Posts Tagged by environmental lies
|April 24, 2012||Posted by Admin under Issues|
We’ve written before about scientists accused of fabricating data (*cough*Ann Maest*cough*) to “prove” their radical agenda, so it’s only right to highlight those scientists who look at the data and do not try to manipulate it to fit their particular world view.
Meet Dr. Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy. With a master’s degree in environmental biology and a Ph.D. in ecology and evolutionary biology, Dr. Kareiva has worked in academics and conservation for over thirty years.
What makes Dr. Kareiva and his work stand out in the scientific community is his willingness to follow the data, question long-held beliefs that were based on assumptions and speak out about what is actually happening in the environment today.
“We love the horror story,” Kareiva said. He was dressed in New Balance running shoes, a purple sweater and rumpled tan trousers. “We just love it. The environmental movement has loved it. That, I think, is … [a] strategy failure. And it’s actually not supported by science.”
This is not some vague hypothesis, he added to murmurs. He’s seen it in the data.
“The message [has been that] humans degrade and destroy and really crucify the natural environment, and woe is me,” he said. “The reality is humans degrade and destroy and crucify the natural environment – and 80 percent of the time it recovers pretty well, and 20 percent of the time it doesn’t.”
Of course, this makes him wildly unpopular with those who do not actually take the scientific approach. He’s been called a “know-it-all,” a “bomb-thrower,” a “provocateur.” Early writings of his at The Nature Conservancy so outraged fellow scientists they wanted him reprimanded and TNC to forbid him to write articles like it ever again.
So how DOES The Nature Conservancy feel about this? Well…
On the Gulf Coast, for example, it recently planned a mile and a half of oyster reef. Rather than just scouting for the most ecologically vital spot, though, the conservancy also accounted for low-income towns that could most suffer from a storm surge and gain from having a reef to help block it. One of those vulnerable regions got the reef.
How refreshing – a scientist and an organization that understand that people are also a part of nature and take us into account.
Dr. Kareiva is an excellent model of what his profession should be about—following the data—rather than activist-scientists trying to promote their own political agenda.
|April 7, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues|
Like most people, I like to go see movies to be entertained, not to get lectured. Unfortunately, it seems that Hollywood is more in the business of promoting whatever issues any particular star or producer has rather than in providing entertainment. No wonder movie attendance has declined in recent years!
Case in point is an on-going assault on obtaining natural gas through what is called fracking. First there was the movie Gasland (I know, you never heard of it, but it was nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary in 2011). That anti-fracking movie was answered with FrackNation, a pro-fracking movie. Now, another anti-fracking movie is being produced, ‘The Promised Land’. Hollywood star Matt Damon co-wrote the movie and will be the star.
And so the Hollywood fracking propaganda wars continue while the rest of us are struggling to pay our energy bills.
Movies about fracking have been springing up ever since the Josh Fox-directed film “Gasland,” catapulted the practice into the national spotlight. It was nominated for the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 2011.
News about the plot of “Promised Land” was posted Monday by the directors of “FrackNation” — a pro-fracking movie that is being funded through Kickstarter.
“We want to make FrackNation because we want the truth about fracking to be told,” the directors wrote on the fundraising site. “But it will not be easy getting the message out with a sequel to ‘Gasland’ in the works and now a big budget Hollywood movie concentrating on scare stories rather than true stories. Now, we recognize Hollywood movies don’t have to be truthful — they just have to be entertaining, but it’s likely that PROMISED LAND will increase unfounded concerns about fracking.”
|December 14, 2011||Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues|
Well over eight million people became devoted fans of the BBC documentary ‘Frozen Planet’, only to now find out that it wasn’t so much a documentary as it was a movie. ‘Frozen Planet’ faked polar bear footage to advance their claims of the effects of global warming.
Mixing real Arctic shots with zoo scenes, documentary makers fooled the audience into believing the footage was gathered by intrepid cameramen in the brutal sub-zero wilderness.
It was actually filmed from the comfort of a wildlife park enclosure using bears in a man-made wood den.
During the carefully worded Frozen Planet commentary, Sir David Attenborough’s script failed to explain how the moving scene was made.
The movie’s narrator, Sir David Attenborough explains that the fake footage was done for the pleasure of the viewers, for the atmosphere of the movie and for the sake of the animals involved.
“The question is, during the middle of this scene when you are trying to paint what it is like in the middle of winter at the pole, to say ‘Oh, by the way, this was filmed in a zoo’.
“It ruins the atmosphere, and destroys the pleasure of the viewers and destroys the atmosphere you are trying to create.
“It’s not a falsehood and we don’t keep it secret either. But to say actually in the middle of that sequence, I mean how far do you take this?
“Do you say this is a penguin, but actually it was a different penguin colony than this one and this one is a different one? Come on, we were making movies.”
Yes, even though the ‘documentary’ professed to have been filmed in the Arctic, large portions were actually filmed in a German zoo using fake snow.
If you are devoted to a certain belief system, do you let the truth get 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 to promote environmentalists claims against mining.
Really, are there any lows to which the environmentalists won’t go? Can we believe any of the propaganda they put out? They seem to believe their the ends justify their means. In reality they are just producing propaganda to move public opinion towards their position. Its nothing more than that.
|December 13, 2011||Posted by Beth Shaw under Mining|
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.
|December 13, 2011||Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues|
Suppose you are a scientist who has based your entire belief system on the current environmentalists ‘sky-is-falling’ theories. You have gained some prestige within the environmentalists industry and gotten some very nice jobs and met a lot of famous and influential people because you can use your credentials to prop up beliefs that are keeping them all in the money. Then, lets suppose, your own research contradicts that belief system that has worked so well for you and your friends and its really not ‘popular’ not to believe in that. Well what should you do? Well, fake the data, naturally.
Environmentalism is what happens when science and religion get together to form a whole new movement. It diminishes both science AND religion.
Read about more environmentalists lies, particularly, how Dr. Ann Maest got cause on video faking environmental data.