do nothing to reduce Chinese, Indian or global emissions, and renewable energy is hardly eco-friendly or sustainable.

Wind energy requires perpetual subsidies and "backup" fossil fuel power plants that actually produce 80% of the electricity attributed to wind, and blankets wildlife habitats with turbines and transmission lines that kill millions of birds and bats every year. In fact, industrial wind facilities remain viable only because they are exempted from many environmental review, wildlife and bird protection laws that are enforced with heavy penalties for all other industries. Solar smothers habitats with glossy panels, and biofuels divert crops and cropland to replace fuels that we have in abundance but refuse to develop.

Now climate activists and EPA want to regulate fracking for gas that was once their preferred option.

By far the worst climate crisis, however, is eco-imperialism perpetrated against African and other poor nations. When their country was building a new power plant that would burn natural gas that previously was wasted through "flaring," President Obama told Ghanaians they should use their "bountiful" wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels energy, instead of fossil fuels that threaten us with dangerous global warming. Meanwhile, his Administration refused to support loans for South Africa’s critically needed, state-of-the-art Medupi coal-fired power plant, which the Center for American Progress, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and other radical groups stridently opposed.

The actions ignored both the livelihoods and living standards that electricity has brought the world, and the millions of deaths from lung infections and intestinal diseases that these power plants would prevent.

Ready-made excuse for incompetence. Hurricane / Superstorm Sandy proved how "dangerous manmade climate change" can give politicians a handy excuse for ill-considered development decisions that increase storm and flood risk, failure to prepare their communities for inevitable severe weather events, misleading storm warnings, and slow or incompetent responses in their aftermath. Blaming carbon dioxide emissions and rising seas is always easier than manning up and shouldering the blame for Bloombergian failures. Citing IPCC computer forecasts of nastier storms and flooded coastlines likewise gives insurers a convenient excuse for hiking insurance rates.

When the conversation next turns to climate change, discussing the real climate crisis – and the true meaning of environmental justice – could open a few eyes.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

It’s not green to be pro-bacteria

My latest HND piece explores how the clueless Greenies and their fear entrepreneur brethren are bringing out the long knives against...triclosan. Yes, triclosan, a wonderful antibacterial that has been proven safe for more than 40 years. In fact, best-selling author Paul Alexander has just published a book entitled Pandemic: The Story of People vs. Germs, exploring this very issue.

It is truly amazing how the nonsensical pronouncements of idiot Greenies have persisted all these years, especially if you look at the legacy of St. Rachel Carson and exactly what the banning of DDT accomplished. Perhaps millions of dead Africans is what they really meant by improving the environment. After all, the early environmental movement was certainly not shy when complaining about how many (poor) people there are in this world.

I also cite a more recent example involving what happens when you decide to stop chlorinating water. And, surprise, surprise, they spun that tragedy away from their miserable selves, just like they did the massive malaria outbreaks caused by the banning of DDT.

Read the complete article.

Do the right green thing

In this HND piece, we invoke Spike Lee's film of nearly the same name while we ponder what ARE the right Green things?

Just as in the film, choosing the the right thing to do is not easy, and involves trade-offs. I cite a couple of examples...

While you would be hard-pressed to find a Green who is pro-Nuke, nuclear power surely gets us away from most of the bad things caused by fossil fuels---while presenting its own set of problems. Likewise, in the mad rush to seal up our homes tight as a drum in order that we could save every single bit of energy, we also created a massive problem with indoor air quality.

Fortunately, there are ways to be Green besides being an academic or politician. We discuss how innovative businesses and get into the act...and, no, I don't mean by becoming a federally-subsidized joke such as Solyndra.

Read the complete article.

Drop the curtain, and pay no attention to this man

As you are surely aware, the line "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" comes from the classic movie The Wizard of Oz (1939). It is spoken by the Wizard himself, in an attempt to divert attention from his elaborate contrivances, used to portray the illusions of his wisdom and power. This role—and four others in the film—were played by beloved character actor Frank Morgan (1890-1949).

Not so beloved is another Oz—the TV and media Doctor Mehmet Oz.

When he first came on the scene, the former Harvard-educated cardiovascular surgeon made it a point to appear unconventional, endorsing all manner of "alternative" approaches to better health. At some point, probably based on getting roundly condemned by his peers, he pretty much switched gears. Now, he dispenses the most conventional possible advice (such as avoiding red meat), and jumps on every single fashionable and stupid Green trend, such as hating BPA and Pink Slime.

He got rightly slammed for jumping on the ridiculous arsenic in apple juice scare of several months ago, and is taking heat for one of his few recent forays into the unconventional: His ringing endorsement of raspberry ketone as the ultimate weight loss aid. He cites research on obese mice to "prove" his point. Despite his elite educational background, Oz has demonstrated repeatedly that he understands little about science.

Worse, he seems to mostly lend his considerable influence to quite questionable causes. I agree with him that we should all be eating more fruits and vegetables. Why doesn't he take on the wasteful and overblown ag subsidy program, which mostly supports corn and soybeans, thus causing the price of more healthy produce to be inflated? And why doesn't he get current with his understanding of heart disease? Really now, a guy like him still believing in the long-disproven lipid/cholesterol theory?

But, then again, when the money is rolling in with no end in sight, why does he even need to think at all?

You can't fix stupid: The sad saga of "pink slime"

It should come as no surprise to any sentient individual that the entire "Pink Slime" uproar is complete and utter BS. However, it would appear that there are many out there who aren't sentient, after all.

My latest HND piece compares this travesty with William Randolph Hearst's horrific trashing of silent move star Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, solely to sell newspapers. If public opinion could be force-fed by unscrupulous media barons back in 1921, you'd think that it would be much harder to do this in 2012—given the instant availability of unlimited amounts of information via the Internet. But you would be wrong.

H.L. Mencken got it right when he said, in his column in the September 19, 1926 edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune, entitled “Notes on Journalism”:

“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

His topic was a recent trend in the American newspaper business: Tabloid newspapers that were geared toward uneducated readers, including those Mencken described as “near-illiterates.”     Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Read the complete article.