From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Suggestibility of environmentalists
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:59:35 GMT


>In article <1992Aug13.090154.3231@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>The point is that even professionals, the people we expect to provide
>>the expertise to guide wise environmental choices, are easily swayed
>>by green propaganda rather than by objective evaluation of risks on
>>their own merits. This has important public policy implications. It
>>means that public officials are receiving advice from people who are
>>as subject to hysteria as you so obviously are.
>>

	This study itself seems to be a rhetorical device to me.  Remember
that the hypothesis being tested for will influence the results.  In this
case,  a group of people wanted to test the hypothesis that toxiciologists
or whoever would react more strongly to substances they know by name then
by certain descriptions.  This would suggest that the people who made the
study at best already beleived this was the case,  or at worst,  had a
stake in proving that this was the case.

	I'm sure that there is plenty of controversy as to the toxicity of
certain compounds;  I know that this is case with dioxin.  There are many
"experts" who just don't agree (often don't have enough information).  The
kind of people who are likely to believe in the above hypothesis are also
likely to be the kind of people who tend to have more liberal estimates of
the safety of various compounds.  As such,  the descriptions that they
made could possibly have been skewed towards one side.

	One could imagine that if some people from Greenpeace did a similar
study,  they might possibly give the toxicologists descriptions that were
more morbid than what they already knew about each compound.  In that case,
the toxicologists would tend to say that the actual compounds were much
less dangerous from the name than from the description.  Then I suppose they
would go around and say that toxicologists are trying to "cover up" the
dangers of DDT,  Raid and Coffee-mate.  Either way is about equally honest.

	I think the methodology is pretty much flawed.  One of the things
that makes an expert an expert is a network of associations between learned
facts and experiences.  A person who is an expert on toxicology should
bring in a wealth of knowledge in addition to what they might get out of
say the world book report on sodium cyanide.

	From my own observations,  I've been noticing the start of an
anti-environmental "movement".  This "movement" wants us to think that it is
a grassroots sort of thing,  and sometimes they put out petitions at the
Circle K (which mysteriously disappear when the eco-warrior stops to refill
his bike bottle with black coffee) that admonish us to "save the west"
which is about to blocked off to exploitation by livestock and mining interests
(boo hoo) by the evil elitist environmentalists from the east.  This petition
doesn't suggest at all that there are plenty of us west of the 100th
parallel who also would like to change the way public lands are exploited
out here.  Of course 'ol Cactus Ed was just a little crazy they say.

	The other groups are trying very hard to throw up a smokescreen
around the ozone-CFC debate and the global warming issues.  Although
atmospheric scientists do not agree on all the details,  the largest fraction
of them think that the existing climate models are aproximately correct;
there are also some who think that the effects will be more or less severe.
When asked the specific question:  "Do the present uncertainities justify
waiting to take action?",  the majority answered no.  The anti-environmental
cabal wants people to think that the atmospheric science community is
very ambivalent about global warming.  In fact,  they don't want the public
to know that we could implement some CO2 abatement measures that would
actually save money;  and then consider different,  more expensive measures
once we understand more about the situation.

	The anti-environmental conspiracy is using all of the same old
tricks,  like the 'ol "Conservationist vs. Preservationist" chestnut and
the "environmentalists are elitists...",  "articles like that shouldn't
be written because they could alarm the public..." (sounding like something
out of a ~Godzilla~ movie).  The thing I've been noticing is that the
intensity has increased considerably.  Now it's like they are trying to
make you look like a traitor because you question that growth is always
a good thing,  or a lunatic for opposing mining in a beautiful canyon.

	These people think that they are delivering a crushing blow to
the environmental movement.  Maybe they are right.  They did it before
in the 1970's.  Yet,  negativity can only get you so far.  Just as the
failed promises and veil of lies and negativity put up by the republicans
are faltering,  the anti-environmental movement will bring it's own
destruction one of these days.  The big question is "how much will be
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad