Envirotruth

[truthaddict11]

I found this site last night, very good information on the "global warming" myth and the "dangers" of GM food. Its kinda like the BadAstronomy site that NoXion posted but about the enviroment.

Envirotruth

[Invader Zim]

"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

No shit, because polar mealting is in early stages. Not to mention that, they are simply wrong. You see eustatic rise has stayed level for the past 6000 years or so. It has stablised after the last glacial advance in the Devensian. As polar mealting will take many years to take place, and even then you are going to have a delay period, the statments made here are giving a false impression.

I am also intrigued by their global temperature claims, their was indeed a global temperature rise of approximatly .6 of a degree. However their next statement is odd, you see during the period of 1940-1975 their was a global temeperature change of about .1 of a degree, cooling. Hardly a massive change is it. However during the period of 1980-2000 the chage has been an increase of about .4 of a degree.

These people have been very dishonist in presenting their facts.

Spin is a sin.


It is also important to understand that, just as the melting of ice cubes in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow, the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level changes.

It has never been claimed other wise, the continental ice sheets, on the other hand are the real issue.

They also explain that sea level was only two meters higher 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were almost six degrees warmer than now.

Well that baffles me, as the U.S. Geological Survey has produced this chart of global temperature change, and if you look yoi can clearly see that currently the earth is warmer than it was 120,000 years ago. Yet this site claims that an expert has suggested other wise. How odd.



Well I could spend all day finding holes in that site, but I think we can leave it there.

[truthaddict11]

did you even go to the site and look at it? at least Enigma did. can you prove to me how global warming is not a myth, using credible scientific fact?

[cubist]

fucking hell capitalist bullshit trying to justify americas irational decision to not cut carbon emissions,

i don't believe it, i favour the other truth! however i noticed that the site claimed top ten myths but gave 11


also reading articles i am very sure they just say the exact opposite of all the global warming sites, and they all say it is highly probable,

it is supported by non other than the US government though, i wonder if its the same sources that said IRAQ has WMD ready for dispatch in 45 mins

About Envirotruth



Envirotruth is dedicated to injecting badly needed truth into the debate about our environment. For too long, some environmental groups have seized the world stage and the public's attention by distorting facts, bending the truth and even committing acts of terrorism against innocent citizens.

This site includes the following sections:

Issues – what are the key issues that environmental organizations have used to spread their messages?

Biotech Food
Chlorine
Climate Change
PVC
Quotes – what have those affected by environmental groups, and the groups themselves said?

Quotes
Credibility – can we believe what the environmental groups say?

Caught in the Act
Sierra Club or Club Sierra?
Ecoterrorism – how does destroying millions of dollars worth of property help advance the cause of environmentalism?

Acts of Ecoterrorism

lmao, THE WAR ON ECOTERROR


got more on the chairperson of the company responsible

Amy Moritz Ridenour

Amy Ridenour is President and Chairman of The National Center for Public Policy Research. As the founding chief executive officer, she has since 1982 promoted the conservative and free market perspective on U.S. domestic, foreign and defense policy issues. She frequently speaks on public policy issues and political organizing techniques and has done so across the U.S., in Central America and in Europe.

Since 1997, her op/eds have been syndicated by Knight-Ridder. Her articles have been published hundreds of times, including by by USA Today, the Sacramento Bee, the Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, The Houston Chronicle, The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Los Angeles Daily News and many others. She has also served as a guest-host on the nationally-syndicated Michael Reagan Talk Show and is a popular guest on radio and television talk shows, appearing on such programs as Politically Incorrect and on the Fox News Channel, CNN, CNBC and MSNBC.

Amy Ridenour also is a member of the board of directors of Black America's PAC, a political action committee that works to help elect more African-Americans to Congress and other elected offices, and she served as the chairman of several of the conservative movement's strategy meetings, including the Stanton meeting (foreign affairs and defense issues) and the Family Forum meeting (social policy issues).

Amy Ridenour also served from 1993-1994 as co-host of Scoop, a public affairs show seen weekly on the public affairs television network National Empowerment Television (subsequently known as America's Voice). Amy Ridenour has served as Vice-Chairman of the International Youth Year Commission of the U.S. (1985); as Deputy Director of the College Republican National Committee; as Regional Coordinator for the Reagan/Bush 1980 campaign; as Chairman of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans and on Maryland Republican State Central Committee. Ridenour received the American Hero Award from the National Defense Council Foundation in 1988 and the William Paca Award from the Maryland Republican State Central Committee in 1979. A native of Pittsburgh where she was born in 1959, she studied Economics at the University of Maryland at College Park.

further to all that heres a bit about amy ridenour

NCPPR's Terror Campaign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.CLEARproject.org
The latest bulletin from the Clearinghouse for Educational Advocacy and Research (CLEAR) features an elegant crique of the National Committee for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a right-wing front group that campaigns for tobacco and Republicans and against the environment. While attacking the environmental movement as an "ecoterrorist fundraising machine," NCPPR director Amy Ridenour herself rakes in a fat salary raised through deceptive fundraising appeals, including one "that targeted the elderly, leading them to believe their social security benefits would be cut off if they did not send money. ... NCPPR mailed 160 appeal letters over four months to an 86 year old woman who stayed awake nights worrying about whether she would continue to receive social security if she didn't send money. *At the time, Amy Ridenour defended the direct mailing blitz, saying, 'It's just that you're competing with a lot of other organizations. People seem to respond better to emotion than they do with letters that have lots and lots of facts.'"

taken from http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthr...p?threadid=612

[pandora]

What a bunch a crap, just goes to tell statistics lie, you can make them read whatever you want them to read
Real sad how the scientific community sells out at any chance, even when the cost is the survival of the next seven generations and the next seven generations beyond that, and this planet as well.
This is a lie.
I've been to glaciers in Alaska that are shrinking, screw your experts, local and Native people in Alaska can tell you the truth, they have histories, non-written, that go back tens of thousands of years,
They say we're fucking up, we're not thinking of the seventh generation, we leave nothing behind on the branch for future generations.
We are destroying our ecosystem.

Species are narrowing at an alarming rate.
Even my friend a Tibetan Lama who walked over the himalayas told me, many species are going extinct, the human race is destroying the world for animals as well as humans.

SO WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, Tibetan Lamas and Native Americans who speak from lineages which have based down thousands of years or SOME SCMUCK WHO"LL SAY ANYTHING TO KEEP HIS JOB, you decide, I already have.

[truthaddict11]

i'll stick with science.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by truthaddict11@May 22 2004, 02:11 AM
i'll stick with science.

Science actually confirms the shrinking of the continental ice sheets.

that is one of the most accurate methods of analysing world temperature thousands of years ago.

[apathy maybe]

While envormentalists have in the past (and continue to do so) claim things are worse then they are, there is a very good (and simple) reason.

If they say things are not good and they are going to get worse, people will thing "umm, I'll just continue to do what I was doing", if however, they say things are terriable and getting even worse, people might say "umm, I guess I'ld better do something".

By claiming that things are worse then they are enviromentalists (but not all) attempt to get action now where it might avert the worst, rather then later when the worst has already happened.


As to global warming and sticking to facts, by far most of the facts (and scientists) support the fact that the globe is warming. More so then is natural, they have also found that the cause is, none other then humans. That is right you and I.

Some quotes and the facts.
"The Future of Chlorine: Greenpeace claims chlorine poses a major threat to human health. Scientists disagree. " The also have a link to an article that doesn't exist.
Chlorine does pose a major threat to human health. It was used as a chemical weapon in WWI. Even small amounts are dangerous.

"Greenpeace claims that '…chlorine is the common link in many of the world's most notorious environmental poisons: dioxin, DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs and the ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all based on chlorine.'"
While the Greenpease so called claim (it is fact) is misleading (chlorine is also a major componant of table salt, NaCl2), the way the site presents it looks to be claiming that it isn't true which is it self misleading.

There is also some other garbage on the site. Including some about ecoterrorists. It should be noted that Greenpeace (an organisation) is not an ecoterrorist organisation. While many of its members maybe ecoterrorists or support them, Greenpeace doesn't.

[Severian]

Originally posted by apathy maybe@May 23 2004, 06:46 AM
By claiming that things are worse then they are enviromentalists (but not all) attempt to get action now where it might avert the worst, rather then later when the worst has already happened.

I think this kind of exaggeration shouldn't be justified. Many people will notice that some statements are false, which will lead them to wonder if all the statements are false. Truth and clarity are needed for social change.

The "envirotruth" site is distorting truth the other way, for the purpose of protecting corporate interests.

Enigma's done a good job of pointing out some of the scientific evidence on global climate change.

On genetically modified food, I'd have to say there have been a lot of false statements by environmentalists on that issue. There's no real evidence that genetically modified foods and medicines are unsafe - and medicines produced by GM bacteria have been used since the 70s and are no longer even controversial. There's a need for thorough testing for each new product. But some environmentalist groups even sabotage tests.

I tend to think the anti-GM issue is largely a front for protectionism by European agribusiness, as U.S. companies have a head start on it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Benno@May 27 2004, 03:03 PM
I CERTAINLY do not need 'evidence' GM-food is dangerous to oppose it!

An odd statement. The facts don't matter?

Or if you mean there are other reasons than safety, I know, and please feel free to state yours.

The thing is: We cannot by any means 'proof' that it is either dangerous or safe. Just like noone would have been able to prove anything about BSE (Mad Cow disease) back when the agri corps started feeding animals the central nervous systems of their butched parents.

By this point - years after the introduction of GM foods, decades after the introduction of GM medicines - some evidence exists even if not 100% proof. And so far the evidence says they are not inherently unsafe.

So, yes we need tests... but so many, it's way beyond the financial scope of any corporation.

That sounds like an unreasonable testing requirement, aimed at blocking all GM organisms, not ensuring their safety. Safety before profits, yes; safety that's totally impossible, no.

Finally: The ban on GM crops in Europe is NOT protectionism!!! (OK the European agri corps may see it that way, but they don't run Europe yet)

Whaddaya mean, yet? Business interests have run Europe for centuries, ever since they took it over from the dukes and bishops. It's working people who don't run Europe...yet.

And the EU is one of the world's largest agricultural producers. There have been numerous agricultural trade disputes between the US and EU. It's often suggested that these are driven by the interests of French small farmers, but I'd suggest that agribusiness has more political clout than dirt farmers. (Meaning farmers who actually get dirt on their hands, as opposed to "farmers" who are capitalists.)

Business influence, sometimes indirect, on even left parties should not be underestimated.

On the other hand, Monsanto has kidnapped American farmers, advising them to grow these experimental creations, and when the same farmers couldn't sell their products in Europe, they blamed European consumers for being evil to American farmers. In short: One big scam.
I strongly recommend the following articles from Agriculture and Human Values:
Dahlberg, K. A. (2000): Democratizing society and food systems: Or how do we transform modern structures of power?
Kneen, B. (1999): Restructuring food for corporate profit: The corporate genetics of Cargill and Monsanto

Kidnapped sounds like exaggeration. And trade disputes inevitably pit farmers, as well as workers, of different countries against each other.

But that touches on a real issue: the increased power of agribusiness over working farmers due to GM seeds. It should be recognized, though, that this is true of any new agricultural technology. I think we should try to change who controls that technology, rather than universally opposing technology that can increase the productivity of labor and land, and in some cases reduce the need for pesticide spraying.

[pedro san pedro]

i suggest the book "seeds of deception", cant remember the author, as a source for why ge foods may, and in some cases are dangerous.

as too the site, would you believe a small group of scientists claiming that smoking is not harmful or would you go with the vast majoity that claim it is detrimental to your health?

the vast majority of the worlds scientist agree that global warming is happening and is directly due to human activity.

then again, a handfull don't.....


dioxins are the chemicals most actively campaigned against in regards to chlorine.

Dioxin is the name given to a group of persistent, highly toxic chemicals, which have been slated for elimination by the international community through an international treaty called the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Dioxin is often called the most toxic chemical known to humans

Dioxin is known to cause:

Cancer
Suppression of the immune system
Reduced sperm count in males
Reduced fertility and endometriosis in females
Birth defects and altered sexual development
Diabetes

Dioxin is the poison found to be the contaminant in the infamous Agent Orange, used in Vietnam as a defoliant. Vietnam Veterans are able to make claims for 10 diseases including a range of cancers, liver and skin conditions and birth defects in babies.

There is no known safe level of dioxin, and according to World Health Organisation figures, dioxin the size of a small grain of rice, if distributed equally, is an annual dose for one million people

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let it be known that Mr. Pedro here has already been given the real facts about dioxin yet he still chooses to ignore them.

I wonder why?

[DaCuBaN]

It never ceases to amaze me what people will say in defense of their personal agenda. In my eyes it takes the fun out of debate

It's not a crime to be proved wrong. Noone is going to lynch you for it.

[pedro san pedro]

the "real facts" you gave RAF came from a website sponsored by the chlorine industry - really nice and impartial information.

sources i have given you include the world health orgnisation.

tell me again what the nasty parts of agent orange were? or what killed all those people in bhopal?

or why 150 countries have just ratified the stockholm convention, agreeing to minimize or if possible eliminate dioxins?

you can find a site on the net to prove anything - i rather stay with sources that aren't biased towards a companies profits.

[redstar2000]

This kind of dilemma has come up before.

That is, someone finds a site that "debunks" some current "myth" and someone else digs deeper and finds out the site is a mouthpiece for reactionary groups.

In fact, it's happened to me.

Which poses questions: can a reactionary site ever "get one right"?

Can a "left wing" site ever be totally wrong about something?

Can we legitimately dismiss any statement from a reactionary site as automatically false while accepting any statement from a left site as automatically true?

I would like to suggest a criterion that the non-scientist can use with considerable effectiveness.

Any appeal to fear should be automatically suspect!

When that right-wing site babbles about "eco-terrorists" (), that's a naked appeal to fear...and it's bullshit.

But when some environmentalists assert the imminence of "global catastrophe", that's also an appeal to fear...and should be regarded with the highest level of skepticism that you can muster.

Why? Because fear makes money! If you can alarm people sufficiently, they will divert resources to your "cause"...no matter how objectively ridiculous it might be.

The "science" that supposedly underpins the "war on drugs" is a load of crap; but that doesn't matter if you can scare the public into wasting billions of dollars a year "fighting the drug menace".

Scientists compete for funding just like workers compete for jobs. If you can muster up an even remotely plausible "threat", the money will start to flow in your direction.

The "threat du jour" can be real or semi-real or remotely possible or totally non-existent...it's how well you can "spin it" that determines the size of your next National Science Foundation grant.

Thus, global warming is a real phenomenon and likely to continue for the next few centuries. That it will result in environmental "catastrophe" is, as far as I can tell, an extremely remote possibility.

It's not something to be "scared of".

Very few things are.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

That is, someone finds a site that "debunks" some current "myth" and someone else digs deeper and finds out the site is a mouthpiece for reactionary groups.

In fact, it's happened to me.

Indeed, I remember when you quoted from a site written by a columist for fox news, and an individual who worked for tabacco companies, on an issue related to smoking.

Not quite as extream as in this case though, I must admit.

Can we legitimately dismiss any statement from a reactionary site as automatically false while accepting any statement from a left site as automatically true?

No, of course not, though in this case most scientists disagree with the reactionaries who produced this site. This would suggest that the material of this site can be ignored, and catagorised as false.

Though I dont necessarily disagree with your views on enviromentalist & scientists, is it not possible that in this case they are correct?

[redstar2000]

Though I don't necessarily disagree with your views on environmentalist & scientists, is it not possible that in this case they are correct?

Of course it's "possible".

If, on January 1st of each year, you predict "catastrophe"; it may take thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years...but one year your prediction is going to be validated.

In fact, here's a certain catastrophe. Stars like our sun get hotter as they age...in about 500 million years, our sun will be about 10% hotter than it is now.

That doesn't sound like much, but...it's enough to raise the surface temperature of the earth well above the boiling point of water. The oceans will evaporate, the cloud-cover over the earth will be permanent, and this planet will be a somewhat cooler version of Venus...a global desert where nothing can survive. Surface temperatures will probably stabilize around 400 to 500C.

For plant and animal life on earth, the end would come sooner...perhaps in only 250 million years or so. Only bacteria would be alive after that.

We're doomed!

Eventually.

Meanwhile, what of the "imminent doom" that some environmentalists prophesy?

As the earth warms, there will be changes in regional weather patterns. Some places are going to be "better" than they are now and other places are going to be "worse". There will be more storms in some places and fewer in others. Some places may actually get colder than they are now...though most places will be warmer. As sea levels rise, many coastal cities might have to move inland...Dutch engineers will be in great demand. Some small Pacific islands will disappear beneath the waves. Big changes are difficult to predict; rainfall patterns may change in such a way as to bring life back to the Sahara...and turn the American mid-west into a desert. Siberia may become a new center of civilization while England sleeps beneath the ice.

But humans are very clever primates; we will endure...and even prosper.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

We endure and even prosper yes. But the same can't be said for a lot of other animals. Oh well, they should have evolved then. Pity it takes more then one generation to do your evolving in.