Pt 3 of the Insignificant Trilogy. Green activists are controlling policy debates by denying other voices in stakeholder dialogue.
IARC’s recent letter to the US Congress showed six different ways to lie.
The 2017 Risk-Monger “Lump of Coal” Awards
Activists who demand that others be transparent are often not open themselves. They are transparocrites.
Portier was paid $160K to attack glyphosate by lawyers suing Monsanto.
American NGOs have discovered that Brussels is the ideal place to launch a US lobby campaign. Hippie Go Home!
IARC has continued to slide into an crisis of legitimacy. Recent unethical, biased behaviour has left the agency no longer fit for purpose.
My solution to fix IARC is to pull its funding. As I publish this, the US is proposing to do just that!
IARC says they are transparent – they are not! They say their scientists have no conflicts of interest – they do! They say their scientific methodology is the strongest – no one else agrees. This is hypocrisy!
We know that IARC’s political bias, non-transparency and conflict of interest on glyphosate were bad. But according to a recent publication, it is nothing compared to how bad their activist science was.
Argumentum ad hominem is the tool you use when there is no science on your side. Is that why activists are using it so much today?
As I continue to migrate my site, this is my favourite blog from 2015. It looks at how the pesticide industry is restricted by its internal codes of ethical conduct that will not allow them to attack competitors, while the organic industry and NGOs have no issue with lying and spreading fear about pesticides. Industry (and society) will lose, but with integrity!