It tastes a little herbedcidey...
April 29, 2015 12:34 PM   Subscribe

When Dr. Patrick Moore appeared on cable channel Canal+ to argue for the safety of the widely used herbicide glyphosate he asserted that it would be completely safe to drink right from a glass. When the interviewer challenged him to follow through on the act, he backed down. Recently, Stu Burguiere of The Blaze decided to accept the challenge and drank a glass of the herbicide along with fracking fluid and artificial sweeteners. The cocktail also included a salt rimmed glass and a lemon garnish. It had the neon green appearance of a Vodka and Diet Dew. Don't try this at home. Or anywhere.
posted by Drinky Die (47 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
Eponysterical!

Sorry everyone, I had to. I will now read the articles.
posted by daisyk at 12:36 PM on April 29, 2015 [68 favorites]


Is there a link to the drinking act that isn't Facebook? Some of us don't swing that way.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:37 PM on April 29, 2015 [8 favorites]


Here's the clip--it's part of a documentary on Canal+.
posted by Ideefixe at 12:39 PM on April 29, 2015


is there no link to Stu actually chugging this stuff?
posted by boo_radley at 12:40 PM on April 29, 2015


is there no link to Stu actually chugging this stuff?

I too was expecting Stu.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:41 PM on April 29, 2015


(I screwed up the video link, contacted mods. Here it is. But yeah I can only find it on Facebook so far.)
posted by Drinky Die at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2015


Mod note: Fixed the "drank a glass" link, carry on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2015


There was a legendarily cranky emeritus forestry prof at my undergrad institution who was rumored to have drank a glass of roundup at a faculty meeting back in the early 90s sometime. People were still making fun of him for it when I graduated over a decade later (but he was still in good health somehow last I checked).
posted by dialetheia at 12:48 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Do they not add bitrex to weed killer?
posted by GuyZero at 12:49 PM on April 29, 2015


From the linked Wikipedia entry, section "human toxicity:"

Deliberate ingestion of Roundup in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml (of 41% solution) has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms. A reasonable correlation is seen between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of more than 85 ml of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Corrosive effects – mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia – are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent, and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary edema, infiltration on chest X-ray, shock, arrhythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis, and hyperkalaemia may occur in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias often present prior to death.
posted by zippy at 12:51 PM on April 29, 2015 [7 favorites]


Oh, a different Patrick Moore to the one Brits would think of.
posted by epo at 12:53 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


And the linked cite: Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): a review of 93 cases. Talbot et al. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1991 Jan;10(1):1-8.

Between 1 January 1980, and 30 September 1989, 93 cases of exposure to herbicides containing glyphosphate and surfactant ('Roundup') were treated at Changhua Christian Hospital. The average amount of the 41% solution of glyphosate herbicide ingested by non-survivors was 184 +/- 70 ml (range 85-200 ml), but much larger amounts (500 ml) were reported to have been ingested by some patients and only resulted in mild to moderate symptomatology. Accidental exposure was asymptomatic after dermal contact with spray (six cases), while mild oral discomfort occurred after accidental ingestion (13 cases). Intentional ingestion (80 cases) resulted in erosion of the gastrointestinal tract (66%), seen as sore throat (43%), dysphagia (31%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (8%). Other organs were affected less often (non-specific leucocytosis 65%, lung 23%, liver 19%, cardiovascular 18%, kidney 14%, and CNS 12%). There were seven deaths, all of which occurred within hours of ingestion, two before the patient arrived at the hospital. Deaths following ingestion of 'Roundup' alone were due to a syndrome that involved hypotension, unresponsive to intravenous fluids or vasopressor drugs, and sometimes pulmonary oedema, in the presence of normal central venous pressure.
posted by zippy at 12:54 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


I smoked a cigarette once. I didn't get cancer. So take that, haters!
posted by mondo dentro at 1:01 PM on April 29, 2015 [5 favorites]


Maybe it was homeopathic RoundUp.
posted by delfin at 1:02 PM on April 29, 2015 [12 favorites]


I'm struggling to figure out what this proves other than that this guy is an idiot.

To be fair, I never thought that the fact that the advocate guy would't drink a whole glass of it was proving much either.
posted by cmoj at 1:03 PM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Just because science says that it's safe to drink a shot or two of rubbing alcohol doesn't mean that it's pleasant or recommended to do so. It's kind of a tricky argument to make in front of non-scientists, and I'm not entirely sure I understand if Moore's was arguing that you can drink a quart of it without getting poisoned, or if he was arguing you could drink a quart of it without getting cancer, which are two different things.

I also don't understand how Moore is described as both "an independent scientist not associated with Monsanto" and a "Monsanto Advocate" in the same article. He's certainly a glyphosate advocate.
posted by muddgirl at 1:04 PM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


I had a door-to-door salesman come to my door with orange cleaner and was beating his spiel against my discontentment at his presence unsucessfully until, noting my incredulity at his statement about its utter safety that he sprayed some in his mouth.

At the time I felt the oddness of the racial disparity, hardworking black guy shilling to a disaffected white guy, party because of the way it foamed upon his lips and trickled down the corner of his mouth and how that contrasted with the beads of sweat worked up in the demo and walking the hot summer streets.

Reader, I bought a quart.

I guess what I'm saying is that ingestion sells and I have a price for novelty.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:07 PM on April 29, 2015 [35 favorites]


My first impression is that Stu B confuses correlation with causation, and not in the sense that this confusion is usually presented. In criticizing the chart that shows a graph of autism compared to the use of the pesticide, he implies that this does not indicate correlation when, in fact, it does show correlation. What it does not show is causation. At least get your arguments straight. This points to a larger problem in popular culture. People use "sciency" sounding arguments to support their own arguments while never understanding the science nor the argument. This is one avenue of inductive reasoning that I have never felt comfortable with: the appeal to authority. People will quote such and such authority while never doing the brain-work to see if their argument makes sense.
posted by rankfreudlite at 1:12 PM on April 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


This reminds me of the time the CEO of Halliburton celebrated the drinkability of fracking water during a speech ... but instead of drinking it himself, he called one of his underlings up to the stage to drink it.
posted by jayder at 1:13 PM on April 29, 2015 [16 favorites]


OOOH HE GONE DIE
posted by resurrexit at 1:15 PM on April 29, 2015


It had the neon green appearance of a Vodka and Diet Dew.

It probably was. I assume zero honesty from professional assholes like him and am not often proven wrong.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:18 PM on April 29, 2015 [15 favorites]


As he points out, the vodka would have been more toxic though. :P

I'm struggling to figure out what this proves other than that this guy is an idiot.

To be fair, I never thought that the fact that the advocate guy would't drink a whole glass of it was proving much either.


I found it amusing because he was an idiot who was willing to put his money where his mouth is on this. If anything it's just a good place to end any of this, "If Round Up is so safe why don't you drink it?" stuff which has been around a lot longer than when Moore walked right into it.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:18 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Toward the end of his run as governor of New York, Hugh Carey offered to drink a glass of PCB laden water to prove one of the state's facilities was safe enough to continue running.

He never appeared to follow up on it, though, but he did manage to live to 92.
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:20 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Given the general journalistic standards of The Blaze, I expect a followup titled ROUNDUP CONSUMPTION PROVES GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX; ANTI-FRACKERS HATE ISRAEL.
posted by delfin at 1:32 PM on April 29, 2015 [8 favorites]


In the video, he makes a huge deal out of LD50 numbers and assumes they are some kind of general toxicity scale, when that's not how it works. Water, as he notes, will kill you if you drink too much of it. It's also required to keep you alive. Smoking isn't bad for you because of nicotine's LD50; it's bad for you because you'll get cancer.
posted by zachlipton at 1:50 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Recently I've been researching cement and ceramic material formulations, with the goal of formulating some new specialty construction compounds. There is tremendous opportunity right now for the advancement of cements, such as what is known as Ultra High Performance Cement, UHPC.

Much of this opportunity comes as a result of the fracking industry. The compounds used for fracking comprise a whole range of recipes cooked up from a pantry of standardised ingredients. The chefs that design the daily menu come from a long tradition of highly specialized experts mixing up custom blends of drilling mud, that is sent down well bores during the oil drilling and pumping process.

Each oil well or small grouping of wells has one guy in a little wood shack with a field laboratory chemistry set, who adjusts the slurry that is pumped in and out of the well bores at work. These guys are the "mud men." They are sent in by corporate management, by the owners usually not the operators. They may have chemistry and engineering degrees, they have been apprenticed to other mud men. They use science and intuition and experience to work their wizardry, and the proof is in their daily oil output and the avoidance of small and large disasters, like the freezing up of the well, a blowout, or a lateral diversion. These guys make about $250,000 per year.

Fracking formulas take the mud to the next level, and there are hundreds of ingredients to select from. Where this is a benefit to me, trying to mix up some high performance cement, comes from the market they have created for high quality processed minerals that go into the mix. Take for instance just sand. Sand has always been one of the ingredients in drilling mud, but now specialized sand is available in quantity for this market that can be extremely consistent and uniform, mined from single-source deposits of various types, pure, clean, uniform, crystal minerals sorted to exact micro and nano dimensions, available in spherical, disk or elongated forms, with your choice of surface ionic polarities, which can be controlled through different milling regimes.

Many if not most of the fracking and drilling mud ingredients are benign, many are edible, and some might even make for healthful dietary supplements. Guar gum is a very significant component, and Halliburton et al, have huge stockpiles of that. But thanks to regulations that allow for secret proprietary ingredients, there are a few chemicals used in small amounts that are poisonous and downright scary hazardous.

I wonder just how significant the bottom line impact can be for some of the worst chemicals. If it were me doing the fracking, I'd dial back on the toxins, take a few percent productivity hit, and dispel a lot of the righteous public indignation the industry faces. I think that the culture of the one magical mud man per well and the boss's daily logs of individual productivity, tied to salary and career advancement and legendary persona-building, works against a rational safety policy.
posted by StickyCarpet at 1:56 PM on April 29, 2015 [35 favorites]


I wonder just how significant the bottom line impact can be for some of the worst chemicals. If it were me doing the fracking, I'd dial back on the toxins, take a few percent productivity hit, and dispel a lot of the righteous public indignation the industry faces.

100% organic fracking mud!

(Yes, I know - it violates organic in the USDA sense and, I imagine, the organic compound sense)
posted by symbioid at 2:15 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


100% organic fracking mud!

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Why not? It's totally possible. There are many food grade components in it.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:17 PM on April 29, 2015


Now drink a glass a day for 10 years.
posted by dirigibleman at 2:34 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


If it cost less than high fructose corn syrup, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo would try to make sure you did just that.
posted by delfin at 2:35 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Isn't he kinda wrong to say that LD50 is a measure of toxicity? I mean, it is, but it's a more a measure of lethality than toxicity. LD stands for LETHAL DOSE. Plenty of things can be toxic but not lethal.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:41 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Metilter: the one magical mud man per well

Who can take some well sludge
Mix it with some slime
Slip in a few toxins and
Inject it all with brine?
The mud man!
The mud man!
The magic mud man!
The magic mud man!

posted by localroger at 2:55 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Now drink a glass a day for 10 years.

He drank five months of glyphosate exposure, so it will come out to not so many glasses a year. But since he is not avoiding it in food products he is already going to get near the average daily dose anyway.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:16 PM on April 29, 2015


Zippy pretty much nailed it up thread. A few (15?)years ago I helped take care of a poor guy who chugged a cup of Roundup during a pickup basketball game. It was unclear whether the Roundup had been poured into the plastic cup as a really bad prank or it was being temporarily stored there for some reason. (For gods sake people, NEVER store non-foodstuffs in food containers, and keep chemicals in clearly labeled containers, preferably the ones they came in. I have many stories of the tragic results when this is not done.) He died a long slow death after having most of the problems described in zippy's posts. The ARDS ultimately killed him, if I remember correctly.
posted by TedW at 3:22 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Also, keep loose cash in the Trader Vic's.
posted by clavdivs at 4:10 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think it's instructive that most of the Roundup cranks on my Facebook are also Fluoride and Chemtrail cranks. There are plenty of good reasons to hate Monsanto, but most of the people I see rail against them never mention them.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:43 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Given the general journalistic standards of The Blaze, I expect a followup titled ROUNDUP CONSUMPTION PROVES GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX; ANTI-FRACKERS HATE ISRAEL.

I bet he's an Objectivist, isn't he? Please let him be an Objectivist...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:48 PM on April 29, 2015


Agricultural Aggie is a wizened farmer in her 80s; she is a fount of old farmer wisdom. She shows up at my seed cleaning plant, sets herself down to wait several hours while I clean her wheat, and tells me that while she doesn't trust that new-fangled Roundup, she'd drink a cup of 2,4-D any day. In fact, she knew a fellow who'd done it in the 70s. Then she proceeded to tell me about how our area is a UFO sighting hotspot and how the aliens in the UFOs are the ones killing heifers in the community pasture.
posted by bluebelle at 6:29 PM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


FWIW, the product he appears to be drinking is "Roundup® Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III," which has a concentration of 2% glyphosate, as opposed to the 41% concentration of the formulations noted in Zippy's link. If 85ml of 41% solution is the danger zone, then to ingest a similar amount, he'd need to drink 1742.5 ml, or 7.3 cups.

I mean, I'm not suggesting he should do that, I was just curious about the math.
posted by factory123 at 6:33 PM on April 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


Related was the If it's Safe, then Drink it thing going around, with pictures of various organic pesticides. Mmm, Bioneem! Or caster oil!
posted by damayanti at 6:43 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


I bet he's an Objectivist, isn't he?

It's worthwhile to point out that he has also posted charming folksy videos that are:

- anti-abortion
- global warming denialist
- against net neutrality
- against minimum wage increases
- pro-Keystone

I'm not sure an Objectivist would be anti-abortion, so he's just kowtowing to regressionists.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:30 PM on April 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


He's a writer for Glenn Beck, I kind of just put Beck in the category of so cooky and disingenuous it may not be worth categorizing at all, but basically the extreme paranoid conservative type.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 PM on April 29, 2015


Has there ever been a more despicable and unprincipled shill than Patrick Moore?
posted by Rumple at 10:22 PM on April 29, 2015


We've just kind of given up on science for the sideshow, haven't we?

Oh, well, time to put on my flim-flam suit and try to sell people something by dressing it up in a dog suit and getting it to tap dance.

Why, yes, Ma'am, I would consume a whole lifetime of this universal access to education I'm peddling.
posted by nfalkner at 12:28 AM on April 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


This crazy bastard aside; glyphosate, bless us, now has one of the better studied toxicities of any mass produced chemical compound despite there having never been much reason at all to suspect it of any meaningful harm other than what is indicated on the label and effectively guarded against with minimal PPE. Really all we have left in this 'debate' is an ideological insistence that glyphosate must be the cause of some great ill against an ever growing pile of solid research with clear and replicated findings
Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans
Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health concern. Nevertheless, questions regarding their safety are periodically raised. This review was undertaken to produce a current and comprehensive safety evaluation and risk assessment for humans. It includes assessments of glyphosate, its major breakdown product [aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)], its Roundup formulations, and the predominant surfactant [polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA)] used in Roundup formulations worldwide. The studies evaluated in this review included those performed for regulatory purposes as well as published research reports. The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies. Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA. Margins-of-exposure for chronic risk were calculated for each compound by dividing the lowest applicable NOAEL by worst-case estimates of chronic exposure. Acute risks were assessed by comparison of oral LD50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure. It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.

Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations
An earlier review of the toxicity of glyphosate and the original Roundup™-branded formulation concluded that neither glyphosate nor the formulation poses a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. The present review of subsequent genotoxicity publications and regulatory studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) incorporates all of the findings into a weight of evidence for genotoxicity. An overwhelming preponderance of negative results in well-conducted bacterial reversion and in vivo mammalian micronucleus and chromosomal aberration assays indicates that glyphosate and typical GBFs are not genotoxic in these core assays. Negative results for in vitro gene mutation and a majority of negative results for chromosomal effect assays in mammalian cells add to the weight of evidence that glyphosate is not typically genotoxic for these endpoints in mammalian systems. Mixed results were observed for micronucleus assays of GBFs in non-mammalian systems. Reports of positive results for DNA damage endpoints indicate that glyphosate and GBFs tend to elicit DNA damage effects at high or toxic dose levels, but the data suggest that this is due to cytotoxicity rather than DNA interaction with GBF activity perhaps associated with the surfactants present in many GBFs. Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.

Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies
Glyphosate, an herbicidal derivative of the amino acid glycine, was introduced to agriculture in the 1970s. Glyphosate targets and blocks a plant metabolic pathway not found in animals, the shikimate pathway, required for the synthesis of aromatic amino acids in plants. After almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals including toxicology evaluations, literature reviews, and numerous human health risk assessments, the clear and consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is of low toxicological concern, and no concerns exist with respect to glyphosate use and cancer in humans. This manuscript discusses the basis for these conclusions. Most toxicological studies informing regulatory evaluations are of commercial interest and are proprietary in nature. Given the widespread attention to this molecule, the authors gained access to carcinogenicity data submitted to regulatory agencies and present overviews of each study, followed by a weight of evidence evaluation of tumor incidence data. Fourteen carcinogenicity studies (nine rat and five mouse) are evaluated for their individual reliability, and select neoplasms are identified for further evaluation across the data base. The original tumor incidence data from study reports are presented in the online data supplement. There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment. The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with published epidemiology studies, which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically significant, unbiased and non-confounded associations between glyphosate and cancer of any single etiology, and a compelling weight of evidence, support the conclusion that glyphosate does not present concern with respect to carcinogenic potential in humans.

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies around the world have registered glyphosate as a broad-spectrum herbicide for use on multiple food and non-food use crops. Glyphosate is widely considered by regulatory authorities and scientific bodies to have no carcinogenic potential, based primarily on results of carcinogenicity studies of rats and mice. To examine potential cancer risks in humans, we reviewed the epidemiologic literature to evaluate whether exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with cancer risk in humans. We also reviewed relevant methodological and biomonitoring studies of glyphosate. Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. Data from biomonitoring studies underscore the importance of exposure assessment in epidemiologic studies, and indicate that studies should incorporate not only duration and frequency of pesticide use, but also type of pesticide formulation. Because generic exposure assessments likely lead to exposure misclassification, it is recommended that exposure algorithms be validated with biomonitoring data.

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies around the world have registered glyphosate as a broad-spectrum herbicide for use on multiple food and non-food use crops. Glyphosate is widely considered by regulatory authorities and scientific bodies to have no carcinogenic potential, based primarily on results of carcinogenicity studies of rats and mice. To examine potential cancer risks in humans, we reviewed the epidemiologic literature to evaluate whether exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with cancer risk in humans. We also reviewed relevant methodological and biomonitoring studies of glyphosate. Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. Data from biomonitoring studies underscore the importance of exposure assessment in epidemiologic studies, and indicate that studies should incorporate not only duration and frequency of pesticide use, but also type of pesticide formulation. Because generic exposure assessments likely lead to exposure misclassification, it is recommended that exposure algorithms be validated with biomonitoring data.
posted by Blasdelb at 7:08 AM on April 30, 2015 [9 favorites]


Has there ever been a more despicable and unprincipled shill than Patrick Moore?

Wait, I'm bad with faces. Is this the same Patrick Moore who's a Canadian climate "skeptic?" He may not be a shill for Monsanto but it's certainly difficult to take him seriously.
posted by muddgirl at 8:04 AM on April 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


That's the same Patrick Moore - the one who claims he's one of the founders of Greenpeace, but now he's seen the error of his ways he's the darling of rightwing anti-environmental journalism. He's sort of retired, but needs extra income from time to time.

Given the general journalistic standards of The Blaze, I expect a followup titled ROUNDUP CONSUMPTION PROVES GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX; ANTI-FRACKERS HATE ISRAEL.

It's Glenn Beck's house organ, and I think you nailed their organizational themes.
posted by sneebler at 3:32 PM on April 30, 2015


« Older And my imagination will feed my hungry heart   |   Gum is the impossible meal. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments