Rain Forest Myths
redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Oct 29 14:01:50 EST 2000
> Just to keep things in perspective, by the addage "follow the
> money", have you recently looked up disclosure statements of
> so-called environmental groups? Most of the big names have
> assets in the billions. It's BIG BUSINESS to be an
> environmental advocate these days.
> Theyre still small potatoes compared to the rest of really big
> companies. (JZ)
> So how do they get so big?
> People give them their money! (JZ)
> By scare tactics, finding "researchers" willing to sell out
> for the big paychecks to keep anti-logging, anti-hunting,
> anti-recreation and like issues burning.
> What selling out? That's an accusation. Prove it! Not that I
> fully agree with all enviro groups, because I don't- but my
> differences with them would be different than yours. (JZ)
> My question is why have those organizations accumulated so
> much financial asset and not used it to buy up all those
> precious rainforests?
> Good question. (JZ)
> Rather, their appeals grow louder for more money, while
> offering even more propaganda.
> Propaganda??? Who says so? The woodchucks of the forestry
> propaganda machine??? (JZ)
> A university researcher is no match on his own in the face
> of such well-funded organizations. It's more like me and my
> lawyer trying to battle Bill Gates and his lawyers over
> software propriety. Funding is difficult to obtain, required
> to hire a straff, specialized equipment, supplies,
> transportation, and all the other stuff educational institutes
> can't afford to supply.Without it, you go nowhere. Researchers
> accepting sponsorships is not a case for declaring them
> biased. If that is your assertion anyway, then for all things
> to be equal I say any researcher funded by "environmental"
> organizations is likewise bogus, severely biased, unqualified.
> You obviously despise enviro groups. Keep in mind, most are
> loaded with well educated people - whose goal is not making
> money off of nature. The woodchuck corporations DO make money
> off exloiting natural resouces. So, which do suppose might be
> less scientific??? (JZ)
> Any researcher has his own emphasis. Some seek the truth at
> whatever cost. Others seek money at the cost of truth.
> Researchers also have to face their peers. If they're "bought
> up" they will be blasted by those peers sooner or later. (JZ)
> I don't know what your background in remote sensing might
> be. You should know that just a few years back that technology
> was wanting for detail, but that simply isn't the case now.
> It's fast becoming the primary tool for initial monitoring and
> evaluation, and the cost is falling fast. Satellite shots that
> once cost us hundreds now are under $20. If you know anything
> about the field you so sharply criticize, you should know
> there are thousands of computerized models that permit
> detailed analysis of satellite views based on sample ground
> surveys. We can't measure the diameter of a stump yet, but
> enough data can be collected to arrive at very good conclusion
> within acceptable statistical confidence levels exceeding 95%.
> I seriouslty doubt that. To get that information that good,
> you need to spend a lot of time out there. (JZ)
> To exceed that requires very expensive ground survey crew
> projects that woulod supply very little additional data os any
> real usefulness. I wouldn't consider the count on a particular
> beetle to be economically feasible for the forest industry. If
> it is to be held to such minuta, then why don't we hold the
> auto industry accountable for the deposits of lead from
> wheel-weights and tire dust pollution along the many miles of
> highways? People are swallowing camels and choking on gnats,
> picking and choosing issues dearest to them without proper use
> of reason.
> That's absurd. <G> (JZ)
> What I saw in replies to my post was emotional lashing out
> of desperation. It's a fairly common phenomena nowadays to see
> folks over-react and require every statement but their own to
> be "proven".
> What if anything have you proven??? (JZ)
> The "data" supplied to prove their own beliefs is flawed by
> their own standards, being supplied by "researchers" funded by
> single interest groups intent of searching until they find
> some shred of truth to back up their claims and keep the
> donations coming in.
> Then prove them wrong, scientifically. (JZ)
> Return to simple reason and simple biology.
> Yes, I'm sure you prefer "simple reason" and "simple biology".
> <G> The problem is nature isn't so simple. (JZ)
> Paleontology and archeology alone proves Stotts opinion. It
> isn't good science to base all you believe on what is now seen
> or heard. Stott is only one of many esteemed scientists
> looking objectively at some issues complicated by too much
> money. Follow the money. The more there is in the trail, the
> less I trust.
> I did a search on the messages that led up to your reply,
> which has come weeks after most of them. In one of them I saw
> a quote from the NY Times as follows, " But now, two of the
> world's top eco-scientists, Patrick Moore and Philip Stott,
> say the save-the-rainforest movement is wrong: at best, vastly
> misleading; at worst, a gigantic con. ". Just for the record,
> Patty Moore IS NOT A TOP ECO-SCIENTIST, he's not even a bottom
> eco-scientist- he's more of a bottom feeder <G>. (JZ)
> Jim Campbell, forester
Joe Zorzin, Ecoforester
new SAF web site
usenet forestry groups at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ag-forst