It is strange how he lists that but leaves out the fact that pollution controls helped with that improvement.
He does make some valid points though. Giving individuals the right to sue for pollution instead of just relying on prosecutions would be cumbersome for business as every greedy lawyer would be trying to make up cases but the idea is not totally off the wall. There is no near term shortage of coal or gas. The subsidy for nuclear power is just bonkers waste of money.
Topic: Dissecting brownlashers - page 2. (Read 1816 times)
We can begin with the second paragraph of the second section, although there's plenty of material prior to that worth dissecting.
He is implying several things here:
1. Regulation is not necessary. Look! The world is getting cleaner and better with time.
2. There are no environmental issues to be concerned about.
This is just one example of many misleading tactics employed by these propaganda organizations. With regard to point number one, he is failing in a big way to acknowledge that it is precisely because of ever more stringent regulations that these reductions in pollution have occurred. The Heartland Institute, and many like it, are fervent supporters of minimal regulation.
With regard to point number two, Bast's statement is delivered to imply that going forward, there is no reason to be concerned about environmental harm, as things by themselves are improving. This statement is designed to imply that those engaging in environmental research are alarmists, which happens to be a buzzword amongst these organizations.
Quote
For example, the world is getting cleaner and safer over time. Not just a little: dramatically. All six air pollutants tracked by the EPA--sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter--have all fallen to levels below what they were back in the 1940s, when reliable measurements first started.
He is implying several things here:
1. Regulation is not necessary. Look! The world is getting cleaner and better with time.
2. There are no environmental issues to be concerned about.
This is just one example of many misleading tactics employed by these propaganda organizations. With regard to point number one, he is failing in a big way to acknowledge that it is precisely because of ever more stringent regulations that these reductions in pollution have occurred. The Heartland Institute, and many like it, are fervent supporters of minimal regulation.
With regard to point number two, Bast's statement is delivered to imply that going forward, there is no reason to be concerned about environmental harm, as things by themselves are improving. This statement is designed to imply that those engaging in environmental research are alarmists, which happens to be a buzzword amongst these organizations.
The disservice brownlashers do the world community at large, to put it bluntly, is disgusting. For starters, let's take a look at this prominent purveyor of anti-science and his organization:
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2004/05/29/heartland-president-addresses-common-sense-environmentalism
Virtually every sentence in Joseph L. Bast's essay can be shown to be either manipulative, misleading, or guilty of presenting falsehoods and non-facts. Contradictions can be found, if one wishes to read the whole thing. This kind of propaganda is ubiquitous and unfortunately, convincing to those who choose to seek their learning material based upon what they want to hear.
In addition to dissecting the content of the essay's message, it would be interesting to show who funds the organization behind the message.
Without a doubt, there will be an attempted defense of the above cited essay, and I can already anticipate some of the ones who will make that attempt.
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2004/05/29/heartland-president-addresses-common-sense-environmentalism
Virtually every sentence in Joseph L. Bast's essay can be shown to be either manipulative, misleading, or guilty of presenting falsehoods and non-facts. Contradictions can be found, if one wishes to read the whole thing. This kind of propaganda is ubiquitous and unfortunately, convincing to those who choose to seek their learning material based upon what they want to hear.
In addition to dissecting the content of the essay's message, it would be interesting to show who funds the organization behind the message.
Without a doubt, there will be an attempted defense of the above cited essay, and I can already anticipate some of the ones who will make that attempt.
Jump to: