Autumn Love


Autumn has been an Angeleno for the past 10 years and loves writing about all things new, obscure, and not yet on yelp.  From scouting out LA’s next new thing – whether it be bar, restaurant, gallery, or band– to writing about LA’s hipster trends of the moment, her blogs will make you feel “in” the know.  She is a lover of good food, good books, and good ice cream.  She is also a staunch supporter of such causes as “Daytime Clutch Wearing” and “Pearls for Everyday Use.”


Dirty and Thirty

1 Comment

  1. Mena says:

    it was infectious, and stinaary methods could cure it. They were dissmissed for 125 years at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives because the overwhelming concensus said no.Pellagra is another example. It ran rampant among the homeless in the early 20th century. The government had Goldberger look into how the “pellagra germ” was spread. He said it wasn’t a germ. He proved it by injecting pellagra patients bloood into his own, and by, this is gross, eating scabs of the pelagra rashes. No one ever got sick, because it’s a dietary condition. However, it was never recognized as such intil the 1920s. Why? Because the concencus said no.I could go on and on. Wegner and Continental Drift. Jenner and Smallpox, Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…how many more examples do we really need?Notice, also, that the term “concencus” is never invoked for science that has real footing. No one says that an overwhelming concensus beleives that e=mc^2, or that they beleive that the sun is 93 million miles away. So what is it, then, that it is needed to invoke Global Warming?Fundamentally, it’s Macarthiesm.There was a Danish Statistician named Bjorn Lomborg who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. The book outlined pretty much what I am outlining now, and the scientific community went INSANE.Sientific America published an 11 page article on how “rife the document is with factual innacuracies”, but could only come up with 9. They even compared him to a holocaust denier. Lomborg asked for a rebutal, and got 1 page. He still gets attacked to this day, and these attacks make it clear what is going on. Lomborg is being charged with heresy. That’s why critics don’t need facts. That’s why blanket statements will suffice. Because he is the next Galileo. He is being put up on a cross because he DARES to ask why. I knew scientists would be condemned and criticized in a galelian fashion, I just never expected Scientific American to play the role of The Pope.PS: I only argue with Tom because he is wrong a lot. 😛 However, Tom and I agree on most issues in generality, the minutea are what we argue about. That being said, I find it a lot more entertaining and intellectual to argue with someone with whom you really do disagree with. That’s what Toms blog is boring. 😀

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *