Another gem from the past (2005?) but relevant today.

            My high school journalism instructor back in 1954 was adamant about making sure we understood the difference between news and opinion, and more important, the difference between opinion and propaganda.  Your article “White House defends reports,” Friday, June 10, 2005, demonstrates once again that journalism schools no longer make those distinctions.

            Propaganda, my teacher called it yellow journalism, pretends to be news but slants the content of the report so as to influence public opinion.  The Author of “White House….” would have us believe that President Bush is reluctant to sign off on the Kyoto Protocol because he is influenced by the oil industry, especially Exxon /corporation.  As an oil man himself, he may well be so influenced, but shouldn’t the article at least mention that 17,100 scientists from over 100 countries, most with advanced degrees, 72 of them Nobel Prize winners have been challenging the science upon which the protocol was based for 13 years, from the very beginning.

            The computer models that were used to predict global catastrophe were already proven to be absurdly wrong by 1998, but the media refuse to report on that fact, and if they do it’s in the form of a hint in a one inch column in the middle of page 16.  Instead they continue to treat the Kyoto Protocol as though it were sacred.

            Earth’s ecosystem is profoundly complex and the CO2 concentrations are dictated by the physical and chemical laws of nature that the best scientists don’t understand and the consequences of which are impossible to predict.  Ice cores drilled at the poles show us that the earth has been heating up and cooling off for thousands, millions of years, long before the advent of man, say nothing of the advent of the industrial age.  For homo sapien to think that he is in change of the majesty that is this planet, the universe, is the height of hubris

            Scientists cannot predict what the weather will be like this afternoon, how they can possibly pretend to predict what it will be like in 10 years.  Researchers prove themselves wrong on almost every issue year after year. The changes in dietary recommendations for babies are just one small example.   At one time we were told that we must feed our babies one egg a day, then it was, no eggs at all, then it was not the whole egg, just the yolk, then it was no, not the yolk, just the white.   First coffee causes heart problems, now we learn it can prevent heart problems if we drink at least five cups a day.  Chocolate is bad, no chocolate is good; especially for your teeth Carbohydrates are good!  Carbohydrates are bad!!

            There are those who say it is best to err on the side of caution.  But erring in face of evidence that proves we are wrong from the beginning is silly.  The results show us that there would be no benefit to following the protocol and the costs would be enormous.  Western governments tend to do the feel good thing rather than make decisions based on logical analysis. Let’s opt for the right thing rather than the feel good thing.