The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares: Glyphosate And Climate Change
/You may have seen that last week a California jury handed down a verdict finding Monsanto civilly liable for some $289 million in damages to a man who claimed that his blood cancer was caused by the weed killer glyphosate (brand name Roundup). That's enough money to notice! Especially since there are a few thousand more potential plaintiffs lined up to sue for allegedly getting cancer from exposure to Roundup. And it's especially noticeable to the people at Bayer, who just finished buying Monsanto for some $66 billion a couple of months ago.
If you've been a reader here for a while, you will know that I don't think much of the "science" supporting a supposed causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and cancer. See this November 2017 post "Can Intervention By The Rational Stop A Pseudoscientific Scare Backed By Big Money?"
And indeed, I'm far from alone in my views as to glyphosate, this jury's verdict notwithstanding. There appears to be some kind of near-consensus of the relevant scientific community on the side that glyphosate does not cause cancer. But then there's climate change. Over in that field, we find advocates of climate alarm making frequent claims of "scientific consensus" for their position of a causal relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and projected catastrophic global warming. In that field, I would dispute that there is anything close to a "consensus," but I could not dispute the proposition that a substantial plurality of those calling themselves "climate scientists" are supporting the cause of global warming alarm. Even so, I think their claims are nonsense.
So how can you, as a reasonably informed citizen, hope to come to a rational view as to which scary scientific claims to credit and which to dismiss? . . .
Read More