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

[Guest guest]

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 heavily on the work

and aggressive assertions of just one researcher, Christy of the

University of Alabama at Huntsville), has long since been successfully

addressed by results of subsequent studies by scores of researchers around

the world. But today's busy legislators, newspeople, and educators, alas,

too often take the easy way out and use the " background material " so

conveniently supplied to them by the " corporate experts. " In this way, the

misinformation, like a virus, is spread.

The anti-science propaganda campaign is dangerously divisive, creating

suspicions and doubts where none need be. And it may be only the beginning:

Bush wants to pump $90 million in new funds into a new " Math and Science

Partnerships Initiative " (who are the partners?), aimed at " improving "

science education in K-12. He also wants to divert another $110 million from

existing NSF education activities (bona fide science programs, perhaps?) Is

this the start of a mass science " re-education " plan? A statement by the

Hoover Institute think tank - the outfit where Bush gets many of his ideas

on education - suggests that less time ought to be spent on teaching

children how to think critically. Scary priority!

As the self-acclaimed protectors of the " common man, " we should make it a

primary goal to insure that misinformation campaigns and any re-education

schemes are exposed to the light of day - and truth - and that measures are

taken to stem their proliferation. The same legislation that made it illegal

for corporations and other special interests to present " public information

ads " on TV without including a " paid for by... " notice should also apply to

corporate-funded public information web materials. I also believe that

search engine companies should be made more accountable. For example,

Goto.com has a policy of giving the best placement in its links to the

highest bidder. That does not translate into truly free speech.

Meanwhile, the science community could do much to deflect the impact of

bogus science. Here are a few recommendations:

- FIRST AND FOREMOST: Create a watchdog unit that monitors the web and other

outlets for bogus science and identify and report cases of link manipulation

and " link slander. " A database of information could be established.

- Establish a publication certification system that will track and review

publications in print, video, or on the net, and rate them. All would be

held up to the traditional criteria for quality of scientific material: Does

the publication have a sufficient number of editorial reviewers (when

dealing with a subject with as broad in scope as global warming, two or

three reviewers are not enough, while a paper focused on the habits of

chipmunks in Yellowstone might only need one)? Do the reviewers have an

appropriate science background? (For example, a degree in astrophysics does

not make you an expert in climatology). What is the funding source of the

publication and how does the content appear to relate to this source? (For

example, a publication about CO2 that is funded by the Coal Institute, and

presents research suggesting more CO2 is a very good thing, should be

instantly suspect). Is the material presented objectively? Research reports

must be free of all of opinion or even subtle slant. Commentary pieces in a

publication are, of course, a different issue.

Material that passes muster should be placed on a recommended list, just as

material that fails the criteria should be placed on a " to be avoided " or

even red-hot alert list. This list should be made available to schools,

legislators, news editors, and book publishers (who might unwittingly give

contracts to " researchers " based on a deceptively extensive publishing

record). The system might also include a " star rating " - four stars for the

best, and so forth. The rating could be lost, just the way colleges can lose

theirs, for a departure from quality (this would prevent corporations from

beginning publications that initially meet the criteria, then using them

later as propaganda organs).

Is this violating anyone's first amendment right? Hardly! Anyone is free to

publish whatever they want - they simply will be held accountable for the

content. This was the original concept of unlimited free speech - every

American has the right to publication but this right does not include

freedom from reasonable consequences, which can range from bad reviews to

lawsuits.

In the case of information being presented to students, legislators, and

news editors on extremely vital issues such as global warming, it is

imperative that the information comes from reliable sources. Would you go to

a lawyer that could not pass a bar exam or to a doctor who failed his

medical board review? Or, for that matter, would you want to be represented

by lawyer who is being paid on the side by the same corporation you are

trying to sue, or be treated for cancer by a doctor who is being paid by a

corporation to prove that cancer is a myth? No? Well, then why should we

base legislation on information that is neither derived from real science

nor free from the taint of corporate interests?

PART II: A Frightening Guided Tour of the Nightmarish World of Corporate

Science Misinformation

Once upon a time, whenever stricter environmental regulations were proposed,

corporate execs would immediately start fluttering pink slips in a menacing

manner. Regulations and unemployment, they'd have us believe, were

synonymous, while environmentalists were hysterical radicals seeking to

inflict job loss on us all. But then the public-which really does care about

the environment--grew more skeptical and the job loss gig didn't quite do

the trick. Corporate propagandists (CPs) sought a new chink in America's

armor and soon found one: the Internet. It is everything a saboteur could

want: anonymous, unregulated, and unchallenged, with open access to

Americans of all ages and economic classes.

Take the Greening Earth Society, for example. Although the name implies a

group dedicated to restoring wildlands, their " greening " refers to the

" greenhouse effect " --these folks WELCOME global warming!

Now, CPs attack environmental safeguards from behind the " green smokescreen "

(an appropriate corporate oxymoron!) of Internet front groups that purport

to be pro-environment and highly scientific. These groups have engineered

their own version of " environmental science " in which " green " really means

money and anything that regulates industry is " environmentally " unfriendly.

Take the Greening Earth Society, for example. Although the name implies a

group dedicated to restoring wildlands, their " greening " refers to the

" greenhouse effect " --these folks WELCOME global warming! At GES, you will

learn that CO2 is a great gas we just can't get enough of, that global

warming will turn Earth into a veritable garden of Eden, and that those

thousands of articles written by climate researchers around the world all

rest on shaky ground.

Instead, we can rely on the word of GES's staff of three scientists, headed

by Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with Harvard-sonian. But, hey

wait! What does astrophysics have to do with climatology? Isn't that sort of

like a sports clinic where the top therapist is a botanist? When I wrote GES

to ask how much and by whom Baliunas and others are paid, they responded

that they didn't have to share that information. However, they did admit

that their major funder is the Western Fuel Association! (Which doesn't

sound awfully green to me!). WFA is a $400-million consortium of coal

suppliers which has dumped millions into " shaping " the " new

environmentalism "

A little more digging and I discovered that the although the other two

scientists at GES, s of the University of Virginia and

C. Balling of the Arizona State University are both climatologists (in name,

anyway), they have made a killing the pollution business, collecting fat

fees from WFA. Between them, these poster boys for big business scooped up a

cool $315,000 in less than four years in exchange for their " expert "

testimony debunking global warming. Balling is also a hired mouthpiece for

Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that funds the aggressively

anti-environmental group " People of the West. " That these " scientists " are

allowed to continue teach young people at two major colleges is beyond my

understanding. But then, maybe their schools get kickbacks in exchange for

letting the two creeps keep their credentials so they can continue being

" scientific experts. "

But GES has nothing to do with science as everyone from Archimedes on down

have understood it. A sample GES FAQ: " Saying CO2 is a pollutant is like

saying water is a poison. " This statement is as unscientific as saying that

because arsenic is found naturally in rocks, it isn't toxic (though Bush

apparently subscribes to this theory). GES publishes " World Climate Report, "

which despite the solid-sounding name, is a sorry rag filled with dated,

misrepresented, or unattributed information and misinformation, carefully

selected by our WFA " scientists. " GES has many link tentacles writhing away

to other propaganda sites, including fossil fuel.org, which is actually a

subsite of Western Fuel Association.

This incestuous pattern of links and researchers pervades the world of front

groups-a good two-thirds of the global warming sites appear to have WFA at

their rotting roots. Baliunas, Balling, s and a stable of less than a

dozen other corporate scientists (you can always find a few if your budget's

big enough) are used and reused as " experts " when testimony debunking global

warming, a blurb for a corporate science book or other back-scratching is

needed. For example, Fred Seitz, a materials scientist (another " botanist " )

who created the infamous 17,000-signature petition against Kyoto (more on

that in Part III), can be found at the bizarre junkscience.com site, talking

up resident CP Steve Milloy's latest science-bashing book. Steve Milloy, in

turn, who also works for the ultra-right wing, tobacco and

energy-industry-funded Cato Institute, has his books plugged by GES and

several other bogus sites. The Cato Institute, in turn, has also published

s' knuckle-dragging masterpieces: " CO2: A Satanic Gas? " and " The Case

Against a UN Global Warming Treaty. " But then, these are the same people who

brought you such research papers as " Two Cheers for the 1872 Mining Law " (a

paper in support of the law that allows companies to buy up the mining rites

on federal lands for next to nothing). Other repeating names include

Lindzen, Fred Singer, and Mark Millet (who isn't even any kind of

scientist--he is a power industry consultant!). Singer gets his cash on the

side as an expert from Shell, Exxon, ARCO and several other fuel

corporations while Lindzen is on the take from WFA. The alert surfer soon

deducts that the number of " experts " willing to peddle this crap even for

hefty payouts is pretty darn small. As a result, their tireless efforts are

spread quite thin-transparent, in fact.

In fossil fuel.org, we are treated to a long and tedious Q and A interview

with the head of WFA, Fred Palmer, who tells us that any regulations on the

fuel industry are cruel and unusual. Besides, says Palmer, another

CO2-depleting ice age will probably happen again some day, so " the

precautionary principle might dictate that we put more CO2 into the air to

prevent CO2 levels from being driven down so low it extinguishes plant

life. "

The Global Warming Information site (also GES-linked) offers nifty ideas for

teaching kids about global warming and CO2. For example, it urges you to

take your child to a greenhouse to show them the benefits of the greenhouse

effect: " Ask the greenhouse manager to explain how the conditions in the

greenhouse help the plants. " Or, better yet, show them how much fun a

warmer, high-CO2 earth would be by telling them " it will be like living in

the age of dinosaurs with lots of CO2 making lush vegetation! " (Or better

yet, I thought, why not just put a bag over your kid's head for about an

hour--they'll experience plenty of CO2 that way!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

We find a vague " research " article entitled " Texas Paper on Greenhouse

Gases, " which " proves " that global warming is a myth. However, the author of

this marshmallow is Glenn R. Schleede, president of Energy Market and Policy

Analysis, Inc. and former VP of New England Energy, Inc., which drills for

oil and gas. His highest degree is in " advanced management. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

We next move to a paper presented in a Global Info. Page sublink, where we

find a vague " research " article entitled " Texas Paper on Greenhouse Gases, "

which " proves " that global warming is a myth. However, the author of this

marshmallow is Glenn R. Schleede, president of Energy Market and Policy

Analysis, Inc. and former VP of New England Energy, Inc., which drills for

oil and gas. His highest degree is in " advanced management. " This site links

the Consumer Alert site. Very clever! The term " consumer alert " on the

Internet is a preface used for a variety of real advisories, such warning

consumers about salmonella in a shipment of chicken somewhere. Thus, naming

your site " Consumer Alert " is bound to grab attention and deceive! The site

is actually a stopover to a smorgasbord of Bush agenda sites, carefully

designed to appear as solid, down home, and all-American: the Heartland

Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Defenders of Property Rights, Citizens

for a Sound Economy, Townhall.com, Center for Market-Based Education, etc.

It's obvious these folks want you to believe they are all working together

to make a better tomorrow for America! The common thread running through

them all is that everything on the planet should be " market-based, "

including schools, conservation, and allowable levels of pollution. Welcome

to the United States of Exxon!

To move things along (there's a daunting amount of material out there!),

here are some samples of other green smokescreen sites:

TOWNHALL.COM: At a site that sounds like it should be a forum for small-town

issues, we find a clear pro-corporate agenda. For example, the primary

" news " in a recent edition was an editorial blasting the editor of " Science "

magazine for daring to criticize Bush on his U-turn away from the Kyoto

Protocol.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION: " Need a quote? Need to book a quest? Need basic

information? " the site asks, and stands ready to steer the corporate

journalist in the " right (and we do mean RIGHT) direction " toward a stable

of hand-picked speakers and " research materials. " HF even has a spot telling

journalists what the current " hot topics " are (so that's who tells the

corporate media what's new and what's not In its topic listings, the HF

tellingly lumps " energy and environment " together. (There is a pro-drilling

ANWR site that uses the same tactic.) One of HF's recommended articles:

" Global Warming and Hot Air. "

NATIONAL WILDERNESS INSTITUTE: There's not one ecologist or biologist on

their list of advisors. However, it does have Pombo (R-CA) who

admitted taking money from Monsanto (producers of potentially

environmentally deadly bioengineered crops) during a critical vote on a

regulatory issue affecting the corporation a few years back. Pombo has made

it plain he sees no distinction between big business and the environment--

in his article " The Jihad against Microsoft " the plight of the huge

corporation is compared to that of wildlands! The group's only concrete

activities, despite its grandiose name, appears to be writing a letter

complaining about sludge dumping in the Potomac and proposing a list of

endangered species for the Washington, D.C. area. (I hope they put

environmentalists on the list).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Pombo (R-CA) has made it plain he sees no distinction between big

business and the environment -- in his article " The Jihad against Microsoft "

the plight of the huge corporation is compared to that of wildlands!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

FOX NETWORK's JUNKSCIENCE.ORG: As a " biostatistician " with a legal degree,

head writer Steve Milloy is truly scary: he's a lawyer who knows how to lie

with statistics! While blasting the " scare tactics " of bona fide scientists,

Milloy cranks out such gems as " The DDT Ban is Genocidal, " in which he

hysterically asserts that " Millions of third-world children are about to be

condemned to certain death from malaria by international and environmental

elitists. " (He'd apparently rather see them die slowly later from DDT

poisoning!). In another article, Milloy raises the question: " All agree that

[arsenic] kills, but the question is, just how much it takes to do so. " (Why

don't you find out for us, Steve?). Other junkscience recommended reading

includes: " EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature, " " Hot Talk, Cold

Science, " " Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists, "

" The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, " and that

all-time classic: " Slow Burn: The Great American Anti-smoking Scam. "

GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKING NEWS AND VIEWS: Guess who some of its key " experts "

are? Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz! Man, these two guys are getting

awfully shopworn, don't ya think?

SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST: This is the latest magnus opus by a the most

recent literary sell-out, Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg, once (supposedly) a

progressive environmentalist, has apparently had enough silver cross his

palm to lure him to the dark side. His book is warming the cockles of

corporate executives' hearts all over the world. By proclaiming the

industrially-trashed world a veritable paradise that grows rosier everyday,

Lomborg's book is everything a fossil fuel baron or toxic chemical czar

could want (it should be -- they probably paid for every word one way or the

other).

READING MATERIAL SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SITES: The article titles speak

for themselves! " CO2tton! " (the joys of global warming agriculture), " CO2

and the Biosphere: The Incredible Legacy of the Industrial Revolution " (how

factories and trashing the ecosystem have improved the environment), " Is

This a Great Atmosphere or What? " (I'd opt for " or what? " ), " 1996: A Preview

of Cooler Days Ahead " (written just two years before the hottest year on

record!), " The Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global

Warming, " " Free Market Environmentalism, " and " Environmental Gore " (clever,

huh?).

The overriding impression I am left with after my odyssey into the world of

front sites is that corporate propagandists are colossally arrogant bastards

who believe that Americans are merely hungry game fish in their personal

pond--we're not too bright and we're likely to grab any bait thrown at us.

The problem is, these folks are trying to make darn sure their bait's the

only fish food available.

(Note: Following publication of Part I of this series, we are proud to say

that the Planet Education website completely overhauled its Global Warming

materials section, eliminating the " skeptics page. " Also, we have noticed

that several front sites tried to " hide " by eliminating some statements we

cited or switching links around.)

Part III: The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus:

How to Spot the Difference

It's a jungle out there - an information jungle with predatory hucksters

hiding behind every tree, or - in the case of bogus environmental

scientists - disguised as trees! How do you separate well-supported fact

from manipulated fiction? Or, more to the point, how do you separate sound

science from " sounds like science? " In fact, it ain't all that hard - it's

just a matter of logic, alert observation, and common sense (the real

enchilada - not the Bush version).

The concept of common sense has been batted around by the conservatives to

the point it now resembles some shapeless old baseball (or T-ball??) with

all the innards coming unraveled. From what I can figure, common sense to

conservatives basically means accepting without question every " truism "

concocted by right-wing propagandists to further the corporate agenda:

" Environmentalists are crazy radicals, " " Can't have progress without

pollution, " " Regulations mean job loss. " Common sense to right-wingers thus

is synonymous with not thinking for yourself.

Real common sense, however, can be found at the other end of the horse - the

end with the brain in it! It is, in essence, the intersection between logic

and experience. For example, logic tells you alcohol impairs your reflexes

and that reflexes are critical to safe driving. Experience tells you car

accidents and being arrested for any reason is unpleasant, even deadly. The

result: a common sense decision not to get behind the wheel when you've been

drinking.

Logic also tells us a President [sic] who puts corporate interests first

cannot also put citizens' interests first. Experience tells us that when

citizens' interests are not placed first, the quality of life declines. Our

common sense conclusion: this President [sic] will reduce the quality of

life in America.

Apply the same process to global warming. Logic tell us that if humans have

introduced millions of tons of gases into the air known to enhance the

heat-retaining properties of the atmosphere (some for up to hundreds of

years), have removed shade-providing, moisture-trapping trees from billions

of acres of land, have paved over billions of linear miles of land with

heat-absorbing asphalt and cement (over which hundreds of millions of

greenhouse-gas and heat- emitting cars roar on a daily basis), then it is

very likely we have increased the temperature of the planet.

Experience tells us polluted air stinks, is ugly and dirty, and in summer

can become downright unhealthy (how many code orange or red days did you

have last year?). Clean air and shade in summer, on the other hand, are a

thousand fold more pleasant and are definitely more healthy. Common sense

result: we've probably screwed up the climate, and at the very least we

should clean up the air and start planting and preserving more trees.

Funny - that was the whole point of Kyoto!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Experience tells us that when citizens' interests are not placed first, the

quality of life declines. Our common sense conclusion: this President [sic]

will reduce the quality of life in America.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Now what's up with Bush? His " common sense " conclusion is that carbon

dioxide is OK, global warming needs " more science " and we need to generate

more and more greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuel. The only way this can

work out as being a common sense conclusion is to apply a warped form of

logic based entirely on self-interest and greed. To wit (well, that's

half-right!), Bush logic says " The fossil fuel industry has a huge amount of

money and power. " Bush experience says " The fossil fuel industry richly

rewards those who help it gets what it wants. " Bush common sense result: " If

I help the fossil fuel industry get what it wants, I will be rewarded with

power and money. " Take this a step further. Bush logic says: " Right now the

industry cannot have what it wants because of environmental rules and rules

of global responsibility. How do I help the industry gets what it wants? "

Common sense answer: " I will change the rules. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Why would a company spend thousands - even millions - on literature and

media slots about environmental issues? Certainly not to help the

environment - their message is aimed entirely at debunking environmental

protection efforts. Certainly not concern for the public - if so, they would

instead be spending money to reduce their pollution levels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Armed with a less cynical form of common sense, it isn't hard to tell the

good guys from the bad guys in the environmental " game. "

RULE NUMBER ONE: Question motivation! Why would a company spend thousands -

even millions - on literature and media slots about environmental issues?

Certainly not to help the environment - their message is aimed entirely at

debunking environmental protection efforts. Certainly not concern for the

public - if so, they would instead be spending money to reduce their

pollution levels. The companies will argue that their PR campaign IS in the

public interest because it will ultimately save jobs and keep fuel costs

down. History debunks this myth: the economy improved throughout the 80s and

most of the 90s, even as the most stringent EPA regulations ever formulated

were being imposed. As to jobs, opening up opportunities for new alternative

energy companies will create new jobs - good clean jobs.

Another threat used by Bush is that fuel costs will soar if we don't produce

more petroleum. At the same time, he plans to shower the oil industry with

billions in corporate welfare and tax breaks. Who do you think ultimately

pays for this? It ain't comin' out of Bush or Cheney's pockets, I promise

you! In fact, the " tax break " Bush just conferred is merely a reshuffling of

the national wealth - one that will result in a loss of services to Joe

Public and an orgy of back-scratching for the energy industry. So, even if

the price of gas goes down 3 or 4 cents at the pump thanks (supposedly!) to

new production, we'll be paying through the nose for this " savings "

elsewhere - like when we retire and find there's no social security waiting

for us because the $ was all spent on a tax break that benefited the oil

barons.

Ultimately, fossil fuel costs will never really go down again because the

resource has been so overexploited that the cost of finding and tapping into

new sources is getting progressively higher. And because these new sources

are usually in environmentally sensitive areas, the cost of special

technology, and then the inevitable cost of cleaning up messes (there have

already been two costly incidents in Alaska in less than a year) drives the

cost up even more. As it is, Bush has already proposed passing the cost of

environmental cleanup onto the taxpayer. We can also expect state and

property taxes to go up to offset services cut through the federal tax cut.

