Slashdot Mirror

Like you, when I see a scientist quoted, I often wonder "whose special interest money is paying for this guy?", but I look on http://www.prwatch.org/ and http://www.sourcewatch.org/ to find out if that is actually the case. It is unreasonable to assume that everybody is getting paid off to hide the truth. One problem is that the press report science very badly: have a look at http://www.badscience.net/ for some entertaining views. Most reporters seem to have little science background and want to sell papers, so misunderstanding and sensationalism rule.

And unrelated, yes, I consider it akin to dumping toxic waste in a river.

But, hang on, I thought Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. Great book, BTW. I bought eleven copies and ate them all. My penis grew ... etc.

(1) You conveniently ignore the rise to dominance.

Ah but I don't. It's not as if these two antitrust convictions were in the last two years. This has been going on for quite some time, as have Microsoft's illegal tactics.

You equate an anti-trust conviction with the existence of a monopolist market, the former does not imply the later.

From the findings of fact:
" Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

You might enjoy the PDF from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-380es.html:

You might enjoy this bit of reading about the integrity of the Cato institute. In general it's important to realize that a group like the Cato institute doesn't have anywhere close to the integrity that a federal court does. Here's another choice gem on those guys:
"Not surprisingly, the Cato Institute has been a fierce defender of the tobacco industry, in publications such as 1998's "Lies, Damn Lies and 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." which claims that tobacco is "far less pernicious than Americans are led to believe. . . . The government should stop lying and stop pretending that smoking-related deaths are anything but a statistical artifact.""
If you want people to take you seriously, I do not reccommend using them as a source.

In response to the particular sections you quoted:
-The first quote is nonsensical. First it tells me that 70,000 appilcations dependant on windows represent a barrier to entry for other operating systems which do not have this library of applications. This is essentailly true. Next it says that a competing operating system would need a similar suite of applications in order to compete. I think we can agree that this is also true.
Now here comes sentence number four. It's a quote from the judge with the number 70,000 inserted. It's true, but the number is not actually part of the quote and it's inclusion is dishonest. Which we'll come back to later.
Sentence five is a doozy. It's a classic misdirection. The conjecture is the 70,000 applications means that there IS competition in the software industry. This is true, but not in the market we're talking about. It's referring to a different business, similar to the difference between a screw and a screwdriver. Interrelated yes, the same no. This is dishonest. It's garbage.
Next they move on to attack the 70,000 number. The argument is that because there aren't actually 70,000 applications out there I can go out and buy individually, there is no significant barrier. But the thing is, the judge never actually claimed that a competitior needed 70,000 applications. Just like the Cato institute, the judge knows that one doesn't actually need 70,000 applications and never actually claimed that they do. What he did say was that the cost to develop the applications necessary to compete would be high. This they have not managed to rebut.

-The second quote is even worse. The first sentence is just plain false. Section 2 subsection 45 of the findings of fact specfically recognizes these other operating systems.
The rest of the argument doesn't even really make sense. The claim is that MS is not charging enough for their OS therfore the alternatives have not managed to become commercailly viable. This argument does not acknowedge the known facts of the case such as MS forcing OEM vendors to sign exclusive deals in order to get a good price on Windows.

We all know it is bad that people now are able to tell the truth about corporate abuse. The world was much a much better place when corporations like Fox were able to say that "We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.htm l and make journalists who were able to think for themselves and had their own opinions shup up.

Yes, he does hold out the promise of a reasonable approach, but unfortunately he's a highly compromised advocate for industry. His history as a shill is fairly well known locally in BC, once it was outed how tightly he was wound up with the nasty spinmeisters at Burson Marstellar, but elsewhere he's held up as a poster boy. Too bad.

----
Burson Marstellar - Managing perceptions that drive performance -- their slogan.

That's BS, Walmart over the last two years has done nothing BUT try to improve their image, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot, with asinine actions like this one. Seriously 400 hits a day, and you slam the website down the toilet. This guy is on a COLLEGE CAMPUS it doesn't get swept under the rug. He has a giant student body inherintly behind and supporting him to make as much noise as he can. and if you don't believe about Walmart's PR push here's some source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/2911 These guys will never see another dime from me, and with the number of people who agree with Walmart's creed of "How can good deals be bad for America"(the parenthetical being, of course: *no matter what the cost*) makes me wonder if the country doesn't deserve the economical quagmire it's digging itself into.

Whereas Paul Graham sees PR as fairly benign, this is not always the case. I suggest reading the classic Toxic Sludge Is Good For You (Amazon reviews).

The question of how we defend blogs against the evils of PR is fairly interesting. I would even argue that a system where there are more PR workers planting news than journalists writing them can only lead to an increase in corporatism- most advocacy groups can't pre-digest news and line up three "experts", whereas it's just a cheap form of advertising for large corporations.

I thought this piece was rather tame to be honest, and the bit about PR companies telling the truth had me smiling & laughing. The largest users of PR Firms are not businesses, but the government itself, in particular the Defense Dept who had a PR budget that rivals the fortune 100 combined. That doesn't mean it's all bad or all untrue, a lot of it is true & a lot of it is true from a certain point of view, and a lot of it is simply repeat the lie often enough or pure astro.

I also found humor in the claim that the internet is largely free of PR-hits. Anyone who has checked out more than 5 hardware review sites ought to know that PR hits abound, esp in reviews for products. Blogs aren't immune, they will just use first person accounts of how XXX product changed their life or yadda "I noticed" type statements and roll out their own astroturf just like they do on web forums. Though to be fair, many online companies check out the forums for self-defense purposes & rumor control.

The most truthful part about the story was about trade publications. Ever read a copy of Eweek? They try to give those away because the content is junk.

I've read several of the trade magazines for PR companies, these folks not only celebrate the hits but celebrate when a big company pulls the wool over the publics eyes. I found them rather ethically challenged.

I used to do a lot of business with Fleishmen Hillard and a few smaller companies. Stacks & stacks of VNR's (Video News Releases) going out to every network, the majors get raw footage they can splice in, and the minors get a packaged story 100% complete or one they can do a voice over on with a script. Radio got their tapes as well. When you see a so called investigative report it may just be a VNR - one of the most effective PR campaigns I've ever seen was for the DEA, it aired on Dateline and the only work Dateline had to do was edit in their own actor in front of a blue screen for a few minutes. Nearly everything about it was phony & misleading, but they managed to get a major network to give them 2 weeks worth of promo for it and a full hour of airin primetime and without much of a hint that it wasn't produced by Dateline.

Though Hill & Knowltons PR campaign "Babies ripped from incubators in Kuwait" was pretty slick as well. Complete with staged congressional investigation.

Though this site is very far to the left it has a lot of interesting information about the PR industry http://www.prwatch.org/ it is worth a look if ou have

But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.

Some of us live in the real world. Please join us.

Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim.

Here's an article detailing the GCC, a (former) energy industry-funded interest group.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html

Here's an article detailing how higher-education-based research "may" be influenced by energy company funding.
http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/news/News_ChronH igherEd_2003.html

There's plenty more out there for those who are willing to look.

Finally, I looked up that Schneider quote (it's from 2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989., which is unf. not in discover.com's web archive).

However, there is plenty of evidence that this quote is taken out of context - i.e. you've fallen prey to someone's "talking points" (though at least you included the last sentences, which are often left out - check Google for easy proof).

Without the original article, we can at least read a related message by Schneider, addressing the "controversy" over his quote.
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.h tml

This words are particularly telling:
What I was telling the Discover interviewer,
of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that
imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular
media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the
soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a
clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends
justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have
actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings.

By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?

Of course not, I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance.

Source: Wi-Fi Networking News, February 1, 2005

Glenn Fleishman has done a neat job of identifying some of the leading groups and individuals that are trying to stop U.S. municipalities from setting up wireless internet systems, such as the Heartland Institute and the New Millennium Research Council, "a sock puppet for the incumbent telecommunications interests" that don't want municipalities to compete with their own private, for-profit services. According to tech columnist Dan Gillmor , the anti-WiFi campaign is yet another example of the "ongoing scandal" of "lack of transparency in the world of opinion-making. ... What we have today is a system of opinion laundering, where powerful interests try to create public support for their side of issues without disclosing the hidden agendas."

"Science Applications has received about $170 million from the FBI for its work on the project. Sources said about $100 million of that would be essentially lost if the FBI were to scrap the software."

Hold on, isn't Science Applications (also known as SAIC) also that company that was so incompetent in creating Pro-U.S. propaganda in Iraq that their contract was pulled from them?

http://www.corpwatch.org
http://www.prwatch.org

Why does the government keep giving them contracts when they suck?

"Center for Consumer Freedom" just screamed "industry front group", and sure enough, that's what it is. It's apparently run by a lobyist named Rick Berman to spread propaganda on behalf of his clients, in this case tobacco companies. He has another such group, the Employment Policies Institute, which opposes minimum wage increases on behalf of the restaurant industry, and yet another to oppose lowering DUI standards, backed by the beverage industry. So be careful who you accuse of having dubious credentials.

http://www.prwatch.org and all of the books by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber are fascinating looks at PR. It is arguably the most corrupt industry in existence since it is the primary mechanism through which all other corruption is allowed to take place without much public scrutiny. PR allows companies and governments to do something evil and then lie about it (PR people like to lie about the lying itself and call it "spinning").

Some PR people actually liken themselves to lawyers, saying that anyone who needs PR help should have it. However, since no one is legally guaranteed PR help, it ends up that only the people who can pay for it get it. Another obvious difference is that law is highly regulated and there are severe penalties for lying in a court of justice. PR, however, has no such regulatory framework. It plays out in the court of public opinion, and the only rules there are "convince the monkeys that their bananas aren't poisoned."

PR is unfortunately unregulated and will probably never be regulated. The PR flaks themselves control the lobbying machine in the US, and they would lobby the shit out of any attempt to regulate their behavior.

Thus you will never see something like that come to light, because PR is a dirty, dirty game and there are no real rules.

I'm with Bill Hicks on this one :)

Man I so agree. The numbers aren't that obvious. You download a movie, it's 600 megs. It messed up at 300 megs. You recontinued to P2P session, does that count as 2 files now?

Well, that all depends on who they are and what they want the results of their "statistics" to be.

If they are the RIAA it counts as 2 files, maybe 1. If they are the MPAA it counts as 900 megs.

Then again, it isn't as if the RIAA and MPAA are against each other, so they might find a comprimise.

and I'll be like an average slashdotter in this case and not read the article but ask this question anyway: Who is the "Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development" and do they have any connections with the RIAA, MPAA and related organizations?

For a good read on how much "research" out there more or less has the results before the test, try reading Trust Us, We're the Experts.

This is all covered in the excellent book Trust Us, We're Experts. Basically, think tanks, "citizen groups", and many research centers are just another pr tool a company can use - the appearance of unbiased opinions to bolster what the company wants to do.

I highly recommend this book.

Then when you want a conflicting view about the ACSH, read this. I'm not siding with one or the other. But you should see what kind of mud both sides are slinging before you step in it.

Here's an example Here's another example And here's how it's done (scroll or search to The Wheel Behind Drunk Driving). How the liquor industry uses money and PR talent to derail or weaken measures that would reduce drunk driving.

Don't get me wrong: I love devices, I love discussion of devices, I love discussion of devices that would reduce drunk driving. I'll even sit still for discussion of whether certain devices overly impinge on individuals. But to have a discussion on drunk driving, and not even mention the major force against effective measures to drunk driving, well that's a discussion that's seriously missing the point.

I'm pretty sure they've done this already(elk to cattle) and it spreads. I know it will spread between mink and cattle as well, Transmissible Mink Ensephalopathy is the name in mink. It has pretty much been shown to jump species the barrier without any problem; mink, pig, cow, sheep, human, mouse, hamster(quickest to show symptoms) and I may have forgotteen some.

Check out Mad Cow U.S.A., you can download a PDF of the book from the site for free. Its chock full of info.

What you're missing is that nvCJD, and BSE, has an extraordinarily long incubation period. In humans it can incubate for up to 40 years. In Pigs it can incubate longer than the average commercial pig life span. You can get a .PDF copy of Mad Cow USA here . It goes into great detail about the history and possible futures of Mad Cow Disease.

