patfoley at csus.edu
Fri Apr 5 14:02:00 EST 2002
Scientists are their own sharpest critics. Individual scientists and
individual ideas are often wrong, but we get Nobel prizes for showing that.
Corporate intellectual efforts are a real mixture of excellence, fraud and
If you seriously thing Pete DuPont knows anything about science, you
probably think George Bush knows something about the Middle East.
Paul Cherubini wrote:
> Patrick Foley wrote:
> > Do you want Exxon-Mobile deciding which
> > scientists are experts on global climate change? Times-Warner-
> > Disney-Microsoft deciding what is an appropriate email?
> Those of us employed in private industry would not like to see
> the academic community necessarily deciding everything either:
> Example: if this list was moderated by a group of environmental
> professors or government scientists, I bet the following commentary
> by the former governor of Delaware would not likely be allowed:
> Coloring the Data Greens get caught red-handed committing
> scientific fraud.
> BY PETE DU PONT Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
> So many federal agencies have been exposed falsifying environmental
> data that you have to wonder how many other frauds remain undetected.
> First came the December revelation that employees of the Fish and
> Wildlife Service and the Forest Service had planted fake wild lynx hair
> in states where there were no lynx, so that the areas could be
> labeled critical habitat, and thus off limits to human use.
> Then came the National Academy of Sciences' findings that shut off
> water to 1,000 farms in the Klamath Lake Basin in Oregon and
> California--all to save the suckerfish. That turned out to be based on
> faulty science too. Farms disappeared and people suffered because the
> Endangered Species Act had been invoked based on junk--or maybe
> In February the Forest Service admitted that it had erroneously
> reported 920 million national-forest visitors in 2000. The correct
> figure was 209 million, not exactly a rounding error.
> By March it had to confess to another misrepresentation. Court
> documents showed the Forest Service had knowingly used false
> data on spotted-owl habitats to prevent logging in a California forest.
> "Arbitrary, capricious and without rational basis" was how
> the judge characterized the service's actions.
> So why the lying? It seems deceit is the only way the greens can
> advance their Luddite agenda. They are ideologically inspired to try
> to limit, slow and if possible stop economic growth, for they believe
> that prosperity is harmful to the environment. But our nation's and the
> world's environments are getting better all the time, in fact so
> much better so much faster that it is hard to wave the green
> shirt based on honest data. Subterfuge and misrepresentation
> are thus left to energize the greens' antiprosperity cause.
> Consider fossil fuel consumption and its resulting pollution.
> The Cato Institute recently reported that since the first Earth
> Day, in 1970, "energy consumption has risen 41 percent, most
> of it from fossilfuels. But during that same period sulfur-dioxide
> emissions . . . have dropped by 39 percent . . .;volatile organic
> compounds . . . by 42 percent; carbon monoxide emissions . . .
> have dropped by 28 percent; and large particulate-matter
> emissions . . . by 75 percent." Not much of an environmental
> crisis in these data.
> And if the environmental alarmists are right, how come we're
> not running out of food, minerals or oil? Leading environmental
> groups preach that the globe's natural resources are being so
> depleted that the human race's very existence will soon become
> impossible, both economically and environmentally. The truth
> is just the opposite. Bjorn Lomborg's seminal book, "The Skeptical
> Environmentalist," details the facts: Since 1960 world grain
> production has increased to 680 pounds per capita from 560,
> and grain prices have fallen. Per capita daily calorie intake in
> the developing world has grown to nearly 2,700 from 1,900,
> and we work fewer hours to buy the food we eat. Poverty
> is declining and life expectancy is increasing. Proven global oil
> reserves have increased by a factor of 20. Production of copper,
> to take one nonenergy resource, has increased to over 12 million
> tons in 2000 from two million tons in 1950. Not much to worry
> about here either.
> As for global warming, several things are agreed: The
> temperature on the surface of the earth rose in the 20th century,
> and man burned more fossil fuels during that time. And that's
> about it, for it is not at all clear that the two are linked. Most
> of the warming occurred early in the century, before the
> surge in man-made gasses, and as Canada's Fraser Institute's
> 2001 study concluded, "There is no clear evidence of the effect
> of CO2 on global climate, either in surface temperature records
> of the past 100 years, or . . . balloon radio-sondes over the last
> 40 years, or [from] satellite experiments over the last 20 years."
> In fact, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies now reports
> that global warming has slowed so much that temperature
> increases predicted for 2050 won't happen until 2100.
> And the population explosion? Well, the threat is not of
> escalating birthrates but that in many countries--Italy, Russia
> and Germany, to name a few--they have fallen so far below
> the replacement rate that there soon won't be enough workers
> to support their economies and welfare programs. The
> U.N. reports that as of 2000, "44 percent of the world's
> population now lives in countries where the birth rate was below
> the death rate." It is below the replacement rate in others, so
> within a few decades the world's population will be in decline.
> In any case, the entire population of the world could
> fit in Texas, with each person enjoying 1,200 square feet
> of individual space.
> So the rhetoric and proposals of the green organizations
> that make their living and raise their money through predictions
> of cataclysmic catastrophe are far divorced from reality.
> The world is a different place than the environmentalists
> would have us believe. Prosperity is increasing and so pollution
> is decreasing, because it is prosperity, not increased regulation, that
> enables a society to support sound environmental policies.
> Poverty has been reduced more in the last 50 years than in
> the previous 500, according to the U.N. Yet with all the
> industrialization, energy generation, economic expansion
> and uncontrolled growth that made poverty reduction
> possible, the environment is still improving. Fewer cries
> of environmental catastrophe and more advocacy of growth
> and prosperity would encourage a cleaner world.
> Meanwhile over at the Fish and Wildlife offices, it's ethics
> that's facing extinction.
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l