The book is quite detailed. It describes how time and time again, such as the hockey stick graph, the research has been fabricated, and how those with opposing results are not allowed to publish and denied funding.
I never doubted that it was detailed, or that it described exactly what you say it describes. What else would be the topic of such a book? I’m sure books that deny the holocaust are also detailed and describe fabricated evidence and suppression of dissent.
You are making an assumption as to the quality of the book without having read it, just because it disagrees with your preconceived ideas.
In fact, the two authors have been campaigners for justice in the UK for 20 or 30 years, always taking the side of people targetted by the government and big business.
They even mentioned how “climate deniers” have been vilified to the extent of Holocaust deniers, exactly as you have just done.
You’re right, to some extent I am making such an assumption. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radically minority scientific voice in a highly politicized public debate is unduly influenced by principles that are contrary to good scientific research. But I want to be clear that I really am open to the fact that the book might have something important to say, or might present interesting alternative interpretations of the evidence. This isn’t just lip service - I really do think this. And the “holocaust” analogy wasn’t about equating the magnitude of the two topics, it was just an extreme example of the principle I was illustrating, its very extremeness serving to clarify my point and make it obvious. Also, I had no idea anyone ever compared global warming to the holocaust. Who knew?
My point, Maia, is that putting all your faith in one book isn’t very good practice. Unless you already know what you want to think.
I have not read that particular book. However, I took a look at the index and found some odd chapters. Does anyone seriously doubt that asbestos is dangerous?
I am reminded of Thomas Midgley Jr. - he’s the guy who put lead into gasoline. We were poisoned by it for 50 years. He said it was perfectly safe. He demonstrated the safety:
Another point it made is that global warming is not supported by a consensus of scientists. It has pages and pages of citations for each chapter, as well, as well as hundreds and hundreds of quotations from scientists and researchers.
As for having made up my mind beforehand, that isn’t true. I’m always open minded, and in fact, prior to reading it, I believed global warming was happening, though as to its causes, I had already heard about the recent research concerning sunspots. Now, I don’t even believe global warming is happening at all, we are simply in a short term slight average increase in temperatures. We haven’t even yet reached the level of the 1920s and 1930s, let alone the medieval warm period.
For anyone interested in this subject I can’t recommend it highly enough, even if, after reading it, you disagree. You can no doubt get second hand copies for a few pence on Amazon. I’m not so lucky, I had to borrow it through an audio library I’m a member of.
Again, this proves the danger of criticising a book without reading it. What they say, backed with reams of reports and experiments, is that the type of asbestos that includes blue asbestos is, indeed, highly toxic. White asbestos, however, is a different mineral entirely, as is only dangerous in its raw form, and then only if you’re exposed to literally tons of it over many years or decades, as workers were up until the 1940s and later, in some cases. When mixed with cement and put into buildings as tiles and all its other uses, it is not dangerous.
It’s a lawyer’s scam, getting millions and millions of pounds of compensation out of companies for people who weren’t in danger.
So what is the lesson for you, as an “environmentalist”? Is it to not freak out about air pollution, because if you freak out and over-sell the danger you turn people off to the important message that not polluting the atmosphere is an important thing? What do you take away from this book, practically speaking?
I take away from this book the fact that such scares cause more harm than good. Not only to our economies, but also to the genuine problems that exist out there, such as air polution. Air polution is perfectly real, but it has nothing to do with global warming. But, when people realise global warming was a scam, as they inevitably will, they might forget about the real issues.
That’s very reasonable. I’m skeptical of various “scares” as well. But history shows that without scares, nothing happens. When I was in middle school - I guess it must have been around 1980 or so - I remember learning about these super-tall smokestacks in the midwest US that cause acid rain in the northeast US, where I live. A year or so ago I think it was, at least 30 years later, and I read an article in the paper about… super-tall smokestacks in the midwest US that cause acid rain in the northeast US. Nothing happens. It’s pathetic, actually. Corporate interests block anything meaningful from ever actually happening. This is true. In the US we have something called the endangered species act. It’s what environmentalists rely on, all the time, in order to protect some land that’s slated for development. The developers are so rich, so powerful, so influential, that they can basically do just about whatever they want. But if there’s an endangered variety of mosquito living there, they can be stopped in the courts. It’s very reasonable to think that read so literally, the endangered species act is some kind of trivia that distorts the real issues. But if you know anything about how this stuff works in real life, then you know that certain kinds of things have power, and other things (like common sense) don’t. Global warming has power. The endangered species act has power. “We should save this natural area for the betterment of our community and our world” doesn’t. That’s the sad truth.
Now, does that mean that global warming is made up by environmentalists in order to have some kind of power in the public sphere? Not at all. But it’s good to be cautious of your own reasonability. It may not be as reasonable as you think. For instance, “reasonable” people often take the middle position between two “extremes” - which makes them really easy to manipulate. Just shift the extremes, and you change the position of the “middle” without people even noticing. This tactic is used by politicians to manipulate people every day.
The problem with scares is that the reaction to them causes more harm than good. The book explores many examples, from salmonella in eggs, mad cow disease, the satanic ritual abuse scare, asbestos, and many others. In every single case, what started as a genuine, small scale problem was blown infinitely out of proportion (usually by the media and the lawyers), costing millions or even billions of pounds, ruining the livelihoods of thousands. The authors contrast these with genuine major concerns, such as organo phosphates, which, instead of becoming a scare, have been suppressed by governments to cover up their own incompetence.
Unfortunately, it won’t stay where it’s put. Eventually the product deteriorates, releasing the fibers or changes take place (such a building renovations) which exposes occupants and workers. Deaths and disease are not solely restricted to the miners and manufacturers.
It is currently marketed to third world countries where proper handling and disposal cannot be guaranteed. That’s also where we send our contaminated junk to be dismantled/recycled.
Even when frayed and deteriorated, as you describe, white asbestos is not dangerous, as countless studies have shown (quoted at length in the book). Massive exposure is needed, over many years, which is why only workers at asbestos factories were affected, before safety gear was introduced.
95% of all asbestos production is white asbestos. Blue asbestos, which really is dangerous, is a far less useful substance, being too stiff to weave or mix with cement, it tended to be used simply as lagging, and was phased out decades ago.
It’s the fibres that cause the harm. Blue asbestos fibres take 150 years to break down in the body, white asbestos fibres take 14 days. That’s why it’s so difficult to get a lethal dose of them, without massive prolongued exposure.
