HP3000-L Archives

April 2001, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:16:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Something that lurks behind most conversations on conservation, the
environment, Green politics etc is the multifaceted nature of the
issue.   It's not just about science.   Environmental thinking is part
science, part philosophy and/or religion, part economics and business,
and part politics.   With all those influences and factors in the mix
it's no wonder that the 'environmental' conditions for good science
are so challenging.

Yesterday the Sacramento Bee began a series on the environmental
movement.   The series is available on line at
http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/environment/index.html

Quote
Those who know the environment best -- the scientists who devote their
careers to it -- say environmental groups often twist fact into
fantasy to serve their agendas. That is especially true in the debate
over one of America's most majestic landscapes: its Western evergreen
forests. A 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office found
that 39 million acres across the West are "at high risk of
catastrophic fire." Yet many groups use science selectively to oppose
thinning efforts that could reduce fire risk.

"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate," said Jerry
Franklin, a professor of forest ecology and ecosystem science at the
University of Washington. "But that's the way we sell messages in this
society. We use hype. And we use those pieces of information that
sustain our position. I guess all large organizations do that."
http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/environment/20010422.html
End quote

The Greens love to point out that certain scientists are funded by
'corporate greed'.   It's always fair to point out the potential for
bias.    But Greens are hypocritical on this point.   They rarely come
to grips with the very real biases in academia, the competition for
grant dollars, and how government agencies spin the reports of their
research to maintain their public funding.   Monday's article in the
Bee examines how the annual 3.5 billion dollars of US charitable
donations for environmental causes are spent.

Cortlandt Wilson

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2