Speak Up America has joined in supporting a newly found Tucson organization called the Society for Environmental Truth (SET). We learned of the organization as result of an article printed in the Tucson Citizen. It is one of hopefully many organizations that are being formed to combat the lies perpetrated by most environmental groups.
As an example of the deception used, on May 7th, 1992, CNN reported a story concerning the safety of workers at American nuclear manufacturing plants. The official release is, there is no harm. By airing the story, CNN gives credibility to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Physicians for Social Responsibility by giving them a national platform to air their complaint. They, of course, disagree with the official position, citing no facts, only statements like “we disagree.”
They are in fact an anti-nuclear politically active environmental group posing as spokesmen for the scientific community. They are considered by many in the scientific community as a renegade organization.
When a scientist becomes an activist for any proposition, he is no longer a scientist and should no longer be presented by the media as one. When any person is presented as an “expert” on a subject and that person has their own opinion the same holds true. They should not be presented as an expert. A good example of that was when the media presented Catherine McKinnon as a “women’s representative” during the Thomas hearings. Catherine McKinnon is the feminist leader who believes married women are raped by their husbands during normal sex. How could she have any opinion, on any subject that any of us would want to listen to is beyond me.
I am not saying CNN or any other in the media does not have the right to present these people to voice their opinion. I am saying, when they do, they should be presented as who they really are, not who they appear to be. I doubt if many American’s know who the “Union of Concerned Scientists” really is.
I attended a debate between a representative of the Sierra Club and one from the Society for Environmental Truth where the Sierra Club debater would refer to findings made by the Union of Concerned Scientists to support what he was saying. That’s like saying it was OK for Germany to invade Poland and using Hitler as supporting evidence.
CNN and others continue to present organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists as representing science. The “Union” is typical of organizations that support the likes of Helen Caldicott who in a speech to the “Union” said:
“Scientists who work for nuclear power or nuclear energy have sold their soul to the devil. They are either dumb, stupid, or highly compromised. Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. And they have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…Capitalism is destroying the earth. Cuba is a wonderful country. What Castro’s done is superb.”1
The point is, the media consistently air the views of minority interest groups and lend them the credibility of speaking for science, which they are, in fact, far removed from.
The truth is we have turned our back on the scientific community, and renegades, with the title of scientist, are coming out and making wild statements that the media are giving national platforms. There was a time when a scientist worked on a proposition for ten years, wrote a paper that was reviewed by his peers and if they found his work did not pass the test of exact fact, the proposition was rejected.
Today a scientist releases his proposition to the media who, if it is sensational enough, prints it as fact and his peers take ten years proving his proposition wrong.
Rumor, suggestion of possibility, unproven hypothesis and wild accusation is the basis of almost every major headline the environmentalist movement has used in recent years to gain its agenda. An agenda not known by most and not believed by some. The militant political environmentalist opposes progress, opposes industrialization and opposes the proliferation of human kind. In short, they want to kill you.
Today, most people believe there is a hole in the ozone layer when there is not. They don’t realize everything they have learned about a reported hole, they learned from the media. A media who cares nothing about the truth. To quote Ben Bradlee, editor of The Washington Post, “To hell with news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It’s up to the public to decide what’s true.”
As a result of this kind of media attitude, people are led to believe the most unfounded pending disaster stories in the history of mankind. In a time when the deficit is about to bankrupt our nation, Congress, reacting to perceived popular opinion, has allowed the wasting of more money on environmental issues than anything else we’re doing in Washington.
While we are wasting money on these projects, the ones we should be working on are stopped because of environmental untruths. All environmental groups have learned the best way to get more money, for favorite projects, is to conclude any request with impending disaster if we don’t do it, just in case.
In following issues of SUA, I will address the environmental lies one at a time. I’ll cover them all including ALAR, a lie! Dioxin, a lie! Nuclear power disaster, a lie! The ozone hole and global warming, a lie!
The Anatomy of a Myth
Speak Up America publishes a booklet entitled “Seldom Heard Quotes by Environmental Leaders.” In it are quotes that say things like,
“We have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
This statement was made by Stephen Schneider, who is the, designer of one of the five computer models used for determining global warming. He is saying being honest should be weighed with how effective you are. In other words, it’s OK to lie if you are effective.
Lies by the environmental militants come in varying degrees of truth or taking great freedom with scientific information. In February 1992 Greenpeace surveyed every scientific member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and asked them a very leading question. The question:
“Do you believe there will be a point of no return if we continue with business as usual?”
The question referred to the alleged global warming. Only one out of six answered “yes,” yet the following statement was made by Greenpeace with regard to that question:
“This result reveals as yet a poorly expressed fear among a growing number of climate scientists that global warming could lead not lust to severe problems but to complete ecological collapse.”
It is no wonder that the founder of Greenpeace, Paul Watson is quoted as saying:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…You are what the media define you to be. (Greenpeace) became a myth and a myth-generating machine.”
Once the “myth” is created it takes a media willing to publish it so control of American behavior can continue. Control of human behavior is what molds our attitudes towards any given subject. An estimated ninety-percent of Americans polled consider themselves environmentalists when they are not. An environmentalist is one who holds the rights of humans equal to the rights of a rock. Being for clean air, clean water and other common-sense approaches to life is a far cry from the true environmentalists that want to preserve not conserve. The environmentalists should be called preservationists.
The environmentalist movement has gained popularity unheard of in history since Hitler conned the German people into following his agenda. They have gained that popularity with the perpetuation of the myth in the national media. An example of the type of reporting I’m talking about is, in 1988 James Hanson, a NASA scientist, made the following statement to Congress at a hearing:
“Global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.” This statement made all the headlines and national TV coverage. Yet in the January 24th, 1992, issue of Science magazine he admitted admissions other than CO2 have cancelled any global warming effect and that his earlier statement was wrong. No media coverage!
It seems the media is only concerned with one side of the issue. A side who has been caught faking supposed supporting evidence. In 1991 Forbes Magazine reported that Greenpeace had faked propaganda films by paying people to torture animals. And you are still brainwashed into believing them by the media.
One of the greatest myths perpetrated on Americans was in 1988 when an extremist environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), pulled off a PR campaign that deserves an Oscar. In it they successfully used 60 Minutes and Meryl Streep to control our behavior with an attack on Alar. They made us believe Alar was the worst thing on earth to spray on apples. I can remember watching Meryl Streep’s academy award winning performance in front of a congressional committee crying out, “What are you doing to our children?”
Alar had been presented as a cancer-causing pesticide. It is neither cancer causing nor is it a pesticide. The NRDC scientists claimed there was a link between Alar and tumors found in laboratory mice, when in fact there was no such link. They had exposed the mice to mega doses of Alar, which in humans would be equal to eating 28,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years. What they didn’t tell us was the mice that were given half the dosage, in humans being equal to 14,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years, produced no tumors.
As far as what Alar is, it is a growth regulator that helps keep the apples on the trees longer giving them more time to develop and firm up being less prone to bruises. Dr. John A. Moore, the acting EPA administrator at the time said, “In the Alar case, the public was very prone to give credence to the selective and inappropriate use of data regarding consumer risks and to believe ‘the worst,’ despite a counter statement by the EPA.” 60 Minutes chose to ignore the EPA’s news releases rejecting the NRDC’s claims.
The NRDC report was finally rejected in peer review.
Yet the apple industry lost over $200 million, Alar was removed from the market, apples are now deteriorating faster and Meryl Streep is still around to help brainwash us again with the next myth. As for the NRDC, they are now heading up an attack on 24 pesticides in California. They are attempting to have the markets in California remove any item grown with the use of pesticides.
Pesticides to a plant is what medicine is to a human. Pesticides protect crops and animals; they repel or destroy insects, diseases and weeds. They do not harm humans and are the primary reason we have been able to increase the production of food. Instead of eliminating pesticides we should be sharing them with all countries to increase their food production. But some NRDC scientist will come up with some wild statement that will also be rejected in peer review, hopefully before we make another mistake.
Copyright © 2008 SUANews
All Rights Reserved
1Helen Caldicott, 1985, in Toxic Terror by Elizabeth Whelan, Jameson Books, Ottawa, IL pp.53-54