Leader Of Climate Change Denial Cult "Lord Of The Lies" Monckton Caught In More Lies
Bob Obo
Pandering To The Truth And Start Lying, Kow Towing To The Special Interest
Groups Who Pay My Salary" - Lord Christopher Monckton - Lord Of The Lies
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckto n-lies-again-and-again-
and-again-and-again-the-con tinuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
When Monckton claimed that Jackie Kennedy was responsible for malaria in
Africa, I thought it a great stretch.
Holy cow! Monckton gave a speech in Minnesota, and if this quote is
representative, it was a one man re-enactment of the Burlington Liar's
Club quarterfinals for 2002 through 2008 (he was disqualified for lack of
humor). Monckton spoke at Bethel University in St. Paul on October 15,
2009:
Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting Pilate to
ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question
that he asked, "what is the truth?" is the question which underlies every
question and in the end it is the only question that really matters. When
you ask that question what you are really asking is "what is the truth
about the matter?" And we are now going to see why it matters morally,
socially, and politically, as well as economically and scientifically.
That the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should inform
public policy on this question. Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective
agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film
[Cascade Policy Institute film "Climate Chains" was shown prior --ed] what
the effect of that ban was. Before the ban, the inventor of DDT got the
Nobel Peace Prize because he had saved more lives than anyone else in the
history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in
the Third World had all but been eradicated. There were still 50,000
deaths per year. But when DDT was banned by exactly the same faction, that
is now trying to tell us we must close down five sixths of the United
States economy that figure is actually in the Waxman- Markey bill. That
same faction banned DDT worldwide. The consequences are on the slide
there. The number of deaths went up from 50,000 to a million a year and
stayed there. For 40 years. 40 million people, nearly all of them
children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned
for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever. And it
was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal,
murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006,
Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said "Normally in this
field, science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take
a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made
it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito.
After pressure from me, among others.
Right there Monckton disqualified himself from ever being a Boy Scout with
egregious disregard for the first point of the Scout Law. Oh, Monckton is
dependable, but dependable only to tell falsehoods and stink up the place.
That excerpt provides the Recommended Annual Dose of both voodoo science
and voodoo history. Count the problems with me:
1. DDT has never been the only effective means to fight malaria-carrying
mosquitoes. DDT was a very effective pesticide, though dangerous � but
never the "only effective agent against the malaria mosquito." The U.S.,
for one example beat malaria (and yellow fever, and other mosquito-borne
diseases) well enough to finish the Panama Canal in 1915 without DDT, by
controlling mosquito breeding areas and using screens to protect sleeping
workers from mosquitoes. Malaria, once endemic in much of the U.S., was
practically eliminated by 1939. DDT was used in limited fashion to
complete the eradication in the U.S., after World War II � but most of the
work had already been done. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (founded
to control malaria) relates at its website:
Control efforts conducted by the state and local health departments,
supported by the federal government, resulted in the disease being
eradicated by 1949. Such measures included drainage, removal of mosquito
breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of
insecticides.
We still have the non-pesticide solutions, and they still work. But 40
years ago, there were other pesticides that worked against the malaria
vector mosquitoes.
The national library of the ancient Kingdom of Ghana had volumes on how to
eradicate malaria, more than 500 years ago. Monckton can't even be
bothered to Google the topic, let alone visit one of America's more than
15,000 free county libraries, to get the facts?
2. No Nobel Peace Prize was ever given for DDT, and the prize given wasn't
for saving malaria victims. Paul M�ller won the Nobel in Physiology or
Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects. There was no
Peace Prize awarded in 1948. A chemist working in biological chemicals won
the Peace Nobel later � but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his
work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Listening to
Monckton's speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error.
Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the
Medicine Prize that M�ller won was not on the basis of DDT's saving an
uncountable number of lives. The chief medical advantage cited was the use
of DDT fighting typhus; malaria gets a mention. Monckton can't be bothered
with accuracy on such things, however, as is clearly shown.]
The bizarre claim about saving "more lives than anyone else in the history
of the planet" comes from a wacko claim of the Lyndon Larouche cult,
apparently based on a typographical error in a 1980 book from the National
Academy of Sciences.
3. Malaria rates have been greatly reduced in the 20th century, but
malaria has never been "all but eradicated." In the past 120 years,
malaria has always killed more than 900,000 people a year; for most of the
past 60 years, the death toll has been more than a million people a year,
sometimes as high as 4 million people killed. Annual malaria deaths have
never been under a half million, let alone as low as 50,000.
4. DDT has never been banned for use to control malaria. 40 years ago, in
1969, DDT was freely available world wide. Sweden banned the stuff from
agricultural use in 1970; the U.S. followed with a ban on agricultural use
of DDT, especially sprayed from airplanes. DDT for fighting malaria has
always been a feature of the U.S. ban. As a pragmatic matter, DDT
manufacture on U.S. shores continued for more than a dozen years after the
restrictions on agricultural use of the stuff. In an ominous twist,
manufacture in the U.S. continued through most of 1984, right up to the
day the Superfund Act made it illegal to dump hazardous substances without
having a plan to clean it up or money to pay for clean up � on that day
the remaining manufacturing interests declared bankruptcy to avoid paying
for the environmental damage they had done. See the Pine River, Michigan
Superfund site, or the Palos Verdes and Montrose Chemical Superfund sites
in California, the CIBA-Geigy plant in McIntosh, Alabama, and sites in
Sand Creek, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and Aberdeen, North Carolina, for
examples.
5. Nothing in Waxman-Markey anticipates closing down any part of the U.S.
economy. This is a claim Monckton appears to have plucked from between his
gluteals. Here's one summary of the bill (notice the money allocated to
boost industry), here's another, and here's the summary from the House
Energy and Commerce Committee.
6. There's no way to blame malaria deaths on a lack of DDT. As noted, DDT
has been available for use in Africa and Asia since its patent. More
importantly, malaria death rates have been influenced by the failure of
effectiveness of pharmaceuticals against the malaria parasite itself in
humans. DDT fights only the mosquitoes that carry the parasite. But the
difficulty wasn't in beating the mosquitoes; the difficulty was in curing
humans (from whom the mosquitoes get the parasite to pass along).
7. DDT was restricted on the basis of overwhelming evidence of harms. This
is one of those charges that is self-refuting in the hands of DDT
advocates and anti-science people. You don't have to go far to find claims
that EPA acted contrary to an extensive hearing record that took months to
compose. But then they turn around and claim, as Monckton does here, that
there is no such record? The facts are that the Environmental Protection
Administration (EPA) hearings were conducted under the gun. Two different
federal courts had ordered the review, which had been started with the
Department of Agriculture before the creation of EPA. The hearing record
itself fell out of favor with some officials, and even EPA's library had
difficulty finding a copy of the decision by Administrative Law Judge
Edmund Sweeney � but intrepid fact seekers like Jim Easter tracked down
the documents and posted them for all to see. Easter notes that the record
is clear on harms to wildlife, bio-magnification, and other dangers of
DDT. In fact, the only place Ruckelshaus differed from Sweeney was on the
issue of cotton. Sweeney thought he couldn't prohibit use on cotton,
Ruckelshaus found authority in the law and did so.
Be clear: EPA banned DDT use on agricultural products, especially cotton,
and broadcast spraying. EPA's "ban" allowed continued manufacture of DDT,
and it allowed use for health emergencies and other emergencies.
8. There never was a ban on DDT by the World Health Organization (WHO). So
Monckton's bizarre fiction that ". . . it was only after every single one
of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired
or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World
Health Organization said normally in this field, science comes second and
politics comes first," and then Kochi ended the ban, is whole cloth.
9. There is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention to Monckton on
DDT, but Monckton took credit for the imaginary end of the imaginary ban:
" After pressure from me, among others." There's a distant possibility
that Monckton might have written a letter to WHO � but let Monckton
produce the thing from the archives of WHO. Until that time, we should
classify Monckton as an emboldened prevaricator, perhaps a victim of
Munchausen's Syndrome (not by proxy in this case). I'm calling Monckton's
bluff. Let's see his cards on this issue: When did he say anything to WHO
about DDT, to whom, and what did he say? He'll not be able to produce any
documentation, I'll wager � and I'll bet he can't even produce hearsay
testimony.
Nine falsehoods in a paragraph � a rate of falsehood not equalled even by
Jon Lovitz's pathological liar character. What is wrong with the excrement
detectors of the people who sit in those audiences with this guy?
How far out of bounds is Monckton? Even the shrill discussion at Little
Green Footballs puts Monckton in the not-to-be-taken-seriously category.
Monckton, the Burlington Liars Club called: They want their good
reputation back. Check your answering machine, too � the Bethel College
group should be calling any minuted, to ask you to pay for the exorcism of
their building after you spoke there.
By the way, how do we know Monckton is a coward?* He has refused to debate
me. As he notes, anyone who refuses a debate is a coward. And yet, he
refuses each of my challenges. Now he's refusing to debate a Tenderfoot
Boy Scout using Boy Scout Law rules. How much of a coward does that make
him?
tunderbar
> Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects. There was no
> Peace Prize awarded in 1948. A chemist working in biological chemicals won
> the Peace Nobel later — but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his
> work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Listening to
> Monckton's speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error.
> Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the
Not a single falsehood by Monckton.
The falsehoods are from the author.
Charlton Heston
> Lord Monckton is the Messiah!! Everything he says is Gospel!!
You're a conspiracy kook who ignores science all together. Just
another old redneck fool who never got past high school.
True Blue
> "If Only Climatologists And All The World's Science Academies Would Stop
> Pandering To The Truth And Start Lying, Kow Towing To The Special Interest
> Groups Who Pay My Salary" - Lord Christopher Monckton - Lord Of The Lies
I've witnessed the same sort of reaction from men who are confronted
by incontrovertible evidence that their wife is cheating. The truth is
so awful they cannot face it. Warmists just love the New Socialism.
For a while at least, it seemed that this new religion would snatch
victory from the jaws of defeat. Now the AGW scam is falling to
pieces, it's almost too dreadful for them to bear waking up every
morning.
JohnM
All the silliness in the world is not going to change the truth -
whatever that turns out to be.
So best all round if you just STFU.
tunderbar
Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
abelard
you seem not to realise that a person can believe warming is
occurring....as just about everyone who bothers to study the
data do...
and that the main present driver is human driven...
without for one moment promoting socialist tax grabbing....
your daft dogmatic denialism unbacked by any data or reasoning
is not a substitute for study or argument
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
support your claims
erschro...@gmail.com
> Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects. There was no
> Peace Prize awarded in 1948. A chemist working in biological chemicals won
> the Peace Nobel later — but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his
> work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Listening to
> Monckton's speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error.
> Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the
>
> read more »
So since a small handful of mistakes proves the entire IPCC report
(and thus the entire science of GW) is false, according to the
denialists, they must admit these mistakes prove everything Monckton
says is false.
AM
>> Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
>> enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
>
> support your claims
>
He does not have to.
Life is about perceptions. And the perception right now is AGW is false
science in the view of the masses. Sure they think that something is
wrong, but they also think that there is a socialist agenda behind it.
Hence the US voters will not go for it, as already being seen in polling
data. Reason cap & trade is dead. Reason republicans are doing so well
in polling data, and elections right now. They are perceived as the
one's who will stop the massive spending our govt is doing right now.
Does not matter what reality is, only perceptions, and the perception of
AGW is that the scientists played with the data somehow to reach their
conclusion is what the people think, no matter how rightly or wrongly
that perception is.
--
AM
abelard
>abelard wrote:
>>> Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
>>> enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
>>
>> support your claims
>He does not have to.
that's what i like to hear...he could become a priest....
>Life is about perceptions. And the perception right now is AGW is false
>science in the view of the masses. Sure they think that something is
>wrong, but they also think that there is a socialist agenda behind it.
>Hence the US voters will not go for it, as already being seen in polling
>data. Reason cap & trade is dead. Reason republicans are doing so well
>in polling data, and elections right now. They are perceived as the
>one's who will stop the massive spending our govt is doing right now.
politics isn't reality...
though other people's perceptions are part of my reality...
it's politically relevant as you claim
>Does not matter what reality is, only perceptions, and the perception of
>AGW is that the scientists played with the data somehow to reach their
>conclusion is what the people think, no matter how rightly or wrongly
>that perception is.
'the people' mostly know nothing...
but they do have votes...they even elected obarmy...
I M @ good guy
>mosquitoes. DDT was a very effective pesticide, though dangerous ?but
>never the "only effective agent against the malaria mosquito." The U.S.,
>for one example beat malaria (and yellow fever, and other mosquito-borne
>diseases) well enough to finish the Panama Canal in 1915 without DDT, by
>controlling mosquito breeding areas and using screens to protect sleeping
>workers from mosquitoes. Malaria, once endemic in much of the U.S., was
>practically eliminated by 1939. DDT was used in limited fashion to
>complete the eradication in the U.S., after World War II ?but most of the
>work had already been done. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (founded
>to control malaria) relates at its website:
>
>Control efforts conducted by the state and local health departments,
>supported by the federal government, resulted in the disease being
>eradicated by 1949. Such measures included drainage, removal of mosquito
>breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of
>insecticides.
>
>
>We still have the non-pesticide solutions, and they still work. But 40
>years ago, there were other pesticides that worked against the malaria
>vector mosquitoes.
