Rain Forest Myths
dont-look at evil.spam
Sun Oct 8 01:25:40 EST 2000
Karl Davies wrote in message <39DDB9F5.D37610C5 at daviesand.com>...
>Jim Campbell wrote in alt.forestry; KD responded in alt.forestry; JC
>privately; this KD response cc'd to alt.forestry, bionet.agroforestry,
>sci.environment, Philip Stott:
>> > > The following article was written by Prof. Philip Stott, a
>> > > at the University of London.
>> > > His web site is http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk.
>> >Yeah, check it out. This guy Stott is nothing but a biotech corporate
>> >stooge. He probably wants to clearcut all the rain forests and replant
>> >frankentrees. That's why he's so hot on exposing the rain forest
>> Your response is not very objective. Prof. Stott is a researcher at the
>> of London with excellent credentials. That hardly describes a "corporate
>> stooge". Too many assumptions here. I read his web site and found not
>> hint he wishes to do anything of the sort with rainforests.
>Any big fan of genetic engineering qualifies as a corporate stooge in my
>Stott's a freaking CHEERLEADER FOR GE. As for his specific designs on
>rainforests, maybe he'll fill us in on that part.
yep, he does read very much like an industry PRopagandist and advocate. his
probiotech site is sponsored by monsanto, and he is associated with far
right neo liberal think tanks. he is no longer a scientist, he may have
some qualifications, although they are not relevant to his pro GM stance
and as such his opinions are worth no more then mine are, excepting he
sells his to the highest bidder.
>> In fact, the
>> rain forests that were converted to agri have largely been abandoned and
>> reverting due to excessive operational costs and many other factors. S.
>> American governments are the ones needing the quick cash and willing to
>> strip their forests.
>This is the same Stott who teamed up with fellow corporate stooge Patty
>write a similar rant on rainforests back in June. See
>http://csf.colorado.edu/bioregional/2000/msg00424.html for a report on
>rant. Notice where Moore is quoted saying:
he really does get around, wonder when he finds the time to do any
research, but i guess looking at pictures and arial surveys are plenty hard
enough for him.
he is only a geobiologist<or some similar sounding discipline> and they
dont have the most demanding course requirements or standards. lower then
environmental science and the real science degrees, the ones the invlove
reaearch and collection of usefull emprical data, the first thing that most
real scientists are taught is to make sure that the data you are working
with is of the highest quality and accuracy, arial survays and sattleite
imageing studys are useless unless backed with enough ground surveys to
validate the data from the other sources. any first year environmental
science student can tell you that, i dont see any quantative ground based
survays in his rainforest book<published by a right wing think tank, not
the U of L i should note> demonstrating the validity of the
sattelite/areial assesment process.
he <stott> is an industry PRopagandist and apologist. he has thrown away
any scientific validity he may have had by his fanatical support of
biotech<why is it always people with no training in relevant fields and
little skill who are the biggest advocates of GM food crops> seems industry
is so desperate to maintain the air of scientific respectability they dont
care if they get people with qualifications in the relevant fields, as long
as they have some sort of scientific sounding name with bio in it
somewhere, anything to con the public, the industry braying is getting
louder, profits are at stake, bring out the PR experts and phony
"impartial" advocates who are curiously sponsored by the same people who
want to con the public.
BTW stott is also associated with that paragon of corporate sponsored
"scientific" misinformation junkscience.com
More information about the Ag-forst