By Rob White
Using data – or even a study – to support one’s point or argument, is a long held tradition in academia. And in Davis, we have all witnessed a city council or community meeting where stakeholders with opposing viewpoints will often cite ‘data’ and ‘studies’ to illustrate their point.
But the question is ‘can we really trust a study’? And the answer to that issues is ‘it depends’. Let me explain using the Nishi Gateway discussion to illustrate my point.
Many of the views expressed regarding the Nishi Gateway project, pro or con, invoke the results of studies and/or modeling done by experts. In some cases, the data generated and the resultant studies have undergone considerable rigor in their preparation by professionals and experts, and then are vetted in a third-party, ‘peer-review’ system. In other cases, qualified researchers and experts using off-the-shelf data arrive at professional conclusions, which is the beginning of a study. But these opinions have not gone through the rigor of a third-party, peer-reviewed system. And this fine distinction is what separates a study from an opinion.
To illustrate further, if a researcher at UC Davis were to have identified a potential cure to a specific cancer through isolation of certain genes or conditions that cause that cancer, then that research would need to go through extensive testing and then peer review. And it is not until this rigorous system of checks and balances was applied that the research should be viewed as having some merit. Even then, I am sure you can think of numerous examples of promising research that failed the litmus test of scientific rigor because the results didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
This point was actually the topic of a recent episode of the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Show on HBO. You can watch it on YouTube by googling ‘John Oliver Science” or following this link: https://youtu.be/0Rnq1NpHdmw
His point is that our popular culture has become engrossed in citing scientific studies that claim to have found cures for ailments like obesity and sleeplessness. But these studies are often rushed, have conflicting financial interests due to the competitive nature of research funding, or are published prior to more rigorous review to stake a claim on a policy issue or outcome.
Back to Nishi Gateway – the studies completed by the City for the Environmental Impact Report are very extensive (as required by CEQA and Davis policies), required lots of professionals to complete, and above all else, have gone through an extensive review process by experts at the federal, state and local agencies and the community. Each and every comment has to be painstakingly reviewed and answered with either a mitigation or a statement as to why best available technology or engineering won’t solve the issue.
It’s not a perfect system, but it goes way beyond the opinion-based arguments that often gets insinuated by the opposition to an EIR’s outcome. And to illustrate how much EIRs get buried in red tape by the opposition, Governor Brown is working on legislation to exempt many housing projects from the local jurisdictions policies as a way to ensure more housing is built in California.
With all things science (and therefore studies), no one really ‘knows’ what’s going to happen. The argument that we should ‘believe’ one researcher’s model/study and ignore all of the rest is simply not genuine.
That is where the arguments made by Dr. Cahill regarding air quality concerns at Nishi Gateway start to breakdown. And though I am sure Dr. Cahill is well-respected and well-qualified, you have to ask yourself why his recommendations for further assessment include: 1) donation from the project to the UC Davis Department of Physics for a 2-year study (yes that is his department) and 2) use of his team’s specific air quality modeling software (because, as he states, he doesn’t patent his technology). Both of these points appear to just reinforce that Dr. Cahill is looking for additional research pathways (and funding) and wants to validate his own model. Both of these recommendations have a direct conflict of interest in the world of academic rigor and study.
I invite you to read each of the studies completed for the EIR, as well as the comments made by the third-party reviewers… and then make your own decisions, based on best available data and information.
You can see the original air quality modeling/studies in the Draft EIR, posted here: Draft EIR
The Final EIR has responses to comments from federal, state and local regulatory agencies as well as the community (this include Dr. Cahill’s), which can be found here: Final EIR
And the real question voters are being asked is what they want to do with the information they have been provided. The Nishi Gateway project has been crafted to provide these opportunities:
* Alleviate traffic at Richards Blvd./Olive Drive/I-80.
* Provide R&D space for researchers and startups, many of which are associated with UC Davis.
* Provide housing for students (and others) within close proximity to campus.
* Generate the opportunity to create new jobs.
* Support the sustainable, walkable downtown that Davis wants.
There is no magic bullet… but there is a lot of opportunity to act on these ‘Davis values’ that everyone talks about: walkability, sustainability, student housing near campus (instead of mini-dorms), more access points to UC Davis and downtown, and finally, support for UC Davis programs (and their startups in agriculture, vet science, medicine, engineering, and environmental solutions).
If you take the time to actually read the studies conducted by the City for the EIR, I think you will agree with me that the choice is clear… a ‘Yes for Measure A’ means the community is working together on solutions and taking advantage of opportunities. A no means we are waiting for the prefect solution, immobilized by the chance we might fail… and there are never any perfect solutions. Just really good ones, like the Nishi Gateway.
Rob White: Wow – you have a lot of nerve. I’ll get to some of your more preposterous claims in a moment, but let me repost what I wrote to you in a comment last night, in response to where you told me to look at alternative studies that supposedly come to different conclusions from Dr. Cahill’s.
I wrote:
Ok, I looked through the first link, and I am not seeing radical differences between those findings and Dr. Cahill’s findings. Some relevant points:
Measurements were taken for 10 days. (When? I couldn’t find this info. Winter, summer, weekend, weekday? That matters because of inversion and traffic).
Diesel PM corresponds to an incremental cancer risk level of 235 in one million above the background level of cancer risk from TACs.
BAAQMD specifies a cumulative threshold of an excess cancer risk of 100 in a million for new sensitive receptors who would be sited in proximity to multiple TAC sources – so, the report concludes, this risk is substantial.
Ultra fine particulates – exceed annual CAAQS and NAAQS – also considered to be a substantial risk.
The study doesn’t find the proximity of the UP Railroad to be significant because it’s not a railyard. But it doesn’t consider whether, as Dr. Cahill has said, there is significant braking and accelerating of trains in this location. So, this seems to be an oversight.
The data on possible connections to autism is fairly recent and is also not part of the report.
In spite of these possible factors not being taken into account, the report still concludes that even with mitigation there would be a substantial increase in health risks and that the impact would be significant and unavoidable. In part, this is because there is still some uncertainty in the studied health risks.
The report chose to err on the side of caution. Shouldn’t we? Or should we decide that others bear a burden to benefit the rest of us without having willingly and knowingly chosen to do so?
LOL. He has a lot of nerve to cut through the bias and BS and provide a well-backed opinion? You must have spun this cliche to be a positive representation.
Which part of his opinion is well-backed up? I notice that you didn’t actually respond to what I said.
Maybe Cahill should do an actual study.
Here are the studies that Dr. Cahill relied on in his analysis, many of which he was a co-author on:
References important to Nishi analysis
Roadway downwind transport of pollutants from elevated freeways
Feeney, P.J., T.A. Cahill, R.G. Flocchini, R.A. Eldred, D.J. Shadoan, and T. Dunn. Effect of roadbed configuration on traffic derived aerosols. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. 25:1145‑1147 (1975).
ARB, 2007. Emfac2007. California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/docs/user_guide_emfac2007.pdf
Baldauf, Richard, Greg McPherson, Linda Wheaton, Max Zhabg, Tom Cahill, Chad
Bailey, Christina Hemphill-Fuller, Earl Withycombe, and Kori Titus, Integrating Vegetation
and Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Transportation Planning, Transportation
Research Bulletin, National Academy of Sciences (2013)
Thomas A. Cahill, David E. Barnes, Leann Wuest, Sean Barberie, David Gribble, David Buscho, Jason Snyder, Roger S. Miller, and intern Camille De la Croix, Artificial Ultra-fine Aerosol Tracers for Highway Transect Studies, Atmospheric Environment 136, 21 – 42 (2016)
Highway toxicity (general)
Health Effects Institute, Traffic Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, HEI 17, Boston, MA (2009)
Vette, A., J. Burke, G. Norris, M. Landis, S. Batterman, M. Breen, V. Isakov, T. Lewis, M. I. Gilmour, A. Kamal, D. Hammond, R. Vedantham, S. Bereznicki, N. Tian and C. Croghan (2013) The Near-Road Exposures and Effects of Urban Air Pollutants Study (NEXUS): Study design and methods. Science of the Total Environment 448: 38-47.
Diesel exhaust
ARB, 2007. Emfac2007. California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/docs/user_guide_emfac2007.pdf.
Cahill, Thomas M., and Thomas A. Cahill. Seasonal variability of particle-associated organic compounds near a heavily traveled secondary road. Aerosol Science and Technology, (2013) doi: 10.1080/02786826.2013.857757
Lung Function in children
Peters, John M., Edward Avol, William Navidi, Stephanie J. London, W. James Gauderman, Fred Lurman, William S. Linn, Helene Margolis, Edward Rappaport, Henry Gong, Jr., and Duncan C. Thomas, “A Study of Twelve Southern California Communities with Differing Levels and Types of Air Pollution I. Prevalence of Respiratory Morbidity, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 159, No. 3 (1999), pp. 760-767.(a)
Peters, John M., Edward Avol, William Navidi, Stephanie J. London, W. James Gauderman, Fred Lurman, William S. Linn, Helene Margolis, Edward Rappaport, Henry Gong, Jr., and Duncan C. Thomas “A Study of Twelve Southern California Communities with Differing Levels and Types of Air Pollution; II. Effects on Pulmonary Function, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 159, No. 3 (1999), pp. 768-775. (b)
Gauderman, W. J., McConnell, R., Gilliland, F., London, S., Thomas, D., Avol, E., Vora, H., Berhane, K., Rappaport, E. B., Lurmann, F., Margolis, H. G. and Peters, J. (2000). Association between air pollution and lung function growth in southern California children. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 162:1383-1390.
Utra fine metals from brakes, etc.
Bukowiecki , N, , P. Lienemann, M. Hilla, M. Furger, A. Richard, F. Amatoc, A.S.H. Prévôt, U. Baltenspergerb, B. Buchmanna, R. Gehrig, PM10 emission factors for non-exhaust particles generated by road traffic in an urban street canyon and along a freeway in Switzerland, Atmospheric Environment 44, 2330-2340 (2010)
Thomas A. Cahill, David E. Barnes, Nicholas J. Spada, Jonathan A. Lawton, and Thomas M. Cahill, Very Fine and Ultra-fine Metals and Ischemic Heart Disease in the California Central Valley 1: 2003 – 2007, Aerosol Science and Technology 45, 1125-1134 (2011a)
Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D. E. and Spada, N. J. (2014). Seasonal variability of ultra-fine metals downwind of a heavily traveled secondary road. Atmos. Environment, 94, 173-179. (2014)
Chen, L. C., and Lippmann, M. (2009). Effects of Metals within Ambient Air Particulate Matter (PM) on Human Health. Inhal. Toxicol.: Int Forum Resp. Res., 21:1-31.
Denier Van der Gon, H., Gerlofs Nijland, M, Gehrig R, Gustafsson M, Janssen N, Harrison R,
Hulskotte J, Johansson C, Jozwicka M, Keuken M, Krijgsheld K, Ntziachristos L, Riediker M,
Cassee F (2013) The policy relevance of wear emissions from road transport, now and in the
future—an international workshop report and consensus statement. J Air Waste Management Assoc. 63:136–149 (2013)
Autism and Freeways
Volk, H. E., Hertz-Picciotto, I., Delwiche, L., Lurmann, F., and McConnell, R., Residential Proximity to Freeways and the CHARGE Study, Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, # 6 , pg 872 – 877 (2011)
Volk, H.E, Lurmann, F., Penfold, B. Hettz-Piciotto, I., McConnell, R., Traffic-related Air Pollution, Particulate matter, and Autism, JAMA Psychiatry 70 (1), 71 – 77.
Gong, T., Almquist, C., Bolte, S., Lichtenstein, P., Ankarsatar, H, Lind, T., et al, Exposure to air pollutants from traffic and neurodevelopmental disorders in Swedish twins., Twin Res Hum Genet 17 (6), 553 – 562 (2014)
Block, M.L., Eldar, A., Auten, R.L., Bilbo, S. D., Cehm, H., Chen, J.C., et al, The outdoor air and brain health workshop, Neurotoxicology 33 972 – 984 (2012)
Impact of railroad diesel exhaust
Thomas A. Cahill, Thomas M. Cahill, David E. Barnes, Nicholas J. Spada and Roger Miller. Inorganic and organic aerosols downwind of California’s Roseville Railyard. Aerosol Science and Technology 45:1049-1059 (2011) doi:10.1080/02786826.2011.580796
Mitigation by Vegetation
Baldauf, Richard, Greg McPherson, Linda Wheaton, Max Zhabg, Tom Cahill, Chad Bailey, Christina Hemphill-Fuller, Earl Withycombe, and Kori Titus, Integrating Vegetation and Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Transportation Planning Transportation Research Bulletin, National Academy of Sciences (2013)
Thomas A. Cahill, David E. Barnes, Leann Wuest, Sean Barberie, David Gribble, David Buscho, Jason Snyder, Roger S. Miller, and intern Camille De la Croix, Artificial Ultra-fine Aerosol Tracers for Highway Transect Studies, Atmospheric Environment 136, 21 – 42 (2016)
We can’t do better?? Then why do I see projects better designed like these? http://www.usgbc.org/projects/arbor-green
Funny things about studies, people cite ones that agree with their views and try and discredit ones that don’t.