>
>The national library of the ancient Kingdom of Ghana had volumes on how to
>eradicate malaria, more than 500 years ago. Monckton can't even be
>bothered to Google the topic, let alone visit one of America's more than
>15,000 free county libraries, to get the facts?
>
>2. No Nobel Peace Prize was ever given for DDT, and the prize given wasn't
>for saving malaria victims. Paul M?won the Nobel in Physiology or
>Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects. There was no
>Peace Prize awarded in 1948. A chemist working in biological chemicals won
>the Peace Nobel later ?but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his
>work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Listening to
>Monckton's speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error.
>Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the
>Medicine Prize that M?won was not on the basis of DDT's saving an
>uncountable number of lives. The chief medical advantage cited was the use
>of DDT fighting typhus; malaria gets a mention. Monckton can't be bothered
>with accuracy on such things, however, as is clearly shown.]
>
>The bizarre claim about saving "more lives than anyone else in the history
>of the planet" comes from a wacko claim of the Lyndon Larouche cult,
>apparently based on a typographical error in a 1980 book from the National
>Academy of Sciences.
>
>3. Malaria rates have been greatly reduced in the 20th century, but
>malaria has never been "all but eradicated." In the past 120 years,
>malaria has always killed more than 900,000 people a year; for most of the
>past 60 years, the death toll has been more than a million people a year,
>sometimes as high as 4 million people killed. Annual malaria deaths have
>never been under a half million, let alone as low as 50,000.
>
>4. DDT has never been banned for use to control malaria. 40 years ago, in
>1969, DDT was freely available world wide. Sweden banned the stuff from
>agricultural use in 1970; the U.S. followed with a ban on agricultural use
>of DDT, especially sprayed from airplanes. DDT for fighting malaria has
>always been a feature of the U.S. ban. As a pragmatic matter, DDT
>manufacture on U.S. shores continued for more than a dozen years after the
>restrictions on agricultural use of the stuff. In an ominous twist,
>manufacture in the U.S. continued through most of 1984, right up to the
>day the Superfund Act made it illegal to dump hazardous substances without
>having a plan to clean it up or money to pay for clean up ?on that day
>Edmund Sweeney ?but intrepid fact seekers like Jim Easter tracked down
>the documents and posted them for all to see. Easter notes that the record
>is clear on harms to wildlife, bio-magnification, and other dangers of
>DDT. In fact, the only place Ruckelshaus differed from Sweeney was on the
>issue of cotton. Sweeney thought he couldn't prohibit use on cotton,
>Ruckelshaus found authority in the law and did so.
>
>Be clear: EPA banned DDT use on agricultural products, especially cotton,
>and broadcast spraying. EPA's "ban" allowed continued manufacture of DDT,
>and it allowed use for health emergencies and other emergencies.
>
>8. There never was a ban on DDT by the World Health Organization (WHO). So
>Monckton's bizarre fiction that ". . . it was only after every single one
>of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired
>or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World
>Health Organization said normally in this field, science comes second and
>politics comes first," and then Kochi ended the ban, is whole cloth.
>
>9. There is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention to Monckton on
>DDT, but Monckton took credit for the imaginary end of the imaginary ban:
>" After pressure from me, among others." There's a distant possibility
>that Monckton might have written a letter to WHO ?but let Monckton
>produce the thing from the archives of WHO. Until that time, we should
>classify Monckton as an emboldened prevaricator, perhaps a victim of
>Munchausen's Syndrome (not by proxy in this case). I'm calling Monckton's
>bluff. Let's see his cards on this issue: When did he say anything to WHO
>about DDT, to whom, and what did he say? He'll not be able to produce any
>documentation, I'll wager ?and I'll bet he can't even produce hearsay
>testimony.
>
>Nine falsehoods in a paragraph ?a rate of falsehood not equalled even by
>Jon Lovitz's pathological liar character. What is wrong with the excrement
>detectors of the people who sit in those audiences with this guy?
>
>How far out of bounds is Monckton? Even the shrill discussion at Little
>Green Footballs puts Monckton in the not-to-be-taken-seriously category.
>
>Monckton, the Burlington Liars Club called: They want their good
>reputation back. Check your answering machine, too ?the Bethel College
>group should be calling any minuted, to ask you to pay for the exorcism of
>their building after you spoke there.
>
>By the way, how do we know Monckton is a coward?* He has refused to debate
>me. As he notes, anyone who refuses a debate is a coward. And yet, he
>refuses each of my challenges. Now he's refusing to debate a Tenderfoot
>Boy Scout using Boy Scout Law rules. How much of a coward does that make
>him?
