The Risk-Monger recently came across a strategy document carelessly left on-line by activist scientists that lies at the heart of the founding of the IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides. The Addendum to this document (see page 3) spells out a rather distasteful anti-neonicotinoid campaign strategy lacking in scientific integrity. The process has been tried and tested before by activists, but their behaviour has never been so clearly articulated in writing. I thought this document should be shared so we know the type of people are standing behind the “science” defending the bees.Sentence first, then the trial. Seems it worked for them:
How did this story unfold?
- Under the auspices of the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a group of activists map out a four-year campaign strategy to attack the pesticide industry and seek the banning of neonicotinoids.
- The idea is to collect like-minded researchers, get funding to set up a task-force to attack neonics using the IUCN as a base with WWF (or some other NGO) doing the lobbying.
- Once funding is in place for the campaign organisation, start the research, write a main high-impact report and get a few other articles published (find some big names to use).
- On that basis, organise a broader campaign (with the support of several high-impact PR specialists) to promote their anti-neonic publication.
- Brace for reactions and blowback from other scientists and industry.
They were also more successful than they would have ever have imagined, getting neonics banned in the EU 16 months ahead of their strategic plan.Reason has a different article covering an expose of this in the London Times:
In today's Times (London) an article, "Scientists accused of plotting to get pesticides banned," reveals that four senior European scientists with links to prominent environmentalist organizations apparently hatched a plan to pollute the scientific literature with an article whose predetermined conclusions would damn the pesticides. According to a note* obtained by the Times, the four researchers carefully selected in advance the scientists who would do the "peer-review" in order to insure the publication of the cobbled together article. They further arranged to have a policy statement arguing for a Europe-wide ban on the pesticides published simultaneously.
When everything is political ("the personal is political") then there should be no respect for expert authority. Environmentalists are destroying the credibility of the scientific community. I guess that is to be expected, given that 99% of scientific grant funding comes from governmental organizations. Government is political, so the grant process is political. Climate Science could not be reached for comment.
So much for any science reporting - it's all made up. Rest In Peace, science. It was a good run you had before they killed you.