As far as expertise, and/or documentation, Millstein has made a point… how much it applies to Nishi, not so much… having known Cahill as a “prof”, I tend to respect him, and his expertise… as it applies to Nishi, am skeptical of the Cahill analysis, but not my field of expertise… I know enough, academically and otherwise, to justify those views…
I didn’t base my vote on either the cites or what I suspect are the pretty much ignorant/Trumpian/reactionary responses to the cites, which, as I have said, have not convinced me that they apply to Nishi.
Too many out-Liars…[both sides of the issue]
Rob: Ok, onto your more preposterous claims. You have the nerve to accuse Dr. Cahill of having a financial interest? Those are the tactics of someone who is desperate, and it’s pretty clear that what you are suggesting is quite a stretch. I think you owe Dr. Cahill an apology. The work he has done for the City has been done for free, as far as I know. If he did all of that free work just to get money for his lab (and what evidence is there of that??), that’s quite a long game.
Let me just remind everyone that if there is anyone who has a clear financial interest, it is Rob White:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/breaking-news-nishi-gateway-sierra-energy-collaborate-innovation-center/
I would not have gone there, but if we are going to explore this issue of whose word might be clouded by financial interests and whose is independent, then let’s get it all out on the table.
Yes, the studies are not conclusive. Who said that they were? Not Dr. Cahill. Not me. No study is every fully conclusive; all are open to being overturned with new data. I am urging us to err on the side of caution, given that the available science (even “your” science) potentially will potentially impact people’s health in a very serious and negative way, and given that people will not be given informed consent. Dr. Cahill called for more study of the site from the very outset. By your criteria of what makes for good science, he should be lauded for that, not pilloried.
If we err on the side of caution, nothing should be built, right?
No residential housing should be built on this site given the threat of serious health effects, threats that are not present in most other areas.
The risk assessment I have seen is not overwhelming. I’ve asked previous for someone to either confirm or debunk Robb Davis’ risk numbers – if we’re really dealing with risk in the 1 in 3500 range and the occurrence of respiratory cancer is really 1 in 10, why are we worried about such a low incremental risk increase?
To Roberta Millstein: But if you are so risk averse, how can you stomach anyone working at that site at any time of day or night? It is not safe according to you. Or is it that you are willing to risk workers health?
It’s amazing that everyone is so sure that this is harmful and yet no one can answer my question.
“Threat” is not a precise term. There are hazards, and there are risks. Living near the freeway is a hazard. The question is, how much of a risk is it?
https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/hazards-and-risks/what-difference-between-hazard-and-risk
nameless: I’m not taking a stand one way or another about whether people should work at that site. An argument can be made that workers are there fewer hours, and not on weekends, but others will counter that some people are at their places of work for longer hours than their places of residence.
Roberta: Do you believe the risk is 1 in 3500?
Pugilist, I don’t know how that was calculated. I’d need to see the numbers and the reasoning.
Roberta Millstein said . . . “An argument can be made that workers are there fewer hours, and not on weekends, but others will counter that some people are at their places of work for longer hours than their places of residence.”
Roberta, as I have tabled at the Farmers Market I have also quite often heard the following:?
An argument can be made that the student residents are there fewer hours. They will be on the campus most weekdays because that is their place of “work” and the place where they will “play” with their peers. An argument can also be made that when the student residents are on the Nishi site they will be almost exclusively indoors.
Thoughts?
Matt, first of all, let’s stop assuming that the residents will be students. The residents could be students, they could be families, they could be young, they could be old. That’s the main issue.
As for your hypotheses about where students spend their time, it certainly doesn’t fit my college experience. I don’t know all the details about today’s UCD students in particular, but I do know that they try to get MWF or – preferably – TR schedules, so that they don’t have to be on campus every day. And it is also worth noting that the traffic on I-80 can be at its worst on the weekends in any case.
If we err on the side of caution, perhaps we should do NOTHING except drink purified water, stay in our domiciles, eat only “healthy” food, visit our physicians at least once a month [how we get there without being in a MV, don’t know], etc.
Roberta
There is no need to apologize to Dr. Cahill because my point wasn’t to call his abilities in to question (in fact, I referenced his as well-respected and well-qualified). If I was disparaging to his credentials or claimed he doesn’t have the experience to opine, I can see why you would arrive at that conclusion.
I am sure Dr. Cahill would agree that scientific rigor is the cornerstone to his profession and calling the methods into question are a far cry from calling the individual into question. But I can see by your reaction that you take this very personally, so let me explain.
What I do call in to question is that his work on this topic (Nishi Gateway) has not been peer-reviewed and doesn’t meet the litmus test of a true scientific (or even professional) study. And so we shouldn’t treat it as such. At this point he has voiced an opinion based on his review of the factors at hand. I don’t think he is disingenuous in his statements, and he does work to back up his points with at least some off-the-shelf data.
But his work is not a true study… it is an academic exercise. Using your logic as validation, I am someone with several decades of experience and academic and professional achievement and recognition in the area economic development, so my opinion should count for much more than the typical citizen in Davis. People should listen to me when I speak about such things. But if you have followed the Vanguard for any length of time, you would note that this community is far more skeptical of ‘experts’ no matter what their skills or standing.
As far as accusing him of anything, let me quote specifically from recommendations (Pages 105-6 in the FEIR):
“I would like to propose a set of actions that would make the Nishi development a paragon of what can be achieved for infill projects in difficult conditions, and a model for future developments.
1. Establish the nature of the threats
I propose a 2 year grant to the Department of Physics [of which he is a faculty member] for an upwind-downwind study of the aerosols at the Nishi property, winter (now) and summer. These ultra-fine capability techniques are unique to the UC Davis DELTA Group and are presently being used in ongoing US EPA highway studies in Detroit and Cleveland and for the California Department of Justice in California projects. While I would act to oversee these efforts, I would take no salary.
(skip to number 5)
5. I would commit to publish the results in the peer reviewed literature the success, partial success, or failure of these efforts.”
I would point out that Dr. Cahill volunteers to take no salary (great!) but does ask for funding for his research group to conduct a 2 year study and then ‘commits’ to publish the results… which is the bread and butter of academia, garnering possible future studies from clients he lists and speaking engagements at conferences and workshops.
So, I do not fault Dr. Cahill for wanting to forward his research (in fact it is laudable for academics to bring attention to their institutions), but we can’t really call it impartial.
As for my own impartiality, I never claimed to be impartial… I am not offering up a study, or to do a study, based on my personal work. I am simply suggesting anyone that wants to form an opinion on any aspect of this project, actually reading the documents before believing what you hear on the street (or right here on the pages of the Vanguard) might be useful.
It’s all there, in black and white print, including the approved mitigations. And the project is supported by all of the City Council members (who review and certify the EIR), the Council candidates, the Davis Chamber of Commerce, the Davis Downtown Business Association, and many, many community and civic leaders.
And to be really clear, I work for Mike Hart and he owns Sierra Energy. My involvement in this project (or any project) is at his direction. I don’t own the company, I am an employee.
In summary, I in no way question Dr. Cahill’s ability or expertise. I simply point out that he is but one expert, with an opinion, and should be taken as such. His work in this area does not rise to the level of a study and shouldn’t be quoted as such… and that means the logical conclusion is that the no crowd should not keep using his work as ‘proof’ that this project has an air quality issue that cannot be addressed using industry standard engineering controls, site specific building alignment, and traditional mitigations. Just like they have used in building the Mondavi Performing Arts Center, Shrem Museum, GSM Graduate School, Mondavi Wine Institute, and will with the future redesign of Solano Park student housing… all of which share the same “bowl” as the Nishi Gateway project.
Good for clarifying on Cahill… let’s face it Rob, pretty much your entire career has been to be an advocate for your employer… not a neutral third-party analyst… nothing wrong in that… but should be disclosed… a “transparency” thing… Dr Cahill was/is an advocate for his knowledge/education/experience/professional opinion… nothing wrong in that, either…
BTW, I disagree with the magnitude of some of Dr Cahill’s opinions/conclusions… nothing wrong in that…
I think we all understand that Rob White speaks for Sierra Energy and is aligned with the yes side of the equation. But that doesn’t make him wrong. My issue is trying to understand what the real risks are here.
Pugilist… information, knowing the source, and evaluating, is all good…
Rob, what I found offensive was that you implied that Dr. Cahill’s opinion was based on his financial interest. As an academic, I think you are greatly overstating the benefits that would come to Dr. Cahill personally, especially given all of the unpaid work he has done already and would do in the future. But most of all, I am appalled that you would stoop that low to try to cast doubt on him personally. It reflects very poorly on you and on your cause. Yes, by all means, let’s talk about methods. Let’s talk about getting more data. We don’t have enough data? Agreed. Dr. Cahill agrees. Let’s get more data. But that’s not what you’re arguing for. You’re arguing that we should subject residents to possibly harmful health effects for possible economic benefits. That is not how we should proceed in case of uncertainty when possible harms are “significant and unavoidable.” That’s the precautionary principle.
Oh, and Dr. Cahill does cite peer reviewed research to support his conclusions.
I agree with Roberta’s comments; and I too am a staunch proponent of the precautionary principle. Furthermore, the statement “Dr. Cahill is looking for additional research pathways (and funding) and wants to validate his own model.” is also misleading. Additional scientific research involving validation testing is not designed to validate a model; but to subject the model to certain tests against data. If the model holds up under certain specific rigorous tests, then and only then is it considered to be validated. So Dr. Cahill may be seeking money in order to perform validation testing of his model; whether or not the model will be validated depends on the data.
That said, I do like the proposal for more site-specific research for Nishi.
Rob hits on something that is getting more and more attention these days. The inherent bias in science that is either connected to money or politics (and generally both).
Here is a recent article in the WSJ that covers this for the discipline of economic science.
It isn’t just economic science. This permeates all science.
I just love the retort to my claim that science so hopelessly biased and politicized… that I don’t know enough about the peer review process for scientific studies and papers. Note that…
The knee-slapper here is that the “peers” in the scientific community are largely the same duck… and they all quack and waddle to the left.
It is not too hard to understand why science has drifted ideologically left and has become so biased in deriving theories and conclusions that support and political-left worldview.
In the late 1800s American industrialism was exploding. The automobile was quickly becoming the mode of transportation to replace the horse and buggy (much to my friend Tia Will’s dismay). However, the “roads” between cities were generally no more than dirt paths. It was Indiana entrepreneur Carl G. Fisher that started the push for the Lincoln Highway to built (what is basically I-80 today). The government did not have the money to take this on, so Fisher worked to enlist the likes of Henry Ford and James & William Packard to privately fund the construction of the road. To garner public support for the project, Fisher and dozens of other supporters caravaned from New York to San Francisco in their Automobiles just to prove it could be done. It took them 35 days.
The illustration here is that, beginning with the industrial explosion beginning in the late 19th century, the US was tilted private industry… where science and engineering was connected to the money and ideology of the business-class. And the business-class has always been more ideologically and politically right-leaning. But today most of the scientists and many of our engineers work for government. They have a government-class bias and a government-class bias is more ideologically and political left-leaning.
Applying this to Nishi we would expect there to be a more plentiful supply of studies that support a left-leaning world view of environmental activism, forced scarcity and government central control… and a dearth of studies covering the economic benefits in support of dynamic enterprise and business use of the land to improve the human condition.
But in the end we can only agree that no matter which study we reference, it will only be the one that validates our worldview and politics, and the writer of the opinions in the study very likely holds similar worldviews and political bias.
Frankly: It isn’t just economic science. This permeates all science.
Right. I see what you did there. Call economics a science on par with any other science, then extend the criticism of economics to every other science.
The weakness of economics is that it is a social science that involves human emotions and interactions, which can’t be nailed down with the same degree of certainty as many quantitative measures can in the physical sciences.
I don’t think Frankly really understands science or the scientific method.
Pugilist
“I don’t think Frankly really understands science or the scientific method.”
I think that you are probably correct. But he is not alone in this. Nor is he alone in misunderstandings based on a lack of understanding of others fields. Frankly is correct when he informs me that I do not understand business. The difficulty arises when we fail to communicate not only because we do not share values, but when we also do not share a common language or set of experiences.
As Marina rightly pointed out, it is very difficult for an individual who has never studied physics or chemistry or biology to see past the physical world as we interpret it in our daily lives. We have another set of misunderstandings when we speak of expertise and how much confidence to place in “expert opinion”. As a doctor, I see it as the weakest form of evidence. To a judge or jury, it may be the highest form of evidence. When we criticize each others views, I think it is important to understand that not only is our opponent in the conversation hobbled by his own jargon, and frame of reference…..but so are we.
We have seen another cause of misunderstanding in comments here on the Vanguard. How much weight or urgency we place on an issue will also depend on our own particular framework for judging severity. Recently David and I got into a verbal tiff over the use of what I see as hyperbolic expressions such as “crisis” or “desperate need”. He was using them to describe what I consider serious problems that need to be addressed. I reserve the use of those words for life and death situations which at times in my career I have faced on a daily basis.
I recommend that we cut each other a lot of slack ( hpierce is good at asking for clarification as an example) when we think that someone else “just doesn’t understand”. Perhaps the best thing that we could do is to look for differences in perspective so as to clarify our own position.
The first three words are all you needed to post.
Only if you want to summarily dismiss the differences between the field of economics and the field of biological sciences.
I repeat… Isn’t economic science and social science peer reviewed?
Things are more readily provable or falsifiable in the other kinds of sciences.
Yes, the publications are peer-reviewed. But peers can only review to precision of the state of the science. I’ll give you an example, there is a variable called r-squared which is the extent to which the variance is explained by the model. In “hard” sciences an r-square of less than 80 is frowned on. Whereas in social sciences, if they can explain one-quarter of the variance (25), it is considered a very strong finding.
Come on Don. That is BS.
If there is clear evidence that peer review does not eliminate bias in one (significant) arm of science, then clearly peer review cannot be considered unbiased for any science.
You and others claim that I don’t understand the peer review process and that this is the primary reason that scientific studies are the “can’t touch this” platinum standard that we should all just bend over and accept as being unbiased.
The evidence is in and peer review does not eliminate political bias.
Isn’t it ironic that social science is pushing this notion of implicit racial bias… but then demanding that the scientists and the science is void of bias?
The bottom line. We have evidence that peer review does not rid science of political bias. That is, in fact, SCIENCE that you can bank on.
Ok, so your point is, I guess, that biological science is one of more exact data and measure and for this reason there is less subjectivity and variance that leads to opinion over fact-based determination. Assuming I am correct in your point…. are you really going to take that stand? There is tremendous variance and subjectivity within biological science. As I point out, it starts with a decision for what is actually studied. But beyond the discipline is rife with theory and conjuncture accepted because nobody has yet taken up the task to disprove. It is sort of a silly position you would be taking if you think about it… that biological science is so accurately measured and the data collected so exact… because they you have to start asking the question why do we even need biological scientists?… we should just have data analysts.
But the bottom line here is the peer review process. If it does not filter out political bias (significant) in economic and social science, then it does not filter out political bias in any science.
And that my friend is common sense fact, not science.
Frankly: It is sort of a silly position you would be taking if you think about it… that biological science is so accurately measured and the data collected so exact… because they you have to start asking the question why do we even need biological scientists?… we should just have data analysts.
Because if you don’t understand biological processes, then you won’t understand what you’re measuring and why. Being “just a data analyst” won’t cut it.
Ok, so then the data has to be “understood” in the context of what you know. And what you know is influenced by your ideological and political views. And the same is true for your peers that review your studies.
So the bias carries through in the peer review because the peers are biased the same way.
Case closed.
Curious how my knowledge of, say, photosynthesis is influenced by my ideological and political views.
Case not closed, except in your mind. You have some very odd perceptions about scientists, mostly, I think, derived from your own ideological positions on things like climate change.
The debate about “hard” vs. “soft” sciences is nothing new. Wikipedia gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
The rest of the entry reflects your critique.
But the reality is that most “hard” science doesn’t involve ideology.
>> I don’t think Frankly really understands science or the scientific method.
Don’t soften it with “really.”
It is more basic than that.
Frankly: So the bias carries through in the peer review because the peers are biased the same way.
Case closed.
Not really. I think you’re trying to make the case that subjectivity in establishing reality is broader than it really is. That’s not the issue. Science is objective. Objective means that there is broad agreement (like 99.99%) among individuals. Subjective means there is not broad agreement among individuals.
The observation that the “Sun provides heat” is objective. Republicans and Democrats would agree on it. Peer review is a way to establish objectivity among experts familiar with the field of research.
“My wife is the most wonderful woman in the world,” is a subjective observation. It’s true for me, but not for others. When statements are made about humans and relationships, there is a strong likelihood that there is a subjective element involved.
And Don (5:37) also raises a good example about photosynthesis.
Come on now. You can do better than that. Pick some topic that wasn’t settled in the 18th century.
It isn’t just global warming. Put endangered spicies on the list. Basically you need to pick topics that actually cross ideological interests. There isn’t any ideological or political conflict with photosynthesis.
Again though, the point is that peer review is proven to not filter out bias.
For the vast majority of scientists in the ‘hard’ sciences, their ideology makes no difference to what they do in their research. You’re the one that’s focused somewhat obsessively on ideology. I think your beef is with regulatory agencies, not the wildlife biologists who study the species.
Frankly: Come on now. You can do better than that. Pick some topic that wasn’t settled in the 18th century.
Must be more recent?
Plate tectonics
How was that influenced by ideology and political views
most I would venture to say don’t have a clue what hard science is actually proving …..if you have not kept up with Stephen Hawkings or have not seen on an electron microssope that what one calls is solid is not really solid…and so forth…. and this is now turning into something on the order of “mine is bigger than yours”….really? back to real work…
The same is true for all social science. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/
Seems you want to cherry pick different types of science to claim it is perfectly unbiased because of that scientific rigor of peer review.
Isn’t economic science and social science peer reviewed?
Frankly
“Applying this to Nishi we would expect there to be a more plentiful supply of studies that support a left-leaning world view of environmental activism, forced scarcity and government central control”
I think that this comment demonstrates your lack of understanding of the variety of “leftist” or “liberal” thought. I do not favor scarcity of anything that people need to live happy, healthy, prosperous lives. I do favor scarcity of things that diminish the likelihood of living a happy , healthy, prosperous life. So I favor scarcity of smog, of auto collisions, of gridlock, of abortions, of soda and junk foods, of tobacco, of misuse of opiates, of guns amongst those who store or use or sell them irresponsibly. I favor scarcity of domestic and child abuse and sexual predation.
I favor abundance of open space, of effective public transportation, of healthy foods, of well maintained infrastructure, of educational opportunities and opportunities to contribute to our society. And as I have explained to you in the past, but which apparently fell on unseeing eyes, is that I do not favor “big” government. Rather, I favor that individual citizens choose collaborative rather than competitive means of self and community advancement. If we all followed collaborative principles for dealing with each other in a moral fashion with compassion for all, we would have no need for a large government. Unfortunately, we do not all do so, and it is this failing that is the need for regulation and governmental control.
I think you are not understanding the difference here. It is about choice.
If you are an abundance-oriented thinker, you would want there to be great dynamism and choice for people to make their own moral decisions within some framework of laws and regulations.
If you have a scarcity mindset, you would tend to not trust people to make the correct moral decisions and hence would prefer we limit their choices and direct them toward a righteous path.
Of course there is a balance that all of us attempt to strike. It is rarely a binary conflict.
But you more often opine for controls on choice. You want to make the inventory of choices less abundant so that humanity is forced to comply with a path that you more desire.
For example, instead of educating everyone about the copious access to fluoridated products and how to use them so they would make good choices about their dental health, would supported a scarcity of choice in putting fluoride in the drinking water.
You advocate for making individual choice more scarce from a position that you know what is better for humanity.
I advocate for making more abundant choice and more abundant opportunity from a position that I know what is better for humanity.
Frankly
“But you more often opine for controls on choice”
Wrong gain. Just different choices. For example, I would like women to have more choices and freedoms regarding their own health care.
As for fluoride, I feel that it was the pro-side that was providing the greater freedom of choice and you providing the restriction. We do not currently have the option of not paying for prescription fluoride. Those who need it must purchase it for the sole reason that it is not available in our water supply as it is in many other locations since you and your like minded citizens blocked it. You fail to see that this was government control at a 4:1 vote because the vote was in your favor.
“I advocate for making more abundant choice and more abundant opportunity from a position that I know what is better for humanity.”
I know that you think that you do. But this is an argument from your personal bias, not from knowledge.
Well then, you should support more privatization of healthcare service and support health savings accounts (HSAs) so patients can have more choice. Good to hear. Can I put you down for these things?
By the way, the health care system in general is so lacking in choice that it is largely an administrative prehistoric mess. It can stand all sorts of disruptive process improvement to increase efficiency and reduce the number of mistakes… especially those that unnecessarily kill so many patients.
And I guess you no longer support single-payer government-run healthcare if you are so supportive of abundance of choice.
Nice disingenuous spin. You know the point here. The MAIN REASON that you advocated for fluoride in the water is that you did not trust that enough people would make the right choices taking care of their own teeth. You were were fine taking choice away from everyone else (e.g., making their choices more scarce) to save those few victims… that by the way, when I went looking for them to help… were basically non-existent.
>> The inherent bias in science that is either connected to money or politics (and generally both).
As you well know, there is no bias in science.
Are we next going to talk about “true facts?”
As a bit of a sidebar…
Last night a speaker “decried” the lack of a signal @ Second/Cantrill and linked it to a tragic “accident” awhile ago…
It was no “accident”… it was a tragic “crash”… by all accounts (thus far), it resulted from criminal acts by an individual… I understand charges are pending…
A stop sign and a 10 – inch white stripe would, at a 90% certainty level, would have made no difference… except, perhaps, the victim being more surprised…
Even a traffic signal cannot “stop” criminal (and disregard for laws and safety) behavior… get a clue, folk… given the other charges, ‘running a stop sign’ or ‘running a red light’ pale in comparison…
Yet, at least one speaker last night blamed the design of the intersection, ‘negligence’ by the city to “recognize” the “deficiency” because it was an “accident” that the City ‘had culpability’ for… nice… opens the City to civil suits, and helps ‘exonerate’ the perp… after all, it was the city’s design flaws, not his actions… his defense attorney must be licking his/her chops to get a complete acquittal… others will be licking theirs to get financial damages, including the perp, from the “deep pockets” of the City.
“Crashes” are rare… “accidents”, much more so… for those of you who remember Ellie, she died due to a criminally negligent act by her ‘killer’, not by poor design of the intersection, nor the speculative development of Covell Village.
What a bunch of “opinion” disguised as “fact” Rob….
and as you claim to be an expert on the side of “academia”…..
and likely you have a true alphabet soup of initials behind YOUR name.
In the real world, those with the bucks and the vested interests are the ones who prevail.
Those NAS professors whose research starts disproving the commonly held “peer-approved and peer-funded and peer-accepted” research… if in the USA they get ostracized and the funding dries up..
No different than the many who lost THEIR lives trying to prove the world was round while everyone knew that it was flat….
History repeats, and this is another good example…
I am sure that many who are hanging around on these forums 24/7 will understand…
It is those people who I am addressing… the ones who actually think and see and observe.
Based on some of the posts, I think some may have missed the point of my article (versus just disagreeing with me, which is always fine).
I do not have any issue with Dr. Cahill. As I stated in the article above (and in several other posts throughout), I am sure he is a well-respected, well-educated researcher. I don’t personally know him, but I can see from the amount of work shown online and in articles that he has studied many things.
My point was that not all research rises to the level of fact. Opinion is just that. Sometimes it is based on data, but unless it is peer-reviewed, it doesn’t rise to the level where it should be cited as anything more than opinion. I am sure that Dr. Cahill would concede this point, as he makes it in his own recommendations (see bullet number 5, page 106 in the Final EIR).
I tried to illustrate this point by citing the excerpt from the John Oliver show (see YouTube link above) which makes this same point.
By continuing to cite Dr. Cahill’s work as factual (versus opinion) is misleading. Yes Roberta, you have done that in several posts. As have others that oppose the project. I suggest simply that people read the studies (Draft and Final EIRs) to gain more insight into how decision makers and community leaders arrived at their conclusions. These studies were completed by professionals on behalf of the City, then reviewed by impartial federal, state and local agencies and community members, and comments addressed with additional work and then presented back to the public for concurrence.
