Here is an example of how they operate. Create out of whole cloth a terrible CRISIS that cries out for immediate attention, or terrible things will happen! Get an "expert" (like a scientist) to tell lies to justify the basis of the crisis, giving it unquestioned credibility. Let that foment for a while, as the public starts getting upset and frightened. Come riding in on a White Horse with an alleged solution to the fabricated problem. Now with the public's support, institute some draconian measures that most likely will rob the public of some of their freedoms and enrich the perpetrators of the fraud. This is a tried and true method used by unscrupulous governments and private groups to further their agenda, whatever that may be, and when dealing with a "dumbed down" populace it works like a charm. The so called "environmentalists" have used the scientific community to further their thinly veiled socialist agenda by using Hagelistic techniques on them in the first place by convincing them that the nasty, greedy capitalists are out to get them, and the only solution is a socialistic form of government that will take care of them and protect their research programs in perpetuity. And in the second place to get them to take part in their orchestrated crisis generation programs to lend credibility to their imagined crises which are then used to generate fear and loathing in the general public, allowing the environmentalists to ride in on their white horses, flanked by a platoon of goofy scientist types, to save the world from the phony threat. Some great examples of these phony campaigns are: Global Warming The Ozone Hole Fantasy and other CFC-related hysteria Various Endangered Species protection schemes.

Friday, November 17, 2000

Column by Steven Milloy

Global warming is the hot topic at a meeting of 150 countries this week and next at The Hague. At stake at the sixth so-called Conference of the Parties (COP-6) is probably the last opportunity to hammer out an agreement to implement the 1997 accord on global warming signed three years ago in Kyoto, Japan. President Clinton remains the cheerleader-in-chief for taking global warming seriously. But the Clinton administration's position at COP-6 exposes the scare as a bunch of hot air. Clinton said in his last State of the Union address, "The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global warming. The scientists tell us the 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium. If we fail to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses, deadly heat waves and droughts will become more frequent, coastal areas will flood, and economies will be disrupted." During a special Internet address last weekend, President Clinton warned, "Scientists project that continued growth in greenhouse-gas emissions could raise temperatures across the country by 5 to 9 degrees over the next hundred years. The Earth has not seen a temperature change of that magnitude since the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago." Scary stuff. And considering that about one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to the U.S., you might think the Clinton administration would take the lead in advocating serious measures to avert the dreaded meltdown. Instead, the Clinton administration advocates that countries be allowed to factor so-called "carbon sinks" into calculations of greenhouse gas emissions — a virtual "do-nothing" approach to global warming. The Clinton administration issued a report last August estimating that about 310 million metric tons of carbon dioxide are absorbed annually in U.S. forests and in soil used for crops and livestock grazing. These "carbon sinks" represent more than one-half of the 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emission reductions the U.S. would be expected to make beginning in 2008 under the Kyoto protocol. So without so much as turning off a light bulb, the U.S. has already met most of its would-be obligations to reduce global warming, according to the Clinton administration. This begs the question: Is global warming a real problem, or just another phony eco-scare promoted by those with dubious motives? The most recent assessment of global warming by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released last spring. The report, which didn't make the news until the end of October, claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. But the IPCC report contains systematic errors and omissions bordering on scientific fraud, according to 14 international experts who gathered on Capitol Hill in June to review the report. The U.K.'s Richard Courtney said the data and climate models were "no good," and that "[w]e should stop trying to predict the weather 100 years from now." Norway's Tom Segalstad said the report omitted mention of studies reporting that carbon dioxide was actually more prevalent in the pre-industrial era than it is today. The report also cherry-picks data favorable to the global-warming theory. Temperatures measured on the Earth's surface indicate some warming. But these measurements are skewed upwards by the "urban heat island effect," the phenomenon of concrete and asphalt absorbing heat and raising urban temperatures. In contrast, satellite and balloon records indicate no significant warming. "The IPCC tries to prove that the satellite and balloon records are wrong. It is much more likely that these records are correct and the surface data are wrong," said New Zealand's Vincent Gray. Germany's Peter Dietze said the report's temperature estimates are easily demonstrated to be at least four times too high. "If the [IPCC report] would be corrected for these errors, there would hardly be any justification for writing it," he said. Temperature data estimated by examining the width of tree rings indicates no significant change over the last 1,000 years. But the IPCC report combined the tree-ring data with the surface data of rising temperatures over the last 140 years to show an alarming trend. U.S. climate expert Fred Singer says, "Combining selected data in this way is simply dishonest." None of this dishonesty is surprising. The IPCC is an arm of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change — the group pushing the Kyoto global warming treaty. The report's science chapters were overseen by UK scientist Sir John Houghton — who very publicly made up his mind about global warming in the early 1990s. Other parts of the report were financed and overseen by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, whose $1.7 billion budget depends on keeping the global-warming scare going. Global-warming activists from the World Wildlife Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council characterized the Clinton administration's plan as "doing nothing and calling it progress." I wouldn't argue with them except to add that "doing nothing" is the perfect solution for what remains a phony problem. — Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of Junkscience.com.

Another way they operate is some environmentalists cause some of the environmental damage on purpose and blame others to keep the "crisis" mentality alive and moving? Could this be true? Some say yes more than we in the public eye know. Some say that pouring chemicals or biological agents such as ecoli bacteria into water either lakes, streams or even oceans is a common occurrence by so- called environmentalists to keep fresh in the minds of citizens that "the world is in danger" mentalities and that environmentalists are still needed. A lake or stream? In their minds a small price to pay to further their agenda and to gain power or government funding. Or going into forests and wildlife preserves and chopping down big patches of trees and blaming either logging companies or campers is a common occurrence in oregon and other western states. Anything and everything to make people think there is still evil anti environmental companies and people out there when all along it is them that is doing the damage. You have to ask yourself ten or fifteen years ago did you ever hear of high level ecoli bacteria in lakes or drinking water? Where is it comming from? Especially with all of the new environmental laws in the last twenty five years. Why now? Why in this day and age? I'll tell you why.... They create the problem so they can create the solution like always. Which always means more and bigger government. Just check out the article right below.

Washington Times

EDITORIAL • January 8, 2002

The great biofraud

     

It's a trick that Yogi Bear would have been proud of — a scientist attempted to fake evidence of the presence of a threatened bear. It follows hot on the heels of revelations that government scientists planted hairs from a Canadian lynx in Washington state national parks as evidence of the presence of an endangered species. What on earth is going on? Had these cases of fraud not been exposed, they would have given rabid environmentalists a free lunch of closed parks and restricted recreational activities. Heaven knows what else these people have been up to. As reported yesterday by Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times, a fish and wildlife biologist working on a study of the habitat of the threatened grizzly bear in Washington state tried to obtain additional bear hair samples — from a taxidermist. The taxidermist, Jim Gintz, was surprised by the request, since the bear he was tailoring into a rather grisly rug was from a perfectly legitimate hunt in Alaska, not to mention perfectly dead. Although Mr. Gintz was told by the scientist that the hair was simply to be used as a blind sample in the study, he refused to comply. In doing so, he avoided a boo-boo, since according to the protocol of the study, blind samples could only be submitted from areas in which grizzlies had already been reintroduced, and then only with the approval from the person leading the study. Mr. Gintz also stayed alert for other traps. When he read Mrs. Hudson's stories on state and federal biologists who tried to fake evidence of the threatened Canadian lynx, the missing links of his ursine request were filled as probable evidence of a foiled attempt at biofraud. He contacted state Rep. Bob Sump, who also happened to be a co-chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Sump recognized that faked grizzly evidence could have created an unbearable situation, restricting recreation at Jellystone Park and other public lands across Washington, not to mention curtailing, or totally cutting off other legitimate commercial activities within those areas including timber, mining and road construction. Unfortunately, other similar frauds could still be in hibernation. After all, one doesn't have to be a whole lot brighter than Ranger Smith to plant evidence of endangered species — hair samples appear to suffice. Moreover, since it's probably a lot easier to pick up a sample on the way to a Starbucks instead of stomping around a forest for days on end, simple laziness will suffice for extremist environmental ideology. However, finding fraud is no picnic. It demands both being smarter than the average bear and evidence, such as hairy requests or matching fur samples. House Republicans already promised to hold hearings on the mysterious missing lynx, and they should expand it to cover this bearish attempt at biofraud as well. After all, faked samples of other threatened species may also be hidden in what increasingly appears to be a forest of fraud.

The environmentalist wackos are simply displaced communists. They are an amalgamation of a whole bunch of groups that are extreme, liberal, and/or left-wing, and they are primarily devoted to anti-capitalist activities. They use their supposed care for the environment as a cover and vehicle to advance their real modus operandi - attacking capitalist societies and hopefully destroying them. It's the same thing with the animal-rights wackos and any of these other militant groups. And when we run across evidence of this, we like to pass it along to you. Monday was Earth Day. The environmentalists mobilized. Now, what do the environmentalists want us to think they're all for? Protecting trees, water, air, and all that stuff that we all need to live productive and fruitful lives. Well, South Africa's top environment official said Tuesday that he was confident that preparatory talks for a global summit in Johannesburg aimed at saving the environment would also eradicate poverty. Now, what does eradicating poverty have to do with saving the environment? You wouldn't think they're linked. But they are, because these groups pursue their anti-capitalist agenda. What is this group's primary means of ending poverty? The redistribution of wealth. And what do you need for that? High taxes and an ever-expanding government. You need socialism to end poverty, so goes the theory of these people. Here you have people meeting to save the environment and then they say one of the by-products will be the reduction of poverty. We just point it out, because these people aren't who you think they are. Some good news! But it will not be seen as such by many liberals in the environmentalist and animal-rights wacko movements. We discussed on Monday's program how child deaths in U.S. motor vehicle crashes fell to their lowest recorded level last year. If you're wondering what this has to do with the wacko groups, first the statistics. Reuters reported that, "Overall, traffic fatalities again topped 41,000 but were slightly below year 2000 figures. Regulators said the most encouraging news in their estimates, which will be firmed up during the summer, was the drop in fatalities for children 15 and under to 2,658. That was the lowest point since the government began keeping records in 1966. In 2000, 2,811 children 15 and under were killed in auto crashes." So why is the number of childhood deaths plummeting? The data shows that 20,269 people were killed in cars while 11,564, just over 50%, died in SUVs. So almost twice as many people are killed in cars as are killed in SUVs, and this is why this news is not going to be greeted favorably by the liberal special interest groups, because these people think it's unfair that some are safer in SUVs. Only a madcap liberal could find a way to be unhappy with this news. If some people are safer in SUVs, what we must do is put everybody in cars and make everybody equally at risk, rather than try to find a way to make everybody less at risk by getting as many people as possible in SUVs. It's the same old liberal lament. They seek to equalize society by taking those at the top and lowering them rather than the conservative technique, which is to see to it that those at the bottom find ways to move up READ THE ARTICLES BELOW

Highway Deaths Fall Slightly in 2001

Mon Apr 22, 7:34 PM ET

By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Child deaths in U.S. motor vehicle crashes fell to their lowest recorded level last year, while overall traffic fatalities again topped 41,000 but were slightly below year 2000 figures, estimates showed on Monday. The data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (news - web sites) also showed a surge in highway traffic as air travel plunged after the Sept. 11 hijack attacks. The effect of the increase on overall fatalities remained unclear. The safety agency reported 6.3 million crashes, of which 37,299 involved at least one fatality. The total number of people killed on U.S. highways fell slightly to 41,730 in 2001 from 41,821 the previous year, while injuries declined by 200,000 to 3 million. Drunk-driving deaths again made up about 40 percent of all fatalities. Most of those killed in crashes were not buckled up, a fact that frustrates safety advocates. "As an emergency physician, I can tell you firsthand that a seat belt often makes the difference between survival and death in a crash," said Jeffrey Runge, the highway traffic safety agency director. Regulators have eliminated long-term targets for seat belt use nationwide, wiping out a goal set by the Clinton administration of 90 percent by 2005. Runge said the standard was unworkable and told Congress in February his agency would instead shoot for 78 percent by 2003. Regulators said the most encouraging news in their estimates, which will be firmed up during the summer, was the drop in fatalities for children 15 and under to 2,658. That was the lowest point since the government began keeping records in 1966. In 2000, 2,811 children 15 and under were killed in auto crashes. The rate for children 5 and under fell 5.4 percent to 668 in 2001, while the figure for those between 5 and 15 fell 5.5 percent to 1,990, the estimates showed.

FOCUS ON CHILD RESTRAINTS

The government and some auto safety experts credited child- safety seat laws and enforcement of those measures for helping to bring the rate down. "I think there is increased attention to protecting children in crashes that has helped lower the number of deaths," said Joan Claybrook, president of consumer group Public Citizen. Claybrook said too many children remained vulnerable, particularly those between 4 and 8 who are too small for seat belts designed mainly for adults and too big for conventional infant and toddler restraints. Public Citizen and other auto safety experts will release a report on Tuesday documenting safety dangers facing passengers in the 4-to-8 age group and calling for built-in child restraints. "Manufacturers have never built cars for kids and they could be made much safer for children," Claybrook said. In other 2001 deadly crash data compiled nationally and released by the government: -- Vehicle miles traveled increased slightly to 2.77 trillion, and regulators noted a surge in highway traffic after the Sept. 11 attacks. Regulators have yet to analyze data for the entire year, so they were unable to determine if the unusual increase in traffic in the final four (news - web sites) months of the year also meant an unusual jump in auto fatalities. -- The data showed that 20,269 people were killed in cars, while 11,564 died in light trucks, which include popular sport utility vehicles and minivans. -- The number of pedestrians killed, 4,698, was virtually unchanged. -- Motorcycle fatalities increased for the fourth straight year and hit their highest level since 1990 at 3,067.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020422/ts_nm/autos_deaths_dc_2

Planet's Health Source of Much Debate

Sat Apr 20, 8:23 AM ET

By Ed Stoddard

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) - Life on the planet and the ills that plague it will be marked on Earth Day on Monday with "green events" planned by governments and activists around the globe. But as the 32nd Earth Day on April 22 is commemorated ahead of a huge U.N. summit on poverty, development and the environment to be held in Johannesburg later this year, there is no "green consensus" on the state of the planet's health. Scientists, writers, think-tanks and pressure groups are deeply divided over the fate of the world's ecosystems. The forecasts range from the apocalyptic to the relentlessly upbeat. Some scenarios are nightmarish: states go to war over scarce supplies of fresh water, deserts expand as fertile soil is depleted, and tropical island paradises vanish beneath the waves as polar ice-caps melt because of global warming (news - web sites). Others envision a better life for all as human ingenuity heals nature's wounds and economic growth lifts hundreds of millions of people out of gut-wrenching poverty. Governments disagree over what strategies are needed. The European Union (news - web sites) has bound itself legally to the Kyoto treaty on cutting the pollution blamed for global warming, which the United States has rejected on cost grounds -- opening up one of the biggest diplomatic rifts in the industrialized world. COMING ANARCHIES... A walk down the mean streets of the mega-cities of the developing world such as Lagos or Jakarta, with their creaking infrastructure, open sewers, limited supplies of clean water and soaring populations, will do little to boost faith in the future. Many analysts link environmental problems, such as urban decay and overcrowding in poor countries, to crime and to threats to national and global security. In February 1994, Robert D. Kaplan wrote a famous essay in The Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Coming Anarchy: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, Tribalism, and Disease are Destroying the Social Fabric of the Planet." "...in Africa and the Third World," Kaplan writes, "man is challenging nature far beyond its limits, and nature is now beginning to take its revenge." According to Kaplan, social ills and conflict in coming years will often be rooted in environmental problems. "It is time to understand the environment for what it is: the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century," he asserts. "The...impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh -- developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts -- will be the core foreign policy challenge." Kaplan sees environmental disputes fusing with ethnic and historical ones, creating instability along the Danube river between former Communist states such as Romania and Slovakia. "A war could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia over Nile River water," he writes. Much of what Kaplan says draws on the writing of Thomas Homer-Dixon, an influential University of Toronto professor who has linked water shortages in China, population growth in sub-Saharan Africa and other ecological challenges to conflict. ...AND COMING PROSPERITIES? Some scholars look at the evidence and snort "nonsense." Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician, has caused waves among academics and activists with his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World." "The air in the developed world is becoming less, not more, polluted; people in the developing countries are not starving more, but less," he writes. Lomborg argues that pressure groups such as Greenpeace have hijacked the environmental debate, promoting "doom and gloom" scenarios that have little basis in reality when carefully measured and scrutinized . He points out, for example, that the air in London is cleaner today than it was in 1585, when cheap coal with a high sulfur content was used in private households. Water as a source of conflict? Doubtful, argues Lomborg, who cites one study of 412 international crises between 1918 and 1994 that found only seven had water as even a partial cause. Declining forests? "Globally, forest cover has remained remarkably stable over the second half of the twentieth century...global forest cover increased from 30.04 percent of the global land area in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994." MIXED LEGACIES The temperate forests of North America and Europe have expanded over the past 40 years, while far more biologically diverse tropical rain forests are disappearing -- though Lomborg says not at the pace claimed by many. The reasons for both deforestation and reforestation are many and the impact on humanity has been mixed. In the Baltic states of Latvia and Estonia, for example, the forests almost doubled in size between the end of World War Two and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, while neighboring Lithuania's grew by around 50 percent. But this was because the Soviet authorities ruthlessly collectivized agriculture and deported hundreds of thousands of peasants to Siberia in the 1940s and 1950s, leaving empty farms that were eventually reclaimed by the surrounding wilderness. MASS EXCTINCTIONS There is also great debate about the pace and extent of species loss, with Lomborg saying that we will lose about 0.7 percent of all species over the next 50 years -- a conclusion hotly disputed by many. Some scientists claim that we are on the verge of the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago, with tens thousands of species threatened, because of habitat destruction, global warming and pollution. Certainly, the prospects for many animals look grim, even if for some they have improved substantially in recent years. Elephants were killed across Africa at a terrifying rate for the ivory in their tusks in the 1970s and 1980s before a global ban on the ivory trade stemmed the slaughter, allowing populations to stabilize and in some countries rebound again. Africa's white rhinos were almost extinct a century ago but now number several thousand and their numbers are climbing. But the few hundred mountain gorillas left on the lush, volcanic hills that form the border of Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo may not last long in the face of political instability and pressure on their habitat from soaring local populations. Earth Day was founded in 1970 in the United States by Gaylord Nelson, a Senator from Wisconsin, to promote conservation and environmental issues. More than three decades later, the jury is out on the state of the planet, and only the future will determine if the prophets of doom or the Lomborg are right.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020420/lf_nm/environment_earthday_dc_1

BACK TO RECOGNIZING THE ENEMY
MORE ENVIRONMENTAL FRAUD