Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Putting science in the service of a pre-determined political agenda
has become business as usual in
Washington.
The consequences of this institutional dishonesty
have been devastating.
Few people are better suited to assess the current situation than Dr. Malcolm Ross. Dr. Ross is a recently retired research mineralogist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He holds a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. Dr. Ross is past president of the Mineralogical Society of America and has published 84 papers and 63 abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. He is currently affiliated with the Science and Environment Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia and is a research associate with the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York.
Cohen: How serious is the politicization of science in the United States?
Ross: It is very serious. Having 40 years experience as a research scientist with the United States Geological Survey, I am appalled at what I refer to as "politically correct science." Scientific investigation continually asks the question—is it true? The role of science is not only to discover new facts and phenomena, but to uncover errors appearing in previous investigations. Science is continually in the process of correcting previous work; no study is fixed forever in time. As the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman stated (if I may paraphrase him), the highest calling of a scientist is to show that his or her previous investigation is incorrect.
But this is not what happens in politically correct science. Once a political policy initiative has been introduced, sometimes but not always based on scientific investigation, the initiative persists even when new studies indicate that the premise on which the policy was based is incorrect.
Cohen: Could you give us some examples of junk science at work?
Ross: Examples of the misuse of science abound. My own experience is with asbestos and acid rain and how they relate to human health, both of which subjects I worked on as a U.S. government scientist. We have spent nearly $100 billion to remove asbestos from schools and other buildings, despite warnings by many of us that there was no nsk to the health of the building occupants. In 1990, EPA finally agreed with our risk estimate, but the damage had already been done, most of it by EPA.
Acid rain is another example. After nearly $600 million in scientific research by many scientists, it was found that acid rain has little or no effect on lakes or forests—despite the efforts of some environmentalists to promote the "politically correct" conclusion that acid rain is poisoning our lakes and killing our forests.
Other examples of the misuse of science are found in the propaganda promoted by the apocalyptics: that trace amounts of pesticides cause cancer, that radon and lead in homes are a serious health hazard, that electromagnetic fields pose risks to those around them, and that the manufacture of chlorinated organic compounds must cease because they pose a risk to human health and destroy ozone.
Cohen: The Clinton administration is actively pursuing policies aimed at curbing global warming Is this an example of junk science?
Ross: Yes it is. The idea that humans have significantly enhanced global warming is by far the most massive abuse of science that I ever have seen. The prediction of disastrous global warming is used to justify a policy of centralized control of the world's energy resources. Radical environ- mentalists believe that if the industrial nations do not reverse their economic growth they will destroy the Earth. Scientists who point out that recent measurements of actual temperatures do not indicate anything out of the ordinary—and plenty of scientists have found this are accused of being in the employ of greedy commercial interests. In fact, they are merely telling the truth. Those pushing the global warming—now called "climate change"—agenda do not want to hear it.
Cohen: Who benefits from the way science is used—or misused—to promote political agendas.)
Ross: I like to refer to these people as the power elite. They include high-level bureaucrats eager to expand their budgets and advance careers; CEOs of large corporations eager to curry favor with the bureaucrats who regulate them and to use that relationship to stifle competition from smaller companies; and heads of well-heeled foundations eager to spread their influence by passing out money earned by an earlier generation. The foundations—Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, among others—regularly funnel money and agendas to friendly environmental groups.
Cohen: How will all this affect the US economy?
Ross: The effect will be devastating, not only in the U.S. but also abroad, particularly in poorer countries The abuse of science for political purposes will inevitably lower the standard of living for the vast majority of people living on the Earth. To those who believe that industrial economies as we know them are at the root of all that is wrong with the world, curtailing industrial activity in the name of protecting public health and the environment makes a certain amount of sense. But the real consequence of all this will be to harm public health and the environment. Wealthier is healthier.
Cohen: Is government funding of scientific research the problem?
Ross: Yes and no. The problem is the kind of science that the government funds. Unfortunately, funding for basic research is being cut back in favor of more politically correct projects, such as global warming. More often than not, basic research, such as the above- mentioned acid rain study, does not produce the results the elite had hoped for. Critics of politically correct science are generally willing to fund some basic science but are wary of allocating money for applied science, fearing it will be misused.
Also, Congress has no idea what to do with scientific data, and thus for the most part ignores it. If Congress can be convinced that funding a project will save lives or otherwise benefit public health or the environment, it will eventually fund the project. But who does the "convincing" determines which research projects are funded. It's very difficult for a scientist, particularly one challenging the conventional wisdom, to get the ear of a key senator or congressman, or even someone on their staff.
In the last session of Congress, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was abolished. OTA was an in-house Congressional advisory office on scientific issues. Its elimination may have saved money, but Congress must now rely on the President's science adviser or outside think tanks for guidance. Unfortunately, these organizations often have their own, hidden, agendas, and are not necessarily the best source for independent scientific evaluation.
|
| Some environment doomsayers warn that electricity transmission towers generate dangerous electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Dr. Malcolm Ross, however, considers that claim to be evidence of "junk science" at work. |
Cohen: It sounds to me as if the problem is bad and getting worse. What would you suggest as a way of avoiding the politicization of science?
Ross: A tough question. Getting people with blatantly political agendas away from the levers of scientific research will, under the current climate, not be easy. But, at least, we must acknowledge that this is the biggest problem of all. Next, we must fund at a reasonable level basic scientific research, giving scientists the freedom to conduct their own investigations and carry out their own experiments. This funding should come from private, government, and corporate institutions. Just like free markets, we need scientific competition to find the best answers in both basic and applied research. Scientists must be absolutely honest in their reporting, giving both the data that support their conclusions, and the data that do not.
This is often not the case with the politically correct science we have to deal with today. Let me give you just one example: The advocates of global warming often ignore the whole earth satellite data that show a slight cooling over the past 18 years. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) omitted satellite data in its report released last summer, the one used to justify measures to combat global warming. The IPCC relied instead on climate models which are notoriously inaccurate, particularly when it comes to factoring in the effects of water vapor and cloud cover on global temperatures.
In more honest times, scientists used observations to test the accuracy of models. Today, models are used to discredit observations.
SEPP Misuse of Science Page
Misuse of Science
Selected Articles, Editorials, Letters:
in The World and I (7/97) "Failed Predictions," a review of Paul and Anne Ehrlichs' book, Betrayal of Science and Reason, by S. Fred Singer.
in Environment News (6/97) "...the Most Massive Abuse of Science I Have Seen." an interview with Dr. Malcolm Ross
in Environment (5/97) "Science Under Siege", letters by Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer.
in Washington Post Book World (1/5/97) Eco-fever, letter by S. Fred Singer regarding the Book World review of Betrayal of Science and Reason.
in The Earth Times (9/26/94) "Wasted Dollars on Hype," commentary by S. Fred Singer.
in San Diego Union-Tribune (5/23/93) "Bad Science, Bad Law," commentary by Candace C. Crandall.
in Roanoke Times & World News (12/29/92) "Give Industry a Bigger Science Role," commentary by Patrick J. Michaels.
in Houston Chronicle (11/2/92) "Beware of Environmental Apocalypse Overload," commentary by Patrick J. Michaels.
Lectures:
"The Use and Misuse of Science," lecture at St. Vincent's College, February 1, 1995.
"We have spent nearly $100 billion to remove asbestos from schools and other buildings, despite warnings by many of us that there was no nsk to the health of the building occupants. In 1990, EPA finally agreed with our risk estimate, but the damage had already been done, most of it by EPA."
Our local schools have been removing asbestos. It was a huge mess, and the asbestos which had been totally sealed up inside the walls was released into the air for all to enjoy.... Then we heard it would have been safer, healthier, better, and CHEAPER to have left it where it was, it wasn't hurting anyone...
This vague "power elite" this man refers to may or may not exist, but I am more worried about the actual elite of the extremely wealthy owners of the oil and chemical corporations that truly rule this planet, who stand to lose trillions, quadrillions, if steps are taken to protect the safety of the planet. Why are conscientious conservatives constantly being duped by the extremely wealthy into believing that protecting the fantastically wealthy has anything to do with protecting actual freedom? Just go take a walk in the foothills of the Sierras and look at the acres and acres and acres of dead trees and tell me how harmless all those chemicals in the air are. Look at the tumors on the fish and the decimation of the marine life in the Great Lakes before "junk scientists" started to call the world's attention to the carnage, and things began to be done. Look at cancer rates worldwide, and the clusters that occur around areas of chemical contamination. Freedom loving Americans, do not, in the name of freedom, serve masters who don't care whether you live or die! This man makes valid points about asbestos removal, but the reason the huge abatement program happened was because there were big government contractors who stood to make billions off the contracts to do the removals. Follow the money: always look for who stands to get rich off a particular position being taken. The idea of a shadowy group of one-worlders who want central control of energy sources does not stand up against the simpler notion of the very rich who want to get richer.
In addition to your links, there is a web site put together by SEPP, which addresses the issue of "Global Warming", which I refer to as "Global Whining". The site documents the opposition to the Kyoto Treaty in the form of declarations by Environmental Scientists who dispute this popular (but unproven) theory.
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Regards,
Just go take a walk in the foothills of the Sierras and look at the acres and acres and acres of dead trees and tell me how harmless all those chemicals in the air are.
What professional foresters will tell you is that those forests are dying because of neglect. If you want healthy forests, either we must allow forest fires to periodically kill them off, or selectively harvest mature trees to keep the pests from attacking the older trees, which allows these parasites to infect and kill the younger trees.
In addition, do you advocate government control of these resources a la the Soviet Union, with their "pristine environment"?
It will take decades, if not longer, to clean up that poisoned and polluted land.
Regards,
I am more worried about the actual elite of the extremely wealthy owners of the oil and chemical corporations that truly rule this planet ...
You read The Nation, right?
Major oil and chemical companies are publicly owned. Their 'major' shareholders are mutual fund managers, pension fund managers and others who represent the American public.
The Rockefellers, for example, haven't had control of an oil company for more than 75 years.
Your paranoia is grossly out of date. (But those morons rioting in Sweden would agree with you.)
Actually the biggest fraud, and even "politization" of science was in the false vanity that good science was "pure" of taint from politics, from religion, from meta-physics. This false mind-set came in with the same tide of intellectual hubris that brought us secular education (Dewey), evolution-as-a-theology (Huxleys/Darwin), and the secular technostatists (Russell/Bourbaki/the NY men's clubs). Men is potent, fer sure. But not omnipotent, nor is the entertainment of god-less "pure-science" fanstasies helpful to real science.
The scientific giants up through the late 1800's all acknowledged and used their impure political energies and still did great science.
all that asbestos removed and lots of the work apparently not necessary. Just think if that 100 billion went to building and maintaining schools instead of where it went.
There are many similar abuses, this is just the tip of the iceburg. It has been identified by some experts that it is not unusual for the federal government to force industry to spend one billion dollars to have the effect of saving either perhaps one life or zero lives. We're building houses now that have the ground pre-treated with chemicals to protect the house from termites. But in 1989 the government forced these firms to switch to chemicals that are ineffective by comparison. The result is that wood frame homes built would normally last 300-400 years and without the chemicals we used to use they will now likely last 100-150 years due to termites. This is an enormous cost. In many locations where this rule is enforced the groundwater is very deep, 2000 feet or more, there's no way those chemicals will ever seep into the water supply, no possible way and yet the rule is enforced.
Lots of blue collar and high paying jobs have been destroyed for environmental regulations that don't really do any good at all for the environment. Lots of the environmentalist inspired regulations actually cause damage to the environment even.
The foresters I've talked to blame the chemicals in use in the Central Valley. I guess it's all a question of which forester you want to believe.
This vague "power elite" this man refers to may or may not exist, but I am more worried about the actual elite of the extremely wealthy owners of the oil and chemical corporations that truly rule this planet, who stand to lose trillions, quadrillions, if steps are taken to protect the safety of the planet.
The government taxes trillions of dollars every year, and you think a power elite 'may or may not' exist?
In the last century, tens of millions of people died under the yoke of slavery in Nazi and Communist regimes. How can you speak of corporate executives as 'truly ruling the planet?' They don't own a single nuclear weapon or tank, and it wasn't them who razed Waco.
The total amount of area in ANWR that Bush wants turned over for oil drilling is 2000 acres. It works out to less than fifty square inches for every man, woman, and child in America! Refusing to drill there isn't saving the environment; it's condemning millions of Americans to the cold and the dark.
It really amazes me that there are people in the world who think that energy comes from politicians, lawyers, and environmental activists. The oil companies are just standing in the way of more energy and conservation. How that works exactly is never explained. But it just does.
Too late ... it's a "New Age" issue:
For more information on the "New Age" issue that is the "environment" and other "scientific" concerns, please see "A Call to Vigilance, Pastoral Instruction on "New Age" by Archbishop Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico.Then there is the entire range of New Age issues: environment, cultural and scholarly exchange, among many others. A permanent dialogue is needed as the best means to create a more stable world or, at a minimum, to demonstrate to the American people and America’s allies why it is not possible.Excerpt from Does America Need a Foreign Policy? by Henry Kissinger
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
Well, my source is a guy that works for the US Forest Service, who has spent his life studying the Sierra Nevada specifically.
Who's yours?
Take Bill Gates for example, he actually "owns" a little over 14% of Microsoft. When you come right down to it Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Drugs, Big Etc. is Big US. All of us.
Just like this piece on science, the BS put out by idiots in the Democratic party about American business is just astounding. Same goes for the media! You would think that the things that makes the country run, business, is evil.
At least Bush and Cheney have business experience. Something the Clintons never had and never will understand because they are socialists. Which means that THEY basically want to be Big everything.
I live in the Great Lakes...and know it quite well, having sailed around much of it. Pray tell me about the alleged 'decimation' to which you speak...and its purported causes?
And please note, the interviewee never claimed that there were not some environmental causes to certain regrettable things. Acid rain is probably what got you going. Are you more of a scientist than Dr. Ross? Can you prove your forests in the Sierras are damaged from acidified rainwater? Or is it in fact from some other pollution arriving via a different vector? Well, can you?
BUMP for a great read.
"The foresters I've talked to blame the chemicals in use in the Central Valley. I guess it's all a question of which forester you want to believe."
They probably read this in USA Today.
The Rangers -- forgive me, I don't know if they were National Forest or National Park -- in the ranger station in Mineral King, on the Western Slope of the Sierras. The area of trees I've seen first hand is both inside and outside Sequoia National Park.
I got into a conversation with several research scientists one night and they clued me in on how government research really works. The government gives researchers a sum of money and a time limit (for this example, let's say two years) to study something. The researchers get to work. The government comes back in a couple months and asks for a report. The researchers tell the gov't rep their findings aren't ready, they still have 20 months to go before their data will be ready. The gov't rep presses and eventually gets an interim report, over the scientists' protestations. If this forced interim report in any way supports the gov't's hoped-for position, the research is immediately shut down and the interim report becomes valid research/truth, to be used to further the political agenda. It is quoted from and published under the U.S. gov't logo as fact.
Thank you for posting this reasoned commentary. The misuse of science at every turn has been one of the most noxious characteristics of the Leftwing assault on civilization. The sad truth is that the danger of this sort of abuse will almost certainly increase with the ever more technological aspect of our lives. As always, we remain dependent upon the "eternal vigilence," that Jefferson--himself a true scientist as well as statesman--recommended to us.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The rangers in the National Parks are the most ignorant people in the mountains. You might just think of them as the summer help, who are recruited to parrot the same "environmentally correct" lies to the tourists, the way that the tour guides at the attractions in Washington, D.C. do. I've worked in the mountains, and the rangers are usually complete idiots. There are exceptions, but one thing that they are NOT is trained scientists.
By the way, the next time someone tells you that story, ask them what the transport mechanism is for these chemicals to get up and move from the valley into the forests. My bet is that they can't come up with a plausible answer. After all, water runs downhill, to the ocean, and the farmers want those chemicals to stay put and do their job. In addition, most of the ones that they use for pest control now degrade fairly rapidly, the way that Roundup does. Now, if you want to talk about selenium, and the long-term problems of irrigation, that is a major problem, but that's one that the farmers will have to solve, and has nothing to do with the forests.
Government funding of science is one of the huge problems, actually. It results in similar problems to government funding of art.
Several years ago when visiting Washington State, I viewed hundreds of acres of forest that had been clear cut. It looked like the scene from a nuclear holocaust, blackened stumps poking up from the blacked hillsides.
I was appalled and for the first time understood why the environmentalists go nuts over this kind of thing. However, the land was private property and I felt the owner surely had the ability to do whatever he wanted with his land.
Recently I visited the area again and couldn't believe my eyes. Where once was devastation, now was the most beautiful green forest I'd ever had the privilege to see.
I sincerely believe that the only true way to maintain our environment is to love it. When you love something you take care of it. Since the government controls an enormous percentage of the open land in the U.S., and since government as an entity is incapable of love, and since those Sierras you speak of are government land, I doubt you will see any progress with the problems you state are happening there.
Click the graphic below to support FreeRepublic and help keep our republic free.
"Look at the tumors on the fish"
These are common and often benign, just like the common cysts and fat tumors and skin tags on people.
"and the decimation of the marine life in the Great Lakes"
some due to overfishing, some to stocking of predator species, some to invasive species that hitchhiked in in bilges and ballast.
"before "junk scientists" started to call the world's attention to the carnage, and things began to be done."
As a scuba diver and as someone who has lived in the Upper Midwest all my long life, the *junk scientists* were mainly publicity hounds and in your follow the money scenario, it was those getting published and getting grants and appointments to Governor and Presidential Task Forces/Blue Ribbon Commission who benefitted. Ever been on a Task Force or appointed commission or a grants peer review board? I have and they are political in the extreme. They are also a waste of time and of taxpayers dollars. They are what politicians do when they can't do anything. A good way to look busy...and in my experience, the Governor or President or Mayor could care less about the group or its conclusions, except for those ever-important photo ops.
"Look at cancer rates worldwide,"
They are declining percipitously as the fruits of real research are finally coming to maturity. Many, many people are alive today as survivors due to science. Consensus is that many cancers are genetic. Some need a genetic component and a trauma (like a bone crack) or an additional insult of some sort, sometimes chemical. Environmental causes were overblown by the radicals. See the history of Love Canal, the aforementioned asbestos scare, the present day *black mold* scares, DDT, just for starters.
"and the clusters that occur around areas of chemical contamination."
*Clusters* are, by definition, statistical anomalies. Some clusters occur in areas of *chemical contamination*. Some don't. Please check out some public health sites and some epidemiology sites that are evidence-based, as opposed to politically motivated before throwing the buzzwords around.
"Freedom loving Americans, do not, in the name of freedom, serve masters who don't care whether you live or die!"
Freedom loving people of any nationality serve no masters by definition. This is hyperbole and the scent of agent provocateur emantes from your post. If you had a clue, you would realize that corporations and entrepreneurs who _sell_ goods and services care a lot about their customer base and demographics. It is good business. Why be in business to destroy your market? Makes no sense at all. It is the radical greens who hate human life and would just as soon see us all dead, along with all the domestic meat animals and all our pets, as not under their collective power trip.
"This man"
This man is a highly credentialed scientist with government experience who made his valid information public when Clinton was in charge.
"makes valid points about asbestos removal, but the reason the huge abatement program happened was because there were big government contractors who stood to make billions off the contracts to do the removals."
Whoa! Contractors are people who bid to do a job paid for by the government.BTW, bids take time, money, knowledge and don't always get you the job. The billions of our tax money were available because the Chicken Littles who worship the Nanny State forced that legislation through the States and Federal processes. In my area, the costs were shared by the citizens of the school district and for private property, were born by the owner. Nationwide, trillions of dollars of real estate was devalued, purchased for back taxes and redeveloped for profit_after_ the asbestos scare was discovered to have been overblown. These abatement programs were the direct result of pressure by those manipulated by organizers and change agents. We called them *warm bodies* 30 years ago and we called what we did to get them riled up "Conciousness raising".
"Follow the money: always look for who stands to get rich off a particular position being taken."
Absolutely. Please do a seach for "Environment, Inc", by Tom Knudsen of the Sacremento Bee. Knudson began as a supporter of the environmental movement 30 years ago. He has won 2 Pulitzers. His latest investigative work will earn him a 3rd. Big Green makes millions out of environmental scares, some of it in donations, much in land grabs they then sell back to the Fed, for a profit, some in shakedown money from the corporations who are as afraid of them as they are of Je$$e. You follow the money; it ain't where you want us to believe it is. And: we know that already, so you are wasting your time here. It would be better if you followed these links and did some research.
"The idea of a shadowy group of one-worlders who want central control of energy sources does not stand up against the simpler notion of the very rich who want to get richer."
It isn't shadowy. It is an open collusion. It may surprise you to know that the real truth is in a coalition of Leftists, Greens, the guilty rich, the clueless so-called *cultural creatives*,and any other opportunist who smells advantage to joining them that IS about control and power. What a trip, eh, to dictate the sort of washing machine we can own, what we can do with our private land, how we can eat our eggs and meat, what jobs we can have, where we can vacation,etc, etc, ad nauseum. The richest men in the world are funding drug legaliztion. How's that for "the simpler notion of the very rich who want to get richer."
Your agenda is showing.
What's their motive for parroting these lies? Who profits from the lies the rangers tell? It's clear who profits from saying they are lies. So tell me, whom do the lies serve?
As I remember, the chemicals they were talking about were carried by dust and held at a certain level by the inversion layer -- that's garbled, but basically what I got. And in fact all the dead trees were more or less within a very narrow band of elevation.
Those rangers are just repeating what they've been told. Next time you're up there, scratch the surface by asking some more questions, and you'll find that there's nobody home. RANGERS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, they're just traffic cops that happen to be stationed in the woods. Most of the time, they're just keeping the peace in the campgrounds, and trying to keep the drinking/drugs/noise level at tolerable levels, and keep the roads clear.
As for who profits, the people who profit from these fictions are the junk scientists who keep their gravy train rolling by circulating these myths, which is what this article is about. You need to do some research, and find some facts.
the next time someone tells you that story, ask them what the transport mechanism is for these chemicals to get up and move from the valley into the forests.
Whoa, buddy, big mistake.
The people who scream loudest about the scare du jour (whatever that may be) are almost always the ones who majored in feminist studies, caligraphy, coed jogging and other, even more useless disciplines like social work and teaching.
Ask 'em a technical question, and they have not choice but to revert to personal abuse -- ie: "So what are you, some sort of stooge for McDonald's/ starbucks/ microsoft (whatever that week's enemy of the people happens to be)"
It's much better to have fun with these people. Tell 'em that pollution, unlike water runs up hill, or that the penguin population at the North Pole is being endangered by the effect of starch run-offs from chinese laundries in Nome. Let your imagination run wild, simpletons will swallow just about anything if it confirms their initial, emotionally based opion.
Then, sooner or later, they'll parrot the falsehoods you've planted in front of people who may actually be able to think. Presto! A convert to rationality.
It's pointless trying to persuade nitwits. Make use of them instead.
There's so much global warming going on here today in the Big Apple, I'm off to have a beer.
Teaching is useless discipline? Are you joking?
I thought this article was good enough to put links to it here, and here:
DUBOB IV- yet more Tales from the Dark
Underbelly of the Beast-
My husband went to EPA school, took the State Test and passed. He never used it, for this reason, Do you know what they charge for an inspection for say, Lead Base Paint in homes, about $350 at the time, Do you know what the test actually cost, $45.00. He no longer receives any of their newsletters, wished I had saved some of them as they expose themselves in their own newsletters. Maybe one of you will go take the course and get the real poop. Anyone can do their own Lead Base Paint test, or Radon for that matter if you just know where to purchase the kit.
EPA was nothing more than a scare tactic on the American people, in order to create themselves prosperous jobs.
Now to other junk science so to speak: Does anyone think as I do that the American people are nothing more than 7 yr. research guinea pigs? Science puts out a scare via the media, say coffee is bad for your health, then seven years later it is proved wrong. What they have done is make every one a test case. Not only are we subsidizing their research, but we are also their guinea pigs. Seems this EPA quack science is more of the same.
I for one chose never to participate. I eat anything I want. Pass the salt. please.
Several years ago when visiting Washington State, I viewed hundreds of acres of forest that had been clear cut. It looked like the scene from a nuclear holocaust, blackened stumps poking up from the blacked hillsides.