We will pay, I guarantee you, one way or the other. And what do we get in

exchange? Dirtier water, dirtier air, and a more volatile climate, with more

storm disasters (the results of which Bush also doesn't want the Fed to pay

for anymore). Doesn't sound like such a deal to me.

Yet despite this grim underlying reality, corporations hope to use their

massive propaganda campaigns to recruit uninformed and unquestioning

citizens to their cause. In short, the Fat Cat wants Americans to help it

steal from themselves.

So back to motivation: If the message peddled by the corporations is so true

and purely motivated, then why do they need to use deceit, intentional

misinformation, and predatory tactics to spread it? Because the public

inevitably recognizes the naked truth when they finally see it. So the

corporations make sure that their message is never naked - it is always

dressed to the teeth in a clever disguise, then presented as truth by

accomplice news producers and sellout journalists such as industry toady

Stossel, GOP mouthpiece Tom Brokaw or that ultimate joke of " science

writing, " Fox's Milloy.

Bottom line: Ask just one question- " What's in it for them? " and true common

sense will give you the answer.

NUMBER TWO: Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! In any court of law (except

perhaps our own Supreme Court) decisions are based on evidence. This

evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. If you

are on a jury and are presented with eyewitness accounts by 1,000 reliable

people who have no financial interest in the results of the case, who all

say that " A " is true, then you are presented with just five or six

statements from people of dubious character who are being paid by the

plaintiff to say that " B " is true, who are you going to believe?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

These materials remind me of the religious pamphlets passed out by

door-to-door evangelists - the kind with pictures that show heaven as a

place filled with smiling, mostly white people with conservative haircuts

and tailored clothing having picnics under a clear blue sky (the kind we

soon will never see again here on Earth!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Yet we are continually asked to believe scenario " B " by corporations and to

discount the eyewitness testimony of reliable, financially disinterested

scientists. Alas, just like ny Cochran, the propagandists make a

persuasive, emotionally-appealing case to the uninformed. Their materials

are full of " happy pill " statements -the environment is just fine, no one

will ever be hurt by greenhouse gases or toxic pollutants, don't worry -

relax and enjoy your SUV! These materials remind me of the religious

pamphlets passed out by door-to-door evangelists - the kind with pictures

that show heaven as a place filled with smiling, mostly white people with

conservative haircuts and tailored clothing having picnics under a clear

blue sky (the kind we soon will never see again here on Earth!).

The scientists, on the other hand, present a much less emotionally-appealing

case. That is not because they don't believe in the environmental cause -

the overwhelming majority do! But the honest ones take their " vows of

objectivity " very seriously. When I was in college, I took a three-semester

course designed to train students how to conduct solid publishable research.

The first part was devoted to the mysteries of statistics, the second, to

the interpretation and application of statistics (experimental methodology),

and the third, to the effective design and execution of a research project.

The ultimate goal, which was hammered home repeatedly, is the removal of all

possible bias from your research design and from the interpretation of your

results. Why? Because it is through objectivity that you are most likely to

hit at the truth.

Yet this same noble objectivity is what puts science at a disadvantage when

it is under attack by propagandists who know how to manipulate emotional

issues. I have no doubt that most propaganda departments at large

corporations have social psychologists on the payroll. Their job - to come

up with strategies that can mold public opinion to the desired form without

tipping anyone off to the fact that they are being manipulated. My

statistics professor told me how a well-known candy company recruited a

social psychologist friend of his to conduct a secretive in-company study to

determine how much real chocolate could be removed from a chocolate bar

before the average person would figure out that something was missing and

have a " negative subjective response. " But, this is, incredibly, the sort of

thing corporations spend their money on in preference to actually making

things BETTER.

So, if you want a good litmus test of whether a piece of research is sound

science or merely sounds like science, look at its tone - how objective is

it? Most corporate propaganda pieces are blatantly slanted, full of opinion

and spin. Scientists, on the other hand, shun adjectives and definitive

statements as if these things were cooties. Any researcher worth his salt

will tell you that no matter how sure he is of any of his findings, or how

excited he is by the implications of his research, he will restrain himself

and write (though perhaps with trembling pen!) " The results appear to

confirm our hypothesis. " He may even go so far (on a daring day) to suggest

that his findings may have certain useful applications in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

If you want a good litmus test of whether a piece of research is sound

science or merely sounds like science, look at its tone - how objective is

it? Most corporate propaganda pieces are blatantly slanted, full of opinion

and spin. Scientists, on the other hand, shun adjectives and definitive

statements as if these things were cooties.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

But objectivity will never be sacrificed to emotion or opinion. As a result,

many scientists appear cold and unfeeling to " civilians " - worse yet, wimpy.

But that is the price that must be paid to uphold objectivity, because

objectivity is what upholds science itself. Scientific knowledge is an

open-ended process - there must always be room to accommodate new data and

new insights, as long as these additions are stringently supported by

evidence. Each new research result contributes a new thread - first warp,

then woof, then warp again - to the fabric of truth, which thus constructed,

is rich, full of complexity, and unlikely to unravel.

In my journal readings this month, I encountered a perfect example of

climate change " warp and woof. " In " Science, " a research team reported the

results of a 13-year study of a species of songbird (blue tits) in the

Mediterranean region. These birds have evolved with their habitats so that

they enter their breeding cycle when a certain type of tree buds, because

this budding coincides with the peak abundance of a certain type of

caterpillar required by the breeding birds. The slightest change in seasonal

temperature averages can cause the trees to bud either earlier or later.

When this happens, the natural synchrony between birds, buds, and

caterpillars is broken. The result, many birds fail to breed and/or survive.

Another, completely unrelated (in terms of researchers and facilities)

report in the Journal of Climate revealed that the arrival of spring in New

England has been pushed back a total of 4-6 days in just 20 years. The two

studies instantly interweave and a new question emerges: What happens now to

New England songbirds depending on breeding synchrony for survival?

Yet some corporate " scientists " would have us believe it is all so simple-

that higher temperatures and more CO2 will just lead to a wonderful,

greening world of lovely early springs. Meanwhile, real scientists slog day

after day to carefully peel away the many interdependent layers that make up

the truth. And the truth, as scientists know, will be the same, no matter

what anyone thinks or says about it. The amount of glacial ice that melts

this year will be the same amount regardless of how we measure the loss or

what reasons are proposed to explain it. The best science can do at any

given time is to identify trends and relationships and attempt formulate

constructive responses based on the evidence. That is why the vast majority

of scientists are so adamant that steps be taken to mitigate the human

contribution to global warming NOW. In the big picture, it doesn't matter

why the planet is warming, or if it did 29 times before now in the past 2

million years. A trend has been detected and a constructive course of action

identified that will, at the very least, significantly reduce the

consequences of warming.

To put it another way, if you have discovered on a July day during a heat

wave that your air conditioner is not working right and the temperature in

your 15th-floor apartment is steadily rising, while the air is growing

progressively stuffier, do you: (A) throw open a window, avoid cooking, and

turn on a fan; ( Sit with the windows shut and call everyone you know to

tell them the AC isn't really broken, it's just fine, as the sweat trickles

down your nose, or © Keep the window closed, turn on the heat, bake a

turkey and - most likely - die of heat stroke?

By reducing greenhouses gases and developing alternative energy sources,

scientists are trying to " open a window and turn on a fan. " Meanwhile

corporate propagandists are opting for ( - spending millions to convince

us all that if we all clap our hands, Tinker Bell will come back to life

into a beautiful greenhouse world of lush plants. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel

industry, which is pushing for more conventional power plants while actually

discouraging conservation, wants to bake a great big turkey - or should I

say the planet's goose?

CLOSE-UP AND UGLY: Here's an example of the type of deception used by

corporate interests to present an appearance of " scientific credibility " :

HOW IT LOOKS ON THE SURFACE:

A petition calling for the U.S. not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is

not based on sound science and would wreak economic havoc was created by Dr.

Frederick Seitz, head of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, who

is the former head of the National Federation of Scientists. The petition

was signed by over 17,000 scientists across the country.

First take by Joe and Jill Public: Wow! Maybe there's something to this

anti-Kyoto stance!

Now let's look more closely. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -

that sounds pretty impressive, like it must be a big research facility in,

say, Portland, right? Actually, it is a tiny outfit with a primary staff of

six located a few miles outside a place called Cave Junction. The staff

includes two chemists, an electrical engineer, and a specialist in internal

medicine, almost all of whom, like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Baker, had their

heyday several decades ago.

But, one might say, Dr. Seitz - former head of the National Federation of

Scientists - he must know what he's talking about, right? Well, considering

Seitz is not a climatologist, meteorologist, economist, atmospheric

scientist nor even a medical doctor, I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Seitz

is a materials scientist - a field devoted to studying the brittleness or

melting temperatures of plastics or metal, determining which compounds make

good superconductors, etc. It has absolutely nothing directly to do with

climate, medicine, or economics!

And, a search of Seitz's background shows he was president of the NFS almost

40 years ago, at which time his primary contribution to the cause of science

was raising enough money to build a wing on the NFS's auditorium. His list

of publishing credits in the past years consists almost entirely of a

variety of letters to the editors of science mags (thus enabling him to

deceitfully claim he is published -implying research articles- in a several

science journals).

However, Seitz's name does show up on nearly every bogus, industry-funded

anti-Kyoto front site and as a glowing reviewer of assorted

environment-bashing books. Incredibly, Seitz has won a slot as a professor

emeritus at the well-respected (and rightfully so) Rockefeller University

(are they out of their ever-loving minds?), no doubt based on his past and

distant glories. Seitz best pal appears to be Fred. S. Singer, who is paid

handsomely by Shell, Exxon, Arco and other energy industry moguls to say

whatever is needed to trash pro-environmental initiatives that threaten

corporate profits. Together, the two maintain a frighteningly bizarre

rightwing site, the kind someone might produce after having their Thorazine

withdrawn too quickly.

As to the 17,000 " scientists " on the petition, a closer look by Seitz's

critics has revealed that a substantial number of the names are fictitious

and that the definition of " scientist " (as applied to signers) encompasses

anyone who progressed past high school (one year's worth of cooking or

accounting classes would probably have won you a spot on the petition!).

But this case study is only one of dozens and dozens similar to it -

corporations using every trick in the book to look legit and influence

policy. It seems incredible that they are actually taken seriously by

anyone, let alone many Senators and Representatives (I don't even count the

Bush administration - it is simply the " new D.C. branch of the energy

industry " and not a true government, as the word " government " usually

implies at least a passing interest in the citizenry).

On the flip side of the coin, some of the most sincere, purely-motivated

groups out there may surprise you. When I ran across the " Evangelical

Environmental Network " , for example, I thought " Oh boy! This must be some

right-wing, anti-environmental bunch of bible thumpers! " Wrong! This group

(find them at creationcare.org) is really and truly dedicated to the

conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and -

refreshingly! - have taken the concept of " stewardship " of nature to heart.

EEN has a practical, action-oriented approach, is well-informed, and

outspoken. Their sponsors are not hidden - they are listed proudly at the

site and represent a potpourri of groups, from Habitat for Humanity to Young

Christian Hikers. So much for the Bush-Delay-corporate model of the " good

Christian " as someone selfish, materialistic and anti-nature. Go EEN!

These groups of private citizens - some of whom must bake brownies and have

raffles to raise money - are fighting the good fight to defend the natural

world from a well-organized assault by big-money bloated,

" official-sounding " outfits like the National Center for Public Policy

Research or the Hoover Institute. It is truly a vs. Goliath scenario.

But the way to tip the battle to the " s " is to keep ripping off the

mask that hides Goliath's ugly face.

College students can boycott the classes of on-the-take researchers if these

" experts " are teaching at their school, complain to the administration

and/or publish an expose in the college newspaper. Don't let them hide out

in a legitimate school scooping up credentials-by-association that they

don't deserve! If you see their name on a letter to an editor or article,

call or write to the publisher of the piece to complain. Whenever you see

any of these bogus foundations' names being cited as a source of information

anywhere, do the same - complain and expose!

Most importantly, ask to see what kind of science materials are being used

in your younger children's classrooms (especially supplemental booklets,

videos, etc.) As commentator Borowski pointed out last week, teachers

are being inundated with stacks of corporate " environmental/science

materials. " Demand that these materials be removed whenever you find them,

even if it means calling a special parents' meeting.

Last but not least, show your support for the legitimate environmental

groups out there, through donations, joining, or even just a letter of

appreciation. Right now the odds are stacked against the good guys. But, we

can win this fight....in fact, we MUST.

© 2001, Cheryl Seal

http://www.unknownnews.net/CherylSeal.html