and [I think] the Massachusetts Medical Society support the bill, the
Union of Concerned Scientists, Associated Industries of Massachusetts,
and AFL-CIO oppose this bill? [Very clever of them to throw in the
environmental groups on the other side; my suspicions were not yet
aroused. Later, I Googled and could find no such endorsement from UCS,
although their research is cited by another group, here]
carbon neutral? [absolutely NOT true!]
forested land now than it did 100 years ago?
After these three biased questions that were clearly tilted toward
counting me as an opponent of the bill, I stopped the guy and said I
thought this was a survey, and not a blatant attempt to feed
misinformation to me in an attempt to change my opinion. He said, “hey,
I’m just reading the questions!” I said I understood that, but I didn’t
appreciate being manipulated like this, and I ended the interview. My
caller ID told me he had a 609 area code (New Jersey), incidentally.
I am totally sure this so-called survey will be used to trumpet the
citizens of Massachusetts’ supposed stance in favor of biofuels and
against the proposed law. While the law’s definitions could be
sharpened, I actually feel that eliminating nuclear power and
large-scale wood-burning biomass plants from being counted in the
progress toward a Green economy is a GOOD thing. And I’ll be directing
my friends who are active in the anti-biofuel campaigns to this blog, so
they can see exactly what their opponents are up to—sleazy and easily
discredited “surveys” like this.