(snip)
Recently I visited the area again and couldn't believe my eyes. Where once was devastation, now was the most beautiful green forest I'd ever had the privilege to see.
Sort of like a Garden in late fall vs the same garden in the spring? Continuing life is a cycle of life and death. From death comes life, from life comes death. Our aesthetic values are not a consideration.
"Schools of education" are mostly useless indonctrination camps. Look at the number of people with postgraduate degrees for frickin cryin out loud who can't pass a competency exam in science or math! These are degree mills. A degree in any other field - pick one: law, engineering, etc. - especially a postgraduate degree means you are competent and likely to pass the professional licensing exams you may face. Teaching is noble, it's just that the way we teach teachers is a total farce, which has led to the sad fact that sudents in schools of education are, on average, the bottom of the barrel. OK, maybe social work is lower.
In more honest times, scientists used observations to test the accuracy of models. Today, models are used to discredit observations.
A Nobel Prize in honesty to Dr. Ross.
"Look at the tumors on the fish"
These are common and often benign, just like the common cysts and fat tumors and skin tags on people.
Some of those "tumors" are clam larvae. Freshwater clams are parasitic on fish at one stage in their lives.
"Some of those "tumors" are clam larvae. Freshwater clams are parasitic on fish at one stage in their lives."
Yes. Same in some of the saltwater species. First time diving in the BVIs, I saw this and freaked, thinking the fish were diseased, until the divemasters explained.
I've had two kids go through, collectively, almost twenty years of education, and with few exceptions I've been deeply impressed by their teachers: their patience, intelligence, and talent. One or two bad apples, but where aren't you going to get bad apples? The problem with education is that teachers are underpaid; the upside of that is that it's mostly people who have the calling who end up doing it. Look at some of the jerks who become doctors and lawyers, where the money is.
Thanks, and a friendly flag!
Thanks for the additonal corroborational links! And a Volley Flag!
Thanks for the post. It gives me some ammo to use in an ongoing debate that I've had with a liberal/green friend. I have maintained that there is no conclusive evidence for global warming and he has jumped on the doomsaying bandwagon. (I should add that he does appreciate President Bush's openess to dialogue on the global warming issue.)
For those who may have missed it, an interesting commentary by Alan Keyes:
BIG BIG BUMP
sooner or later, they'll parrot the falsehoods you've planted
This is so easy that it is not even entertaining. Of course it doesn't work on FR, but by the same token, don't try this with someone you are trying to cultivate as a trusted friend. Trust is the word of the day.
Just to put a couple of search terms into the thread:
The modern political environment may not be quite identical to what it was 70 years ago. The tools available to institutional system players may not be called the same names. The goals of the various parties may appear to be unrelated on some levels to the revolutionary goals of the past century and a half. But a parallel exists. IMHO.
Granted, it would never work on FR, where intelligence levels are substantially above average.
But in the dim enclaves of the left, you can persuade those folks to believe in just about anything -- if you can keep a straight face.
There's one guy I used to work with who now believes -- firmly and absolutely -- that FDR had a gay affair with Marshall. It confirmed his view, you see, that history is peppered with acts of secret sodomy, and that the great heterosexual conspiracy kept them all hushed up.
I know, I know - it's a bit like teasing small children. But it's also fun when done in moderation. cheers!
Excellent article. Thanks.
Bookmarked!
You're welcome, Victoria. Volley on!
Right Whale: I have to say I am so impressed with this guy's political analysis (see clip below). Pretty sharp tack for a 'pure scientist' type! They're usual pretty ivory-tower! The convergence of interests he identifies may indeed be best classed as 'the power elite.'
Cohen: Who benefits from the way science is used—or misused—to promote political agendas.
Ross: I like to refer to these people as the power elite. They include high-level bureaucrats eager to expand their budgets and advance careers; CEOs of large corporations eager to curry favor with the bureaucrats who regulate them and to use that relationship to stifle competition from smaller companies; and heads of well-heeled foundations eager to spread their influence by passing out money earned by an earlier generation. The foundations—Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, among others—regularly funnel money and agendas to friendly environmental groups.
"I am more worried about the actual elite of the extremely wealthy owners of the oil and chemical corporations that truly rule this planet, who stand to lose trillions, quadrillions, if steps are taken to protect the safety of the planet."
My I suggest that you bother yourself to find out who these "actual elite" are by obtaining lists of stock-holder names of the evil companies that you mention.
You'll find as Pogo said "WE have met the enemy and he is us.".
Look at the tumors on the fish and the decimation of the marine life in the Great Lakes before "junk scientists" started to call the world's attention to the carnage, and things began to be done.
However, I have not seen ANY mention in the Press about what is undoubtedly the biggest conspiracy EVER, to cover up the WORST contamination case in history.
Right now, even as we speak, EVERY major (and minor) source of water in this country is BADLY contaminated with Hydroxic Acid, and if the Gubmint ever let the Sheeple know that they have KNOWN about this contamination for about 60+ years, the Sheeple would burn Washington to the ground!!
AND IT JUST GETS WORSE EVERY DAY.
Did you know that both oceans and every river have some degree of contamination. It has been estimated that some underground aquifers are so badly contaminated that they have almost a 1 million ppm ratio of Hydroxic Acid to groundwater???
And the bureaucratic silence is DEAFENING. Where is the OUTRAGE?? Does no one care?? As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study of this potentially devastating contamination.
Forget the trees dying in some small isolated area, due to pests. If we can't use our water supplies because they are nearly saturated with Hydroxic Acid, then we are all up the contaminated creek without a paddle!!!
And I have yet to hear a good reason as to why this deadly substance is formed. Scientists are sure of this much: as freewheeling Hydrogen atoms are drifting around in the upper atmosphere, some sort of energy is applied, forcing some hapless Oxygen Atom to share two of its outer shell electrons covalently with two rogue Hydrogen atoms. (they are unsure whether it is ultraviolet radiation more easily making it through the depleted ozone layer, or from some other source of high-end-of-the-spectrum electromagnetic energy) When these elements are combined in the right ratio, Hydroxic Acid is formed. Hydroxic Acid is by FAR the largest constituent of Acid Rain.
I just hope the Big Gubmint DemonRats get their heads out of the sand before we have a huge increase in the amount of Hydroxic Acid related deaths.
GWR
Thank you for your reasonable, and thoughtful post.
Thanks for flagging me Paul!!
GWR
25 years ago I was a long line trucker running through Washington state monthly. The forests of western Washington were slowly dying off from a pest attack. In 7 years the initial areas that I could see from the highway muliplied so fast I couldn't believe it. I prayed for a major fire (never got one). I have no idea the financial loss to the state but the loss to wildlife had to be tremendous.
That was when I was convinced that the tree huggers had their skulls firmly embedded in their rectums. Major surgery won't correct this disease according to the AMA, only loggers or fire would have saved that end of the state then.
Bump!!
Where can I read more about this?
Actually I think you're absolutely right. And the terrible truth is, my car gets less than 15 miles to the gallon. The enemy is me. I keep talking about getting a hybrid gas/electric, but I don't pick up the phone to get myself on the waiting list, because I really like my big sleek fancy gas eater. So who am I to talk?
Thanks for the heads up!
It took me a few minutes to realize that you are joking. One million ppm! Very funny. I'm ashamed it took me this long. You can laugh all the way to the Silent Spring, Mr. Gratefulwharffratt. It's politically expedient for you to laugh, but the joke's on our grandchildren.
Where can I read more about this?
That is why we must ring the alarm BELL as loudly as we can.
We must use our analytical skills to get to the bottom of this terrible potential problem. We CAN'T rely on scientists who will cover for "Big Gubmint."
The fact that no one has ever heard of this problem only underscores the Gubmint's ability to sweep this under the rug.
Maybe we should write to our elected representatives, and ask why we have never heard of this problem!!
GWR
PS-- Really and truly WE should research this OURSELVES, instead of relying on somebody else to do our research and thinking for us!! Can we really trust the Gubmint to uncover this?? It is NOT in the interests of them to do so....
THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT....
VERY few people outside the 'Cabal' even have an inkling.
Save the Seals!! Before it is too Late!!
GWR
Save the Seals!!
Dang!!
If the water had been 2 degrees warmer.....
What you said, BUMP.