From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:55:15 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

The following excerpts are from an article with the above title, written by
Patrick Michaels, associate professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia.

"As a scientist I am concerned about Dem VP candidate Albert Gore.  What raises
my worry threshold is that Gore creates a new combination of science,
religion, and the state, and then stages show trials of eminent scientists
to prove his point.
There is a plethora of evidence in the scientific literature that says that
while there are ecological problems, the earth is by no means 'threatened'
in any serious sense by what man might do.  In fact, ain his powerful
positions of oversight of the NSF and NASA, Gore has been accused of
distorting science for the purposes of his campaign to save a world that
may not need it.
Richard Lindzen, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and an MIT
climatologist, has said these show trials of scientists are assaults
against free expression and inquiry that are analogous to the Army
McCarthy hearings.
Last spring, Gore called to town Sherwood Idso, a scientist at the Dept.
of Agriculture's Water Conservation Project in Phoenix.  Idso has about
300 publications in refereed journals  A number of those articles describe
experiments about the so called 'carbon dioxide fertilization effect',
which translates into the idea that with adequate nutrition, raising the
amount of carbon dioxide makes plants grow better.
This isn't the kind of thing that will help someone who's been banging the
tocsin of environmental apocolypse.  As Gore wrote about the environment,
in 1989, 'Evil and good are terms not used frequently by politicians, but
I do not see how this problem can be solved without reference to spiritual
values.'
Gore consequently developed the scientific show trial to destroy the
reputations of those evil folks who don't believe with him.  It's an
easy thing to do.  The majority democrats can call as many witnesses
as they want, while the minority republicans can only call as many as they
are permitted usually 0 or 1.
Gore lined up 10 scientists who were specifically selected to answer
questions in a predictable fashion, while Idso was left to defend what
everyone knows: that plants grow better if the carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere goes up, but they have to have adequate nutrients, too.  Because
Idso's experiments implicitly included such nutrition, they were therefore
deemed as unrealistic, inasmuch as only man or God (as opposed to nature)
can assure that an individual plant is fed.
After softening him up on that one, Gore bore in with the haymaker:
wasn't it true that Idso's wife owned a corporation that had accepted
money from the coal industry as a consultant on a film about the
growth enhancement caused by carbon dioxide? After having Idso admit that
critical experiments on plant growth had yet to be performed, Gore's tack
was to then show that whatever Idso did was no good because his wife hung
out with known capitalists.
If science were a black and white affair, such persecution would be difficult.
But especially when trying to explain the real world, large numbers of
variables often interact in ways that require considerable experimentation
and are subject to multiple interpretations.  As a result, if Albert Einstein
were standing in his way, Gore could have put together a panel to discredit
him.
What are the limits to Gore?  I don't know but I am worried.  Other worriers
should be anyone who, however innocently, does work indicating that global
warming might in fact not be the end of the world.
Judging from Gore's scientific show trials, this is a battle between good
and evil.  In his mind, which of the two do you think you are?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10945 alt.fan.dave_barry:593