It seems certain DDT was responsible for the
problems with Bald Eagle eggs, and should have
been controlled in the US where Bald Eagles nest.
But that should not have prevented the rest of
the world to manufacture and use DDT responsibly,
and it didn't, it is still used where Malaria is
the worse, at least in some countries.
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Co-Di/DDT-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.html
abelard
wrote:
> It seems certain DDT was responsible for the
>problems with Bald Eagle eggs, and should have
>been controlled in the US where Bald Eagles nest.
it wasn't just bald eagles...it was various raptors and other
life form up the food chain....
i'm sure you can get more details if you care....
it was highlighted by rachel carson in a book that changed
the world....and still annoys the right wing extremists
> But that should not have prevented the rest of
>the world to manufacture and use DDT responsibly,
>
> and it didn't, it is still used where Malaria is
>the worse, at least in some countries.
>
>http://www.scienceclarified.com/Co-Di/DDT-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.html
>
>http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm
klunk
"AM" <sct...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QZWdnelEYZhLKODW...@giganews.com...
> abelard wrote:
>>> Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
>>> enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
>>
>> support your claims
>>
>
>
>
> He does not have to.
>
> Life is about perceptions.
ya... up until the moment life bites one's perceptions on the ass... ;-)
AM
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:48:53 -0500, AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>>> Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
>>>> enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
>>> support your claims
>
>> He does not have to.
>
> that's what i like to hear...he could become a priest....
>
>> Life is about perceptions. And the perception right now is AGW is false
>> science in the view of the masses. Sure they think that something is
>> wrong, but they also think that there is a socialist agenda behind it.
>> Hence the US voters will not go for it, as already being seen in polling
>> data. Reason cap & trade is dead. Reason republicans are doing so well
>> in polling data, and elections right now. They are perceived as the
>> one's who will stop the massive spending our govt is doing right now.
>
> politics isn't reality...
> though other people's perceptions are part of my reality...
>
> it's politically relevant as you claim
I live next to Wash DC, and let me tell you, the people here live and
breath politics. Get outside the 12 largest cities in the US, and no one
cares or trusts politics/politicians. Kinda refreshing too.
>
>> Does not matter what reality is, only perceptions, and the perception of
>> AGW is that the scientists played with the data somehow to reach their
>> conclusion is what the people think, no matter how rightly or wrongly
>> that perception is.
>
> 'the people' mostly know nothing...
> but they do have votes...they even elected obarmy...
>
And thats what counts. The founding fathers got it right with the
electoral college. Otherwise the people in the cities would really screw
things up !
I do believe that man is hurting the environment, but with screaming
fanatics of both sides, it screws it up for the rest of us...
abelard
>abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:48:53 -0500, AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> Exactly. The IPCC is not a font of truth, just a lot of bullshit
>>>>> enviro-nutbar fudged "science".
>>>> support your claims
>>
>>> He does not have to.
>>
>> that's what i like to hear...he could become a priest....
>>
>>> Life is about perceptions. And the perception right now is AGW is false
>>> science in the view of the masses. Sure they think that something is
>>> wrong, but they also think that there is a socialist agenda behind it.
>>> Hence the US voters will not go for it, as already being seen in polling
>>> data. Reason cap & trade is dead. Reason republicans are doing so well
>>> in polling data, and elections right now. They are perceived as the
>>> one's who will stop the massive spending our govt is doing right now.
>>
>> politics isn't reality...
>> though other people's perceptions are part of my reality...
>>
>> it's politically relevant as you claim
>I live next to Wash DC, and let me tell you, the people here live and
>breath politics. Get outside the 12 largest cities in the US, and no one
>cares or trusts politics/politicians. Kinda refreshing too.
>>> Does nt matter what reality is, only perceptions, and the perception of
>>> AGW is that the scientists played with the data somehow to reach their
>>> conclusion is what the people think, no matter how rightly or wrongly
>>> that perception is.
>>
>> 'the people' mostly know nothing...
>> but they do have votes...they even elected obarmy...
>And thats what counts. The founding fathers got it right with the
>electoral college. Otherwise the people in the cities would really screw
>things up !
>I do believe that man is hurting the environment, but with screaming
>fanatics of both sides, it screws it up for the rest of us...
indeed...
you appear to have an organised head...always a relief and a joy :-)
regards
AM
>> Life is about perceptions.
>
> ya... up until the moment life bites one's perceptions on the ass... ;-)
>
We do not live in the world of Minority Report. Here in the US you can
only be punished for a crime AFTER it happens.
The AGW crowd would punish over something that is not a proven fact yet.
how is that right ? Punishment now ? Or later ? I'll take later thank you...
I love ya klunk :)
klunk
"AM" <sct...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Msqdnbk6LcOxSuDW...@giganews.com...
> klunk wrote:
>>> Life is about perceptions.
>>
>> ya... up until the moment life bites one's perceptions on the ass... ;-)
>>
>
>
> We do not live in the world of Minority Report. Here in the US you can
> only be punished for a crime AFTER it happens.
>
> The AGW crowd would punish over something that is not a proven fact yet.
> how is that right ? Punishment now ? Or later ? I'll take later thank
> you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIEQXIkXrPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUDpR2OXSD8
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:28:40 -0500, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
>wrote:
>
>> It seems certain DDT was responsible for the
>>problems with Bald Eagle eggs, and should have
>>been controlled in the US where Bald Eagles nest.
>
>it wasn't just bald eagles...it was various raptors and other
> life form up the food chain....
>
>i'm sure you can get more details if you care....
>
>it was highlighted by rachel carson in a book that changed
> the world....and still annoys the right wing extremists
>
>> But that should not have prevented the rest of
>>the world to manufacture and use DDT responsibly,
>>
>> and it didn't, it is still used where Malaria is
>>the worse, at least in some countries.
>>
>>http://www.scienceclarified.com/Co-Di/DDT-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.html
>>
>>http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm
It doesn't annoy me, and I am the only
right extremist left, all the rest are leftists.
Malaria has not been a problem here,
but where it was a problem they should
have used DDT or whatever it takes to
control the bugs.
abelard
wrote:
always a matter of judgment....
the ban was at an earlier time when less was known...
and humans are also at the top of the food chain
Beam Me Up Scotty
abelard
i'm unclear about your meaning...
hindsight is a wondrous gift....
once the question may have been, would you rather die of malaria
or of ddt...?
in those far off days regulating company activity was less likely
to see africa as an issue....as the world shrinks even africa
is becoming a neighbour...
rather than seen as on another planet
True Blue
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:4p3rn5hms45n534qa...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:44:14 -0800 (PST), True Blue
> <garyb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Feb, 17:50, Bob Obo <b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "If Only Climatologists And All The World's Science Academies Would Stop
>>> Pandering To The Truth And Start Lying, Kow Towing To The Special
>>> Interest
>>> Groups Who Pay My Salary" - Lord Christopher Monckton - Lord Of The Lies
>>
>>I've witnessed the same sort of reaction from men who are confronted
>>by incontrovertible evidence that their wife is cheating. The truth is
>>so awful they cannot face it. Warmists just love the New Socialism.
>>For a while at least, it seemed that this new religion would snatch
>>victory from the jaws of defeat. Now the AGW scam is falling to
>>pieces, it's almost too dreadful for them to bear waking up every
>>morning.
>
> you seem not to realise that a person can believe warming is
> occurring....
...as it has for millenia.
>as just about everyone who bothers to study the
> data do...
> and that the main present driver is human driven...
Bullshit.
abelard
>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:4p3rn5hms45n534qa...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:44:14 -0800 (PST), True Blue
>> <garyb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Feb, 17:50, Bob Obo <b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "If Only Climatologists And All The World's Science Academies Would Stop
>>>> Pandering To The Truth And Start Lying, Kow Towing To The Special
>>>> Interest
>>>> Groups Who Pay My Salary" - Lord Christopher Monckton - Lord Of The Lies
>>>
>>>I've witnessed the same sort of reaction from men who are confronted
>>>by incontrovertible evidence that their wife is cheating. The truth is
>>>so awful they cannot face it. Warmists just love the New Socialism.
>>>For a while at least, it seemed that this new religion would snatch
>>>victory from the jaws of defeat. Now the AGW scam is falling to
>>>pieces, it's almost too dreadful for them to bear waking up every
>>>morning.
>>
>> you seem not to realise that a person can believe warming is
>> occurring....
>
>...as it has for millenia.
so it should be hotter than venus by now then
>>as just about everyone who bothers to study the
>> data do...
>> and that the main present driver is human driven...
>
>Bullshit.
yet another inspiring argument
Kim Bolton
abelard wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:48:46 -0500, AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>I do believe that man is hurting the environment, but with screaming
>>fanatics of both sides, it screws it up for the rest of us...
>
>indeed...
