Re: The assault on science and the American public by the corporate propaganda machine

[Guest guest]

Please quit sending me notes

everyday...UNSUBSCRIBE!!!!

--- Barbara Herskovitz <bherk@...> wrote:

> The assault on science and the American public by

> the corporate propaganda

> machine

> by Cheryl Seal

>

> PART I:

> The " Landmining " of the Web: The Internet

> Misinformation Campaign

>

> Not long ago, I experienced a major shock when I did

> a web search to see

> what the National Science Foundation had to offer

> students and educators on

> the topic of global warming. In a dogpile.com search

> (which pulls up results

> for multiple search engines at once), under

> Goto.com, I found a 100% result:

> National Science Foundation, K-12 education. I went

> into the site, which was

> called " Planet Education. " The bar above the site

> said " Science and

> Technology, National Science Foundation. " A note to

> the side reported that

> 800,000 teachers and students used the site every

> month.

>

> Encouraged, I did a keyword " global warming " site

> search. What came up was a

> list of several recommended web sites. A site called

> " The Global Warming

> Skeptics Page, " rated with three stars, topped the

> list - ahead of the EPA

> global warming site (which received no stars at

> all). When I entered the

> " skeptics " site, what I found appalled me beyond

> words!

>

> There, in a " science site " for educators and

> students, was a collection of

> the most blatant corporate propaganda I have ever

> seen - and as an

> environmental journalist and science abstractor, I

> have seen plenty! Here

> are some sample statements: " Most scientists do not

> believe human activities

> threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate, " " A modest

> amount of global

> warming, if it should occur, would be beneficial " .

> There is a whole lurid

> section devoted to outlining the collapse of the

> world economy if Kyoto were

> ratified, while other headlines of scathing stories

> proclaim: " U.S. sends

> EU's " emergency mission " on Kyoto packing, still

> whining, " and " ABC and Al

> Gore: A Global Warming Love Story? "

>

> Green of the Cato Institute follows his name

> with the letters D.Env.

> to imply " doctor of environmental science " no doubt.

> However, he is merely

> director of Environmental Studies, no real

> credentials at all!

>

> Scientific articles are interspersed sparely

> throughout - but all are only

> vaguely pertinent and none are later than 1998 (as

> any climatologist knows,

> it was after 1998 when the most compelling evidence

> of warming came pouring

> in hard and fast). Credentials are even scantier, if

> not comical. For

> example, Green of the Cato Institute follows

> his name with the

> letters D.Env. to imply " doctor of environmental

> science " no doubt. However,

> he is merely director of Environmental Studies, no

> real credentials at all!

> The primary suppliers of the " science " on the site

> came not from the NSF, or

> even anything as respectable as Ranger Rick! It was

> supplied by

> ultraright-wing front foundations such as the

> Heartland Institute and the

> Cato Institute, and World Climate Watch, a bogus

> outfit operating supposedly

> under the auspices of the University of Virginia in

> Charlottesville.

> Pathetic! But this is what is being fed to our

> children.

>

> Then, came the second shock! Upon examining the

> site, I found that the link

> was bogus - " Planet Education " has nothing to do

> with NSF - it's a " wannabe

> link " - sort of like a designer drug. I thought name

> theft was highly

> illegal! I'd without doubt get sued if I signed my

> articles " Cheryl Seal and

> Walter Cronkite. " I e-mailed the site webmaster and

> complained. They

> responded that they would probably remove the

> " skeptics " site because of the

> multitude of complaints. Keep that in mind -

> complaining can be an effective

> tool in some cases, so complain whenever you see

> this stuff!

>

> There are far more links to bogus sites than to

> valid ones. Someone has been

> very, very busy.

>

> This proved to be just the most glaring tip of a

> very large iceberg. In

> doing more dogpile.com searches of various

> environmental topics of intense

> interest to corporate lobbyists, I discovered that

> there are far more links

> to bogus sites than to valid ones. Someone has been

> very, very busy. For

> example, do a dogpile.com search of the keyword

> " global warming " and you

> will pull up a list of scientific, even

> environmental-sounding sites: Global

> Climate Foundation, Environment News, CO2 Institute,

> etc. Enter those sites,

> and you will immediately be barraged by corporate

> propaganda, much of it

> originating from the same sources as that stuffed

> into the Planet Education

> site.

>

> Do a search using keyword " Arctic National Wildlife

> Refuge " and you will be

> hard-pressed to turn up sites that are NOT oil

> company propaganda. Combine

> the slick, professional look of these sites with

> their solid-sounding names

> and the average person - the very ones targeted by

> this campaign - are

> quickly confused and made very suspicious of bona

> fide science reports.

>

> Another insidious practice, which should be illegal,

> and if already illegal,

> should now be prosecuted vigorously, is link

> manipulation. For example, the

> " ANWR.org " address leads the surfer to assume the

> link corresponds to the

> " official " ANWR site (it is instead a propaganda

> fest). Worse, bona fide

> sites related to global warming and other

> environmental issues are now being

> sabotaged in an effort to discredit them. For

> example, look under Union of

> Concerned Scientists (whose members include Nobel

> laureates), and you will

> find the name linked in various ways to " space

> alien " sites, ultra-left wind

> sites, a site entitled " Union of Confused

> Scientists " and to anti-global

> warming sites.

>

> Do a search using keyword " Arctic National Wildlife

> Refuge " and you will be

> hard-pressed to turn up sites that are NOT oil

> company propaganda.

>

> When I called UCS, they were shocked and dismayed by

> my finding - they had

> no idea such a calculated assault on their image was

> being made. When I

> called the American Association for the Advancement

> of Science (which

> publishes the internationally-respected journal

> " Science " ), they also did

> not realize the scope of bogus science propaganda,

> especially on the web. No

> organized watchdog office exists at present - though

> probably soon will. To

> give these science organizations credit, I think

> their naiveté springs from

> having a bit too much faith in the discrimination of

> the average person -

> they assume the foolishness can be readily spotted.

>

> They couldn't be more wrong! And it isn't just the

> average person who is

> fooled. Recently, I read a lead story in the LA

> Times that suggested that

> the global warming theory was riddled by

> inconsistencies and conflicting

> data. The problem was, most of the " conflicts "

> presented were based on data

> harped on by some of the more sophisticated

> anti-global warming theory

> propagandists. For example - the " problem " of the

> difference between the

> microwave sounding unit readings of tropospheric

> temperature and

> ground-level temperature readings (an argument

> resting

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________