Also Please don't believe the FDA. They lie for the Beef Industry.
all the organs in which infectious prions occur were removed at slaughter and did not enter the food supply. Muscle meat is not a source of infectious prions....None of this material left the control of the companies and entered commercial distribution.
This is not true. Prions occur in ALL nerve tissue, including the nerves that run through all muscle and bone(basic biology here); while removing the brain and the spinal chord and varius sundry organs does minimize the threat of contracting nvCJD it does not eliminate it.

To sum up, expect some deaths in the US within the next 10 years. Hopefully not to many.

"We've just come off the worst investment bubble in history that cost investors something like $3 trillion. The whole thing was a Ponzi scheme, yet during much of it, business journalists were cheerleaders for it. We in the media let our public down and helped the tremendous swindle of the public."

Here are some great sources for news online:

Financial Times - FT a good example of actual "news reporting" (as opposed to "news creating" exhibited by most companies). As a result of the commercial influence in all aspects of society nowadays, it makes perfect sense that some of the financial news sources may now be the most objective source of information. Check out this wonderful site and newspaper.

PR Watch - This site is run by the Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. The Center serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. There is an excellent weekly newsletter you can subscribe to from this site which summarizes news stories and special issues where media coverage was manipulated.

Disinfopedia - a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. More than 2500 articles outlining information and credentials on key individuals and entities involved with public policy and other areas. This is a great resource to look up the history of people in the news.

Link TV - The first national network offering a global perspective on news, current events and culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. We present first-run documentaries on global issues, current affairs series, international news, classic foreign feature films, and the best of world music. Link TV's programming, combined with innovative use of two-way digital link-ups and our participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages active participation. If you have DirecTV, this network is channel 375 - ask your cable provider if they do not make this network available - it's worth it!

Democratic Underground - What has turned out to be a polarized web site has become a watchdog for the mainstream media, the Democratic Underground exposes the hypocrisy and sleaziness in the media. Check this site out folks -- with references (something you do not find on conservative sites)

CorpWatch - A great site for information on the nefarious activities of multinational corporations. Want to find out who's paid off whom? Which governments are under the influence of which corporations? Little-known corporate relationships that explain unusual social or political events? This is the site to check.

Adbusters - In our society it has become increasingly difficult to separate editorial from advertising and many argue there is no longer a distinction. This site addresses the social changes in how people are educated by addressing the impact of news and the advertising media and exposes the propaganda campaigns. Very good reading, and in many cases, shockingly thought-provoking!

Common Dreams News Center - Billed as "Breaking news & views for the Progressive community",
this site endeavors to carry stories that the mainstream media may either not be reporting, or not telling all sides.

Canadian Broadcast Corporation - Canada's state-owned news service is widely regarded as one of the most objective sources of information.

Independent Media Center - A good source for news stories that the mainstream doesn't pick up. This site is particularly sensitive to the influence corporate America has over what is and is

Wake up, people.

"Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry"

"There's no money for real journalism, just play that PR video and we'll slap on one of our local newscasters to bookend the piece. No one will know the difference."

"But Boss, how is this different from a commercial -- this tape is from freaking Pfizer!"

"Do you ever want Rupert Murdoch to even know who you are?"

To overcome the lies you have to read a lot, come to your own conclusions, and THINK!

If you look at how much energy we use vs. how much renewable energy is available, it looks like a no-brainer to switch. The problem is that renewables are typically unavailable when, where and as desired. If there's a solution, it will begin with using the sun, wind, water and whatnot when they're working and only fall back to stuff like petroleum when (nighttime, dry season, calm conditions) and where (long-haul driving, northern climates in winter) the other stuff isn't available.

This could and should already be happening, but the real dictators (the few immensely rich people who essentially own everything on earth) obviously don't want it to while there is still money to be made from oil, etc. These same people own almost all the media. Two plus two.. God Bless America LOL.

from PR Watch: "Topics such as energy conservation have been noticeably missing from public discussions of strategies needed for America to achieve energy self-reliance. Patriotism and self-sacrifice may be the rhetoric of the day, but apparently self-sacrifice cannot be allowed to include giving up gas-guzzling SUVs."

Just quit buying it.

The book Mad Cow USA is now a free download (PDF). It's the entire book with 245 pages.

The book Mad Cow USA is now a free download (PDF). It's the entire book with 245 pages.

This link will get you to the article on Junkman Steve Milloy's background and connections

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read the book Trust Us, We're the Experts?

