On May 15, 6:17*am, (William December Starr) wrote:
In article ,
(Derek Lyons) said:
David Johnston wrote:

It is fundamentally fallacious to regard the "environmental
movement" as an individual who has been saying things in the
first place.

And no less fallacious to do the same with regards to "big oil and
the fossile fuel lobby groups".

I don't know about that. *The "environmental movement" is pretty
inchoate, with no official leadership and anybody with a big mouth
can be a member; "big oil" on the other hand is a relatively small
and identifiable set of (corporate) entities, and there's a bit of
an entry barrier.

That's not to say that "big oil is a monolithic bloc" isn't
fallacious, but I think it's a lot _closer_ to being one than is the
"environmental movement" (when speaking or acting on matters that
affect the industry as a whole, of course).

It may well be that some oil companies have more sense than to try to
argue against global warming science, just as some cigarette companies
might have had more sense than to get themselves embroiled in trying
to fight the medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung
cancer.

But to denounce the fact that there are some scientists who are funded
by some oil companies, and who make up a significant part of the
attempt to make it seem as if global warming is controversial among
scientists is no fallacy.

Nor is it fallacious to denounce a major segment of the environmental
movement that always focuses on conservation and reducing consumption,
and never on alternate ways to meet demand for energy that don't
impose limits - like nuclear power. One can't help but suspect that
this segment of the environmental movement includes people who aren't
desperately afraid that China, or North Korea, or al-Qaeda, or Iran,
or even Russia might grow in strength and cause greater harm if
anything were done to limit the economic and military might of the
United States.

John Savard