Scientific illiteracy in left-wing politics

[AUDub 11,136]

Kid makes a fine point here. The left should receive more criticism for their anti-science views.

It seems that every week we hear a new story that demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy in right-wing politics. Recently we learned that employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection under the tenure of Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) were instructed not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official correspondences. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) recently brandished a snowball on the Senate floor as evidence that global warming is a hoax. Last month Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) refused to state whether or not he believed in the theory of evolution, and who can forget former Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-Mo.) famous gaffe about “legitimate rape”?

These politicians have been widely criticized — and rightly so — for their anti-science views. Rarely, however, are left-wing political figures held accountable for the same crime. As a Democrat myself, I think it is crucial that we move beyond partisan criticism and call out scientific illiteracy wherever it exists.

It is tremendously ironic that the political left, which frequently attacks the right’s denial of evolution, is much more likely to oppose one of the most promising scientific advances that we have achieved through the study of genetics: GMOs. Initiatives to mandate the labeling of GMO products have found varying degrees of success in blue states like Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Hawaii, and Washington. GMO labeling might make sense if modern genetic modification techniques produced foods that were substantially different from those produced by conventional methods, but the fact is that scientific studies have consistently and overwhelmingly shown GMOs to be safe for both humans and the environment. In fact, those concerned about the environment should praise GMOs, which allow us to produce the same amount of food while using less water and land, emitting less carbon dioxide, and applying fewer pesticides.

Perhaps the worst example of anti-GMO activism is the opposition to Golden Rice, which was genetically engineered in 1999 to help people suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Despite the promise of Golden Rice, activist groups like Greenpeace have gone so far as to support the sabotage of Golden Rice field trials across the developing world. Vitamin A deficiency causes several million deaths per year, and many of these deaths could be prevented if not for widespread, anti-scientific opposition to genetic engineering.

Although the political left may be genuinely concerned about the environment, its lack of scientific literacy still inspires it to promote policies that are counterproductive to its goals. And since the political right often denies the reality of environmental issues outright, the left’s unscientific policies are the only ones discussed and implemented.

The left’s aversion to nuclear energy stands out in particular. Senate Democrats have held ten hearings on nuclear safety since the 2011 Fukushima disaster. But discussion of this disaster requires some perspective. The Fukushima plant was built on the tectonically active “Ring of Fire,” and it required a tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake to cause the meltdown. The plant itself was in violation of myriad safety recommendations. Still, short-term radiation exposure from the plant killed exactly zero people. The liberal LNT model, notorious for overestimation, predicted a total of 130 deaths from long-term exposure. The tsunami itself, by comparison, killed 16,000.

Fracking enrages the left even more. To be sure, fracking is not risk-free, and many experts have proposed better regulations to ensure that cement casings are more secure, for example. The oft-heard claims that fracking causes dangerous earthquakes, poisons drinking water, and produces exceptional air pollution, however, are misleading. The left has some legitimate concerns about fracking, such as the safe disposal of wastewater, but many charges levied against fracking are appropriately applied only to issues incidental to the process of gas extraction. Other charges — that fracking is linked to seismic activity, for example — are technically true, but also hold for conventional wells, mining, and geothermal technology.

Left-wing politicians have generally endorsed large “green energy” subsidies to combat climate change, but the reality is that today’s green energy is simply not advanced enough to fuel a Western standard of living. Subsidies for solar and wind power will do little to reduce carbon emission in the long term, and subsidies for ethanol and electric cars may actually increase carbon emissions. Vast tracts of carbon-sequestering forest and grassland have been cleared to plant corn for ethanol production, and electric cars are ultimately powered by coal. Moreover, every dollar spent subsidizing today’s unproductive renewable energy is a dollar taken away from green energy research. In the meantime, the left’s irrational fear of nuclear energy and fracking means that instead of transitioning to lower-carbon energy sources in the short run while greener technologies are developed, we will continue to rely disproportionately on dirtier oil and coal.