This is the long process of constant public and peer review that is required by CEQA.
Rob: Where have I presented Dr. Cahill’s findings as proven fact? I would never do that. Philosophy of science is my area of expertise. Day 1 of class is to debunk this vision of science. If you read something I said that way, you misread it.
As for reading the EIR, in the first comment on this page I presenting findings from the EIR and pointed out that they do not overturn anything that Dr. Cahill has said, and in fact, agree with what he has said to a large extent. I see that you have not responded to that comment. Instead, you just keep saying “read the EIR.”
PS> many may have heard of Seralini and the flap with Elsevier….and that the study was pulled under very suspicious circumstances (not really, if anyone truly understands Monsanto and the US) and that was all over the media….
Seralini sued and it was republished in a different journal…
Most of the US populace never heard of any of this…most don’t know that it was republished
Most don’t even know the definition of GMO…and ……yet most have also no clue about much else either
The reason I go off topic is to truly highlight what goes on all the time…..
Some may see some of this and may end up with a spark of “questioning”
Seralini’s work is lauded in most countries outside the US>>>.and that is WHY GMOS are not allowed or retricted in many more educated countries, and also third world countries world-wide…
Monsanto has funded ALL other research on the earliest and most invasive and most prevalent GMOS> The studies are all CAPPed at three months… and there is so much more I could go on for decades…
and so much of all of this is used to manipulate the US populace further and so forth….
If you have a ton of time to kill, start researching Seralini, Elsevier, Monsanto execs and the revolving door with the FDA, Supreme Court, etc….google Thomas, Taylor and so forth….see why GMOs are Banned by Putin… and the restrictions on the research that Monsanto puts in…and so many other things.
watch the documentary called BITTER seeds from India…
That is how to get to the bottom of any issue…..and one can then start doing that on the local issues….the local candidates.
the who has which horse in which race….
Follow the people – follow the money…and
Peace OUT…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
[moderator] This is way off topic. Please stick to the topic of the thread. Thanks.
really, I was giving a true life and current example of a study and studies and can they be trusted and so forth….and whether peer-reviewed means didly-squat…
Rob asks:
> But the question is ‘can we really trust a study’?
With VERY rare exceptions we can “trust a study” to prove the point the people that paid for it want to prove.
A study by people that want to stop Nishi will show that the site is a “triangle of death” where people living there (but for some reason not working there) will die and their kids will have autism.
A study by the Nishi developers will show that it is a wonderful place to live (and work) and the only place where you are less likely to die and have a kid with autism is on a dairy farm in rural Wisconsin.
The oil companies come out with a “study” every few years showing that greenhouse gasses are no big deal and the people that profit from selling carbon credits have “studies” that show without a reduction in greenhouse gasses we are doomed.
Can anyone name even a single study paid for a group that didn’t get the results they want (aka paid for)?
South of Davis
Great point! But as I indicated, the more the study is open to peer-review (and public comment), the less likely it can say what the funder wants it to say.
As an example, a study paid for by the tobacco companies and reviewed by other tobacco companies isn’t worth the paper written on. Whereas a study paid for by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), conducted by UC Davis, peer-reviewed and published by the Journal of Neuroscience, and then presented and debated at several conferences probably has a different level of validity.
Right?
Not necessarily.
But we need to go upstream a bit and note that the selection of the topics to study is the first sign of bias. For example, if those that finance your work are paid a disservice with findings over a certain topic, you would more likely ignore that topic and instead study something that is more likely to result in findings that please your source of financing.
Rob
Right ! And you beat me to the example of the tobacco companies. I would elaborate a bit more on this point. The tobacco companies had paid for a number of studies that showed the dangers of cigarette smoking. So the information existed, they just quickly buried it.
And you are also correct that if a study is funded by the NIH or Kaiser ( since we are not involved in drug or medical equipment or supply manufacture) but do have an interest in providing cost effective care centered on primary and secondary prevention and risk reduction, and since we are not fee for service, these studies are likely to not represent any financial bias. This is not to say that individual researchers are not biased in how they look at a problem as mentioned by Frankly, but that is what self critique of our own studies, peer review, and duplication of results is all about. That is also why comparison of studies is so important since different researchers will bring different interests and perspectives to the continually evolving body of knowledge.
Tia
Thanks for the reaffirmation… and by the way (as a quick aside), I do still like the idea of different sectors/kinds of startup incubators, as you suggested a few days ago (again). There are some great examples of where the arts have been incorporated into traditional STEM incubators/programs… I hope we get a chance to support and encourage entrepreneurs of all kinds and varieties at Nishi, in downtown, and throughput the community.
South of Davis, Not a “triangle of death” – it is a “toxic soup”You have to learn the correct campaign slogans of the No on Nishi crowd.
Roberta Millstein
May 18, 2016 at 11:26 am
nameless: I’m not taking a stand one way or another about whether people should work at that site. An argument can be made that workers are there fewer hours, and not on weekends, but others will counter that some people are at their places of work for longer hours than their places of residence.
If workers are there for longer hours than they are home, why would you advocate Nishi being built at all since these workers would be subjected to long hours of an unacceptable (according to you) level of air pollution? Your positions are all over the place and inconsistent…
nameless, I’m not advocating for Nishi to be built at all. I’ve advocated for voting no on Measure A. I’m not taking any positions on hypothetical projects (e.g., ones without housing) that are not currently in front of us.
It’s like someone told Robe White if you’re going to shovel bull, pile it high so no one can shovel out.
I will let Reberta continue debunking Rob’s outrageous attack on Dr. Cahill and just deal with Rob’s other outrageous assertions
* This project will increase traffic on olive drive and Richards, but the Richards tunnel will not be expanded, and there is not enough money in the project to pay for the tunnel under the railroad, the new roads in the development and the $11 million Richards Blvd construction project. This leaves the city with part of the initial construction bill and future infrastructure upkeep.
* More R&D and business space would be welcome, but beyond the one committed company, there is no guarantee that any of this space will be for researchers and startups or companies associated with UC Davis. Further, new employment in this location, will only add cars to the worst traffic in Davis.
* This project will house commuters. With its high prices, and close proximity to the freeways and train station, this is a perfect commuter development. Not to mention the university just announced today they are going to build extensive new student Jobs are good. We all like jobs. Jobs also create commuters in the area with the worst traffic in Davis
* Building in the area with the most questionable air in Davis dose not promote a healthy outdoor lifestyle.
Hi Rob
“There are some great examples of where the arts have been incorporated into traditional STEM incubators/programs”
Can you post some examples? I seem to have difficulty with Google ……ok, now that was a troll like comment….. but at least I’ll own it ; )
Frankly
“The first three words are all you needed to post.”
Careful ! Cliff ahead !
“And that my friend is common sense fact, not science.”
You have just demonstrated why some of us believe that your understanding of science does not match ours.There is no such thing as “common sense fact”. What is “common sense” at any particular point in time is frequently found to be profoundly in error subsequently.
good thing I was in meetings or I woulda NEVER got anything done today.. LOL
PS> I prescribe to the Art of Healing rather than the Science of Medicine….
follow the money, follow the special interests, grow your own food, get your own water and your own water filters…if the AMA says do THIS do the opposite instead…soon enough they will come to the conclusion that XXXXXXXX______________fill in the blanks
and, in the meantime….do your own research….PubMED is your friend…. and those outside the USA are way better friends…
PSS. Hitler flouridated the Jews….and now the USA is fluoridating anyone stupid enough to allow that toxic hazardous waste into their water supplies… It would cost billions to otherwise properly dispose of it….says someone trained in and, as a manager, oversees the “proper disposal of hazardous waste” for this department…
PS>>> I am liking the stories but of course…. why wouldn’t I….says someone who used to love to read, and now has no time…..books like War and Peace and the IDIOT in the original Russian….LOL
HMMM>>>>.this is all WAY better…get out the popcorn
Frankly
“So the bias carries through in the peer review because the peers are biased the same way.
Case closed.”
Frankly, this is one of the strangest things that I have ever seen your write. If a patient’s oxygen carrying capacity drops below a certain level, the patient will die if not transfused. If a patient goes into anaphylactic shock from exposure to penicillin or latex, it does not matter what my political biases are, the patient will be just as dead if not resuscitated. These are now established science ( or fact if you like), but they were not always known and someone’s scientific work, criticized by their own team, by others, tested and retested to ensure validity are how they became known. I wonder how many of these scientifically confirmed facts that you treat with such disdain have saved the lives of you and those you love.
But, I have to say, maybe you are right and no “liberals” should work in the sciences. And certainly none of their experimental proposals should be funded….right ?
Tia – I would have the same problem if science was dominated by right-leaning thinkers to the same extent it is currently dominated by left-leaning thinkers.
Two points.
One – the findings need to be discounted assuming this bias.
Two – we need outreach to better balance the scientific body with more right-leaning membership and fewer in the left-leaning camp.
How do you propose we go about “discounting” the findings? Just say “they’re biased, so we don’t believe them?”
pretty much Don…..discount “findings” anytime those who have a horse in a race present them…. and do your own research and trust your gut….
“…I would have the same problem if science was dominated by right-leaning thinkers to the same extent it is currently dominated by left-leaning thinkers…we need outreach to better balance the scientific body with more right-leaning membership and fewer in the left-leaning camp”
Sounds like you’re asking for affirmative action there, because you know the reason that there are so few conservative scientists. Someday, we may be able to illuminate the dark and lonely conservative anterior cingulate cortex, but until then…To be sure, a healthy dose of skepticism is wise when reading “studies” of anything, but to doubt solely due to personal or political squabbles is irrational. An object will fall to Earth at the same rate for me as Foxnoise Bankster, but he’ll claim mine swerved left.
true healers are not in the sciences….and it matters not how conservative nor liberal they are… science in the USA stifles progress and healing…
“true healers are not in the sciences…”
True healers can be found in all disciplines. One of the highlights of my entire career was on the reservation when a traditional medicine woman and I, comparing notes on how to best treat a patient agreed with each other that although our disciplines were different, as she put it “We are both medicine women”. I have had a fair amount of praise in my career, but none I valued more.
and, you should , Tia, – that is the ultimate praise…..
If someone asked me something, and didn’t feel I responded, it is likely because I didn’t see it…I have very little time for such forums…..sorry…
after getting home after 9, eating and crashing, I now have a second wind to work on some other “incomplete cycles”….. that is why you see me online at “odd” hours…..never enough hours in a day, week, month or year…..
Rob – How many waste gasifiers is Sierra Energy planning on building at the Nishi site?
As many contributors to this forum are, I too am a research scientist, but I would like to support an aspect of Frankly’s comments that is overlooked: the failure of scientists to effectively communicate uncertainty. This is partly the fault of the scientists and partly the fault of the mainstream news media.
For example with regard to global warming, many scientific spokespeople did not emphasize sufficiently the role of natural variations in climate; and the noisy fluctuating nature of climate data and trends from which signals must typically be characterized using statistical measures. Therefor it can be said with only a particular numerical degree of statistical confidence (e.g. 80% or 90%), for example, that most of the increase in temperature in the last century or so is attributable to anthropogenic causes; and also that the apparent climate change hiatus from circa 1998 to 2013 is to be expected in such a stochastic time series, and is not unexpected.
Another example were the numerous mis-statements by the former head of the CDC during the Ebola scare a couple of years ago; where subsequent events flat-out contradicted earlier statements he had made about virus transmission (he subsequently resigned). He made public statements of certitude with regard to safety of healthcare workers and transmission of the virus, when it fact the available evidence did not support such dogmatic certitude. Rather than transmitting accurate information flow to the public, he acted as a political operative and delivered his message as a ‘managed information flow to the public’, in much the same style as corporate PR and marketing spokespeople, as well as of course politicians (and the major media). An argument can be made, in the case of the Ebola scare, that his statements of placation were justified on the basis that it prevented public panic. Instead, of course, when his statements turned out to be false, the credibility of the CDC and its public messages was undermined–very few will believe them in the future, even if such placative statements do turn out to be accurate. If the virus had subsequently spread to the public in the USA to some extent; who could people turn to for information that was credible to them? This is a treatment of the public as a managed herd, rather than as responsible individuals. When authorized spokespeople go down this route, they contribute to a future animal farm society of a managed dumbed-down herd of human population; rather than a gradual build-up and evolution of the public into more responsible and intelligent individuals (which the flow of accurate information will contribute towards).
Good post… as an “applied scientist”, I acknowledge ‘climate change’, but question its source and probable outcomes… in the last 400 years, there have been periods of apparently dramatic climate change, both cooling and warming, and several were clearly due to natural processes, including volcanic events…