On the web, Patrick Moore, a co-founder of greenpeace, cited a study promoted by the WWF.

http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=29

He says:

“More seriously, in March 1996, the World Wildlife Fund held a media conference in Geneva during the first meeting of the UN Panel on Forests. They stated that there are now 50,000 species going extinct every year due to human activity, more than at any time since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Most significantly, WWF stated that the main cause of these extinctions is “commercial logging”. This was largely due, according to WWF director-general Claude Martin, to “massive deforestation in industrialized countries.” The statements made at the media conference were broadcast and printed around the world, giving millions of people the impression that forestry was the main cause of species extinction.

I have tried to determine the basis for this allegation, openly challenging the WWF to provide details of species extinctions caused by logging. To date it would appear that there is no scientific evidence on which to base such a claim. WWF has provided no list of species that have become extinct due to logging. In particular, the claim of “massive deforestation” in industrialized countries runs counter to information provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. According to the FAO, the area of forest in the industrialized world is actually growing by about 0.2% per year, due to the reforestation of land that was previously cleared for farming.”

Some other example can be found in Bjorn Lomborg books.

Where in the ED webpage does ED cherry pick or
portray speculation as fact? Emphasizing weak points could be misrepresentation if someone claimed that the weak points were stronger than the true strong points. Does ED do this on this page?

I don’t necessarily think of questioning motives as ad hom’s. Environmental groups do need to raise money, but it is not used for their own benefit. They use it to run advocacy campaigns.

When I was in school ED had an ad in the career services office for a summer position in their legal department that paid 6$ an hour (that’s about the same a teenager in a fast food restaurant makes) while the large law firms were hiring summer associates for 1500$ a week. If people are looking to line their own pockets they would not work for environmental groups.

Emphasizing weak points over strong points is the same as misrepresentation. Conveying speculation as fact is misrepresentation. Cherry picking the data to get the required result is also misrepresentation.

During the 70s and 80s, environmental groups did use better science and won many worthwhile victories. Since then, the ‘problems’ have become less obvious and environmentalists have been misrepresenting the state of the science in many instances. In order to avoid the appearance of an ad hominem attack, I will stop speculating as to why they do this, but the motivation for such practices seems pretty limited.

The ED site in question is one example. There are many more. As a test, why don’t you suggest one or two websites of prominent environmental groups addressing global warming and I will point out examples of what I am referring too. If I can not, I will concede to your superior wisdom.

Emphasizing weak, but not incorrect, points is not the same as misrepresentation.

Instead of making substantitve arguments to counter ED you are just using ad hom’s.

Environmental groups have been sucessful because they used accurate science better than their opponents. Even their opponents admit this. Have you read the Luntz memo?

You Wrote: “Enviro groups are public actors though and when you are a public actor style is sometimes as important as substance.”

Isn’t that the same thing as saying that the ends justify the means?

I am not sure I can accept ‘the exaggeration of threats and the misrepresentation of science’ as a definition of ’style’, but if it is, then that has been the ’style’ of many environmental groups for a long time!

I am tempted to play the rhetoric game a little. Maybe:
“Roger-
How can you compare reducing pollution that endangers human life and health with an unjust war that is killing thousands of innocent people without any clear benefit for anyone but the terrorists?”

You did qualify your statement with “sort of like”. That gives you plenty of wiggle room, so I’ll cede you that point.

For the record when I was in school I knew people who worked at the legal department of Environmental Defense, and I worked for a firm that generally took the same side as ED on environmental issues.

On the PR front most of the criticisms leveled at enviro groups like ED are usually just ad hom’s and not substantive arguments, so even if the Hurricane AGW link is weak I don’t know how much it will hurt ED.

If you were to ask the people at ED they would agree 100% that coastal development even without AGW is a critical problem. Coastal development is not only disaster prone it is done in environmentally sensitive zones, like dunes and marshlands.

Enviro groups are public actors though and when you are a public actor style is sometimes as important as substance.

Roger, you seem genuinely interested in finding the best possible use of limited resources for dealing with the consequences of climate change, and that is commendable. I do not know who makes decisions for Environmental Defense, but I would be willing to wager that their main goal is to increase the coffers of ED, and thus their ability to peddle influence. In other words, their primary goal is to save Environmental Defense, not the planet! Hence the dubious/misleading PR campaign.

I am sure it has all been rationalized with the mindset of ‘the ends justify the means’, but I think Sir William Scott had more wisdom when he wrote: O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!

In answer to your question: It will have no discernable impact, for hurricanes will come and go none-the-less, and we will (hopefully) reduce our risks through better planning and mitigation, which would totally swamp any effect from emissions reductions.

I will log on and resubmit my last post. I took too long to write it and must have been automatically signed out.

Sort of like how WMDs were a good hook for getting the public’s attention but a weak point for developing an Iraq policy?

As a PR point it works, even though it may be a weak point for developing global warming policy.