On being one of the few scientists in Greenpeace "I was somewhat rare and had to live with the fact throughout my time in Greenpeace that there was a lot of disrespect for my science. That is why they called me Dr. Truth. It was kind of a put down. On how the environmental movement has gone wrong "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn't make the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not get out of adversarial politics. This particularly applies to political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than they did with the actual science of the environment. To stay in an adversarial role, those people had to adopt ever more extreme positions because all the reasonable ones were being accepted." On environmentalists "preying on people's fear of the unknown" "I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and forestry are both good examples where policy is being influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic. Certainly, biotechnology needs to be done very carefully. But GM crops are in the same category as estrogen-mimicking compounds and pesticide residues. They are seen as an invisible force that will kill us all in our sleep or turn us all into mutants. It is preying on people's fear of the unknown." On Greenpeace's changing priorities "I do think thought that they (Greenpeace) have diversified into so many issues, many of which are questionable in terms of priorities and some of which are just plain wrong-headed. A case in point is GM (genetically modified) foods. If they are really so worried about human health, why don't they tackle tobacco?" On the future of the environmental movement "We need to get out of the adversarial approach. People who base their opinion on science and reason and who are politically centrist need to take the movement back from the extremists who have hijacked it, often to further agendas that have nothing to do with ecology" Source |
At least through other organizations. And, the rigging of the deck by changing the criteria that a substance needed to pass to be judged harmful. |
|
|
|
oh my, that is all kinds of lame. no choice vs choice, lamewad. long after i quit smoking, i will still hate anti-smoking people. |