Part 6 deals with Stupid’s strategy to remove industry from being a legitimate actor or stakeholder in policy debates. They have been very successful in denormalising tobacco, now fossil fuels and biotech, and soon pharmaceuticals. By denying industry to share its research, views and concerns, they have become pariahs who pay taxes.
Why do people willingly believe nonsense? How is it possible for people to convince others to act without facts, evidence or rationality? Commonality is a communications process developed to deceive – patented in 1930s Germany but only now reaching its full potential with the rise of social media. It is time to forego academic taboos and discuss the dangers of commonality.
For those who hate Christmas, I hope that during this season of joy and good cheer, you would just, for once, lighten up!
The Activist Playbook presents a simple tool that anyone can use to win campaigns (even if your issue is stupid). There are 12 simple steps that we can find in most NGO campaigns.
The COP-21 Paris Agreement was mediocre and meaningless – why the celebration? Someone should read the report!
Eco-fundamentalism is a religious dogma that allows stupid to thrive via a naturalogic that puts faith over evidence.
Part 2 in the ten-part series on how to deal with stupid looks at how stupid gets its wings. With the growth of social media, bad ideas, virally spread and well repeated in a form of mass-messaging, do not leave most people with enough time to reflect on whether the arguments are valid, or, well, just plain stupid.
Part 1 of a 10-part series, Stupid needs to be redefined. As social media outpaces governance structures, stupid proliferates, creating bad policy, public fear and a decline in the value of expertise.
Most people think that organic produce is pesticide-free. This is what the organic food lobby wants you to think, but the reality is that they are often more toxic to humans, bees and the environment. Here is the Risk-Monger’s Dirty Dozen of organic-approved pesticides – all of them being more toxic than glyphosate.
As NGOs are funding more activist science, we need to consider whether this research is worthy to be included in policy debates, or if bias is built into the methodology. Dave Goulson is an activist scientist receiving funds from NGOs in exchange for evidence to be integrated into anti-pesticide campaigns. I find this outrageous.
The media ignored IARC’s cancer risks from red meat, but not their report on glyphosate. Why is there no outrage? Perhaps because news today is decided by marketing managers measuring what we want to hear.
The pesticide industry has to choose between moral integrity or defending its products from attacks by the NGO activists and organic food industry lobby and allowing conventional farmers to bring sufficient food to market. They have chosen integrity so products will be taken off of the market.
EFSA needs to account for conflicts of interest of NGO activists involved on their corrupted draft Bee Guidance Document. At least they could give me the courtesy of answering my question.
A Car-Free Day every Sunday is a no-brainer – it would improve urban life, reduce respiratory health, increase health and fitness levels and significantly cut CO2 emissions. So why don’t we do it. Let’s allow the hypocrites to explain why they don’t want it!
This is the second part of yesterday’s blog. After reading a pro-organic campaigner come up with 10 rather weak reasons to feed your family organic, I challenged myself to do the same for why you should not, and within minutes, found myself with almost 20. Here are the second ten – you do not need to accept all, but if you accept more than three, then you should not consider yourself as pro-organic.
After reading a pro-organic campaigner come up with 10 rather weak reasons to feed your family organic, I challenged myself to do the same for why you should not, and within minutes, found myself with almost 20. Here are the first ten – you do not need to accept all, but if you accept more than three, then you should not consider yourself as pro-organic.
EFSA has tried to use an illegitimate bee guidance document to reject the main bee science and push for a further ban on neonicotinoids.
This is the third in a series that looked at how the hazard-based regulatory approach has led to the contrapreneur pushing the precautionary principle to challenge the achievements of entrepreneurs. This irrationality is only possible in a world where expediency is the political virtue – Welcome to Brussels!
An expedient policy process relying on precaution and hazard-based regulations has allowed contrapreneurs to cement their anti-innovation strategy at the heart of Brussels
What is the difference between the risk-based regulatory approach and a hazard-based one? Why is it that hazard-based activists are so successful in pushing such an unrealistic approach?