>you appear to have an organised head...always a relief and a joy :-)
...says the highly-biased Babelard
--
from
Kim Bolton
"I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same"
O O B O O Z
> abelard wrote:
> >>I do believe that man is hurting the environment, but with screaming
> >>fanatics of both sides, it screws it up for the rest of us...
>
> >indeed...
> >you appear to have an organised head...always a relief and a joy :-)
>
> ...says the highly-biased Babelard
DDT is fine, it's harmless. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have spiked the
food and drink at the group that Lord Monckton created that opposed
the IPCC. His bulgy eyes are not a product of that, he's the
second cousin of Marty Feldman.
http://www.duxieclothing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/MartyFeldman.jpg
Al Bundy
How funny that you claim that it's all about politics, and then
suddenly launch into a diatribe about it being all about "socialism".
And of course, a big conspiracy.
Why does science have a "truth" bias, and why do morons like you and
your ilk, prefer to disregard the science in favour of what you prefer
to hear?
And, why are you so hypocritical?
The facts surrounding DDT and how it not only harmed the environment,
but mosquitoes lost sensitivity to it, is well documented.
But morons still claim that DDT was the "magic bullet", when it
certainly is in some cases. DDT was never banned by the WHO for
fighting malaria, only for industrial use on crops.
And, it's idiots like you who "blame the left" for that alleged ban on
fighting malaria as well. And you bitch about the politics!
When you don't have your facts straight in the first place.
The only revisionist history about the use, laws about and deployment
about DDT come from politically motivated imbeciles like you. But you
project, and say it is the other way around.
Al Bundy
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:28:40 -0500, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
> wrote:
>
> > It seems certain DDT was responsible for the
> >problems with Bald Eagle eggs, and should have
> >been controlled in the US where Bald Eagles nest.
>
> it wasn't just bald eagles...it was various raptors and other
> life form up the food chain....
>
> i'm sure you can get more details if you care....
>
> it was highlighted by rachel carson in a book that changed
> the world....and still annoys the right wing extremists
>
Many wackos say that "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson was nothing but
propaganda.
Revisionist history for certain. Ecological issues aren't supposed
to be about politics, but whack jobs made it so. Most of them are
right wing extremists.
Silent Spring was not a book by Ayn Rand, full of blind ideology from
a Russian methamphetamine addict, who didn't practice what she
preached. It was a genuine book that described an issue.
Regressive, whacky conservative types saw Silent Spring as a
threat. But they think that DDT, first invented in the mid 19th
century, is "normal".
On the other hand, the first internal combustion engine was shown at
the World's Fair in Paris, and was run on Peanut oil. It was Rudy
Diesel's. Petroleum as a fuel only came about when oil was struck
in Ontario Canada in the 1840's, and 20 years later in Texas. And was
cheaper.
But all the nut cases do today is rant about how bio fuel sucks.
How ironic.
Boyce Rolands
> Bio fuel is not a feasible large scale alternative to oil.
>
> DDT is no more dangerous than any other commercial pesticide.
> Change a couple of molecules and you have another organochlorine that
> isn't DDT that is effectively the same.
>
> In the case of the herbicide, Agent Orange, it became a simple matter
> of concentration. Monsanto still manufactures "Agent Orange" today.
> Anyone you know that uses "RoundUp" on their weeds is using Agent
> Orange.
>
>
Bio fuel, not corn for methanol, is a viable alternative.
And when people speak of how the Bhp (brake horsepower) is less, they need to
engage the ideas of Peugeot or Audi, who have first rate, state of the art
racing cars at Le Mans and Sebring that say it isn't so.
Have a look at the Audi R10, R12 or the Peugeot 908.
Diesel fueled engines are better, and bio diesel rates as a far more
productive fuel. And methanol can be produced on farms that can't make things
you can eat, in the form of plants that grow in the desert.
The use of DDT, industrial use on crops? It was banned for good reason.
As the previous poster said, malaria carrying mosquitoes have built a
resistance to DDT as well, so it's practically useless now.
When the USA built the Panama Canal, they didn't use DDT to stop malaria, and
malaria was big in the south of the USA at one time too. They used proper
deployment of bug nets.
The idea of using an outdated insecticide that has low value in doing it's
job, is just dumb.
But, as the previous poster mentioned, there are a lot of idiots out there
like Lord Monckton saying that DDT is the magic bullet, and it was banned for
use against malaria. Both contentions are falsehoods. And Lord Monckton is
a politically motivated liar.
Did you know that he recently stopped claiming that he was science adviser to
PM Thatcher, because it wasn't true in the first place!
