My problem with the anti-global warming crowd, is that they say this all false, yet never give a plausible reason as to why people "made-up" global warming.

It seems to me the "anti" side has considerably more to gain from their standpoint then the "pro" side does. That's a huge red flag.

 

Again though, that's not an answer. WHY is the government giving grants to people who say it is happening? What does the government have to gain? Especially when all their PAC & lobby money comes from big oil, polluters, farmers and such?

 

Like what for instance?

 

Not ignoring it. This is a separate issue. I constantly here all this stuff, and would like some answers and prospective. Why would the other side lie?

 

Cookies and pixie dust...:pity:

I'll let you bait me.

Money, Ronnie, money. I know its soooo liberal of me to think that big oil likes oil cause it makes them money, but there you have it. Farmers like to make money. Polluters don't want to change their ways cause it costs them money.

There, you happy.

 

Dude, I am still happy from Sunday! :lol:

But it is pretty naive of you think to think that one side - the anti-global warming crowd - is in this for their own personal gain but the other isn't.

And I do believe in global warming, I am just not convinced it's man made and as for your question your question to Soundwave why would the other side lie, I'll tell you why, to get what THEY want, such as tough environment laws, something that the left has been wanting for decades.

 

History is replete with people finding something to blame and attack. DDT, breast implants, EMF emissions from power lines, eugenics, etc., all these things were false and yet they were supported. Govts. and politicians can seem to be doing something. Scientists who come up with scary scenarios get all the money. (that's actually mentioned in the article). In fact, history has shown that you have it backwards. The pro-side is the one that has the most to gain.

 

there is money to be made from the "green" side of things too. Al Gore ring a bell? you'll find him next to PT Barnum, referenced under "There is a sucker born every minute."

what is to gain you ask? POWER. more control over what kind of cars are made, and what you can afford to drive. more taxes on big business. more taxes on a gallon of gas at the pump so government can invest in "carbon offsets" once the myth becomes accepted reality, and government policy. simple as that.

 

I get the point you are making but to correct a couple of mistaken examples you cited ; DDT was a real threat to nesting birds, especially birds of prey. Once DDT was outlawed, species like the peregrine falcon, eagles, etc, made a come back. Also, the jury is still out on the issue of EMF emissions my friend. I just did a quick search of Pubmed and found a number of articles published between 2007-2008 documenting some level of danger from EMF waves. ;)

 

But DDT was banned b/c it was thought to be a carcinogen in humans. That's what all the hearings were about. It wasn't banned b/c it was a threat to nesting birds. And I personally think it's probable that EMF waves have some negative consequences, but I can't prove it. I think there's just a tendency by the public and the govt. to jump on partial scientific info and make conclusions that aren't fully supportable. Then they take those unsupported conclusions and use them to make policy. I'm not sure that's the best philosophy.

 

I don't know that I buy your source's explanation brother. From the EPA's website:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm

The environmental concerns are born out in this document which pre-dated the ban

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/DDT-Ruckelshaus.pdf

The risk that DDT is a possible carcinogen seems reasonable in light of the following studies:

Cohn, BA, MS Wolff, PM Cirillo and RI Sholtz. 2007. DDT and breast cancer in young women: New data on the significance of age at exposure.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10260/abstract.html


Co-carcinogenic effect of DDT and PCB feedings on methylcholanthrene-induced chemical carcinogenesis

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h72um3310x424532/

11th ROC: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; (DDT)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&star...s7SsIg&usg=AFQjCNFx0ALZPWMhs-__DWXWxeX0PlOoiQ

From the paper above:

When dealing with the public health, I'd prefer to see an proactive approach to limiting exposure to agents for which we have strong anecdotal evidence that they may pose a health risk. You can always relax protective measures if a more through study proves the original supporting evidence to be false. That is far more palatable than the alternative.

 

The ban on DDT has caused the death of millions of African children by malaria.

The WHO has belatedly recognized this fact and are now endorsing the use of DDT.

"The World Health Organization on Friday forcefully endorsed wider use of the insecticide DDT across Africa to exterminate and repel the mosquitoes that cause malaria. The disease kills more than a million people a year, 800,000 of them young children in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/world/africa/16malaria.html

 

There is more than one insecticide that kills the anopheles mosquito.

 

I guess anybody can choose to believe whichever cites they want.

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

[Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

There are many others but the point is that we think we understand much more than we do. It is estimated that the ban on DDT killed more people than Hitler before other insecticides were developed and effectively used. So did we really err on the side of caution or did we do more damage with our ignorance as others have done with their malfeasance?

 

But, as you can see from the recent data that I cited, the examiner was wrong and the original hypothesis was probably correct.

 

Maybe, until there's new data that conflicts with that, but that's not the point. The point is how do you you know which time the politicians should start making policy decisions based on incomplete info. And there's that whole pesky estimate of 98 million people dying from malaria since the ban. Who knows, maybe in the long run they saved more people from something else or maybe millions of people died who didn't need to. It's not clear cut.

 

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3568

 

The Anopheles mosquito was becoming increasingly resistant to DDT (http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/77/6/1066 | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651656 | http://malariajournal.com/content/7/1/247) and there is direct evidence -- lots of it to show a link between DDT exposure and cancers.

As I said earlier, there are less dangerous insecticides that can kill the anopheles mosquito so I reject your flippant "whole pesty estimate" remark.

 

To make another point that seems to be ignored or at least un-researched thus far:

DDT was banned in the US (not the world) in the early 1970's but was halted by the WHO in 1960's to save money - not for health or environmental reasons. Here is what followed:

Harrison, Gordon A (1978). Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Man: A History of the Hostilities Since 1880. Dutton. ISBN 0525160256.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

So, there seems to be little or no correlation between the 98 million supposed deaths from malaria and the banning of DDT in the US because DDT remains in the WHO arsenal.

 

Do you also reject all the people that were sterilized in this country when politicians adopted the "science" of eugenics? Just about every scientific body in the country supported this and the politicians passed laws based on it. It eventually claimed world wide acceptance but that didn't turn out so well.

 

I have already addressed the points that you made that I believed were not supported by fact but I agree with your position on eugenics.

That said, I think we have to consider that molecular biology and the sciences that could have cast a doubt on eugenics were not around in the late 1800's and the early 1900's when the idea was popularized.

 

Money and politicians rarely focus on the doubts.

And we'll just leave it that I disagree with your "facts".

http://www.malaria.org/bateftddt.html

How Good Intentions Kill

Admin: Please don't post whole articles.

 

I post data and you post opinion but you call my post "facts"? :lol: Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

Dr. Bates holds a Ph.D. in economics. It was his kind that thought that DDT was too costly.

I dabble in molecular biology and microbiology. I think hard science holds the trump card here bro. I cited peer reviewed data that DDT most likely causes cancer, destroys the ecology of avian species and was rapidly becoming ineffective against the disease while other (safer) insecticides proved more effective. If you care to present evidence to the contrary, I am very willing to listen. :hi5:

 

Economics is relevant if you're claiming that there are reasonable alternatives. If the alternatives aren't economically feasible then practically they are ineffective. And practically that policy decision resulted in millions of deaths.

 

Please read what I have already cited as I have already covered that issue.

 

There are over 100 citations in the Junksscience article below about DDT that address the issues that you have raised, including info about Peregrine Falcons:

"Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre- DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

"The decline in falcons along the Hudson River was attributed to falconers, egg collectors, pigeon fanciers and disturbance by construction workers and others.

[Herbert, RA and KG Herbert. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 133- 154. (Also in Auk 82: 62-94)]

The 1950's and 1960's saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction.

[Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography in peregrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]


Pelicans:

"Brown pelicans declined in Texas from a high of 5,000 birds in 1918 to a low of 200 in 1941, three years before the presence of DDT.

[Pearson TG. 1919. Review of reviews. Pp. 509-511 (May 1919); Pearson TG. 1934. Adventures in Bird Protection, Appleton- Century Co., p. 332; Pearson TG. 1934 (Discussion of 1918 survey) National Geographic pp. 299-302 (March 1934); Allen RG. 1935. Auk 52: p.199;]

Disappearance of the brown pelicans from Texas was attributed to fisherman and hunters. Gustafson AF. 1939. Conservation in the United States, Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY. (Repeated in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. 1, 1970)]

Bird Population Increases during DDT years:

In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to "increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species."

[Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

The Audubon Society's annual bird census in 1960 reported that at least 26 kinds of birds became more numerous during 1941 - 1960.

[See Anon. 1942. The 42nd annual Christmas bird census." Audubon Magazine 44;1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942), and Cruicjshank, AD (editor) 1961. The 61st annual Christmas bird census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2); 84-300]


Egg Shell Thinning



Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild.

[J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild.

[Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]



http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref8

 

Zach, the studies you cited did not rule out DDT (an estradiol) as a potential cause for egg thinning. Instead, they articles offered some alternative hypothesis. In fact, the mechanism is still unknown.

In this 2006 paper, eggs exposed to DDT did show thinning when compared to control eggs:

2006: Holm Lena; Blomqvist Alexandra; Brandt Ingvar; Brunström Björn; Ridderstråle Yvonne; Berg Cecilia
Embryonic exposure to o,p'-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen.
Environmental toxicology and chemistry / SETAC 2006;25(10):2787-93.


There is also the issue that DDT is a potential carcinogen and more expensive than malathion.

 

I did and I didn't find them convincing. It argued that malaria rates increased when DDT was banned but it was due to resistance, mismanagement, etc. But nearby areas that ignored the bans didn't have the same spikes in malaria rates. That's the relevant fact, that whatever alternatives existed weren't as effective for whatever reason. So IMO rejecting all those additional deaths is just denial. I don't see this as any sort of shining example of the govt. stepping in successfully. At best, it can be claimed that they saved future lives and/or made environmental gains at the expense of many other lives.

 

That is a bad thing how again?

 

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's an unknown that has to be weighed against the millions who died now. That's why I said "at best". It's an optimistic portrayal. But it's also possible that we didn't save any future lives and just killed a bunch of people now.

 

Sure. But it sounds like your objection is based on one uncontrolled observation of a couple of towns, when there is a mountain of documented, peer reviewed, repeatable research & experimentation, saying it is more certain of a possibility than a coin flip.

 

I don't agree that there's certainty. It's certain that the number of people dying increased dramatically after the ban. Whether it was the ban that caused it is what's uncertain. That's what actually started this whole thing. There was a mountain of evidence with eugenics. It was peer reviewed and supported by every reputable scientific mind in the country. You were an idiot if you didn't agree. We know now that it was all ridiculous. That's my feeling about man caused global warming. A year or two ago (and maybe now in some minds) you were an idiot for not agreeing with it. Now more and more scientists are questioning it. My guess is that 50-100 years from now the idea that man caused global warming will be considered equally ridiculous.

 

There are few certainties in life. The best we can do is use science, logic, etc to point us in a direction. Sometimes we're wrong, but trying at the very least teaches us.

As far as the global warming, whether you agree or disagree, I ask one simple question:

What's so terrible about the changes, we the hippie-few, want to make happen?

 

Third World countries would catch the brunt of it and suffer the most from these unnecessary changes.

 

How?