I’ve had some weird thoughts lately and have been wondering what is our next big crisis.  Of course that line of thought lead me to thinking about all of the past crises that get thrown at us every day.  Lead paint, bird flu, BPA, cell phone cancer, wireless signals scrambling brains, zombie apocalypse, etc.  We are inundated with this kind of crap almost every second of every day.  The worst part about all of these is when they inevitably trot out the scientists.  The parade of scientists proclaiming each and every crisis to be the next great world destroying tragedy is a never ending media circus.  We all know the biggest of these media/scientific circuses, AGW.  What we don’t often think about in the haze and blur of all this media static constantly buzzing through our brains is this simple matter.  There is a reason this is being done.  Who benefits from false science?  The media benefits by getting the newest and biggest story.  The liberal politicians benefit because they get to implement more freedom destroying laws and regulations helping usher in their grand socialist utopia.  The scientists are the ones that many don’t understand.  How do they benefit?  Well, science is all about getting published.  Once you’re published you get the bigger grants, the bigger college seats, the more recognition.  So, next time you hear that the science is in and there is a consensus, immediately become suspicious.  If they say that all the scientists agree, then you know damn well there is an agenda.  Science is not about agreement, it is about investigating over and over again until you finally either prove something definitively or you find the flaws.  And if it gets proven definitively, it will still be reexamined over and over for anything that might have been missed.

What got me thinking along these lines was the BPA scare of the last few years.  It just seemed a little odd that something we have had for years was suddenly and without warning a destructive evil.  From there of course I began to wonder about the lead paint thing.  It seemed odd to me that all the mental illnesses that they are trying to blame on lead paint are more evident now after the bans than they were when lead paint was in everything.  From what I’ve seen it’s mainly a case of more reporting on the mental problems than anything else, so at the worst things have remained the same.  So if that data was flawed and or falsified what else was?  Well, it turns out even though I can’t find any detailed information on the whole lead paint deal, there is a contrary opinion in the scientific community on BPA.

Anti BPA Crusade Discrediting Science And Environmental Health, Says Leading, Independent Expert

Trevor Butterworth, Contributor

Reason, Risk, and Regulation

Professor Richard Sharpe is a leading expert on male reproductive health, directing a research team at the UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. The MRC, which is celebrating its centenary this year, is one of the world’s oldest medical research institutes, publicly funded and wholly independent of government. Among the discoveries by scientists working under its aegis are penicillin and the structure of DNA. Sharpe’s focus on reproductive problems has put him at the forefront of research into phthalates, a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible, and, more generally, endocrinology, endocrine disruption (how trace exposures to environmental chemicals may adversely effect hormonal function), and the impact of lifestyle effects (such as diet) and other health issues (such as obesity).

Given Sharpe’s key work on chemical risk, and the fact that he is not funded by industry, and that he does not dismiss concerns about the risks of environmental chemicals (“I am not a die-hard ‘chemicals are safe’ man by any means,” he wrote in the UK’s Independent newspaper), it came as a shock to many environmentalists when he denounced the crusade to highlight the risks of another chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), as violating the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry.

The broadside came in a 2009 article for Toxicological Sciences. The controversy over BPA lay, he argued, not in the in chemical posing a threat, but in the refusal of a small group of scientists to accept that their basic research, consisting of small studies with questionable methodologies and limited statistical power, could not be replicated by much larger studies using larger sample sizes and more sophisticated and careful methods. This small group (mostly funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and centered around the University of Missouri biologist Frederick vom Saal) had insisted that an industry-funded conspiracy was the reason the larger studies couldn’t be trusted; and yet, as Sharpe pointed out, very careful research by the Environmental Protection Agency and similar, publicly funded, bodies in Europe and Japan couldn’t replicate their findings either. Scientific method obligated them to either design better studies or concede their original findings were wrong. They did neither. As Sharpe wrote:

If an earlier result cannot be reproduced in a huge study conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner, as exemplified by Ryan et al. (2009), then the original result fails one of the golden rules that govern scientific research. When this happens repeatedly, as is the case with bisphenol A, then there can be no logical, scientifically based reason for continuing to espouse that the original results are the only ones that are correct, rather the converse.

Professor Sharpe was a speaker at a symposium on BPA at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston, where this interview took place (with later follow up by email).

So what has changed in the past three years since publication of your paper in Toxicological Sciences?

Sharpe: I think things have not moved on quite the way that I would have liked them to. There’s still the camp who is ignoring a lot of the evidence, and which remains the most vociferous. One of the issues is that in science nothing is ever absolutely black or white; but if you ignore a lot of the evidence – the bits that don’t fit – you can make something black and white. And I think’s that essentially what’s been happening with bisphenol A. There’s a certain group of people who are convinced that it’s responsible for all manner of ills and when evidence is published that does not fit with that, they find ways of dismissing it. If that doesn’t work, they then try to discredit the people who did it, which is not the way to go about things. I think that is just completely unacceptable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/02/26/anti-bpa-crusade-discrediting-science-and-environmental-health-says-leading-independent-expert

Please read the rest of the article.  It is amazing.  So many of the things that happened to people who did not agree with the BPA findings are identical to the things that happen to any scientist who comes out against AGW.

Why is this happening?  Don’t let it fool you, this is about control.  The progressive marxists worldwide are creating crisis after crisis to whittle away at freedom to help promote increased taxation and attack capitalism.  Every thing they come up with helps to create a situation that winds up costing industry massive amounts of money to correct.  This comes with the addition of more regulations that drive costs up even more.    Little by little they nip away at the basis of capitalism and increase government influence into business.  So, every time you hear more of this crap, then be sure to take a second look and follow up with research.  You may find out that things are not what they seem.