I'd be interested in if you, as a researcher, would agree with what they say about these issues. (I started to read the book, intend to finish it, but got distracted for now.)

see prwatch.org

While there may be nearly 18,000 signatures on The Oregon Petition, they're not all scientists. It's been pointed out that some of the signatories are Geri Haliwell of the Spice Girls, TV Personalities, newscasters, and the obligatory dead people. This page has some details:
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/ ClimateChange.htm
If you prefer a source that doesn't have the word "activist" in its title (it puts people off for some reason) You can try:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_wa rming/page.cfm?pageID=498

Now, the Oregon Institute claims that the bogus names were inserted by "enviro-pranksters", but if the petition is open to such "pranking" you have to wonder about the validity of the petition as a whole.

Beyond this, you also have to look at the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, http://www.oism.org which is the group that originate the petition. Their faculty has absolutely nobody who has specialized in studying environmental issues or climate issues. Instead, you have electrical engineers, surgeons, and chemists. Nothing wrong with that, but when they say one thing, and the specialists in the field say another, I'd prefer to trust the specialists.

We can also look at the other publications of the OISM, including their handbook "Nuclear War Survival Skills", and the "Fighting Chance Civil Defense" series.. things all originated by their founder, and supported and sold solely by their society. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this stuff, but looking at it and you see a group that has a very solid 1980s or early 1990s mindset - a mindset that saw environmentalism as a "radical" issue.

For the same sort of take on the group, but with much more detail, you can check out these folks:
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Now, because global warming has been so politicized, it's impossible to find a source that doesn't appear to have bias one way or the other. Of course, perhaps the bias is because one side is right, but that's difficult to tell for us laymen.

My choice then, is to side with the people who say that we should be taking steps to prevent a cataclysm, just in case they're right. Kind of like putting on seat-belts.. I may think that I'll never be in an accident, but that doesn't help me much if I wind up getting thrown through my windshield.

The whole premise behind global warming is a lie.

Nothing like a link to a wacko right-wing think tank to bolster your case...

(I don't mean all right-wingers are wacko. I mean this guy is wacko, and also happens to be right-wing.)

The existence of the greenhouse effect is basic science. The scientific consensus that what we're doing is having an effect on global climate is strong. The so-called "sceptics" on global climate change belong in the same bin with the "sceptics" about evolution - in fact, there seems to be significant overlap.

Now PR can be used for good reasons, to be sure. So I'm not knocking PR as such. It's a tool, and it can be used for good purposes and bad purposes. But when a company wants to push something that nobody wants, all they have to do is change the wording, create some planted stories, cook some polls, infiltrate opposed organizations, buy people off, uh well, use your imagination. When "...3. PROFIT!!" is your goal, PR can be a very effective tool at the hands of the unscrupulous. This story? Business as usual for PR.

While I should know better than to get into this, it really pisses me off when people damn others for making huge, sweeping generalizations while making huge, sweeping generalizations themselves.

"True environmentalists" don't believe in taking people's rights away, no. News flash. You don't have a right to pollute the river that flows past your property because that river then flows past my property. You ever hear the old Libertarian maxim, "your right to swing your nose ends at my face?" It applies to the environment, too. You don't have a right to do things with your property that affect my property, or anyone else's.

Water and air are a common good that cannot be owned by anyone. This ain't communist propaganda. It's fucking common sense, people. And it means that sometimes as a property owner your rights are going to be curtailed. Deal with it. I support gun rights, but they don't include a right to fire your gun without paying attention to where you're pointing it.

And, no, companies not wanting to clean up their act is not hogwash. Companies want to spend as little as they can and charge the highest prices they can. This isn't because they're evil, it's because they're trying to increase their capital. Hello! That's why it's called capitalism. Not all companies are responsible citizens. Some of them will do exactly the same calculation Ford made with the Pinto: balance the cost of expected fines and lawsuits from doing things sleazily against the cost of doing things the right way, and doing things sleazily if it's a lower expense. They can do this because when they're caught, they can apologize profusely and know that they will have lots of defenders saying thing like: "The presidents of these companies are pople like you and I."

Furthermore, people with your attitude seem to be really hep on bashing environmental groups for having "vested interests" in scaring people. You never once seem to be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, corporations making billions of dollars on practices those environmental groups are criticizing could have a vested interest in making sure that you dismiss the environmentalists as kooks. Individual donations to the Center for Science in the Public Interest make it a scare group, but the blatant industry backing of JunkScience.com couldn't possibly influence their reporting, right? Check.

Funny, to me being about individual rights has nothing to do with promoting corporations and bashing government any more than it does to do with bashing corporations and promoting government. Many libertarians have figured that out. Have you?

Scientists who aren't on Exxon's payroll aren't arguing about whether the temperature's rising, and they're not even arguing about whether humans are having an effect--the debate has moved to what effect we are having, and how to control it. If you think this is just the province of Greenpeace kids hanging signs from smokestacks, congratulations! The industry is keeping you in the '80s. This debate isn't going on in Granola Crunch Quarterly anymore, it's going on in Nature.

Wake up. By and large environmentalists are not out to send us into the dark ages or to create a happy Marxist utopia. They're out to make us think about the resources we use and to convice us that we should use less, even if using less is going to be inconvenient. And, yes, using less might mean some industries have to change. It's happened before. Why is it so horrific to consider that it might have to happen again?

This (planting letters to the editor) is just one of the sleazy tactics which PR firms use to promote the products of their corporate masters. Other tactics include everything from producing bogus "Video News Releases" (which are often picked up by local TV and radio stations and broadcast as "news"), to infiltration and subversion of activist groups. For more on how the PR industry works, the book Toxic Sludge is Good for You! is a must read. Also check out PRWatch.org.

This (planting letters to the editor) is just one of the sleazy tactics which PR firms use to promote the products of their corporate masters. Other tactics include everything from producing bogus "Video News Releases" (which are often picked up by local TV and radio stations and broadcast as "news"), to infiltration and subversion of activist groups. For more on how the PR industry works, the book Toxic Sludge is Good for You! is a must read. Also check out PRWatch.org.

Okay, since this is slashdot, I'll start with CEI Blasts Open Source Software. Just to put it in local context.
Also, you are right, I was wrong and I should have done the research. I ASSUMED that, as usual, a right-wing group was putting forward a PR flack and, as always true with assuming more then once, I made an ass of me and only me. Nonetheless, instead they front with a geologist (hmmm, that's relevant-NOT!) who then calls such a background one in "the natural sciences". Yeah, sure, pull the other one.
But, as for CEI and how they are funded (were they "bribed"?), let's move on to this, which shows that since 1985 the CEI has been funded almost entirely by large polluting corporations and folks like Scaife, Olin, and McKenna on the very hard right. These are the folks that people like Gingrich had to ask to moderate their public statements because they were too hard-line right wing for *him*.
Now, as for funding, CEI has gotten funding from (among others):
* Amoco Foundation, Inc.
* Coca-Cola Company
* CSX Corporation
* Ford Motor Company Fund
* Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
* Pfizer Inc.
* Precision Valve Corporation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation
* Texaco, Inc.
* Texaco Foundation * American Petroleum Institute
* ARCO Foundation
* Burlington Northern Railroad Co.
* Cigna Corporation
* Detroit Farming Inc.
* Dow Chemical
* EBCO Corp.
* General Motors
Now, I could write this all up for you, but I believe that this report does just fine, starting out with "CEI calls itself 'a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.' . . .In fact, it is an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business."

As I said, industry flacks.
Rustin

The Junkscience site was created by Philip Morris's PR company, specificially to spread lies about how smoking is good for you. You can read about it here.

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

> Most of these people have a hypocritical, short sighted, rose colored view of the world

Really. How well do you know them ? Have you actually spoken with a decent number of them or listened to what they are saying ? The environmental activists I have met have been informed, intelligent and realistic, perhaps a bit on the pessimistic side, but often with good reason.

> they should be negotiating (note not suing) with the logging company

What on earth do they have to negotiate with. The logging company is only interested in making as much money as possible. They will invest some of that money for campaign contributions to make sure regulation is kept to a minimum. Costing the logging company money by occupying trees is a mechanism to gain some negotiation power.

> It baffles me that the choice is either rape the land, or don't touch it.

Where the hell did you get that idea ?

