MF wrote:-
<<I think you guys missed my point. Whether you like it or not, mass media
reporters, politicians, and amateur environmentalists *are* the
environmental movement in the mind of the public. Their clownish antics
will eventually discredit serious environmental efforts>>
Ah! I see what Michael Foster meant now. This is a very significant point. A
common smear tactic used is to parade the opinions of the least sensible
exponent of any set of ideas as being, it is implied, the view of all.
Perhaps Jed knows which logical fallacy this is? If one talks to some drunk
redneck in a pub in the heartland (or even the Dime Box!) and gets their
political views would this accurately represent the views of the Republican
party? (actually, that may have been a poor analogy!!). Even the highest
exponents of sustainable environmentalism have to grandstand (or dumb down)
to get their point across sometimes. From decades of campaigning, I
remember one of the really irritating aspects goes like this. One saw an
environmental problem. One wrote to the business or politician who might
take action to correct it, explaining the situation, what the dangers were
and what could be done to change it. One heard nothing. One wrote again.
Nothing. Months or years go by. One tried to get the media interested.
Unless what one says is sensational, it is not very newsworthy and they
barely publish. Back to the perpetrators. Occasionally one got a stone
walling response or even quite unpleasant abuse. Although this never
happened to me, others, in other countries, receive death threats or threats
of physical violence, often targeted at one's family members. One aims
inflatable boats at whaling vessels or organises popular protests using
street marches, placards and people dressed up in animal costumes etc
etc.The media give one publicity.Well meaning people write to the media
deriding this silly tactic and they muse, patronisingly, to their circle
that it would have been so much better if the misguided environmentalists
had written letters first instead of reducing their credibility with
publicity stunts like this. Editorials agree with them. People in pubs
sneer. The sad fact is that "serious environmental efforts" quietly applied
behind the scenes are just ignored by the forces we have to contend with who
just hire very smart, very well paid, but morally bankrupt people who use
sophistry to justify business as usual and doing nothing.
Jed Rothwell wrote:-
<<I do not now of any knowledgeable environmental scientists in favor of
ethanol. Some amateur environmentalists and politicians favor it>>
and
<<I don't like Gore and never did, especially with regard to things
like ethanol.>>
Gore is much better than he is currently being painted by the black
propaganda. Unfortunately, in America, many seem to think as if America and
American values are not only the centre of the world/universe, but that they
actually ARE the centre of the world/universe. Somehow, to the "good ole
boys", the whole of the rest of the world seems to be only a faint and
shadowy area of little significance except if it conflicts with the
"American way".
Gore is probably the U.S.A's most important PUBLICIST for the
environmental problems that the world faces and I am sick of hearing the
mindless criticisms of his film "An inconvenient truth". These largely
consist of criticisms of the total accuracy of a few bits of the science and
scientific interpretation in the film coupled with Gore's political way out
of the crisis. As anyone who remembers, for example, Kirk Shanahan's endless
and nit-picky objections to the basic calorimetry evidence for excess heat
in CF cells early on in the field's history should realise, it is not
possible to present a film of this nature to scientists or scientifically
minded critics without someone being unhappy about some inaccuracies,
imagined or otherwise. As the Gore presented film was aimed at making the
GENERAL public aware of the potential dangers and broad scientific viewpoint
on the subject (as it clearly was), then OF COURSE there will be
simplifications and areas seen as inaccurate or not accurate enough. To have
presented a perfect case was impossible - even a slightly less than perfect
scientific case would have taken literally years. People can't sit on a
cinema seat that long. Implicit in criticisms of the film is a view that
decisions as to the repercussions of the threat of climate change etc should
be left to the professionals who feel like they "understand the issues".
Bollocks! Reasonably aware laymen are perfectly capable of understanding the
basic facts, theory and dangers and coming to a rational decision. It is the
ego challenged vanity of some scientists which leads them to believe that
they should be trusted as being some sort of great Einsteinian genius
leader, who the rest of us should look up to, whilst accepting their
dubious, value judgment biased OPINIONS without question.
We are conducting an unprecedented experiment with the make up of our
only atmosphere and despite all the scientific, theoretical work that
supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis it is all based on
extrapolation from past data and theory - it is hardly based upon
experimental science apart from the undisputed facts that percentage
changes in some gases, such as CO2, alter the transmissive, absorptive and
radiative characteristics of the atmosphere they are present in. Clearly,
how things will actually pan out in reality is uncertain. Those who point to
these uncertainties and attempt to reassure the public that things will be
OK, or even better than they are now, are simply pathological people. They
are either thick, mad or bad and they are definitely dangerous to know.
There is an extraordinarily stupid view about that the case for damaging
global warming has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt by universal
scientific agreement before action should be taken. This can never be proved
pre-facto because of the rules of philosophy and logic. Strangely enough
(heavy irony) very similar arguments were trotted out by the tobacco
companies attempting to wriggle out of the fact that they were peddling a
poisonous, addictive product that was killing people. Even stranger
(extremely heavy irony), it is said that some of the same P.R minds, or
their inheritors, are behind the current attempt to wriggle various
corporations and countries out of responsibility for global warming.
