From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:49:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.181222@aifh.ed.ac.uk>,  jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.191031.3316@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Rod Anderson) writes:
># I really don't know why anyone would consider Greenpeace press
># releases and research to be any less biased than R. J. Reynolds
># studies that show cigarettes are safe.  Greenpeace is a political
># group that has made up its mind about the lifestyle all of us are to
># follow.  It then commissions studies and research to prove its
># conclusions.  I consider Greenpeace "research " to be on the same
># level as "research" conducted by General Motors to show cars don't
># cause pollution.  I take "research" done by any political special
># interest group like Greenpeace with a big grain of salt.
 
>Maybe. However the Global Warming Report was not actually researched by
>Greenpeace. It was commissioned by Greenpeace, and several scientists were
>asked to write sections in the report. The introduction, and the final
>chapter are written by Jeremy Legget the UK Scientific Director of
>Greenpeace. 
 
OK, one Greenpeace Director (with what credentials?  Is he an atmospheric
chemist?)...
 
>The section in the science of global warming was written by
>Stephen Schneider and draws mainly on the IPCC report on global warming,
>in short this is based on work already done and widely accepted in the
>field. 
 
...Plus one self-admitted liar (I have seen his rationalizations justifying
scientific dishonesty in order to achieve political ends in full context) whose
honesty and positions are not accepted by any serious scientist I know... 
 
>Amory Lovins gave his expertise on energy matters
>to the writing energy efficiency essay. 
 
...Plus a butterfly scientist who is also seriously dishonest and non-objective
in his scientific evaluations.  This is the guy who railed against the possible
use of cold fusion devices because they might produce cheap clean power...
 
>I have seen his research in many
>publications and have seen it confirmed independently by other people
>in other publications. 
 
Lovins is one of the least honest scientists I have encountered (which is to
say that hes not a scientist at all, but a politician using science as a 
bludgeon).  Who were these independent confirmation people?  Folks
like Schneider, Ehrlich, Caldicott, Sagan, and the like?
 
>I have no reason to doubt that the figures he gives are untrue. 
 
I have no reason to doubt their falsehood myself, ut is that what you
meant to say?
 
>Most of the research in this report, is stuff that
>I've seen time and again in other reports from other organisations.
 
You mean other organizations like Earth Watch, The Sea Shepherd Society,
and the Sierra Club?  These folks love to quote one anothers studies.
 
>The
>sources given do not seem to be biased towards environmentalist groups,
>and is very wide ranging and comprehensive. 
 
Really?  Folks like Schneider and Lovins are rabid environmentalists who
admittedly view this as a political rather than a scientific issue (I can post
the appropriate quotes proving this if you like).
 
>Each chapter gets around
>70 odd references, many of which give multiple sources for their data.
 
Creationists do the same thing, but you don;t believe them do you?
 
>In short, this book at least provides credible sources 
 
The sources you mentioned are utterly laughable.  They are among the 
most dishonest people in the scientific world I know of.  Im not saying that
everyone on the other side of this issue is necessarily dishonest.  There
are some serious scientists who are worried about ozone depletion, and
perhaps for valid reasons, but the folks you mentioned are quite dishonest.
 
>for the data, and draws and the expertise of many scientists 
>who are experts in their fields. 
 
Lovins is an expert in atmospheric chemistry?  
 
>The pinch of salt is not really needed.
 
Dont use a pinch of salt...toss the whole report.  If Lovins and Schneider
are involved, its all suspect.
 
--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment