From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 09:53:59 MDT
Steve wrote:
>
> I think we have to put safety ahead of mindless sci-fantasy optimism,
> and want to point
> out that I object to emotive and irrelevent terms like "luddite" that
> are used incorrectly in
> this debate. Pearson and even Greenpeace & ecology movement are using
> empirical data
> and arguments and are not "anti-science" anti-rational or even
> anti-progress.
As one formerly involved in the energy conservation industry, I have a
very visceral understanding of the arguments of Greenpeace and the
ecology movement and the so-called 'empirical data' they use.
For example, they are currently using "empirical" satellite data alone
to declare forests as 'spotted owl habitat' that is off limits to
logging, without doing any on site verification, and their "empirical"
data has been refuted in a number of cases by independent on site
inspection, yet the government continues to declare forest as 'spotted
owl habitat' despite a complete lack of said owls in attendance.
Greenpeace is also planting specimins of other species in areas to get
them declared protected habitats. For example, several state biologists
(and Greenpeace members) were just convicted of planting lynx samples
falsely in site surveys in California. In Vermont, one biologist (also a
member of Greenpeace) planted TWO Indiana bats in Vermont bat caves
(among hundreds of thousands of native non-endangered bats) in order to
get bat control contractors put out of business across the state, out of
concern that a bat exterminator might kill one Indiana Bat when cleaning
out the crawl space of someone's home.
This is proof that groups like Greenpeace are engaged in economic
terrorism using false data to corrupt the legal process.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST