This is a serious question -

Why is it that one or two people can send out blatantly biased and incorrect information and for some reason people A) listen to them and B) start to question 1000's of honest and reputable scientists?

It is like talking about climate change with the fence sitters - I know you can't make everyone go out and read Heat (George Monbiot) or watch the Inconvenient Truth - but still why do people listen to the lying shills?

I don't have a tinfoil hat and I don't believe that there is some master plan underway. What I do struggle with is why people listen to the liars - one or two liars - even when you show why they are liars - people still listen. I would love to say ahh - whatever forget about the fence sitters - but I can't because there are so many fence sitters.

Anyone with a perspective or strategy to seriously combat those that spread misinformation I would love here what you have to say.

Cheers - Eric

Thanks, Lloyd, for taking the time to expose this website and inform me of who is funding them. I hope to see more such 'detective' work that lets me know who the good guys are and who the unscrupulous bought PR people are.

@Eric Dewhirst -

The answer is unfortunately simple. It's that believing the lying shills allows you to continue on with your bad habits, guilt free. Few things are more powerful than that.

Your selective reading of my piece, plus the body of work that we have produced, does not stand as fair criticism. Fire retardants - I noted that Penta and Octa were and are considered dangerous, but that Deca isn't - not even by the European Union, which conducted a ten-year risk assessment AND happens to have the strictest approach to regulating chemicals.

As for new car smell - when you look at the data, you find it's a whole brace of other chemicals researchers are concerned with in the air and not phthalates. They measured the air, the Ecology center did not.

The problem with your highly selective approach to to actual scientific data and funding (CMPA also received funding from the Natural Resources Defense Council, and was extravagantly praised for its analysis of how the media covers politics by President Clinton) is that it shows why so many liberal scientists I know now despise environmental activists: you are more interested in slander and religious pronouncements than engaging in empirically-driven debate.

Anything that disagrees with your foundational premises must, a fortiori, be funded by a vast industrial-conservative conspiracy and silenced. Truth, alas, is a messy business. And it starts with paying close attention to what you read.

I would like to tell your congregants that STATS work was instrumental in driving the congressional hearings on boot camp abuses and deaths, which produced bipartisan agreement to regulate an unregulated and dangerous industry.

But naturally, that doesn't fit in with your censorsious righteousness, and you ignore it.

I think you used "a fortiori" incorrectly.

You are making a claim of the spotlight fallacy, which you are also guilty of employing in your response.

i like the title Lloyd and i think that all of your articles are well researched, fascinating and valuable.

Lloyd's post raises, but does not offer an answer for, the question of who potentially may be paying for the cited efforts. TB's response (above) does not directly address this.

If he cares to provide a link here, our readers may be interested in learning more about TB's educational or work background relative to biology, chemistry, toxicology, and human health.

i read his comment at the time and replied along the lines of:

why should chemicals start from a position of "hey, it's ok until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it really, really hurts you, by which time it's too late and thousands of babies are born with flippers instead of arms and legs?"

shouldn't our starting point be - if it doesn't grow or otherwise occur in its current form in nature, it must be proven to be SAFE, and not by the guys trying to sell it?

i found his essay to be disingenuous at best, and total propaganda at worst. a conspiracy need not be "vast" to exist, and anyone with any ties to American Enterprise Institute, starts from the position of being a lying propagandist for the right wing until proven otherwise. if "liberal scientists" hate environmental activists, i can only imagine how they feel about lying, scheming apologists for ruthless profiteers...

Butterworth, a few questions you can answer to clear the air about your non-partisan objectivity:
Is STATS operated by The Center for Media and Public Affairs - do they share the same offices, staff, president (Lichter), and have the same address (2100 L Street, Suite 300 Washington D.C. 20037)? (By the way, I checked, so I already know the answer - yes.)
Is it true that Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson helped the CMPA to gather the money it needed to begin operations in the mid-80s? And is it true that between 1986-2002, almost 90% of CMPA's $2.5 million in funding came from Scaife Foundations (just over $1 million), John M Olin Foundation (almost $.75 million), and Smith Richardson Foundation (over $400,000)?
Is it true that Richard Mellon Scaife controls the Scaife Foundations and is a businessman billionaire who contributes heavily to the Republican party? Was he an important source of money used in attacks against Bill Clinton while he was in office and again now against Hillary Clinton? Does he not heavily fund The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Judicial Watch, Cato Institute, and other right-wing think tanks? Is it not true that he has pumped over $300,000 million to the right-wing? Is it not true that he has been criticized for trying to corrupt journalism to meet his fancy? Is it not true that he owns Gulf Oil, which is a major US distributor of gas, diesel, and oil? And owner of Alcoa, one of the world's largest aluminum smelting companies? And owner of Alcan, which makes a whole host of products including plastic food packaging? And owner of Koppers, which makes products that 'all start out as a form of distilled coal tar, they end up in a variety of manufactured goods, from roofing and tires, to telephone poles, railroad ties and paint.'? And has financial interests in all kinds of other companies and industries, including the uranium industry?
Is it not true that the John M Olin foundation has contributed many tens of milllions of dollars to fund right-wing think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, Project for the New American Century, etc.? Is this foundation not financed by the Olin Corporation fortune? Is this corporation not based on the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, potassium hydroxide and bleach products and of sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges?
Is it not true that the Smith Richardson Foundation has contributed many tens of millions of dollars to right-wing organizations, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institute, RAND Corporation, and Hudson Institute, etc? And is it not true that this foundatin is financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune?
Does STAT not have a direct association with George Mason University? Is George Mason University not one of the most heavily right-wing financed universities (if not the most) in America? Does it not host the Mercatus Center, one of the largest right-wing think tanks in America which also happens to heavily push for environmental deregulation? Was Richard Fink, ex-president of the Koch Foundations, not its founder and is he not currently on its executive staff? And is Charles Koch (chairman and CEO of Koch Industries) not also on the executive staff? And haven't the Koch brothers contributed a ton of money to both the George Mason University and the Mercatus Center, along with a host of other right-wing org.s? Such as Cato Institute $8,450,000, Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation $6,025,375, George Mason University $2,311,149, George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $2,074,893, Heritage Foundation $1,004,000, Institute for Justice $1,000,000, Institute for Humane Studies $455,000, Competitive Enterprise Institute $254,460, Mercatus Center $400,000, etc. And isn't the right-wing Institute for Humane Studies also hosted by George Mason University? And isn't Charles Koch the chairmain of IHS? And doesn't Scaife also provide large funding for IHS? Aren't the Koch brothers probably the largest contributors to right-wing org.s in America? Aren't the two Koch brothers owners of Koch Industries, the largest private company in the US? Isn't the main industry of this company oil refining, trading and distribution? Doesn't the company own Invista, with brands like Teflon and Lycra, and doesn't it own paper products giant Georgia-Pacific? And isn't this true about Koch Industries: 'During the 1990s, its faulty pipelines were responsible for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a landmark penalty of $35 million from the Environmental Protection Agency. In Minnesota, it was fined an additional $8 million for discharging oil into streams. During the months leading up to the 2000 presidential elections, the company faced even more liability, in the form of a 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, a known carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas...If convicted, the company faced fines of up to $352 million, plus possible jail time for company executives. After George W. Bush became president, however, the U.S. Justice Department dropped 88 of the charges. Two days before the trial, John Ashcroft settled for a plea bargain, in which Koch pled guilty to falsifying documents. All major charges were dropped, and Koch and Ashcroft settled the lawsuit for a fraction of that amount...Koch had contributed $800,000 to the Bush election campaign and other Republican candidates.'?
Didn't your President at STAT work as an executive at the American Enterprise Institute and doesn't he now currently get paid by Fox News? Aren't you bought and paid for?
Shame on you. Have you no conscience?

I happened to enjoy Mr. Buttersworth's article. There is a lot of junk science out there and a lot of twisting of half-facts.

Don't really understand or appreciate your rant as part of treehuggers website. I find that inappropriate and unfairly seeking to only provide one point of view. Shame on you.

As far as shelia said: "shouldn't our starting point be - if it doesn't grow or otherwise occur in its current form in nature, it must be proven to be SAFE, and not by the guys trying to sell it?"

It is obvious that there are people out there including shelia who don't understand that 'natural' doesn't mean it is safe. For example there is natural aniline in carrots. Carrots are good for you but aniline is known to cause cancer. The take-home point is 'it is the dose that makes the poison.' Maybe, just maybe shelia and others like her would find the information providing a different point of view helpful in educating them about the complex world out there.

Rose, is it really so difficult for you to understand that Mr. Buttersworth gets his income from businesses that make the products that he tries to convince us are safe? And that this puts ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he writes about product safety in the 'can't be trusted' bin? You try to convince us that you are smart. But if you are so smart, why is it so difficult for you to figure out this no-brainer? Any particular reason, Rose? Any particular reason at all?