On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:24:03 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

wrote in message

Right you are, Ed. And as the Unasked Bonus Question winner, a packet
of Smelt-scented HandeeWipes is on its way to you as we speak!

Selling *those* would be a hell of a marketing-problem case study, eh? g

Ah, you betcha.


Just what programs being promoted by Soros have so raised your ire, Larry?

He'd be "just your typical radical liberal kook" if he hadn't donated
$23 million last year to these fringe groups. It's the fact that he's
-spending- that much money on the groups which drew my ire, Ed. I
recently finished reading Ronald Bailey's The True State of the World
and EcoScam. Almost any group mentioned in those books draw my ire.
What's your take on him?


--
Unfortunately, not only do scientists have an incentive to cry "crisis,"
so too do the environmental advocacy groups need crises. Without them,
how could advocacy groups justify thier pleas for donations? Nearly
every American gets bulk quantities of junk mail warning them of ozone
depletion, topsoil erosion, resource depletion, diminishing biodiversity,
and global warming. The money the advocacy groups collect is spent on
lawyers, lobbying, propaganda, and the salaries and perquisites of the
headquarers staffs. The media also have a strong incentive to report
"crises"--they must sell newspapers and airtime after all. So there it
is--an iron triangle of scientists pleading for research funds, interest
groups who need crises to justify their existence, and a press that needs
to sell papers. No wonder people are frightened.
--Ronald Bailey in "EcoScam"