|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2001 : 13:47:43
|
There was a wonderful ABC special by John Stossel last night, called "Tampering with Nature". It generated some controversey, that in the end made the ratings beat out "Millionaire". Everything from genetically modified foods to global climate change to human cloning. I'll try to find a link to a transcript or see if it is going to reair anytime soon. Some tidbits:
- over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the Kyoto Treaty http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html
- Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
I highly recommend watching this to everybody here.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_010629_tamperingwithnature.html
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 14:04:52 [Permalink]
|
DanG! Missed it! There's so much dross on the tube these days I rarely even turn it on.
Stossel has been tagged a few times for getting his facts wrong, but overall he has a good track record. Plus, he's one of the very few skeptical voices in the media. When he sees bunk, he calls it bunk, and the heck with PC.
If you find out the show is going to air again, please let us know.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
 |
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 15:24:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
- Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
Nicely worded propaganda. Very classic. "Those fat liberals want third worlders, who are all starving, to die. US corporations are dilligently trying to save them out of the goodness of their hearts but those evil, greedy protester won't let them."
My Goebbels bell is ringing. Do you think the situation could be a little more complicated?
quote:
- over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the Kyoto Treaty
Who are these "scientists"? I was in the environmental industry, how come I didn't get to see this petition?
Why are you espousing the SEPP site?
One hallmark of being a skeptic is to think critically about what you read and say.
Who is SEPP? It would appear that they are just another conservative propaganda machine for corporate interests. When I look at SEPP, I see a snowjob in progress. I'd prefer to read data not snide and borderline misleading corporate opinion.
Climatic Confusion and Corporate Collusion:
Hijacking the Greenhouse Debate
Fred Singer is executive director of the think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This project was originally set up in 1990 with the help of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) which provided it with free office space. (SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon and receives its funding from various foundations.)[30]
SEPP argues that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are not real but rather are scare tactics used by environmentalists. Singer, speaks and writes prolifically on these subjects and is in demand by anti-environment groups.[31] He is on the advisory board of TASSC. Two of the leading Australian conservative think tanks have sponsored him to tour Australia, putting his views on global warming. Most recently he toured Austria in November 1997, prior to the Kyoto conference, and presented a speech to the Austrian parliament. He has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Arco.[32] According to the Environmental Research Foundation:
For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. Singer hasn't published original research on climate change in 20 years and is now an `independent' consultant, who spends his time writing letters to the editor, and testifying before Congress, claiming that ozone-depletion and global warming aren't real problems.[33]
The recently uncovered API documents reveal a new plan to "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach... this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal."[34]
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 16:20:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who is SEPP? It would appear that they are just another conservative propaganda machine for corporate interests. When I look at SEPP, I see a snowjob in progress. I'd prefer to read data not snide and borderline misleading corporate opinion.
Science is not, and should not be in the business of making public policy decisions. Scientific data can only suggest the risks and benefits to society of new technologies. It is up to the politicians to weigh the risks and benefits, and make public policy. It is interesting how these corporate front groups use names that evoke either scientific authority or grassroots origin to give their opinions more credibility. I would like to see the petition myself, if it exists.
quote:
Fred Singer is executive director of the think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This project was originally set up in 1990 with the help of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) which provided it with free office space. (SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon and receives its funding from various foundations.)[30]
Moon is also involved in efforts to eliminate the teaching of biological evolution.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 16:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
- Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
How exactly are the third world country going to get those new patented technologies?
How about giving them the surplus food we already have now?
Rhetorics aside I don't really see mankind to have another choice than to "temper with nature". We always have and we always will. If create a better cow by breading or by actively rearanging its DNA does not seem to be all that different.
On the other hand we are still a part of nature, so we might employ a bit of caution there.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 16:45:05 [Permalink]
|
EWG
Science and Environmental Policy Project
The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), run by former University of Virginia professor Dr. S. Fred Singer, has extensive ties to fossil fuels industries. On a Nightline program in February, 1994, it was revealed that Singer has accepted "consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun Oil." According to Ozone Action, an environmental organization, SEPP has also received funding from Monsanto, Philip Morris, and Texaco. Singer appeared as a witness during a 1995 Congressional ozone depletion hearing, claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers on his theories about the huge ozone hole over the South Pole. When Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer's only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed. Singer is a regular columnist in the Washington Times, a publication owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's far right Unification Church, where he has written many articles on climate change issues. In fact, Rush Limbaugh claims to get his information about the ozone depletion from sources that have been traced back to Singer (Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, #522, November 28, 1996).
EWG
Appendix A
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
This pro-industry coalition, created in 1993 to promote "sound science" in policy decision-making, is chaired by former New Mexico Gov. Garrey Caruthers. TASSC is based in the Washington, D.C. offices of the lobbying firm APCO Associates. TASSC claims a membership of over 400 corporations representing chemical, agricultural, manufacturing, oil, dairy, timber, paper and mining interests, including Amoco, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum, as well as industry trade associations. TASSC also has a science advisory panel of over 200 members, including some of the most prominent science skeptics in America. Among them:
Bruce Ames, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, sits on the board of three other backlash science organizations.
S. Fred Singer, who is associated with four other backlash organizations, heads the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
Patrick Michaels, who was the editor of World Climate Review magazine, disputes almost all universally accepted theories concerning global warming.
TASSC belongs to the Environmental Conservation Organization's "wise use" umbrella network. TASSC has pushed forward their science advisors to criticize studies ranging from the quality of drinking water to baby food, claiming that the reports were based on unscientific findings and are examples of scare tactics used by interest groups to drum up financial support.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 18:53:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There was a wonderful ABC special by John Stossel last night, called "Tampering with Nature". It generated some controversey, that in the end made the ratings beat out "Millionaire". Everything from genetically modified foods to global climate change to human cloning. I'll try to find a link to a transcript or see if it is going to reair anytime soon.
Glad you posted this. I was going to say something about it on another group also.
I think if I'm not mistaken, he did this show before or one very much like it.
I like his attitude and the way he questions everyone involved. He's a good libertarian.
But I do also keep in mind he's working for Disney. (even though I own that company too.)
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, it's great that maybe, JUST maybe it will get at least some people thinking and asking questions too, instead of blindly following.
''You are poised in the moment between thought and result. Put your dollar in the machine or get out of the casino.''
Edited by - snake on 06/30/2001 18:59:29 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 19:58:50 [Permalink]
|
Good grief! I did a search in Google for the petition, and the SEPP site was the first one to pop up! They just had a press release about it! The Oregon Institue of Science and Medicine is the originator of the petition. Chill out! You can't possibly call yourself a 'skeptic' with reactionary nonsense like that...
Why don't you watch the special before letting your emotional bias get in the way and labelling it 'propoganda'.
http://www.uschamber.org/Earthday/Resource+Facts/Air.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042501/opi_5998758.html
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/hotlines/global/pd011800a.html
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/op-ed/perkins/20010330-9999_1e30perkins.html
quote:
more than 17,000 scientists -- including some 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p725.htm
quote:
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/30/2001 20:09:54
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/30/2001 20:12:07 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 20:50:48 [Permalink]
|
I saw most of this show and it did seem pretty cool at the time but I have to admit that statements like:
quote:
Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
Do ring of propaganda. I have met many "tree huggers" over the years and I don't recall ever meeting a single plump one though I am sure that there are some. That statement is utterly unfair.
If you swallowed everything that show threw out and go to bed secure in the knowledge that everything's fine and that there really is nothing to worry about in regards to the environment.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 22:01:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
but I have to admit that statements like:
quote:
Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies that can save many third world peoples by giving them food, which they don't have.
Do ring of propaganda.
Only if you assume that the statement is lumping every single biofoods protesters into this one group. But the statement is just pointing out that there are an awful lot of hypocrites who are harming people. It's kind of like making fun of the vegitarian with the 'Meat is Murder' bumpersticker on their BMW with leather seats.
If a statement is true, can it still be propoganda?
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 00:54:49 [Permalink]
|
Yes I still think it's propaganda if the intent is to characterize an entire group of people unfairly. If it matters, I am all for sending these new plants and animals to third world nations. I just don't think statements like that are accurate or fair.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 02:39:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes I still think it's propaganda if the intent is to characterize an entire group of people unfairly.
I don't think it was meant to characterize an entire group. It applies to the people it applies to, no more, no less.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 02:53:59 [Permalink]
|
Let's look at just a portion of the statement:
quote:
Plump and well fed biofoods protesters are delaying important technologies...
So the skinny or average sized biofoods protestors that make up the vast majority of these protestors, are not delaying these technologies? The way it's phrased it implies that the only people behind the delay are "plump" and "well fed"
You really don't see some kind of smear going on here?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 06:20:06 [Permalink]
|
I visited Junk Science a while back and was amazed by what I found there. A few of the books had blistering comments from scientists. One of the books discounting global warming has a good number of scientists attacking it enthusiastically.
I think some of these people are worse than creation scientists but that's just for what i perceive as the motivation. For creation scientists the motivation is to reinforce their belief. For the anti-environmentalists it appears that the motivation is to reinforce their bank accounts.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 10:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Note also that there are literally millions of scientists in the US alone (I am defining here as having AS degree or higher in a scientific discipline) who work for large corporations. I have worked for two, and also for two smaller companies. The scientists who work for these companies are spoon-fed corporate self-serving propaganda on a constant basis. It's nice to feel that your job is to help the people of the world live better lives but that, in reality is not the case.
We need intellegent discussion of the risks and benefits as currently determined, not fear or self-serving propaganda. Analysis of risk is particularly difficult since, for any new technology only short term risks are known. Most longer term risks are hypothetical and speculative. We are at this point now with bioengineered plants. We don't know what they can do to the environment. Sure people like to laugh at folks upset at losing some butterflies but what are the effects on soil biology/chemistry? This issue alone may have disease consequenses. The organizations best equipped to perform the studies needed are the corporations who are developing the technologies. They won't perform all of the testing necessary for a true risk analysis so it becomes the realm of government and academia. Guess what. Funding for scientific research is being cut by the US government.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
