Dear RN,
The following exchange, from a "left biocentrist" list I am on, is worth
sharing with you. Thank goodness we have e-mail to help counter some of the
lies...
all the best, Jan
***********************************************
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 23:32:09 -0800
From: Tyler Ahlgren <•••@••.•••>
Subject: ABCs' 20/20 .. "Organic Produce BAD for the environment" !!
Hi All,
I just watched a 20/20 ABC News program in which one of the
subjects was organic food.. and is it "better" than chemically produced
food. I cannot express how totally astounded I am! Not only was it
completely shody in its' presentations... but they DARED to come out,
and proclaim that organic food production was BAD for the environment...
WORSE than the use of chemicals !!! NO discussion about any of the real
issues, or costs.. but instead, completely bogus comparisons of minor
issues that were little more than blatant trickery... and very poorly
done, at that .. BUT what makes it so much worse is the fact that SO
many accepted their presentations without ANY questions!!! I got on the
computer, and sent a nasty note off to ABC... and explored the feedback
forums on tonights' show... incredibly, there were virtually NO
arguments about the factual content ... but instead defensive statements
for and against the show AS IT STOOD !!! What has humanity come to ???
I am just blown away...
So many angles to see it from, and EVERY one looks SO bad ....
The purposefull-ness of the deception/fraudulent presentation is just
SO blatant, it seems to indicate how seriously the industrial powers see
a threat... or how easily they believe they can manipulate the masses...
Just amazing..
Tyler
***************************************************************
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 09:04:53 -0400 (AST)
From: Martin Willison <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Organic food, big lies and global warming
Hi all!
Tyler gave us an example of the "big lie" in action.
It is amazing how readily people will swallow it.
<snip> I haven't seen
the ABC show (and probably won't) and so I can't
assess it independently, but I have seen the "big lie"
in action over global warming. It goes something
like this:
Scientist: The greenhouse effect is due to the presence
of gases in the atmosphere that absorb infra-red
radiation differentially.
Public: Can you explain that more simply?
Scientist: Warmth passes through the atmosphere from
the sun and it is absorbed by the Earth. Warmth
from the Earth to the universe gets out from the
Earth less readily; it gets trapped by the atmosphere.
Public: What has this to do with weather?
Scientist: The Earth would be much cooler if we
didn't have an atmosphere. All surface water would
be frozen. The atmosphere is like the glass of a
greenhouse.
Public: So the greenhouse effect is a good thing?
Scientist: Yes; life as we know it would not exist
without it.
Public: So why are people talking about it being
a bad thing, and causing the weather to change?
Scientist: The gases in the atmosphere are changing.
The amount of carbon dioxide has gone up by about 30%
since the industrial revolution began.
Industrialist: So what? Carbon dioxide is not
poisonous! Trees grow faster with more carbon
dioxide, and so this is good.
Public: Well, that's good. I guess scientists don't
tell you everything.
Scientist: This wasn't an answer to the question you
asked. Do you want to know the answer to your
question?
Public: I guess! But don't baffle me with too much
detail; give me the straight goods.
Scientist: We know that the weather has been getting
warmer in the world during the last half century,
and that carbon dioxide has accumulated in the
atmosphere. According to theory, the increased
carbon dioxide is probably contributing to this
warming trend.
Industrialist: Can you prove it?
Scientist: No. Proof is virtually impossible to
obtain, but the inference is clear.
Public: So are saying is that you can't prove that
the weather is changing?
Scientist: We can show that the weather is changing and
we can show that the atmosphere is changing, but we
can't prove that the two are connected. The greenhouse
theory tells us that the connection is probable, however.
Industrialist: So this scientist is telling you that
we should stop mining coal, turn down the thermostat,
and go live in caves all because of a theory that can't
be proved! And I've already told you that trees grow
faster with more carbon dioxide, so we're better off
the more gasoline we burn. And I've got a million gallons
of it that I can sell you at a real steal.
Scientist: This wasn't an answer to the question you
asked. It's true that atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is a limiting factor in photosynthesis,
but the rate of deforestation may over-ride any possible
benefit that could accrue from enhanced primary
productivity. And the negative consequences of
climatic change ..........
Public: What was that!?
Industrialist: Don't worry about it, we'll keep the
scientists busy on creating wealth, which is what they
should be doing. They are so wrapped up in theories
that they can't smell the roses ... come along with me
now, our scientists have invented a new smell for
roses .......
Martin
***********************************************
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:56:39 +0100
From a correspondent in Europe
Subject: Re: big lies and global warming
Hi all,
I think the main PR lie/distortion about "global warming" is the emphasis on
the "small increase in *average* temperature" while omitting/denying the
much more important effect of CO2: The increase in amplitude and frequency
of weather *extremes* (wind speeds, temperatures, moisture).
This leads the public to say: "An increase of 1-2 degrees temperature? Oh,
that's nothing." Or even worse: "That's great, it's too cold here in Canada
anyway!" (I have read of a Canadian pop group that promotes burning as much
fossil fuels as possible, in order to make the Canadian climate warmer!
The fools ignore that the increased weather *extremes* will instead make
the *cold* even colder...)
A disgusting example of this denial of increased extremes recently happened
in Europe: Last December, an extreme storm ("Lothar") with wind speeds of
250 km/h "logged" millions of trees (140.000 in Paris only), killed ~70
people and caused damages of $8 billion in France, Germany and W Switzerland.
A little "scandal" followed on the question why the official weather forecasts
didn't forecast this terrible storm. It turned out that the reason was
political, not scientific: Even amateur meteorologists were able to see
the storm coming on the weather maps, but the official forecasters didn't
issue warnings because officially, increased weather extremes don't exist,
and "what must not be, cannot be" !!! Even after the storm, the official
meteorologists displayed a disgusting mix of dogma, excuses and denial
along the lines "well, storms have always been there, it has nothing to
do with CO2, we didn't think it would happen this time, bla bla bla...".
The problem of "Waldsterben" becomes small in comparison with these strong
storms every few years that destroy whole areas of forests. Some parts of
France have been completely "clear-cut" by the latest storm.
