Comments: Punked by Mother Nature

I'm glad this was scrutinized so quickly. I've commented in other threads that I was suspect of the increased mortality based simply on the absence of any viable cause, that I know of. I was willing to be convinced such existed. I am no debunker.

It is crucial however in cases where big issues intersect with large institutional powers that the dissenters claims are sound. This story about the sudden coincident increase in infant mortality with the disaster was sweet from from nuclear opponents point of view as it was an emotional winner for their case.

Those cases which are such easy PR home runs are the ones to treat with skepticism. It is quite probable that such cases are brought forward first by the institutions in order to create a smokescreen. Stories which garner a lot of chatter which can later be debunked.

Posted by rapier at July 10, 2011 04:59 PM

Mother nature is the most mistreated mother in the cosmos.

Her children will cry and die when they have beaten her down so bad she can no longer sustain them.

Posted by Dredd at July 10, 2011 09:15 PM

Mother nature produces leeks and broccoli for wee the people.

Posted by Dredd at July 11, 2011 12:16 PM

http://counterpunch.org/pollet07112011.html

Posted by rob payne at July 11, 2011 12:55 PM

Looking at ALL the data, in perspective, (i.e. plotted on one set of axes) is about as basic as it gets. Paul Krugman does it all the time, which is why he tends to get things right, in that unflashy academic way he has. This works t'other way round: when someone makes a big deal about an event in the recent past, and illustrates it with a handful of data points (or just two), it is appropriate to be skeptical.

Posted by Plucky Underdog at July 14, 2011 01:24 PM

Looking at ALL the data, in perspective, (i.e. plotted on one set of axes) is about as basic as it gets. Paul Krugman does it all the time, which is why he tends to get things right, in that unflashy academic way he has. This works t'other way round: when someone makes a big deal about an event in the recent past, and illustrates it with a handful of data points (or just two), it is appropriate to be skeptical.

Posted by Plucky Underdog at July 14, 2011 01:24 PM

Looking at ALL the data, in perspective, (i.e. plotted on one set of axes) is about as basic as it gets. Paul Krugman does it all the time, which is why he tends to get things right, in that unflashy academic way he has. This works t'other way round: when someone makes a big deal about an event in the recent past, and illustrates it with a handful of data points (or just two), it is appropriate to be skeptical.

Posted by Plucky Underdog at July 14, 2011 01:24 PM

Sorry -- posting from a mobile. Please cull. Thx -- PUD

Posted by Plucky Underdog at July 14, 2011 01:30 PM