Home » Mining » Environmentalist Promote Bogus Poll to Support Their Bogus Positions

Environmentalist Promote Bogus Poll to Support Their Bogus Positions

A survey paid for by NRDC conducted by a known liberal polling firm has little credibility, especially when it was conducted in August and released in December. NRDC has been a leading opposition been using the potential of an extraction project at Pebble as a means to raise money through a misleading alarmist direct mail campaign. This survey is just more biased fundraising material; the survey questions were as biased as the direct mail fundraising letters. How can they expect a survey with loaded questions to be taken seriously?

The environmental movement is built on a series of lies. Lies about the science on which they base their belief system. They lie about economics and any businesses or groups that do not fit into their belief system. They also lie about public opinion. In short, we can trust nothing that is put out by the environmental industry.

In light of all that, it comes as no big surprise that the environmentalists are touting a ‘new’ poll that they claim proves public opinion is firmly against the building of the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. That project would provide jobs and a boost to the economy in an economically distressed area of the nation. In addition, it would go a long way toward relieving the U.S. economy and dependence on foreign sources for copper. But those things don’t seem to matter to the environmentalists.

This ‘new’ poll has the environmentalists patting each other on the back and telling us all that the majority of people in Alaska and the Lower 48 agree with them and their wealthy benefactors that the Pebble Mine Project should not be built.

That would be great news for the environmental industry – if it were true. But its not. Fact is, the poll they are citing is bogus and the conclusions they are drawing from the polling is equally suspect.

Let’s take a closer look at the poll the environmentalists are so proud of to see if Americans REALLY do want to shut down efforts to harvest these precious resources that our country needs.

The poll was paid for by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an acknowledged liberal polling firm with little credibility. In addition, NRDC has been a leading opponent of the Pebble Mine Project. NRDC has also used the potential of an extraction project at Pebble as a means to raise money through a misleading alarmist direct mail campaign. With that kind of vested interest in killing the Pebble Mine Project can we expect this is an unbiased report?

Also involved in the poll were Nunamta Aulukestai which translates as ‘Caretakers of Our Lands’ and Renewable Resources Coalition, both environmentalist activist groups who can not be expected to conducted objective, unbiased polling.

The survey was conducted by Belden Russonello Strategists, LLC., a group who has historically done these types of surveys for environmentalists and liberal politicians. Again, unbiased? Hardly.

The press release for the survey sets up the questions with this statement (among others) ‘and the level of opposition actually increases as people learn more about the mine.’ This seems to provide respondents with the ‘right’ point of view with which to regard the questions.

The survey questions themselves push the environmentalists agenda. For instance asking respondents if they think Alaskan salmon should be protected or would respondents like to see Alaska stay a wonderful wilderness or have it torn to shreds because greedy profiteers want to rape it of its natural resources. They were a tad more subtle, but the general method was the same.

And what about this ‘majority of Americans’ who voted in the poll. They polled 801 people across the Lower 48. That comes out to about 17 people per state. Hardly a ‘majority of the American people.’ Even with these minute numbers, their polling wasn’t a landslide in their agenda’s favor.

The poll was conducted in August, but the results of the poll have just now been released. Hardly ‘new’ news! Why the delay? Are they unsure of the results of the poll data themselves?

We understand that the conclusions of this ‘poll’ are suspect at best, even while the environmentalists are lauding this survey as proof positive that the American people are speaking with one voice that they want to put a STOP to the harvesting of essential resources in Alaska. We might be generous in calling their conclusions exacerbations and exaggerations. But that would be extremely generous indeed. It gets more and more obvious every day that they will tell the public anything to get their own agenda passed without thought or concern for the consequences. Sounds like desperation, doesn’t it.

Well, maybe they think of the consequences, but not in the way most of us do. The executive director of Nunamta Aulukestai said in praise of this questionable poll that its a ‘no brainer’ that the salmon are more precious than gold and copper. She called that common sense. Common sense tells me that she’s using copper to post her comments online, to read the bogus report, whenever she talks on her phone or heats her house. Common sense tells me that we need copper and will get it one way or the other and better to get in under the strict regulations of an environmentally sensitive country like the United States.

The environmentalists are gleefully celebrating the ‘big news’ of this ‘diverse, comprehensive survey’ that is anything BUT diverse and comprehensive. This bogus poll is nothing more than another environmentalists lie. In fact, it is not worth the recycled paper its written on.

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Responses to Environmentalist Promote Bogus Poll to Support Their Bogus Positions

  1. [...] in the way of promoting that belief system? Apparently not as evidenced by recent revelations of bogus poll data being used to promote opposition to the Pebble Mine Project and Dr. Ann Maest ignoring her own data [...]

  2. [...] Read more here. [...]

  3. [...] [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>