He's a moron. And it comes as no surprise that he pushes crap.
abelard
<last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
>Bio fuel is not a feasible large scale alternative to oil.
even via the algal route?
of course transportable fuels from the air and water are increasingly
possible...
we are coming to the end of the filthy fossil fuel age....
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:56:44 -0800 (PST), Al Bundy
> no purpose, in 1874 by German chemist Othmar Zeidler. In 1939, Dr.
> Paul M?ller independently produced DDT. M?ller found that DDT quickly
> killed flies, aphids, mosquitoes, walking sticks and Colorado potato
> beetles. M?ller and the Geigy corporation patented DDT in Switzerland
> (1940), England (1942) and U.S. (1943).
>
> The first large-scale use of DDT occurred in 1943 when 500 gallons
> of DDT were produced by Merck & Company and delivered to Italy to help
> squelch a rapidly spreading epidemic of louse-borne typhus. Later in
> 1943, the U.S. Army issued small tin boxes of 10 percent DDT dust to
> its soldiers around the world who used it to kill body lice, head lice
> and crab lice.
>
> M?ller won the Nobel Prize in 1948 for his work on DDT.
>
> Peak usage occurred in 1962, when 80 million kilograms of DDT were
> used and 82 million kilograms produced.
>
> "In May 1955 the Eighth World Health Assembly adopted a Global
> Malaria Eradication Campaign based on the widespread use of DDT
> against mosquitos and of antimalarial drugs to treat malaria and to
> eliminate the parasite in humans. As a result of the Campaign, malaria
> was eradicated by 1967 from all developed countries where the disease
> was endemic and large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were
> freed from the risk of infection. The Malaria Eradication Campaign was
> only launched in three countries of tropical Africa since it was not
> considered feasible in the others. Despite these achievements,
> improvements in the malaria situation could not be maintained
> indefinitely by time-limited, highly prescriptive and centralized
> programmes."
>
> [Bull World Health Organ 1998;76(1):11-6]
>
> "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT...
> In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human
> deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."
>
> [National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life
> Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life
> Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World
> of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]
>
> It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million
> every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children
> under five years.
>
> [Africa News, January 27, 1999]
>
> Some mosquitoes became "resistant" to DDT. "There is persuasive
> evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito
> resistance to DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a
> crime, can be laid to the intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by
> farmers, espeially cotton growers. They used the insecticide at levels
> that would accelerate, if not actually induce, the selection of a
> resistant population of mosquitoes."
>
> [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
>
> "Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and
> mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological
> mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong
> avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas
> where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human
> contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors
> avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed
> houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of
> current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued
> efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all
> reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically
> resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that
> repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of
> malaria."
>
> [See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am
> J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]
>
> II. Advocacy against DDT
>
> DDT was demagogued out of use.
>
> Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but
> represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent
> Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail
> and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT,
> even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect
> reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the
> breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile
> eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal
> of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different
> conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of
> their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of
> their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched
> 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report
> that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while
> those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an
> entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
>
> Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world
> population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities
> believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to
> assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die
> of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development
> stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
>
> [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
>
> The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their
> power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense
> Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will
> achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense,
> much more is at stake than DDT."
>
> [Seattle Times, October 5, 1969]
>
> Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor
> of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish
> any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.
>
> William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972,
> was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited
> donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read "EDF's
> scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer
> hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had
> won."
>
> But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated
> on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that "DDT has an amazing
> an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in
> man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims
> regarding DDT are unproven speculation." But in a May 2, 1971 address
> to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, "As a member of the
> Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it
> mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions ...
> because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a
> precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our
> administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT
> and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of
> review." Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that
> as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government,
> but as head of the EPA he was "a maker of policy."
>
> [Barrons, 10 November 1975]
>
> Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended
> DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor
> Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that
> he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society
> and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that
> University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas
> H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility.
>
> [21st Century, Spring 1992]
>
> III. EPA hearings
>
> DDT was...
>
> read more »
A puff piece from the right? Surely you jest.
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:16:42 -0800 (PST), Al Bundy
>
> Change a couple of molecules and you have another organochlorine that
> isn't DDT that is effectively the same.
Would you spray it inside your house? Would you drink water with DDT
in it?
>
> In the case of the herbicide, Agent Orange, it became a simple matter
> of concentration. Monsanto still manufactures "Agent Orange" today.
> Anyone you know that uses "RoundUp" on their weeds is using Agent
> Orange.
It was the TCDD contaminant in Agent Orange that was the problem.