|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
As for the Hudson Institute, of which he is the director? From exxonsecrets.org:
| Quote: |
Total funding to Hudson Institute from Exxon corporations since 1998: $US 25,000
1995
$unknown Exxon Corporation
Source: Hudson Institute Literature 1995
2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundationgeneral support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
|
So, here, for the umpteenth time, we have Exxon behind the spin.
Oh, and he's HONEST, too:
Saving the Planet With Pestilent Statistics
| Quote: |
by Karen Charman
Dennis T. Avery, author of the tract "Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic," proudly describes himself as a missionary. His mission: to protect and promote "high-yield farming to save wildlife."
Besides writing a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire Bridge News, Avery is also the director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. He travels the country and the world preaching his gospel of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade. According to Avery, it is the greenies and "organic frenzies" who threaten the world with famine and loss of habitat for their sacred wildlife. Why? Because farming without synthetic pesticides, petrochemical fertilizers and biotechnology would require too much land.
Avery sees no problem with agricultural pollution, be it groundwater contamination, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, or even the mountains of stinking manure produced by the huge cattle, chicken and hog operations that plague increasing numbers of rural communities. He denies that there is any link between pesticides and cancer or other illnesses. In fact, he says, organic food is what will kill you.
Last fall Avery began claiming that "people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7)." This happens, he says, because organic food is grown in animal manure, a known carrier of this nasty microbe. He says his data comes from Dr. Paul Mead, an epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the federal agency that tracks outbreaks of foodborne illness.
Avery continues delivering this message with op-eds that bear titles such as "The Silent Killer in Organic Foods" and "Wallace Institute Got it Wrong: CDC Data Does Indicate Higher Risk From Organic and Natural Foods." These editorials are disseminated by Bridge News to between 300 and 400 newspapers throughout the country and approximately 500,000 other subscribers here and abroad including government departments, central banks and businesses.
I heard Avery's sermon live in June 1999 at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska. After his talk I asked him why he quoted the CDC as the source of his information when they deny having data attributing E. coli 0157:H7 outbreaks to organic food. He accused CDC of engaging in a "cover-up" due to pressure from environmentalists.
Back home I noticed more than a couple of similar stories popping up in various venues. One particularly sloppy story, titled "Organic Food Creates Higher Risk for Food Poisoning," was posted on August 25, 1999 on USDA's National Food Safety Database by US Newswire, a service that electronically disseminates news releases. Though this story doesn't quote Avery, it quotes the CDC's Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch chief, Dr. Robert Tauxe, saying, "Organic food means a food was grown in animal manure."
Tauxe denies ever making that statement and says he believes the rumor originated with Dennis Avery. After fielding numerous media queries on the subject, CDC took the unusual step on January 14, 1999 of issuing a press release stating, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not conducted any study that compares or quantitates the specific risk for infection with E. coli 0157:H7 and eating either conventionally grown or organic/natural foods." In addition, Tauxe says he called Avery to tell him to stop claiming that the CDC was the source of this allegation. Avery responded by telling Tauxe, "That's your interpretation, and I have mine."
Avery's newest version of what happened with the CDC is that Dr. Paul Mead, an epidemiologist who works in Tauxe's division, gave him the information. Absolute bunk, says Mead. "What happened is that he called me up and announced that eight percent of the outbreaks of foodborne illness were from organic food. I took some exception to that and said I didn't know him and what his purpose was, but our data don't support that." Mead was chagrined to hear that a year after this conversation took place, Avery is still sourcing this phantom data back to him. |
I think we're done here. He's a corporate shill, a crackpot, and a liar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Finally I think most people believe
a) Global warming exists
b) It is largely man made
c) It is a serious threat to our future viability on earth
Now try tell people that 2 or 3 years back! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
Finally I think most people believe
a) Global warming exists
b) It is largely man made
c) It is a serious threat to our future viability on earth
Now try tell people that 2 or 3 years back! |
Unfortunately, the naysayer crowd is over-represented on this board. And exceedingly vocal... though they never have any science to offer. But, then, a large number of Americans actually buy the naysayer bull crap.
C'est la vie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
Unfortunately, the naysayer crowd is over-represented on this board. And exceedingly vocal... though they never have any science to offer. But, then, a large number of Americans actually buy the naysayer bull crap.
C'est la vie. |
yeah..we basically need more Europeans on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
But now, even Dumb Arse Puppet Georgie is on board. What will the C/N-C's do now?
Bush aide says warming man-made
| Quote: |
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.
The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".
His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at the UN and the Washington White House.
There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.
In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.
| Quote: |
| The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter - Marburger interview |
|
| Quote: |
He's a hysterical, antiAmerican, doomsaying, raving, frothing-at-the-mouth, lunatic!!
- C/N-C Apologist |
| Quote: |
Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.
"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."
Trouble ahead
This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions.
"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable," he said.
Professor Marburger said he wished he could stop US emissions right away, but that was obviously not possible.
US backing for the scientific consensus was confirmed by President Bush's top climate advisor, James Connaughton.
The chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality told BBC News that advancing technology was the best way to curb the warming trend.
"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work," he said.
"I don't know of any politician that favours shutting down economies."... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:20 pm Post subject: RE: Further evidence that global warming is NOT man-made |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Still, even if it isn't man made, what's wrong with living cleaner lives, reducing poisonous emissions, and slowing the flow of money to those who want to use it against us? Liberals usually say that it is man-made, and conservatives usually say it isn't. Who cares? |
Brought to your reattention by: Rethreadification. Edification through thread rejuvenation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm one of the nay-sayers. I know that climate change is an ongoing process - it's been going on since the beginning of time, so to speak.
Do I think that human beings are responsible for the currently observed climate change trend? No.
Do I think that people should care more about the environment? Invest in and develop sources of renewable and non-polluting energy? Stop destroying wild-life? Control human population growth? Yes, I do - very much so.
We can destroy this planet not just with nukes but also via deforestation, extermination of various wild species, pollution of water and air, etc.
Do I think that carbon tax is a solution? Carbon tax is kind of cigarette tax. You say that you care about people's health - but you don't ban cigarettes, you don't create free addiction recovery clinics, you don't invest in developing more effective medicine for addicts. What do you do instead? You raise prices on tobacco - and say that it's for the good of everyone, when it's actually nothing more but cash grab.
Carbon tax is a cash grab. The purest form of capitalism - and I suspect that capitalism is what will cause human kind to fail in the end, much like it deserves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
