Sydney's Forum Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 
Sydney's Forum > Main Discussion Categories > Eco-News and Opinion > Junk Reporting, Anti-Environmental Propaganda


Junk Reporting, Anti-Environmental Propaganda
 Moderated by: Fergie Bear  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Apr 2nd, 2011 08:37 pm

Quote

Reply
 
GoDaddy.com CEO Under Fire for Killing African Elephant

Posted: 01 Apr 2011 10:00 AM PDT



Godaddy.com CEO Bob Parsons has convinced himself that he’s a humanitarian. I think he’s got a long way to go before he lives up to that self-billing. He’s in the news today because he traveled to Zimbabwe recently to shoot an elephant for a trophy and then released a video in which he is happily grinning over his conquest. Now the man known for racy Super Bowl ads is spinning his version of the event and trying to morph this selfish act of slaughter into some selfless act of charity.
 
He shot the elephant at night, and claims it was a “problem elephant.” It happened to be a bull elephant with sizeable tusks, just the type that trophy hunters like to kill. He seems to be a rather obsessive trophy hunter; one other self-produced
video on the web shows him wounding and later killing a leopard, and the current edition of Safari Club International's magazine shows an array of animal heads mounted on his wall as trophies.

[size=iStockphoto
]
[size=African elephants in Zimbabwe are threatened
with extinction.]

If he wants to help the people of Africa, I suggest he spend a day with Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates and learn how real charitable work on the continent is done. They’ve invested of their time and considerable wealth to promote education, housing, nutrition, and public health. And last time I checked, they didn’t leave a trail of animal victims they’ve personally slain at the end of their visit. If he wants to help people keep elephants out of crop fields, he should fund the building of solar-powered fences like those successfully used for this purpose in neighboring South Africa. My guess is Mr. Parsons went to Africa to shoot an elephant, and perhaps some other creatures, and then tried to find some high-sounding rationale for his gambit.
I’ve heard this kind of excuse-making from trophy hunters before. In fact, in my book, The Bond, to be released on April 5, I recount the rhetorical gymnastics and whitewashing of a killing spree also in southern Africa by trophy hunter Ken Behring, who shot several endangered elephants in one of his safaris. Like Parsons, he claimed he did the killing for the good of the community, identifying the animals as "problem elephants." It turns out that wildlife authorities in Mozambique had a different take on the matter, and they wanted Ken Behring to leave their country without delay. 
HSUS has about 650 domain names with Godaddy.com. I’ve instructed our staff to find another host for them. We don’t like doing business with a company with a leader like Parsons. I hope you’ll think about following suit. No one needs to kill elephants either to show his manhood or to do humanitarian work.

Last edited on Sat Apr 2nd, 2011 08:38 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 09:02 am

Quote

Reply
Let Pandas Die Out: 'Conservationist'
China National News
Wednesday 23rd September, 2009  
(IANS)




A British conservationist says pandas should be allowed to go extinct because they are 'extraordinarily expensive to keep going' and may be surviving at the cost of other species and rainforests.

'Extinction is very much a part of life on earth. And we are going to have to get used to it in the next few years because climate change is going to result in all sorts of disappearances,' TV naturalist Chris Peckham said.

He said the last large mammal to go extinct was the Chinese pink dolphin - allowed to disappear 'because it was pig-ugly and swam around in a river where no one saw it', unlike the 'fluffy' panda.

Peckham said huge amounts of money had been spent on a losing battle to save pandas, tigers and whales since campaigners started focusing on 'charismatic animals' in the 1970s in order to raise funds.

The panda, which has gone herbivorous, eats a type of food that isn't nutritious and is susceptible to various diseases, had 'run out of time', he said.

'So maybe if we took all the cash we spend on pandas and just bought rainforests with it, we might be doing a better job.

'I'm not trying to play God; I'm playing God's accountant,' said Peckham in comments that were criticised by campaigners, including the WWF, which has long used the panda as its symbol.


{Losing battle? This "accountant" doesn't seem to have his numbers right or understand much about either species conservation or how panda conservation promotes conservation in general. --Sydney}

Last edited on Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 09:06 am by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 07:33 pm

Quote

Reply
Nonsense About Elephants from Ringling Brothers

Earlier in the year, Ringling Brothers justified circus exploitation of elephants on the grounds that Ringling was "raising" animals in captivity that otherwise would become extinct:

“There is no wild,” said Michelle Pardo, the lead lawyer for Ringling Brothers in the federal lawsuit. “There is a dwindling wild in this world. Unless these elephants are successfully raised in captivity, they are just going to become extinct.”


Asian elephants are endangered whereas African elephants, which there are more of, are classified as threatened. Ringling Brothers estimates that there are about 35,000 to 40,000 Asian elephants left in the world. Between 12,000 to 15,000 of the elephants are captivity in their native region, such as Thailand and Sri Lanka.

There are just over 300 Asian elephants in North America, with Ringling Brothers owning 54. Of these, 18 are on tour and the remainder are kept in a sanctuary in Florida. Ms. Pardo noted that Ringling Brothers had bred 22 elephants, only one of which used artificial insemination.

Here's another gem from Mr. Pardo:

“One of the indicators of good welfare is that they are breeding well,” said Ms. Pardo.

John Phillips, executive director of the New York League of Humane Voters, had this to say about Pardo's claim:

“If they wanted to stay in Florida and breed the elephants and try to run a conservation center, that would be a completely different story. They are breeding these animals and then transporting them around the country.These animals are being denied a social natural existence, all just for eight minutes of entertainment.”

Last edited on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 07:37 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jan 2nd, 2009 02:30 pm

Quote

Reply
How to Sift Through the Nonsense and Find the Truth: Scientists Suggest Ways to Look at Evidence:

On July 17, 2007 Live Science interviewed several scientists who offered suggestions for ways to weigh the arguments and look at the science of global warming.


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html

Excerpts:

Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego (who has reviewed the 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change):

 
...“All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn’t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.”

...Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor.

...The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.

[Oreskes pointed] to the fact that noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predicted that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000. [This has]  have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the Earth’s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming.

Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day).

Stated climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Hansen's model predictions are “a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science.” 


Mounting evidence

Besides their successful predictions, climate scientists have been assembling a “body of evidence that has been growing significantly with each year,” Mann said.

Data from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs taken with instrumental observations of air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and greenhouse gas concentrations have all emerged in support of climate change theory.

[Another scientist pointed to the fact that] “there are 20 different lines of evidence that the planet is warming,” and the same goes for evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere.


...One of the remaining skeptics, is MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. While he acknowledges the trends of rising temperatures and greenhouse gases, Lindzen expressed his doubt on man’s culpability in the case and casts doubt on the dire predictions made by some climate models, in an April 2006 editorial for The Wall Street Journal.

“What the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred,” Lindzen wrote.

To be sure, there is a certain degree of uncertainty involved in modeling and predicting future changes in the climate, but “you don’t need to have a climate model to know that climate change is a problem,” Oreskes said.

Climate scientists have clearly met the burden of proof with the mounting evidence they’ve assembled and the strong predictive power of global warming theory, Oreskes said-- global warming is something to pay attention to.


Last edited on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 08:18 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jan 2nd, 2009 01:08 pm

Quote

Reply
Fox News and Limbaugh Offer Up More Anti-Environmental Propaganda

In a 2006 review of "Junk Science" Fox News listed global climate change as it's best example of "junk science" over the last 20 years.   As recently as this month, January 2009 Rush Limbaugh regurgitated the same distortion.

Here's What Fox Originally Reported: 

# 10. The Mother of all junk science controversies. The most important junk science story of the last 10 years is global warming. Though climate varies naturally and ongoing climate change is within that natural variation, the global warming lobby seems bent on railroading us into economy-killing regulation.

Here's the truth:

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The IPCC concludes that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30  scientific societies and academise of science, including all of the national academies of science.

Here's the graph of the data from the IPCC report:
Global mean surface temperature.

Other data focusing on marine temperature, atmospheric temperature and glacier melt also demonstrate the falsity of the Limbaugh and Fox propaganda.

Limbaugh has also stated repeatedly that "polar bears are doing fine" and not threatened or endangered. 




Last edited on Fri Jan 2nd, 2009 02:05 pm by sydneyst


 Current time is 05:20 am




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez