It's something worth looking at. No more, no less.

Or we can all run around screaming "Terra! Terra!"

"Terra" is something I'm firmly not in favor of shouting. Perhaps plowing, perhaps standing on, and firm terra, or at least terra firma, is worth noticing if you live in a swamp. But for most of the country, nah.

This, BTW, is a kick.

I guess some of us need demons to be as big as possible, no matter how imaginary some of the demons' deeds may be.

And at length and very vigorously, I might add.

FFS!

What ludicrous, completely baseless attack.

But suggesting a product may be defective is not a conspiracy theory. So lumping sites who are raising questions in with others who think zika a plot by the Rockefellers is passing judgment based on logical fallacy.

Tut-tut indeed.

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

And you go even further down the conspiracy hole.

Try again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Thanks for the kick!

The original articles that pointed out some correlations did not mention or even suggest that people were conspiring to do harm.

You and the bloggers you link to are trying to smear people who raise uncomfortable questions, instead of just attempting to answer them.

But I'm glad you brought up rationalwiki...

Really, "JAQing Off" is a term for rational discourse? Please. These are establishment fundamentalists who know just enough about logic and philosophy to attack others in rather ironic ways. Rationalwiki even prominently labels environmentalists as "tree huggers" and suggests that a threshold for exists for damage from radiation exposure (thoroughly debunked) along with other numerous factual errors. Their description of ecology is just a footnote under "biology" (ecology is thoroughly interdisciplinary), though they have extensive screeds on what they see as wrong with environmentalism.

IOW, they are extremely biased and their embrace of AGW does little to make up for the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

And now you're just falling for the con of the propagandists who pushed those aricles. Wow! Read the posts of the poster who made that OP at the link. The poster is clearly working to blame these mosquitoes. The clear innuendo worked on those vulnerable to it. And you fully well what that article was trying to do.

Your baseless personal attacks on honest people don't change reality. You are on the wrong side of history, honesty, science, and ethics here. Just admit that to yourself, and do the right thing.

Sorry, but practitioners that are working to influence the environment (note, we're not talking about scientific research) are going to create unflattering correlations that automatically beg for questions. That comes with the territory, even more so with industry that lobbies for self-regulation and regulatory capture.

They should work harder on honestly explaining the situations that arise instead of painting people with a very broad brush to prevent difficult ethical questions from hanging over their industries. 'Rational' people who push logical fallacies while claiming to point them out should especially be disregarded.

You're just tossing meaningless vague statements out when your claims have been shown to be baseless. When you're wrong, admit it. That's how adults act. BTW, these things are explained quite well, but conspiracy lovers work very hard to get to people to ignore those explanations, and to doubt them. If you're actually worried about real ethics, your posts here are rather problematic.

You're the one trying to muddy the waters with unethical, anti-science propaganda. You have no idea how to discuss any of this, so you prove my point about emotion-based attacks with a silly "juxtaposition" of out-of-context quotes as a meaningless response to having been repeatedly shown to be off base.

Now that's funny.