What Environmentalism is and is Not-2

Second, we have scientists and pseudo scientists. These people are actually worse than the antis because they should know better. A scientist is supposed to have an open analytical mind, but when it comes to environmentalism, this is not always true. many of these scientists go way out of their field and lend their name and title to some cause. Just having a Ph.D does not automatically make you an expert in every field. How does a Ph.D in English literature help your knowledge of the rain forest or global warming? These are the people I call the pseudo-scientists. They try to use their degree to pass themselves off as something they are not. There are also genuine scientists that, for whatever reason, (mostly political) seem to always side with the fanatic fringe of environmentalism. these are the people who in the seventies were admonishing us for putting off of the pollution and smog into the air. They were positive that all of that smog and pollution was blocking out the sun and was going to be the major cause of another ice age. Fast forward to the nineties and you have many of these same people saying that all that pollution and carbon dioxide is causing global warming and that, among other disasters, the polar ice caps are melting. It apparently does not seem to be a contradiction to them that they are calling for two different extreme effects from the same cause. Then you have politicians like Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet, who is making a living out of promoting his global position. I will talk much more about him in my chapter on global warming. I kind of liken this mentality to somewhere between "Chicken Little" and "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Kind of a chicken little who cried wolf. What I think we have is one group that are pseudo-scientists and another group that are pseudo-environmentalists. Another thing that I think is that they are all in it for the money and the power. They are all left wing, communist backed and would like nothing better than to ruin this country by turning it into a communist state.

A third group that deserves a closer look is the mass media. These people, especially the TV news people, can do more harm than good to the real cause of the environment. These are the people that give the kooks, the antis, the pseudo-scientists and others a platform for their views. You rarely see or hear the real scientists or environmentalists on thee shows or in print in major publications. What you see is someone who is considered an "expert" in the field warning us of a hole in the ozone or telling us that pieces of Antarctica are breaking off. What is not told is that the hole in the ozone is not really a hole at all but a thinning of the ozone in certain locations. This occurs at certain times of the year and at other times of the year, these areas again thicken. this has probably been going on from time immemorial, it is just that we never before had the ability to measure it. Actually, you no longer hear much about the hole in the ozone, it seems that carbon dioxide is the newest culprit. As for the Antarctic, no one is coming forward in the media to inform us that there are volcanoes under the surface there and possibly, just possibly, undersea volcanic activity is causing some of the breakage.

Another problem with the media is the media "Stars". Many of the anti groups that I mentioned are led by, or have spokespersons from the media. This is especially true of many Hollywood movie stars. They seem to feel that because they are very wealthy and people pay to see them on TV or in the movies, that they are also a lot smarter than the average person. While some of them may be very intelligent and have a good handle on environmental issues, I am quite sure that some of them are not smart enough to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Yet, both types of these people are given the same amount of publicity for their pet projects. Probably ninety percent of what they are doing is for publicity to further their career. All of these, while people who know and study the environment do not get any publicity. You see, with the media, it is all about ratings. A common person going on TV to talk about the environment, no matter how much they know or how right they are, will not get a large audience. On the other hand, a movie star or TV personality will usually draw a large audience, no matter how inane their ideas are. The problem is that many people watching or listening take everything that their favorite star says as gospel. They do not bother to look farther into the subject and they might even be convinced to join the persons pet organization and contribute money to it. Television is an entertainment medium. Even the contents of the newscasts are based on ratings. Movies are completely an entertainment medium, so anything you see about the environment can probably be discounted. This includes Al Gore's so-called documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". Radio is better than TV, occasionally giving real environmentalists a voice on the air. Newspapers and magazines are about the best, although many of them have editorial policy that excludes any opinion that differs with the politically correct thinking of the day. The only real place to find the environmental news that is really the truth is the Internet. There are sites on the Internet that provide the truth about the environment along with many other things.