The biggest problem is that the lay public -and by that I mean nearly everyone including and sometimes especially the educated - think theyre immune to propaganda and most don't tend to approach problems and issues and TV and newspaper reports with the skeptical minds that can really think to question the source of the info. Dr Nancy Snow studies propaganda and says those who think they are immune are often most vulnerable. People tend to think if it made its way to TV it must have been vetted through some "people who know" but press don't always know themselves how science works. Is it a single study or a consensus? Who funded it? What was the sample size? These type of questions should be addressed by mainstream news in my opinion. Or we need a Jon Stewart daily show mocking the way media presents science. Maybe I should do that...
Wendee www.wendeeholtcamp.com Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:36:35 To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Newsweek published a major article a month or two ago about the effort of those with big money to pay people, including at least one scientist, to misinform the public about climate change. Misinformation has been used in military operations for a long time with great success (e.g., misinforming the Germans where the D-Day invasion would occur). So, using scientists that are willing to be "paid off" to keep the public guessing is not beyond the scope of reality. Neither is one admitting part of the truth then denying another part. Seems the person is spouting the whole truth by admitting to part of the truth. At least it makes it harder to determine if they are touting the whole truth. Also a common practice. Irregardless of the science, there will always be those that try to fool others into believing the wrong thing, usually because of the wrong "green" -- money, power, or a combination of the two. Economics is about money and it is not surprising to me that these individuals will use any misinformation method available or that can be developed in an attempt to keep the public guessing. Thus the importance of educating everyone so they can distinguish truth from error, including those in the "third" world who will eventually play a singnificant role in determining the world's course of action. Bill "Gator" Gates ******************************************************** William R. Gates Wildlife Biologist Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 2700 Refuge Headquarters Road Decatur, Alabama 35603 Phone: (256) 353-7243 Extension 25 Fax: (256) 340-9728 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wheeler.fws.gov "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To com> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent by: cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], .conbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 10/23/2007 04:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED], PM [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Iâve been following the ECOLOG discussion on climate change "denial science" with great interest. Many of the climate change deniers have much in common with those who deny that there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. For example, both camps of deniers tend to be comprised of hirelings of, or were selected in a process strongly influenced by, "big money" (i.e., pro-growth, typically corporate and anti-regulatory entities). This point would be too obvious to be worth mentioning, except that now we are seeing a fascinating denial dialog developing regarding the relationship of economic growth and climate change. I noticed this at a climate change conference yesterday, where the old CIA Director Woolsey et al., while fully concurring that climate change is upon us, and substantially human-induced, are not yet ready to concede that climate change and other environmental threats are fundamental outcomes of economic growth. (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at least note that, with a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, economic growth simply = global warming. And also that, with economic growth - increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate - prioritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with climate change means not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale onlining of nuclear, tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as Woolsey pointed out, renewables such as solar and wind wonât come anywhere near the levels our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying on a spectrum, where endpoints might be defined either in terms of hardness/softness of science (e.g., physics hard, climate change science medium, ecological economics softish), or else in terms of political economy (e.g., from little to big money at stake). Denial would tend to be motivated pursuant to principals of political economy, and gotten away with in proportion to the softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the science. Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043 Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ SSWG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.conbio.org/mailman/listinfo/sswg