Do you think these people spend time, discomfort get beaten half to death by paid goons etc while remaining completely uninformed about everything.
They are not doing it for fun. They have been successfully painted as a bunch of stupid unrealistic hippies by a sophisticated PR industry that manipulates the vast majority of the media. Check out this sometime if you want to understand better where you get your views from.

I believe you are not aware of the whole picture about the big drug companies. Drugs companies at least spend twice as much money on marketing than they do on actually R&D. Also, to cut costs, they tend to take an existing patented drug that is about to expire, modify a bit so a new patent can be obtained, and then market it as a new improved version of the older drug.

The U.S. is the only major country that allows a private company to obtain exclusive rights on a patent where research received funding from public dollars. Hence, people pay up to twice as much for prescription drugs than in countries like Britain, Japan, and Australia.

Big pharma is now just a big marketing engine, where only the real innovative research is mainly being done by public funds.

Some articles worth reading:
http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/July01/DrugPric es.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr01/scrip0204 0101.asp
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/2001-07 -21-nat_journal-Rx_Drugs.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/ABCNEWSSpecials/pharma ceuticals_020529_pjr_feature.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3240359.ht ml
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=5 34&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_go_co/drug_wars&printe r=1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=5 34&u=/ap/20021002/ap_on_he_me/pharmaceutical_marke ting&printer=1
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?thread id=420
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/elliott-c.htm l
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?thread id=638
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A1208-2001Jul15&notFound=t rue

I believe you are not aware of the whole picture about the big drug companies. Drugs companies at least spend twice as much money on marketing than they do on actually R&D. Also, to cut costs, they tend to take an existing patented drug that is about to expire, modify a bit so a new patent can be obtained, and then market it as a new improved version of the older drug.

The U.S. is the only major country that allows a private company to obtain exclusive rights on a patent where research received funding from public dollars. Hence, people pay up to twice as much for prescription drugs than in countries like Britain, Japan, and Australia.

Big pharma is now just a big marketing engine, where only the real innovative research is mainly being done by public funds.

Some articles worth reading:
http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/July01/DrugPric es.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr01/scrip0204 0101.asp
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/2001-07 -21-nat_journal-Rx_Drugs.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/ABCNEWSSpecials/pharma ceuticals_020529_pjr_feature.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3240359.ht ml
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=5 34&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_go_co/drug_wars&printe r=1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=5 34&u=/ap/20021002/ap_on_he_me/pharmaceutical_marke ting&printer=1
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?thread id=420
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/elliott-c.htm l
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?thread id=638
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A1208-2001Jul15&notFound=t rue

We live in a democratic system, ...

This is not Democracy .

As some people in this thread have so vocally reccomend, I used google to find out about the OISM and their petition, and I found an interesting article on them.

I am not a climate scientist and, unlike many > greenies, I don't pretend to be one. I will, however, defer to the 17,000 scientists [oism.org] who have signed the above petition that states that global warming does NOT appear to be linked to human activity.

Only about 2,000 of these 'scientists' could make any claim to be 'climate scientists' see http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html for more details.

It is not very credible and it seems to me you are the one only listening to one side of the debate?

PR watch link A short summary of the petition scandal:
-----------
The "Oregon Petition" was first circulated in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists in April 1998. The mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper in the exact same typeface and format as the official proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Ex-NAS president Frederick Seitz provided a cover note giving the appearance that the paper, which claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing, was an official NAS publication.

In fact, the paper had never been peer-reviewed or accepted for publication anywhere. Its author was widely discredited for having declared in 1994 that ozone depletion was a hoax, and the NAS ended up issuing a blunt statement distancing itself from the petition, which nonetheless received 15,000 signatures within a month. (To show how lax the management of the petition had been, environmental activists added fictional characters such as "B.J. Honeycutt" of the TV series M*A*S*H and Geraldine Halliwell, also known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls, whose field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology.") ------------

And junkscience.com is run by Steven Milloy, a progagandist:
-----------
Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.
------------
Jim Lund

The names weren't "largely made up". Rather, once the petition started collecting enough names of real scientists that it was worth taking notice of, environmental activists trying to discredit the petition deliberately submitted a few phony names which have since been removed. According to this source:

When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." (emphasis added)

It is pretty unlikely that the funny names were put there by people who favored the petition.