The World's Dumbest Journalist
Reuters journalist Michelle Nichols leads off todays piece regarding the 'Beyond Kyoto' story with, "The United States, the world's top polluter . . . " -- and the rest of it simply goes downhill from there. Verifiable statistics, attributed sources and real science are nowhere to be seen; instead, her readers are served up a hodgepodge of a "fear" of floods and species extinctions, expressions of "concern" over emissions levels, plus various rehashings of statements/press releases from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, two organizations which exist on subsidized tax dollars and donations from a U.S. population that's continually goaded into believing that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and everything Americans do is what's wrong with today's world.
While record sums of money (translation: billions of dollars) are flowing to environmental causes, with millions of guilt-ridden Americans footing the majority of the bills, the Sierra Club is scathingly referred to in back room conversations as "Club Sierra" for its penthouse martini parties and extravagant digs, and the chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups (including the World Wildlife Fund) earn salaries in the six figure range and up. So is media criticism of the United States and its industrial policies really about facts, figures and a true concern for the implementation of sound ecological management policies, or does the National Audobon Society just need more "emergency" funding?
"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate," states Jerry Franklin, a professor of forest ecology and ecosystem science at the University of Washington. "But that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use hype, and we use those pieces of information that sustain our position." He goes on to add: "Kyoto as currently constructed wouldn’t be likely to do anything significant for us here in North America in my view . . . I find that many environmentalists are quite as prepared as timber corporations to ignore science when it doesn’t serve their particular agenda."
It looks like journalists are prepared to ignore science, too.
The Kyoto Protocol, as it's currently worded, encourages emission and production shifts from high-wage markets (read: United States, Britain and Australia) to low-wage markets (read: China, Africa, India and South America) through emission limits and the Carbon Credit scam, accelerating the growth of global concentrations of greenhouse gases by discouraging production in more technologically efficient and industrialized nations while encouraging poorer, less efficient societies to ramp up production without modern technologies in place. Unless, of course, the plan is to get the United States to feel guilty enough to donate all the industrial technology, too. I'm sure that Greenpeace would be the first to step up to the plate as the middle-man, skimming an appropriate percentage, of course -- you never know when another boat might come in handy.
“I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs,” Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com. “It is woefully inadequate . . . We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate change.” And this is precisely why the Bush Administration hasn't allowed itself to get suckered into the Kyoto Treaty, because the Bushies realize that Kyoto is just the first step in the anti-industrialists' agenda, and that there will ultimately be no satisfying the environmentalists until there are no cars, no industries, no major urban centers, no poisonous plastics, evil refrigeration units or toxic computers and we all are stuck living in eco-friendly shanties among fields of meager, unmodified wheat, drinking our recycled urine and cowering under acres of mosquito netting so as not to mistakenly swat a fly (which might disrupt nature's delicate balance). "Don't shoot the mountain lion, honey -- humans are food, too."
The National Academy of Sciences prepared a report in 2000 that explicitly stated that "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, goes on to say that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens . . . My own view, consistent with the (NAS) panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming." He also stated that the climate is constantly changing, that change is the norm, and that "Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling."
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and one of the lead authors of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, chimes in with his two cents: "You should approach climate models with a degree of awe and a sense of humor . . . they are not the real world." He adds: "Hurricanes are not increasing. Tornados are not increasing. Storms and droughts do not show any pattern of increasing or decreasing . . . . Variations of climate have always occurred, even when humans could not have had any impact."
*Hmph* -- guess I'll keep the SUV.
The Kyoto Treaty was rejected in the US Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 (yes, that's Zero!), so it's not like this is a bitter partisan debate in the halls of Washington (though less stringent emission control measures are presently being fought along partisan lines). The Democrats may be out to lunch on the Middle East and Karl Rove, but at least they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to see that Kyoto was a punitive measure disguised as fluffy environmentalism. Kyoto set the U.S. guidelines for CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, while the U.S. has seen explosive growth in its economy since then. Attempting to adhere to the Kyoto requirements would cripple economic growth in this country, while forcing the U.S. to buy Carbon Credits from less developed economies in order to merely sustain itself, transferring hard earned wealth to nations whose dictators, monarchies and ruling thugs have stood firmly in the way of social, industrial and technological advance for their own people.
But they pollute less, so hooray for dictators!
In a concession to environmental concerns, and any industrialized nation that still needs clean air and clean water for its citizens is definitely going to have environmental concerns, the Bush Administration stated that the United States is looking for ways to diversify away from fossil fuels. "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," President Bush said in an interview with the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. President Bush also urged the G8 countries to shift the debate on climate change away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions and towards the development of new energy technologies that would reduce environmental harm without affecting economic growth. And according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, emissions from factories and automobiles in the United States currently are less than half of what they were in 1970, even though the U.S. economy grew by almost 200 percent over the same period.
But don't tell Michelle Nichols that. It doesn't fit with her cozy "The United States is a Dirty Bully Bent on Destroying the World" theory. After all, she has those anonymous scientists with their unsourced quotes, and the environmentalists with their "fears" and "concerns", which, in her little fantasy world, trump any conclusions proffered by the National Academy of Sciences, or any other rational scientific body that's not on the payroll of The Friends of the Fluffy-Tailed Squirrel Fund. Besides, the WWF (and I don't mean the World Wrestling Federation) is convinced we're headed towards massive species extinction, so they need your money (NOW!) to help save those species, and, uhm, pay for their office suites, and the six figure executive salaries, and the glitzy Hollywood fund-raising parties, and the private jets to Washington, and those Georgetown lunches with Senators, and the drinks and dinners with donors at Tavern on the Green, and . . . oh, never mind.
Comments
http://boards.conservativelife.com
thought you might want to see what your fellow neo-cons think of you...
Posted by: john kerry | July 28, 2005 11:41 PM
Heh, cool -- you linked a post of mine from back in December for this. That's what I call research!
Maybe I oughta try it sometime. ;-)
__________________
Homocon sez:
And thank you for the December post! It's blogs like yours that make the time I spend doing research that much more productive.
Posted by: McGehee | July 30, 2005 10:53 PM
You are far too kind. Thank you.
Posted by: McGehee | July 31, 2005 2:19 AM
I cannot believe how ridiculous this column is, or that I am now wasting my time to point out the obscene factual inaccuracies you have somehow put together a less-than relevant and cohesive argument. Firstly, you complain that environmental groups only use the information that suits their agenda; but reading your column, leaves me with that same bad taste in my mouth. You’ve supplied little REAL evidence to support your claims, merely a few random quotes to suit your political beliefs, glued together with a few bashings of the environmental movement and a rant about Kyoto.
Firstly, Kyoto wouldn’t be in the state it is in today, if it weren’t for the US, which is not a compliment. The idea of carbon trading was introduced by the US and was not originally a concept the other countries wanted introduced. The idea of trading means that countries such as the US and other unenvironmentally friendly countries can burn fuel til their hearts content then just trade them off with countries such as Australia (where I am from), which burn less fossil fuels. So, Kyoto in theory would’ve been effective in its original form, as it has realistic targets and by signing it, the world’s leading countries could’ve shown solidarity to combat climate change.
Now, you seem to imply that climate change the world is experiencing at present is a natural phenomenon and that dramatic weather changes have not been prevalent. Come on, what an absolute joke. You can’t ignore the atrocious health problems that countries like the US and Canada are experiencing because of carbon monoxide emissions. Just go down to your local hospital and ask them what happens on smoggy days- how many children suffer asthma attacks. And what about in countries where more and more older people are dying each summer due to increasing temperature? Just read the newspaper, it will tell you all about the death rate statistics caused by heat exhaustion.
One would assume a half educated mule, would understand the concepts of global warming and know for a fact that now nearly ALL scientists agree that global warming is the result of people driving cars, using coal and fuel for energy and deforestation (to begin with). Only those scientists, who are working for oil companies would contend burning fossil fuels into the atmostphere does not cause global warming.
As a journalist I could easily find mounds of information to support this…and have. I would be more than happy to send you a detailed list of studies, reports, and facts and figures from a wide range or sources about the effects of American suburban lifestyles on the environment. This lifestyle is so incredibly unsustainable and relies heavily on oil and the burning of fossil fuels. The reason that America gets the blame for environmental atrocities is because most other Western countries in the world, including Australia (where I am from) and Europe (where I have just been travelling) undertake measures to ensure our suburbs integrate renewable energy resources. This includes providing extensive public transport systems, solar powering and recycled water programs. America seems to be the biggest advocate for resisting change to renewable energy and changing the suburban sprawl it has created. Just simply relying on one source of finite energy is just so insane. We have hit peak oil (and yes, the facts and figures on peak oil are available and can be sent to you also) and it can only go downhill from there. So you and your 4WD (or SUV) driving buddies can sit in traffic jams burnin’ up the black gold until your tanks run to empty, with no where to fill up.
As for all of the Greenpeace bashing? Environmental organisations are one of the most financially accountable NGO’s, with completely transparent financial records; they have nothing to hide or shame away from in regards to spending. Also if Greenpeace didn’t advocate for the environment by actually questioning and opposing government policy that is harming the environment, then they wouldn’t be doing their job. They are a business that must satisfy their investors by generating campaigns and making a difference. Their “stakeholders” want to see results. Thus they buy “boats” to try to stop whaling (a campaign that they have been perusing for many, many years) which their investors expect them to do.
So I hope you put this up on your site to offer a different perspective to your readers, as your site is so biased and in this case, quite incorrect.
_____________________
Homocon sez:
What is it with environmentalists? The minute you show them that for every single one of their arguments and experts there is an equal and opposite argument and expert, they go right off the deep end.
My post included relevant links to interviews, climate papers, government releases and news reports. I'm sorry if I didn't tot up a list of all the available evidence and then hand it to you for your personal benefit, but I trust my readers to be able to follow links and think for themselves, something which I'm now assuming is a strangely difficult task for an environmentalist from Australia.
As I linked to on the site, there are many environmental scientists who explicitly do not agree that what's happening climactically is unnatural. You can huff about their opinions, but they believe in their precious research as much as you believe in yours. You obviously missed the link to the the statements regarding the ice-age, heat wave, ice-age, heat wave nature of earth's climate (or you're simply too stubborn to acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you might just have a point), and our medical record keeping doesn't go back far enough, nor is it complete enough, to support your theories that we're all so much unhealthier than we ever used to be because of carbon emissions (especially when you consider that we now live far longer lives than we used to).
That must really chap your hide.
Re: Carbon scam, and it is a scam, the United States was pressured into arguing for Carbon credits as the only way we could even conceive of agreeing to Kyoto, but it wasn't enough as the emission levels being set at 1990 levels cannot be borne by our present economy. I'm certain you could care less about the U.S. economy. Well, right back at ya. I live in the USA, and our economic interests are very much my interests, and what a shrill Aussie environmentalist/journalist allegedly armed with info galore to prove her non-existent points thinks about the U.S. economy doesn't hold a drop of water with me. I have just as many links, papers, scientists and research on the side of disproving any environmentalist's doomsday scenario. It's all on the net. It's all easily available for anyone to find, which was the whole point of my post, and which you missed entirely in your haste to spew a load of self-righteous "I recycle, dammit, you ignorant American!" emotional rhetoric.
I even linked a U.S. governmental report (which included links to other State Department papers) which discussed how much progress has been already made in the reduction of emission levels from the 1970's, but I suppose that since it's a U.S. governmental report, you simply dismissed it out of hand (if you even followed the link, that is). You know, because any government, especially the U.S. government, LIES LIES LIES!
*snort*
Facts and figures on global warming and alleged increases in environmental illnesses are easily manipulated. On both sides. Get it? I even quoted an environmental research scientist with that one, but I guess you missed that. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but I'm not so sure you have the strength to paddle there in your daisy-powered canoe.
Kyoto is a failure. Both sides agree on that one. You can blame the United States, but I can turn right around and blame other countries for 1.) neglecting to get China and India to sign on, because without either of those rapidly industrializing countries participating, Kyoto is pointless; and 2.) for the United States to rationally consider an environmental treaty, the treaty has to take into consideration present economic capacity rather than attempting to limit emissions to some undoable level from 15 years ago when economic capacity was substantially less. You have a weak grasp of my country's economic capacity and what that means for our continued stability, socially and politically. Yes, there's a problem with relying on oil -- even our present administration, for as much as it's reviled worldwide, has publicly admitted that, and is now attempting to push a consortium of first-world economies to develop other technological engines which can replace the dependence on a finite reserve of natural materials.
But, again, you must not have followed the link that I included on that. The links I use are meant to provide informational support, as well as a starting point which the reader can use to then follow even further on his or her own (a concept that may be alarmingly alien to your "spoonfeed it to me" world of leftist outrage).
And the boat reference (plus link -- are you noticing a pattern here?) was the set-up to a joke, though I realize you must have long ago traded in your sense of humor for that shiny new coat of moral superiority. The link pointed to the article where Greenpeace rammed the French America's Cup Yacht in purported retaliation for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. How is it possible that you felt compelled to argue against a post, criticizing it for its supposed lack of depth, when you obviously just skimmed blindly through it, clenching your teeth and ignoring all relevant links?
Talk about "half-educated mules" . . . the only thing that I can say that was correct about your comment was that it truly *was* a waste of time -- my time, especially.
Posted by: Rachel Ryan | August 3, 2005 2:38 AM
I am one of those terrible Texans who drive everywhere. Public transportation is useless to me as I live in a rural area and there is none! Having said that- I left an urban area in 1987 and watched the smog follow me west. August in Texas means many cannot breathe, myself included. Perhaps Koyto is useless as is. What a shame. A large portion of the the money the big 3 auto makers saved by not retooling for a different type of automobile engine- this was the argument during the reign if Bush 1,the move would cost money and jobs, wish I could find a link for you- has been spent in the medical community. Want a link to support this , well, lets see, can you do a goolgle search on declining health and health cares costs in Amercia? Do you think there is a crisis for health care in America? Hmmmm- snort- perhaps. However, this cannot be because of any irresponsibility our leaders may have participated in . After all, there is no climate crisis, America has not contributed to the wealth of the middle east sheiks at the expense of the American people, corporate leaders deserve 50 million a year in compensation, jobs would collapse if America retooled any industry to be enviromentally responsible, and China deserves to own a large major oil company that is American based. Oh yes- there is a Santa Claus honey. Just ask any republican too afraid to oppose the current political administration.
_______________
Homocon sez:
'Tis a pity -- you started off with such promise, only to veer off into rhetoric and then crash-land in Crazy Town.
Posted by: Elizabeth Mercer | August 8, 2005 1:17 PM
The funny thing about many of the enviromentalists is that they contradict themselves within their own reports. Take this Guardian story for example (straight from the horse's mouth, as it were).
"Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere."
For those who might have missed it, what they just said was that these bogs formed 11,000 years ago when the land there was not frozen. While it is true that the land is certainly changing, how do we know for certain which is the natural state? Besides, I don't know about anybody else, but I don't recall any paleontologists digging up 11,000 year-old Ford Excursions...
Posted by: Phillip | August 12, 2005 8:01 AM