Finally, the left has a vaccination problem. Four of the five states with the highest vaccination-exemption rates are blue. California (my home, sweet home) is suffering from a measles outbreak. Meanwhile, leftist pundit Bill Maher is regularly applauded for his anti-vaccine rants and is rarely confronted for using the typical conspiracy theorist’s defense: I’m just asking questions.

The political left loves to bring up scientific consensus when discussing climate change and evolution, but it rejects scientific consensus as a valid metric when it comes to discussions about genetic modification, nuclear energy, and vaccines. And, in fact, while a disbelief in evolution is foolish, it is not nearly as dangerous as a rejection of modern technology.

Vaccines freed us from polio and smallpox. Genetic engineering, along with other techniques, has helped us to produce a cheap, stable, and more environmentally friendly food source. And fossil fuels, for all their problems, have made us so wealthy that we can now afford to research environmentally friendly alternatives. This is a luxury that could not be imagined by the nearly-half the world’s population that still cooks and heats its homes with wood, trash, and dung. Indoor air pollution contributes to roughly 4.3 million premature deaths each year — more than the total number of deaths caused by outdoor air pollution from all sources, including fossil fuels.

The political right is properly criticized for its anti-science views. The political left, however, is often unfairly spared similar criticism. Those on the left must be willing to criticize members of their own camp when they endorse policies based on poor scientific understanding. Otherwise, the left and right may find some common ground, but it will be to the detriment of society as a whole.

[WarTim 3,456]

....for the vast majority of their "views"...

[AUDub 11,136]

....for the vast majority of their "views"...

OK

[DKW 86 7,418]

Am actually impressed that we are discussing this here.

So completely different than the usual discourse where the 'Global Cooling-Global Warming-Climate Change" chicken littles look for the next more extremist, unsupportable, proven to be inaccurate theory or model to scare the rest of humanity with.

FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”

Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”

Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”

Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”

Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,

Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”

Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”

Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”

Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”

IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”

Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”

Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”

Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”

Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

****

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”

FOCUS, 24 May 2006

PLEASE NOTE THE CRAZINESS FROM THE MPI (MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE) THE SAME INSTITUTE THAT NOW STATES THAT THE TOTAL CO2 CONTRIBUTION IS MUCH SMALLER THAN IMAGINED.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

http://dailycaller.c...rming-hysteria/

[AUDub 11,136]

...PLEASE NOTE THE CRAZINESS FROM THE MPI (MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE) THE SAME INSTITUTE THAT NOW STATES THAT THE TOTAL CO2 CONTRIBUTION IS MUCH SMALLER THAN IMAGINED.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

http://dailycaller.c...rming-hysteria/

Funny thing. The author of that study does not feel the same way about his research as the Daily Caller.

Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.

[...]

Even a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.

[...]

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/03/climate-scientist-no-my-study-is-not-a-death-bl/203166

[DKW 86 7,418]

...PLEASE NOTE THE CRAZINESS FROM THE MPI (MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE) THE SAME INSTITUTE THAT NOW STATES THAT THE TOTAL CO2 CONTRIBUTION IS MUCH SMALLER THAN IMAGINED.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

http://dailycaller.c...rming-hysteria/

Funny thing. The author of that study does not feel the same way about his research as the Daily Caller.

Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.

[...]

Even a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2C from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.

[...]

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.

http://mediamatters....death-bl/203166

Well, i can concede that then, BUT his research also CUTS THE WORST CASE SCENARIOS USED BY THE IPCC IN HALF. The piece in the DC was about how his new research has essentially ruled out catastrophic AGW.

[AUDub 11,136]

Well, i can concede that then, BUT his research also CUTS THE WORST CASE SCENARIOS USED BY THE IPCC IN HALF. The piece in the DC was about how his new research has essentially ruled out catastrophic AGW.

Agreed, and definitely good news if true.

[AUDub 11,136]

Just because I thought this would be fun to discuss. I really can't stand the Food Babe.

Language warning.

I am an analytical chemist with a background in forensics and toxicology. Before working full-time as a science writer and public speaker, I worked as a chemistry professor, a toxicology chemist, and in research analyzing pesticides for safety. I now run my own blog, Science Babe, dedicated to debunking pseudoscience that tends to proliferate in the blogosphere. Reading Hari's site, it's rare to come across a single scientific fact. Between her egregious abuse of the word "toxin" anytime there's a chemical she can't pronounce and asserting that everyone who disagrees with her is a paid shill, it's hard to pinpoint her biggest sin.

Hari's superhero origin story is that she came down with appendicitis and didn't accept the explanation that appendicitis just happens sometimes. So she quit her job as a consultant, attended Google University and transformed herself into an uncredentialed expert in everything she admittedly can't pronounce. Slap the catchy moniker "Food Babe" on top, throw in a couple of trend stories and some appearances on the Dr. Oz show, and we have the new organic media darling.

But reader beware. Here are some reasons why she's the worst assault on science on the internet.

Natural, Organic, GMO-Free Fear

Hari's campaign last year against the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte drove me to launch my site (don't **** with a Bostonian's Pumpkin-Spice Anything). She alleged that the PSL has a "toxic" dose of sugar and two (TWO!!) doses of caramel color level IV in carcinogen class 2b.

The word "toxic" has a meaning, and that is "having the effect of a poison." Anything can be poisonous depending on the dose. Enough water can even be poisonous in the right quantity (and can cause a condition called hyponatremia).

But then, the Food Babe has gone on record to say, " There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever." I wonder if anybody's warned her about good old dihydrogen monoxide?

(AKA water.)

It's a damn stretch to say that sugar has deleterious effects, other than making your Lululemons stretch a little farther if you don't "namaste" your cheeks off. However, I implore you to look at the Safety Data Sheet for sugar. The average adult would need to ingest about fifty PSLs in one sitting to get a lethal dose of sugar. By that point, you would already have hyponatremia from an overdose of water in the lattes.

And almost enough caffeine for me.

And what about that "carcinogenic" caramel color? Well, it turns out that it's not the only thing in your PSL that's in carcinogen class 2b.

There's also coffee.

Coffee is class 2b because of the acrylamide accumulated during the roasting process. Coffee, before Starbucks turns it into a milkshake, is pretty healthy for you. Class 2b means that all possible carcinogenic effects haven't been ruled out (because we haven't tested drinking it while tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon and simultaneously attempting to eat fire… yet), but that it hasn't been shown to cause a single case of cancer.

This is a blatant attempt at getting you to look to her for answers by making you unnecessarily afraid. The goal of Hari's campaign was to… well, we're still not sure. Remove the caramel color? Smear Starbucks? After that campaign failed, she launched a failed attempt to get them to use only organic milk, which would have made their lattes far more expensive and no healthier.

Hari uses this tricky technique again and again. If I told you that a chemical that's used as a disinfectant, used in industrial laboratory for hydrolysis reactions, and can create a nasty chemical burn is also a common ingredient in salad dressing, would you panic? Be suspicious that the industries were poisoning your children? Think it might cause cancer? Sign a petition to have it removed?

What if I told you I was talking about vinegar, otherwise known as acetic acid?

This is Hari's business. She takes innocuous ingredients and makes you afraid of them by pulling them out of context (Michelle Francl, in a review of Hari's book for Slate, expertly demonstrates the shallowness of this gimmick). This is how Hari demonized the harmless yet hard-to-pronounce azodicarbonamide, or as she deemed it, the "yoga mat chemical," which is yes, found in yoga mats and also in bread, specifically Subway sandwich bread, a discovery Hari bombastically trumpeted on her website. However, as the science-minded among us understand, a substance can be used for more than one thing perfectly safely, and it doesn't mean that your bread is made of a yoga mat if it happens to contain azodicarbonamide, which is FDA-approved as a dough-softening agent. It simply means your bread is composed of chemicals, much like everything else you eat.

Hari's rule? "If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it."

My rule? Don't base your diet on the pronunciation skills of an eight-year-old.

A Force to Disagree With

In a recent blog post, Hari accused several of her detractors of having nefarious ties to sinister organizations. These evildoers included Dr. Joe Schwarcz, the director for Science and Society at McGill University, Dr. Steve Novella, a Yale-educated neurologist and contributor to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, and Dr. Kevin Folta, the horticultural chair at the University of Florida. Why? Because these highly credentialed scientists had the nerve to use facts against Hari. Dr. Schwarcz

about her tactics. Dr. Novella debunked some wild claims of hers about the science of microwaves. And Dr. Folta said "she found that a popular social media site was more powerful than science itself, more powerful than reason, more powerful than actually knowing what you're talking about."

But could any of these scientists' criticisms possibly have merit? Not to Hari. She has flung these accusations at Dr. Folta multiple times. He's responded on his personal blog and has released his email correspondence to prove that he has no financial connections to hide. And yet, Hari has not recanted.

Moreover, the tireless crusader for transparency doesn't want you to pay attention to the bull**** behind the curtain. And it's not just when scientists point it out in the news–it's when anybody questions her on her Facebook page.

There's a group on Facebook called " Banned By Food Babe" that boasts nearly 6,000 members. Reasons for being banned include "I asked for her qualifications" and "I pointed out that water was a chemical." Some members of the page were former fans of hers who were banned when they asked questions of clarification. Any dissent couldn't possibly have merit within the ranks of the Food Babe Army.

And when Hari's been questioned about silencing critics by news outlets? She consistently says that she won't be silenced by people who are haters and shills, racist or sexist.

If she thinks she's being attacked for being a woman, she's missed that she's not the only "babe" in this discussion.

If her arguments had merit, she could engage in a battle of wits with her detractors instead of making insidious accusations. It's not about Hari, the woman who gets home at the end of the day, maybe gives her dog an (organic) treat and watches some crappy TV show. It's about Food Babe LLC, the business organization that spreads terribly inaccurate science.

It's about statements like this:

"The enzymes released from kale go in to your liver and trigger cancer fighting chemicals that literally dissolve unhealthy cells throughout your body."

One of her outspoken critics, Kavin Senapathy, is a writer at Grounded Parents and a contributor at the Genetic Literacy Project. Senapathy has said that the Food Babe "exploits the scientific ignorance of her followers." With a background in genomics, Senapathy is a science writer and likewise an Indian American woman, but I'm sure it's a much more comforting narrative in the Food Babe Army to say that we're all just sexists and racists.

Is It Made With Real Girl Scouts?

How many companies or products do you think it would make sense to crusade against in the course of a career? One? Three? A dozen?

Hari has declared, to date, more than 610 products and companies to be unsafe over the course of four years.

According to Hari, the problem with most of them, including Girl Scout Cookies: GMOs and pesticides. She's even alleged that an apple can be worse for you than a hot fudge sundae, if it's not organic.

And is there even a shred of truth to this? Not in the least. Hari claims going organic will save you from pesticides, but organic farming uses pesticides too. Some of them are far more toxic than conventional pesticides. (Remember, the dose makes the poison. Neither apple would have enough pesticide by the time it reaches market to be harmful.)

The difference between organic and conventional? For a product that's no healthier, organic is more expensive and they give Hari a commission.

As for those GMOs in the Girl Scout Cookies, fret ye not. In order to introduce a genetically modified crop into the food supply, they have to be proven to be nutritionally indistinguishable from their non-GM counterparts.

Maybe Hari's crusades would be OK if she had the facts to back them up. But she doesn't, and worse, when she's wrong, she tries to make her errors disappear.

Recently, a writer from the New York Times contacted me to ask for some background on Hari. I was happy to oblige. She was looking for the articles for which Hari had been widely criticized and that were conspicuously absent from her Facebook page. Hari had told the writer that she couldn't recall those articles.

Luckily, the internet never forgets.

If you want proof that Hari doesn't research anything before she puts it online, look no further than this article on airplanes, which she deleted from her site. She claimed that pilots control the air in an airplane, so you should sit near the front to breathe better air. She wrote that passengers are sometimes sprayed with pesticides before flights, and that airplane air is pumped full of nitrogen.

Please recall high school science, in which you hopefully learned that the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. Also, if anyone has personally been sprayed with pesticides before a flight, please email me, I would love to talk to you about it (not really).

The other piece of writing that she unsuccessfully attempted to cleanse from the bowels of the internet claimed that microwaves are like small nuclear reactors, and they make water crystalize the same way it does when you say "Hitler" or "Satan" to it, because water has ears and a grasp of early twentieth-century European dictators.

Feel Better—Detox and Definitely Don't Vaccinate!

Food Babe has written that, in order to deal with the flu, you should take vitamins, get sunshine, and " encounter the flu naturally." In other words, her advice is to get the flu, an infection that kills an average of 31,000 people annually.

A PSA: Please remember that when you vaccinate, you help protect the people around you who cannot vaccinate. You protect people who are immunocompromised, who are going through cancer treatments, and who are on immunosupressants. If you catch the flu, you become a disease vector and can easily infect more people.

"I won't eat any of these ingredients or even put them on my body," Hari wrote of the components that make up the flu vaccine. "However, the mainstream medical community, government agencies and pharmaceutical companies suggest that I directly inject these ingredients into my bloodstream? And I need do it every year until I die? Are you freaking kidding me?"

Nope! Not kidding. The flu is serious. To scare people into not taking every measure they can against a deadly disease mortifies me. Hari has denied that she's anti-vax, but all the reasons she has for avoiding the flu vaccine are ones anti-vaxxers hold near and dear to their hearts for letting their children suffer. Toxins. Aluminum. Mercury. The usual suspects.

But hey, the next time you're down with a bug, follow Hari's lead and detox your way out of it. Who doesn't want to lose a few pounds, feel better, and have more energy? Hari will help, for only $9/per bottle from her sponsor, Suja.

In Hari's non-defense, they're "only" $6 per bottle from Suja's website.

But wait, didn't she say that the Pumpkin Spice Lattes had a toxic dose of sugar at fifty grams in a grande? So why does she endorse Suja when it has forty-two grams of sugar and even comes with a warning on its website that it's not suitable for diabetics?

It's probably because detox is complete bull****.

In order to buy into the premise that you need detoxing, you first have to be "toxed." The common enemies they claim that juice can clean out of your system are heavy metals and pesticides. The bull****? Those don't cause allergies, acne, weight gain, or whatever symptom she's using to scare you into buying overpriced juice this week. Heavy metal toxicity has specific symptoms, and actual pesticide poisoning is really scary.

Neither can be fixed by fruit juice. Not even organic fruit juice.

You're constantly "detoxing" just by living. Your kidneys and liver take care of cleaning out unnecessary things in the body fairly efficiently on their own. Proof? The toilet paper industry.

Go Ahead, Lie About Your Food Allergies

We've already established that Hari has a fickle relationship with the truth. How about the definition of the word "allergy"? That seems basic enough. An allergy is an immune system overreaction. Life-threatening food allergies are serious.

And this one is very serious.

Hari claimed that she's allergic to refined sugar in a blog entry in which she also wrote about about all the desserts she's eaten. But only refined sugar, because apparently short-chain carbohydrates are only evil if they're not from one of her approved sponsored sugar sources. So, I guess she can just eat these now that her acupuncturist diagnosed and treated her for this alleged sugar allergy.

Alleged. Because she's admitted that she's fine with lying about allergies.

"Go as far as telling the server you are allergic to butter and dairy, soy and corn," she writes. "Butter really isn't bad for you if it is organic and you use it in moderation – but restaurants can go crazy with it, adding several hundred extra calories you can live without."

This is a problem.

I have celiac disease, and there are people with genuine life-threatening allergies. When people like me go into a restaurant, we're at the whim of a waiter who may have just served twenty fussy a**holes from the Food Babe Army who think that gluten causes your spleen to turn radioactive, or whatever lie she's using to sell organic kale dipped in yak's butter this week. So when I tell a server that I can't do gluten, that waiter might roll their eyes at me because of people like Vani Hari.

Well, people like Hari and her Food Babe Army. Changing the world, one lie at a time.