Archive for the ‘Climate’ Category

It’s time to stop funding carbon mysticism with taxpayer dollars

Doug Fiedor

If the federal government really believes that lowering the natural rate of carbon dioxide will “save the planet”, they could easily stop the production of about a hundred-million metric tons of carbon dioxide simply by stopping all those useless bureaucrats from breathing.

Also, there are many volcanoes on federal land. Each time one of those burp they put out as much carbon dioxide per hour as all the nation’s SUVs do in a year! Because these volcanoes are on federal land, the air pollutants they produce are the federal government’s responsibility. Perhaps the federal government could show some leadership in protecting the environment by installing some type of catalytic converters on their volcanoes.

Silly, eh? Maybe so. But not much sillier than most of the rules and regulations promulgated by the EPA.

The federal EPA leviathan has become nothing more then a bureaucratic joke. It’s time that the EPA was closed down and their over-bearing regulation rangers sent to the unemployment line.

Read Full Post »

Unbelievable! The San Francisco Chronicle neglected to mention Obama’s SAYING that his policy on ‘clean coal’ technology would make coal not something that would be financially viable to pursue because it will bankrupt whoever attempts it because of government restrictions.

Newsbusters: Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle he will benkrup the coal industry

For some reason that url takes a very long time to load, so I’m going to put up the youtube video and some of the transcript.

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

NewsBusters’ Tom Blumer found that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama’s willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the “In His Own Words” section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!

From Newsbusters and —P.J. Gladnick, who is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Read Full Post »

WSJ’s article, “Not so Hot” spells it out.

The latest twist in the global warming saga is the revision in data at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, indicating that the warmest year on record for the U.S. was not 1998, but rather 1934 (by 0.02 of a degree Celsius).

Canadian and amateur climate researcher Stephen McIntyre discovered that NASA made a technical error in standardizing the weather air temperature data post-2000. These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-2006 by 0.15C.

The new data undermine another frightful talking point from environmentalists, which is that six of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. Wrong. NASA now says six of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s, and that was before the bulk of industrial CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.

Of course a lot of us have been hip to this for quite some time, but the liberals are still clutching to their faith of the Church of Global Warming with the hopes they can just shove it down our throats. This Hansen fellow is a real piece of work:

James Hansen, NASA’s ubiquitous climate scientist and a man who has charged that the Bush Administration is censoring him on global warming, has been unapologetic about NASA’s screw up. He claims that global warming skeptics — “court jesters,” he calls them — are exploiting this incident to “confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change.”

So let’s get this straight: Mr. Hansen’s agency makes a mistake in a way that exaggerates the extent of warming, and this is all part of a conspiracy by “skeptics”? It’s a wonder there aren’t more of them.

Read Full Post »

Alan Caruba:

False Consensus Was Predicted

Indeed, back in November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by non-scientists and even some scientists.

Von Storch, who has yet to side with either alarmists or skeptics, warned, “We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas.”
Media Echo Scariest Claims

Noting the propensity of large media organizations to echo the alarmists’ claims, von Storch wrote, “Judgments of solid scientific findings are often not made with respect to their immanent quality but on the basis of their alleged or real potential as a weapon by ‘skeptics’ in a struggle for dominance in public and policy discourse.”

Ebell agrees: “If the debate is over, why do they exaggerate so much? It seems that once some scientist makes any sort of speculation about the extent or impact of future warming that sounds even slightly scary, then we never hear the end of it, no matter how many times subsequent research refutes it.

“After reading hundreds of scientific articles and consulting widely on what they mean and how they fit together, I am convinced that if there is a consensus, it is not alarmist,” said Ebell.

Not that we should pay any attention to a German climatologist that doesn’t belong to the Church of Global Warming, LOL

Also, Sphere is not showing that I linked to this article, so I’m going to link numerous times to this WSJ article…

Read Full Post »

This is interesting, passed on to me by Rotty through email, since he knows I always enjoy a good row.

The standoff beings with begins with the Devil’s Kitchen, pointing to a post by Tom Nelson at Climate Resistance who took on the quest for the holy grail; the qualifications of the IPCC “climate experts” whose “science” we aren’t allowed to question. This, because the “debate is over” and the “science is settled”, despite the 400 dissenters that showed up in Bali. The truth of the matter is, The Church of Global Warming doesn’t want to hear any other opinions, which is not science. Science is supposed to be open to honest testing of a hypothesis. The only why you get a real answer is if you’re open to finding out what the truth is. This isn’t the case in terms of the global warming freaks.

So we downloaded IPCC WGII’s latest report on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors].


..so we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. This gives the lie to Dessler’s claim that IPCC contributors are analogous to medical doctors.

Emphasis mine. HA! Just as in the case of Rachel Carson, the marine biologist, we’re supposed to ignore the real data for the purpose of kneeling at the environmental alter and sacrifice blood and treasure on the basis of lies. This also gives the lie to “climatologists'” claims in general about warming, that we’re not supposed to question the holy writ that comes from the IPCC panel, because they’re the ‘experts’.

We were surprised by the results. Was the prevalence of social scientists from the UK representative of the whole group? We decided to repeat the test for the contributors based in the USA.

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn’t clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

1 full-time activist and 1 part-time! This blows my mind and is an outrage! I’m certain that the same results would be achieved by going down the entire list, no matter where they’re originally from. This is propaganda masquerading as science!

In a follow-up post, Dessler has set about ‘Busting the ‘consensus busters” by ridiculing the qualifications of Inhofe’s 400 experts, starting with a certain Thomas Ring. In the comments section he justifies this approach:

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.

Ring’s credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, still more impressive than the ones the IPCC panel has trotted out. This is even MORE amusing:

Well, we can all play that game… Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field – they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.


Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would Dessler take his sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is Marta Vicarelli, who is a PhD candidate in ‘sustainable development’. Can she be the amongst the world’s leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?

Dessler has inadvertently thrown a light on what the real problem is with the agenda-driven IPCC ‘climate’ reports.

And yet Dessler insists that

Inhofe’s list is chock full of people without any recent, relevant research on the problem. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s why they’re skeptics: people with the relevant experience are immediately persuaded by the evidence. This should be compared to the IPCC, which includes exclusively people with recent, relevant expertise on the problem.

There are, in fact, only about 7,000 climatologists in total, because climate was a stalled profession involving many different disciplines, and climate was considered to be something in constant flux. But still, those that are in Inhofe’s list are at least engineers, instead of administrative assistants, activists, web designers and students who aren’t destined to graduate until 2010, and so on.

Anything which can be thrown at the sceptics can be thrown at IPCC contributors.

That is not to say that social scientists and computer programmers have nothing to offer the world, or the IPCC process. They are crucial in fact. What it is to say, however, is that, when social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world’s top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true.

It’s just a plain old-fashioned LIE, but it’s typical of the pipedreams of leftist environmentalists. Inhofe’s list is comprised of these notable characters:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Ignoring these people, who are not students destined to graduated in 2010, and whose expertise in the area of science could definitely be greater than that of an administrative assistant, web designer and activists–Dessler concentrated on Thomas Ring, a chemical engineer by training. As if that is an example of someone who’s not ‘qualified’ in comparison with the IPCC nuts behind their exaggerated fictional reports!

DK at the Devil’s Kitchen concludes:

The IPCC are liars and as the whole anthropogenic climate change crap unravels—even on the Left—they cling ever more desperately to their outdated theories by propagating yet more obfuscations, half-truths and outright lies.

Wake up, people!—we are being lied to, and it is so that the political establishment can make complete slaves of us all.

Also see this article at the Wall Street Journal entitled “Not So Hot”.

Read Full Post »

Thursday, December 27, 2007
By Steven Milloy

“I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd.

As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction. Here’s the round-up:

1. Cracked crystal balls. Observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers reported.

The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than actually occurred, despite the availability of more and better quality data and improved modeling efforts since the late-1970s.

“We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution,” the researchers concluded. Read more

2. The big yellow ball in the sky. The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought.

The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.” Read more

3. Pre-SUV warming. Another new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years indicates that globally averaged temperature 1,000 years ago was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic “heat wave” obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, deflating alarmists’ rash conclusions about the warming of the past 50 years. Read more

4. A disciplined climate. Runaway global warming — the alarmist fantasy in which a warmer global temperature causes climatic events that, in turn, cause more warming and so-on in a never-ending positive feedback loop — was cornered by new data from researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). The new research sheds light on the mechanism by which the atmosphere self-regulates. Read more

5. A gnarly wipeout. Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. But an international team of researchers reported that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of eight in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the 2005study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study. Read more

6. A pollution solution. A new study reported that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures — precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the researchers. Read more

7. Lazy temperature? Researchers reported that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. Since increasing atmospheric C02 levels allegedly cause global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

Wrong. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center, ever-changing global temperatures are in no way keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Read more

8. Don’t plant that tree! Researchers reported that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a significant warming influence on climate. Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere — that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese Island of Hainan — will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Read more

9. The Tropical Arctic. Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago — when the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit — there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases?

It was the warming, according to the researchers. Read more

10. Much ado about nothing. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade.

For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.

That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared.

Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.

Read Full Post »

This guy should really get out of the bathtub.

His recent diatribe pointing at me and calling me ‘crazy’ is here. I answered in comments, but thought I’d turn it into a post. See if you can find a shred of empirical evidence or data or scientific citations here.

Sometimes, when people make gross errors, they get caught. They apologize, or they mumble, and they move on.

That wouldn’t be this guy, though.

A few times, when people make gross errors, they revel in it. Rather than admit the error, they make it again. They say it wasn’t an error. They repeat it, time and again, as if two wrongs make a right, or as if 126 wrongs make a right.

He’s describing his own behavior: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. He’s living fully into the definition of insanity, and taking a page from Lenin: A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

The guy in the bathtub is going to have to do better than this:

We caught Caosblog repeating some bad stuff about Rachel Carson, and false, good stuff about DDT, and false claims that eagles were not endangered by DDT. We called ‘em on it.

ooooh. “caught Caosblog.” Wow how official of him. Repeating some “bad stuff“. He doesn’t specify what that ‘bad stuff’ is, though. And…”we”? It makes him sound like more than one person. Just who exactly is with him in that bathtub? “False claims that eagles were not endangered”? I see no proof otherwise at this post, or any of the other blogs that make the same assertions. There are no links to ‘reason and evidence’ there.

Whoooee! This is the result.

He points at caosblog’s index.

If there is anything crazy and mean about Rachel Carson, it’s probably in that list. If there is any wild and insane claim about the safety of DDT, it’s in that list.

Okay, ‘if there is anything crazy and mean about Rachel Carson, it’s probably in that list.’ But there is no specificity as to what is ‘crazy and mean’, or what is ‘wild and insane’.

He makes some wild sweeping generalizations, but has made no point yet with ‘reason and evidence’.

This is someone who clearly doesn’t understand the rules set forth in front of 8th grade debate teams. Attack the point, not the person. Back yourself up with facts. But in the bathtub, there aren’t any facts, and the method of debate is ad hominem attack. Because when you sing in the bathroom, your voice sounds pretty good.

If there were any accurate information, it would be a miracle.

Take a look at the miracle here and here. Notice the links to facts and evidence. Notice the scientists cited. The fact that this fellow doesn’t know how to do that doesn’t reflect very well on his ability to ‘reason’, or his ability to weigh scentific evidence against hysterical environmental political hyperbole.

(Well, actually there’s some good information in the National Geographic story about malaria, but I doubt the blog writer bothered to read it.)

Yes, I read it, maybe if he did, he would have noticed that the graphic on this post quotes from it, as well. It would seem to me that the guy in the bathtub is the one who has a problem with reading and citing sources.

Leftists seem to point a finger at other people for the behaviors they themselves demonstrate, and expect nobody to notice.

The blog links to all the Lyndon Larouche crazies, all the tobacco lobbyist crazies, and acts as if such manure is golden.

Right. Now we’ve arrived at the heart of the matter; “all the tobacco lobbyist crazies” and “all the Lyndon Larouche crazies”. But he doesn’t provide evidence as to who or what these entities are. Both are mysterious and vague generalizations. Everyone’s crazy and mean but the guy in the bathtub calling other people names.

From Wikipedia:

*(Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American economist, philosopher, political activist, and founder of several political organizations in the United States and elsewhere, jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement. He is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.There are sharply contrasting views of LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics have variously seen him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, or the leader of a political cult[1][2] The Heritage Foundation has said that he “leads what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history.) Lyndon Larouche, Wikipedia.Certainly the guy in the bathtub is deranged if he thinks drawing a link between this blog and Lyndon Larouche makes any sense. Larouche doesn’t fit within my ideological philosophy, nor have I linked to anything having to do with him…until he brought it up just now.This is kind of an interesting approach, I think. Smearing someone by association with someone I’ve never referred to or spoken of….who’s a fascist-type democrat.

LaRouche was defended by Ramsey Clark (former U.S. Attorney General during the Lyndon Johnson Whitehouse and defending attorney for Saddam Hussein) because of mail fraud and tax code violations.

Has Larouche taken a stand against Rachel Carson? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Maybe the Larouche statement might have stemmed from the weird post published at this blog about Rachel Carson. Crooked Timber talks about the Republican War on Science, but I haven’t seen any leftist quoting scientists when they do their environmental activist smears.

Very little of it is close to accurate. Most of the material so far out to lunch, it’s not even wrong.


The person who runs the blog sent me an e-mail saying my comments are no longer welcome there, because of the tone of my remarks. Too many links to too much refutation of blog’s points, I gather — too much real information!

That’s a lie. Everything I said, I said in the comments section; and the advice to him was to refrain from ad hominem attacks and present facts and evidence. As this post at his blog demonstrates, the man in the bathtub doesn’t have any.

Speaking of accurate, drawing a parallel that makes some kind of sense would be a start. The message I sent consisted of four words in the subject line, “thanks but no thanks.”

Based on what we have seen thus far, what can we conclude? He doesn’t back himself up with empirical evidence, or link to a source, he lies about the content of an email I supposedly sent, calls people names and still hasn’t quoted any ‘reason or evidence’.

DDT poisoning clearly is damaging, with effects far beyond anything Rachel Carson ever predicted.

Clearly damaging? To what? To whom? We don’t know because the guy in the bathtub doesn’t know, either. Has he read Rachel Carson’s book? We don’t know that, either. It would seem he doesn’t like to read very much; he just likes to fling poo.

This is the venal, vicious spirit that Sen. Tom Coburn defends with his hold in the U.S. Senate on honors for Mrs. Carson. This is the spirit with which the anti-Rachel Carson movement rails at environmentalists about malaria in Africa, while holding back funding for anti-malaria projects in Africa.

Ahh. Now the motivation behind the smear is revealed. The problem is-he doesn’t know science. The guy in the bathtub has a problem with – Senator Tom Coburn linking to Rachel Was Wrong. I’ve seen that trick before. He draws the first parallel that makes any sense, lumping me in with Tom Coburn because leftist sites have said it. So my linking to Rachel Was Wrong, while he completely ignores everything else I’ve presented in terms of facts and links, is what makes me ‘crazy’.

How interesting. Does he say what is wrong with the facts presented at “Rachel Was Wrong”? No.

Could he have a problem with Africans pleading for the lives of their dying suffering children? Or that the website shows pictures of African children who’ve lost their lives to malaria? Maybe that’s because he would rather let people die than allow DDT use to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Woody Allen had a line in Annie Hall that may be appropriate: “There’s nothing wrong with you that couldn’t be cured with Prozac and a polo mallet.”

The Woody Allen line is the only quote he has here. It strikes me funny that a guy who disagrees with me would promote the idea of drugging someone up and hitting them with a hammer in response. That’s the prescriptive cure for someone holding a conservative anti-DDT or anti-global warming viewpoint from a leftist.

Entomology is the study of insects; a mosquito is an insect; I quote Dr. Edwards, an entomologist, who testified against DDT at the EPA hearings back in the day. Ornithology is the study of birds, I’ve quoted studies on birds by ornithologists about bird populations and eggshell thickness. He has nothing in his posts from any scientists that I can see, just sweeping generalizations because someone linked to Rachel Was Wrong, ignoring the facts about Carson’s presumptions and the devastating human toll that’s resulted.

There is nothing to help us understand his position from a scientific point of view. And that’s probably because science isn’t driving his view; politics and other leftist websites are. This is typical of environmentalists today. Did I mention that one of the reasons Patrick Moore quit Greenpeace because of their radical politics?’

Moore, who has an honours degree in forest biology and a PhD in ecology, says he left Greenpeace when “I was an international director, one of five. My fellow international directors had no science education.

Sounds like the bathtub guy doesn’t have any, either.

Most of them were political activists or entrepreneur environmentalists, for want of a better word, and they decided we should start a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. I said, ‘Chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. I don’t think that’s in our jurisdiction.’ And they said, ‘No, this is a good campaign. Chlorine is the devil’s element, and it works really well for fund-raising and media and everything.’“I said, ‘Just a minute, 75 per cent of our medicines are based on chlorine chemistry, and adding chlorine to drinking water was the single biggest advance in the history of public health, and the best way to deliver that slightly chlorinated drinking water to the general public is in a PVC pipe. So give me a break. I cannot go along with this. You guys make a list of the chlorine compounds that you don’t like and we’ll look at them one by one like any regulatory agency would do, but you can’t just condemn chlorine. We put it in swimming pools so that people don’t get cholera and tetanus.’ “The others weren’t persuaded. Moore says: “That was the beginning of my having to leave the organisation that I helped found.”That’s political activism, based on a stupidity that is beyond rationalization. Environmentalism is an activism that endangers people; and is not science.

Then bathtubboy pulls out the hilarious part:

Reason and evidence won’t do it now. When someone starts out arguing that eagles were not threatened with extinction by the poison that a thousand studies verified was doing them in, you can’t reason them back to reality.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards: Activists blamed DDT for the disappearance of great birds such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Supposedly, the insecticide harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells.But the bald eagle and peregrine falcon were hunted to near extinction decades before DDT was first used in the U.S.Many human and environmental stressors can contribute to thin egg shells. Laboratory experiments purporting to link DDT with egg shell thinning involved massive doses of the chemical, far in excess of what occurred in the wild.Moreover, bald eagle and falcon populations were already rebounding during the peak years of DDT use – thanks to laws limiting their hunting.

REASON AND EVIDENCE, he says. So where is it?

I haven’t seen any thus far….

How about here. Milloy, S. (June 20, 2002) Rethinking DDT, FoxNews

Rachel Carson inflamed the public against DDT with her book “Silent Spring,” claiming DDT was detrimental to bird reproduction and caused cancer. Carson misrepresented the then-existing science on bird reproduction and was dead wrong about DDT causing cancer.

Carson wrote “Dr. [James] DeWitt’s now classic experiments [show] 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 the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry yielded a different conclusion.

DeWitt found no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson omitted mentioning DeWitt’s report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than “control” pheasants.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction never materialized, because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout – an outbreak later attributed to aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of certain fungi.

Activists blamed DDT for the disappearance of great birds such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Supposedly, the insecticide harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells.

But the bald eagle and peregrine falcon were hunted to near extinction decades before DDT was first used in the U.S.

Many human and environmental stressors can contribute to thin egg shells. Laboratory experiments purporting to link DDT with egg shell thinning involved massive doses of the chemical, far in excess of what occurred in the wild.

Moreover, bald eagle and falcon populations were already rebounding during the peak years of DDT use – thanks to laws limiting their hunting.

Still, anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge during 1971-72.

After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded “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.”

Or here.

Look through the bibliography, for example. It’s filled with unscientific sources. Each reference is cited separately as though it’s a vast array of evidence, though it doesn’t come from very many different sources.

Looking up the references that Carson cited and you’ll discover that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides.

Dedication. In the front of the book, Carson dedicates Silent Spring as follows: “To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’”

This appears to indicate that the great man opposed the use of insecticides. However, in his autobiography Schweitzer writes, on page 262: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us … but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.” Upon reading his book, it is clear that Schweitzer was worried about nuclear warfare, not about the hazards from DDT.

Page 16. Carson says that before World War II, while developing agents of chemical warfare, it was found that some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were lethal to insects. “The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents of death for man.” Carson thus seeks to tie insecticides to chemical warfare. However, DDT was never tested as an “agent of death for man.” It was always known to be nonhazardous to humans! Her implication is despicable.

Page 16. Carson says the pre-war insecticides were simple inorganic insecticides but her examples include pyrethrum and rotenone, which are complex organic chemicals.

Page 17. Carson says arsenic is a carcinogen (identified from chimney soot) and mentions a great many horrible ways in which it is violently poisonous to vertebrates. She then says (page 18): “Modern insecticides are still more deadly,” and she makes a special mention of DDT as an example.

This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.” The World Health Organization stated that DDT had “killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” A leading British scientist pointed out that “If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust.”

It is a travesty, therefore, if Rachel Carson’s all-out attack on DDT results in any programs lauding her efforts to ban DDT and other life-saving chemicals!

Page 18. Referring to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides (like DDT) and organophosphates (like malathion), Carson says they are all “built on a basis of carbon atoms, which are also the indispensable building blocks of the living world, and thus classed as ‘organic.’ To understand them we must see how they are made, and how they lend themselves to the modifications which make them agents of death.”

Surely it is unfair of Carson to imply that all insecticides are “agents of death” for animals other than insects.

Page 21. After referring to untruthful allegations that persons ingesting as little as one tenth of a part per million (ppm) of DDT will then store “about 10 to 15 ppm,” Carson states that “such substances are so potent that a minute quantity can bring about vast changes in the body.” (She does not consider the metabolism and breakdown of DDT in humans and other vertebrates, and their excretion in urine, and so on, which prevents the alleged “biological magnification” up food chains from actually occurring.) Carson then states: “In animal experiments, 3 parts per million [of DDT] has been found to inhibit an essential enzyme in heart muscle; only 5 parts per million has brought about necrosis or disintegration of liver cells. …” This implies that considerable harm to one’s health might result from traces of DDT in the diet, but there has been no medical indication that her statements are true.

On page 22, Carson adds, “… we know that the average person is storing potentially harmful amounts.” This is totally false!

Page 23. Carson says, “the Food and Drug Administration forbids the presence of insecticide residues in milk shipped in interstate commerce.” This is not true, either! The permissible level was 0.5 ppm in milk being shipped interstate.

Page 24. Carson says: “One victim who accidentally spilled a 25 percent industrial solution [of chlordane] on the skin developed symptoms of poisoning within 40 minutes and died before medical help could be obtained. No reliance can be placed on receiving advance warning which might allow treatment to be had in time.”

The actual details regarding this accident were readily available at the time, but Carson evidently chose to distort them. The accident occurred in 1949 in the chemical formulation plant, when a worker spilled a large quantity down the front of her body. The liquid contained 25 pounds of chlordane, 39 pounds of solvent, and 10 pounds of emulsifier (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 13, 1955). Carson’s reference to this as a “25 percent solution” spilled on the skin certainly underplays the severity of that drenching, which was the only account known of such a deadly contamination during the history of chlordane formulation.

Page 28. Carson refers to the origin of organophosphate insecticides like parathion (the insecticide that EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus recommended as the substitute for DDT). She states that the insecticidal properties of organophosphates were “discovered by a German chemist, Gerhard Schrader, in the late 1930s” and that “Some became the deadly nerve gases. Others, of closely allied structure, became insecticides.”

Actually, the insecticides of that nature were not discovered until after World War II (15 years later than Carson implied) and the similarity of insecticides to the dreaded nerve gases was greatly exaggerated by Carson. Carson’s attempt to spread terror about beneficial insecticides becomes even more vicious:

Pages 36-37. Carson says: “Among the herbicides are some that are classed as ‘mutagens,’ or agents capable of modifying the genes, the materials of heredity. We are rightly appalled by the genetic effects of radiation; how then can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment?”

Carson’s comparison between “radiation” and common herbicides is despicable, for there is a tremendous difference between their mutagenic potentials.

Page 40. Carson claims that “an appalling deluge of chemical pollution is daily poured into the nation’s waterways,” that “Most of them are so stable that they cannot be broken down by ordinary processes,” and that “Often they cannot even be identified.”

These are obviously overstatements designed to worry the reader by using frightening words and intimating that nobody knows what death-dealing chemicals are in the average person’s drinking water. Of course, if they can be detected, they can be identified. The amount of pollutants entering the drinking water of the country was repeatedly analyzed by experts and was found to be below levels that might cause human illness in homes. Carson’s scare-mongering statements would fit more appropriately in the pages of today’s supermarket tabloids.

Pages 50-51. Carson writes that: “Arsenic, the environmental substance most clearly established as causing cancer in man, is involved in two historic cases in which polluted water supplies caused widespread occurrence of cancer.”

I have seen no proof that arsenic causes cancer in humans, and it is known to occur naturally in most kinds of shellfish and other marine life. And, if she were really concerned about public health, Carson should have rejoiced to see that relatively harmless insecticides like DDT were capable of replacing arsenicals and other poisonous inorganic materials!

Page 78. Referring to “weeds” (which are such foes of healthy crops that they must be decimated before the crops can mature and be harvested, Carson states: “Presumably the weed is taking something from the soil; perhaps it is also contributing something to it.”

She is obviously correct about weeds taking something from the soil as every gardener knows by sad experience, but it takes a tremendous stretch of the imagination to suggest that weeds are desirable in fields of crops!

Carson then refers to a city park in Holland where the soil around the roses was heavily infested by nematodes. Planting marigolds among the roses resulted in the death of the nematodes, she claims, and the roses then flourished. No reference was cited. Based on this unsubstantiated story, Carson concludes that “other plants that we ruthlessly eradicate may be performing a function that is necessary to the health of the soil.”

So, soil with nematodes was just unhealthy anyway, but fields where weeds have crowded out the food crops had healthier soil even before crops were planted? Everyone who personally grows desirable plants will surely disagree with her!

Page 80. Carson says: “Crabgrass exists only in an unhealthy lawn. It is a symptom, not a disease in itself.” When the soil is healthy and fertile it is an environment in which crabgrass cannot grow, she says, because other grasses will prevent it from surviving.

Persons who have had crabgrass invade their beautiful lawn will quite rightly object to this wild unsubstantiated statement.

“Astonishing amounts of crabgrass killers” are placed on lawns each year, including mercury, arsenic, and chlordane, she says, relishing the stupidity of nurserymen who have a lifetime of experience. She then cites examples where they “apply 60 pounds of technical chlordane to the acre if they follow directions. If they use another of the many available products, they are applying 175 pounds of metallic arsenic to the acre [highly questionable]. The toll of dead birds is distressing. … How lethal these lawns may be for human beings is unknown.”

Page 85. Carson says we are “adding… a new kind of havoc—the direct killing of birds, mammals, fishes, and indeed practically every form of wildlife by chemical insecticides indiscriminately sprayed on the land.”

Is it possible that Carson was unaware of the great increases in mammals and game birds harvested by hunters during the years of greatest use of the modern insecticides to which she objects? Is it possible that she was unaware of the tremendous increases in most kinds of North American birds, as documented year after year by participants in the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts? (That abundance was proven by the numbers of birds counted, per observer, on those counts.) The major things that limited numbers of fish during the ”DDT years” was the increasing competition among hordes of fishermen, the damming of multitudes of streams, and the sewage produced by our burgeoning population of healthy, well-fed American people.

Instead of recognizing and appreciating these documented increases of wildlife, Carson says bitterly (page 85): “[Nothing must get in the way of the man with the spray gun. … The incidental victims of his crusade against insects count as nothing; if robins, pheasants, raccoons, cats, or even livestock happen to inhabit the same bit of earth as the target insects and to be hit by the rain of insect-killing poisons no one must protest.”

Page 87. Carson bemoans the efforts to control the Japanese beetles in Detroit in 1959, saying, “Little need was shown for this drastic and dangerous action.” She then says that a naturalist in Michigan, who she claimed was very well informed, stated that the Japanese beetle had been present in Detroit for more than 30 years. (No entomologist had ever seen one there.) Carson’s naturalist also said that the beetles had not increased there during all that time.

Perhaps she misquoted the naturalist, or perhaps he was just lying, or maybe he simply did not recognize the local Strigoderma beetles that faintly resemble Japanese beetles. Certainly it is impossible that the voracious Japanese beetles were actually present there for 30 years, remaining hidden from all entomologists and home-owners! Everywhere those beetles have invaded they quickly multiplied to a pest status within a few years, causing tremendous damage to flowers, fruits, and (as larvae) destroying the roots of grasses and other plants. Even Rachel Carson should not expect us to believe that in Detroit they displayed entirely different behavior. …

Page 88. Regarding those Japanese beetles, Carson said that the midwestern states “have launched an attack worthy of the most deadly enemy instead of only a moderately destructive insect.” Thousands of residents of the eastern United States laughed at that ridiculous statement because they had personally experienced the devastation caused by the beetles and their larvae. Incredibly, Carson insisted (page 96) that the Japanese beetle by 1945 “had become a pest of only minor importance. …”

Page 97. Carson discusses the use of spores of “milky disease” placed in the soil to kill the beetle larvae, and expresses tremendous confidence in the ability of that bacterium to eradicate them there. As to why they did not fight the epidemic in Michigan by simply using these spores, she explains that it was considered too expensive.

Carson reveals with pleasure the fact that they infect at least 40 other species of beetles, but expresses no concern for environmental harm caused by such a broad-spectrum killer of native insects. To the contrary, on page 99 she attacks the use of pesticides because they “… are not selective poisons; they do not single out the one species of which we desire to be rid.” Evidently she felt that it was all right for bacteria to be broad spectrum poisons, but that pesticides must affect only a single target.

Birds Vs. Human Deaths
Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”

Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”

Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.

Page 106. In Lansing, Michigan, a spray program began in l954 against the bark beetles that were transmitting Dutch Elm disease. Carson states “[With local programs for gypsy moth and mosquito control also under way, the rain of chemicals increased to a downpour.” She expresses no concern for the survival of the magnificent elm trees, the dying oak trees, or the torment of people who lived near hordes of blood-sucking mosquitoes, but has tremendous pity for a few birds that had disappeared from the sprayed areas. These positions brought her very little support from the residents.

Carson praises Michigan State University ornithologist George Wallace, who had theorized that robins on the campus were dying because they had eaten earthworms containing DDT from the soil. Many other areas sprayed with DDT did not have dying robins, but Carson studiously avoids mentioning that. Wallace also did not mention the high levels of mercury on the ground and in the earthworms (from soil fungicide treatments on the Michigan campus), even though the symptoms displayed by the dying robins were those attributable to mercury poisoning. Instead, Wallace (and Carson) sought to blame only DDT for the deaths.

The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content” and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.

In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages on unfounded allegations about DDT and various kinds of birds.

Page 109. Carson alleges that because of the spray programs, “Heavy mortality has occurred among about 90 species of birds, including those most familiar to suburbanites and amateur naturalists. … All the various types of birds are affected—ground feeders, treetop feeders, bark feeders, predators.”

Carson provides no references to confirm that allegation. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, in fact, continued to reveal that more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest “DDT years,” including those types that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. When marshes were sprayed with DDT to control the mosquitoes, a common result was a population explosion of birds inhabiting the marshes. The increases evidently occurred because of a reduction in bird diseases that were formerly transmitted by local blood-sucking insects, greater abundance of available food (less plant destruction by insects), and increased quantities of hepatic enzymes produced by the birds as a result of ingesting DDT (these enzymes destroy cancer-causing aflatoxins in birds and other vertebrates).

The flocks of birds—such as red-winged blackbirds—that were produced by the millions in marshes that had been sprayed with DDT caused tremendous damage to grain crops in Ohio and elsewhere. Such destruction was not desirable, and if Carson had complained about that nobody could have criticized her for it. Instead, she attempted to convince the readers that spraying the marshes caused the death of the birds nesting there, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Page 111. Carson says: “All of the treetop feeders, the birds that glean their insect food from the leaves, have disappeared from heavily sprayed areas. …”

Insecticides temporarily eliminate some insects from sprayed areas, and before others can move in the insectivorous birds cannot find much food there. Carson said the birds had disappeared, and not that they had been killed. She later even admitted that their scarcity could be caused by “lack of insects because of spray.”

Page 118. Carson writes: “Like the robin, another American bird seems to be on the verge of extinction. This is the national symbol, the eagle.”

In that very same year, 1962, the leading ornithologist in North America also mentioned the status of the robin. That authority was Roger Tory Peterson, who asked in his Life magazine Nature library book, The Birds, “What is North America’s number one bird?” He then pointed out that it was the robin! The Audubon Christmas Bird Count in 1941 (before DDT) was 19,616 robins (only 8.41 seen per observer)—see Table 1. Compare that with the 1960 count of 928,639 robins (or 104.01 per observer). The total was 12 times more robins seen per observer after all those years of DDT and other “modern pesticide” usage. Carson had to avoid all references to such surveys or her thesis would have been disproved by the evidence.

Page 119.: Carson spends two pages discussing the Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, counts of migrating raptorial birds. Table 2 summarizes the actual total counts of raptors made there during the years before and during the greatest usage of DDT in North America. Obviously, very few of them decreased in numbers during those years. The numbers of migrating hawks (and eagles) increased from 9,29l in 1946 to 16,163 in 1963, but with considerable fluctuation in intervening years.

Page 120. Carson explains the lack of young birds by saying: “… [The reproductive capacity of the birds has been so lowered by some environmental agent that there are now almost no annual additions of young to maintain the race. Exactly this sort of situation has been produced artificially in other birds by various experimenters, notably Dr. James DeWitt of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments on the effects of a series of insecticides on quail and pheasants have established the fact that exposure to DDT or related chemicals, even when doing no observable harm to the parent birds, may seriously affect reproduction. … For example, 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”[emphasis added].

Carson gives no indication of how many might be considered as “few eggs hatching.” Perhaps she thought that her readers would never see the rather obscure journal in which DeWitt’s results were published in 1956, the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Otherwise, she surely would not have so badly misrepresented DeWitt’s results! The dosage he fed the quail was 100 parts per million in all their food every day, which was roughly 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of the greatest DDT use!

The quail did not just hatch “a few” of their eggs, as DeWitt’s data clearly reveal (Table 3). As the published data from DeWitt’s experiments show, the “controls” (those quail with no DDT) hatched 83.9 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed quail hatched 75 to 80 percent of theirs. I would not call an 80 percent hatch “few,” especially when the controls hatched only 83.9 percent of their eggs.

Carson either did not read DeWitt’s article, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt’s experiments on pheasants, which were published on the same page. The “controls” hatched only 57.4 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed pheasants, (dosed with 50 ppm of DDT in all of their food during the entire year) hatched 80.6 percent of theirs. After two weeks, the DDT chicks had 100 percent survival, while the control chicks only had 94.8 percent survival, and after 8 weeks the DDT chicks had 93.3 percent survival while the control chicks only had 89.7 percent survival. It was false reporting such as this that caused so many leading scientists in the United States to take Rachel Carson to task.

Page 122. Carson says various birds have been storing up the DDT in the tissues of their bodies. “And like the grebes, the pheasants, the quail, and the robins, they are less and less able to produce young and to preserve the continuity of their race.”

According to DeWitt’s work, which Carson cited as her source, the birds that were fed exceedingly high levels of DDT every day hatched nearly as many of their eggs (in quail) to 27 percent more of their eggs (in pheasants). The great increases in the numbers of robins were documented in the comments above, in reference to page 118. Carson’s claim, therefore, that those three kinds of birds are less and less able to produce young is remarkably false—and insulting to the reader.

Page 125. Carson writes: “‘Pheasant sickness’ became a well-known phenomenon: birds ‘seek water, become paralyzed and are found on the ditch banks and rice checks quivering,’ according to one observer” [emphasis added]. “One observer” is not very credible as a source of scientific information. Is this the best source a science writer like Rachel Carson could supply?

Carson cited Robert L. Rudd and Richard E. Genelly, in an article in The Condor magazine, as the source for the information that follows: “The ‘sickness’ comes in the spring, at the time the rice fields are seeded.” This statement is misleading. The sickness may have come in the spring, but it was not in the rice fields. Instead, it was in outdoor pens where the birds were held captive, and all of their food contained rice “treated at the rate of one and one-half pounds of DDT per 100 pounds.” Rudd and Genelly state in The Condor (March 1955): “This value is equivalent to 15,000 parts per million DDT in the diet.”

This amount represents the highest dosage of DDT I have ever heard of in any experimental animal, and I cannot understand why they would use such an extreme concentration. This means that 15 percent of every bite of food was “poison.”

And what were the results of this remarkable feeding experiment? As reported in Condor, page 418, four of the birds died “after four or five days” with severe tremors. One died on the tenth day, but never showed any symptoms prior to death. The remaining seven pheasants survived and five of them showed no symptoms. One of the survivors had “slight tremors” and the other had “slight incoordination.” This is a remarkable lack of poisoning, considering the astronomical amount of DDT in their food! I could only surmise that the survivors must have eaten very little of the poisoned food. (Rudd did not measure the amounts ingested, but simply placed the food in the pen.)

Carson writes that “the concentration of DDT used [in the fields] is many times the amount that will kill an adult pheasant.” In his article, Rudd concluded that it was “clear that DDT-treated grain is or can be lethal to grain-eating birds,” but he also stated, “This mortality may be entirely eliminated by applying chemical and seed separately” (emphasis added). It appears that Carson’s misleading report of Rudd’s conclusion was designed to deceive the reader regarding DDT hazards in the environment.

The text continues in this vein for another 172 pages, with chapter heads such as “Rivers of Death,” ”The Human Price,” “The Rumblings of an Avalanche,” and “Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias.” I trust that this partial analysis of Carson’s deceptions, false statements, horrible innuendoes, and ridiculous allegations in the first 125 pages of Silent Spring will indicate why so many scientists expressed opposition, antagonism, and perhaps even a little rage after reading Carson’s diatribe. No matter how deceitful her prose, however, the influence of Carson’s Silent Spring has been very great and it continues 30 years later to shape environmentalist propaganda and fund-raising as well as U.S. policy.

J. Gordon Edwards was a professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California, and taught biology and entomology there for 43 years. He was a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences. After eating a spoonful of DDT in front of his classes numerous times to prove that it was harmless, he eventually died at the ripe old age of 85 of a heart attack in 2004.

Read Full Post »


Unfortunately I can’t spend anymore time on this post…if you want to be able to follow the footnotes (other than manually), you’ll have to go over to CB.

The links just aren’t working here, even though I’ve tried to tweak them.

I like to investigate what moonbats are saying so that I can translate it to rational thinking. A commenter claimed that the Heartland Institute is a ‘frontgroup for Exxon’, and accused me of being ‘too stupid and lazy’ to do basic research. This would seem to me to be someone with an IQ of about 75; didn’t provide any links or facts to back up this wild assertion, and engaged in a pathetic ad hominem attack which is against my rules of engagement and against the rules set forth in front of 8th grade debate teams. This is the default position for a leftist: when you can’t debate points (and most of the time they can’t), and instead prefer to engage in personal attacks to discredit a source. We don’t need to stereotype them; they stereotype themselves with completely redundant and recognizable behavior. One has to question the intelligence of someone who a) thinks that constitutes debate and b) thinks it makes points for his side and c) thinks that’s going to convince anyone as to the validity and veracity of his position.

As ridiculous as all of that sounds, I thought I’d investigate where those claims originate from.

Heartland proclaims the sources right in the FAQ section of its website: 1

Web sites such as ExxonSecrets.org, DeSmogBlog.org, Mediatransparency.org, and Sourcewatch.org claim The Heartland Institute is a “front group” for (take your pick) oil companies, drug companies, telephone companies, fast-food companies, and tobacco companies.

Ridiculous. Heartland is completely transparent: Among its 2,100 donors, 75% of its income comes from individuals and foundations, and 25% from corporations. No corporate donor gives more than 5% of its annual budget.

More information about its funding and policies concerning working with donors is posted on their Web site.

In addition, “more than 100 academics and professional economists serve as policy advisors to The Heartland Institute, including members of the faculties of Harvard University, The University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and scores of other respected universities.”

I guess those don’t count, though, as long as you have a professional PR outfit with a Conservative-leaning nonprofit in its sights.

Aside from the ridiculous claims about corporate donors which are obviously false, what are these websites that libs are taking their marching orders from and quoting from?

Sourcewatch 2 is an online collective like the Borg. It describes itself as an “Online “encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda”, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) 3 The CMD is an Anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization seeking to “expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda””. Which helps one understand what’s behind the attack squads on people who promote Milton Friedman’s ideas about economics.

Consider for instance the “Activism” category, wherein there is an article depicting expressions of concern about violent acts of ecoterrorism as nothing more than right-wing fear-mongering and selective outrage: “Since 1990, there have been numerous attempts by industry front groups, PR firms and conservative think-tanks … to associate environmental activism with terrorism. … While conservative groups routinely denounce both peaceful protests and vandalism as the equivalent of terrorism, they remain silent about violent attacks against environmentalists and animal rights activists.”

Of course, examples like Earth First!’s “spiking trees with concealed 11” nails that caused lumberjack chain saw chains to snap and cause severe injuries to the user” (Ponte, 2004); 4, and “Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which along with related eco-animal terrorist groups (according to a May 2004 FBI statement before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee) have “committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million.”–are completely ignored; including “the torching of a large apartment complex under construction in San Diego, California and many more violent terrorist acts.” 5 It’s a strange alternative universe; a green world where scientific research is sacrificed for the rights of mice. 6

From Discover the Networks: 7

There are in fact more than a dozen political databases parallel to DiscoverTheNetworks that have been created by the left to map the political right, which have existed for years. Among these the most active are: MediaTransparency, Namebase, SourceWatch (formerly called Disinfopedia) and MediaMatters, a site created by Democratic Party funders and operatives led by George Soros and John Podesta.

Desmogblog is actually run and owned by Jim Hoggan, the owner of the Canadian PR firm, Hoggan & Associates. It appears to be the Canadian equivalent of Cindy Sheehan’s leftist-agenda-promoting Fenton Communications, 8 out of Vancouver. Again, a PR firm talking about science? How would they know the first thing about it except to promote propaganda?

Kevin Grandia, a writer at Desmogblog, has worked in communications, “having served as an advisor in the areas of health care, Canadian heritage and Asia-Pacific trade,” according to his bio there, 9 and has a degree in psychology. I’ve seen his bio on digg, he’s edited wikipedia and writes about “Friends of Science” being connected with big oil companies. He’s done other things promoting the big government IPCC view of Climate Change, although it should be noted that he has no scientific background; he’s more of an expert in spreading big government propaganda, IMO. He is a Canadian.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 In footnotes you’ll see desmogblog’s disinformation campaign against Heartland and “Friends of Science.” 18 19 20 21 22

I haven’t investigated the rest of the writers at that blog, what I’ve uncovered just on the surface is enough to paint a picture for me. This is the equivalent of Christopher Hitchens, the former Trotskyite, talking science when his background is economics and philosophy, or Chomsky talking political policy when his specialty is linguistics. 23

It is also noteworthy that Friends of Science opposes the Kyoto protocol, which of course, goes against the liberal agenda of promoting big government through global warming hysteria rather than looking at the science (or lack thereof) behind it:

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.

Unlike the left hand side that’s smearing them, who are a collection of what appear to be paid PR activists promoting the liberal agenda.

We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

In other words, Friends of Science are represented by a much more distinguished collection of experts than those at desmogblog, for instance.

On to another one of Heartland’s hit squad:

ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace “research project” highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups – and the scientists they work with – to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

Greenpeace 24 leads environmentalist opposition to technological progress. It is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice antiwar coalition, the Win Without War antiwar coalition, and the Abolition 2000 antiwar coalition, which explains why it attempted to blockade ships delivering supplies to coalition forces in Iraq. What the environment has to do with the war is anyone’s guess, but…

Taking issue with Greenpeace’s anti-biotech stance, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become “dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity.”

“Environmental purity”, however, is something we will never achieve, even if we follow the environmentalists’ advice on curtailing technological advancement to save the trees. A bug=dog=boy and if they were asked which one is worth saving, they’d seriously have to think about it.

According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, “the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.”

This sure explains a lot. Patrick Moore also complained that Greenpeace has gone off the charts in its activism, suggesting that Chlorine should be removed from the periodic tables of elements.

What a laugh.


X Posted at Grizzly Groundswell and The Wide Awakes

And Cao’s blog

  1. Is Heartland a “Frontgroup?” Heartland Institute FAQ page, Heartland.org [back]
  2. Sourcewatch, Discoverthenetworks [back]
  3. Center for Media and Democracy, Discoverthenetworks [back]
  4. Lowell Ponte, (August 27, 2004) Ruckus at the Republican convention, Frontpage Magazine [back]
  5. Lowell Ponte, (August 27, 2004) Ruckus at the Republican convention, Frontpage Magazine [back]
  6. Michael Berliner, (April 22, 2004) Earth Day’s Anti-Human Agenda, Frontpage Magazine [back]
  7. About this site, Discoverthenetworks [back]
  8. Fenton Communications, Discoverthenetworks [back]
  9. Kevin Grandia’s DeSmogBlog bio [back]
  10. Kevin Grandia, “NEWS ALERT: Conservative/Alberta PC Operative Backs ‘Friends of Science’,” DeSmogBlog, June 8, 2006. [back]
  11. Kevin Grandia, “Dr. Doug Leahy: Do any of the Friends of Science not lead back to oil and gas?” DeSmogBlog, June 9, 2006. [back]
  12. Richard Littlemore, “Friends of Science a Political, NOT Scientific Clique,” DeSmogBlog, June 15, 2006. [back]
  13. Kevin Grandia, “Friends of Science; Friends of Tobacco,” DeSmogBlog, June 20, 2006. [back]
  14. Richard Littlemore, “Good enough for Friends of Science, not good enough for Philip Morris,” DeSmogBlog, June 20, 2006. [back]
  15. Kevin Grandia, “Another questionable friend of the Friends of Science,” DeSmogBlog, June 22, 2006. [back]
  16. Sarah Pullman, “Compiled Info on the Friends of Science,” DeSmogBlog, July 19, 2006. [back]
  17. Kevin Grandia, “PM Harper’s fishing buddy behind Kyoto attack group,” DeSmogBlog, July 21, 2006. [back]
  18. Kevin Grandia, Utah’s “Sutherland Institute” joins the Heartland misinformation campaign, August 22, 2007 desmogblog [back]
  19. Kevin Grandia, Blogging without accountability in the heartland, April 19, 2007 desmogblog [back]
  20. Richard Littlemore, DeSmogBlog Truly Sorry About Heartland Institute “Inaccuracy”, April 18, 2007, desmogblog [back]
  21. Richard Littlemore, Sun-Times Editor Shills for Heartland Institute, November 21, 2007, desmogblog [back]
  22. Kevin Grandia, Oil funded Heartland pleads innocence, July 10, 2006, desmogblog [back]
  23. John Williamson (January 3, 2005) Chomsky’s Linguistics Refuted, Frontpage Magazine [back]
  24. Greenpeace, Discoverthenetworks [back]

Read Full Post »

Voice of dissent excluded from participation in Bali.

(CHICAGO, Illinois – December 5, 2007) — The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

They’ve been doing this all along. This is about shutting out opinions that don’t agree with the direction they’re headed in like a runaway train.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim “the science is settled.”

And it is not settled by a longshot. As long as you squeeze predetermined results into your models, it’s not called “science” and people should be free to point that out.

Silencing freedom of speech and ‘dissent’ when it’s leftists who say ‘dissent is patriotic’, lol…I guess that only applies if you’re a marxist anti-war activist.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute:

“It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed ‘the debate is over’ to serve their wealth redistribution agenda.”

Taylor continued, “For example, ICSC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray recently published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves the main claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are scientifically unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC methodology and published Spinning the Climate.

Dr. Gray also calls for the IPCC’s abolition. It is not a scientific body of scholars, it is a political activist body furthering a political agenda that has taken a departure from science. Which is true of a lot of leftist agendas, might I add.

“Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking,” Taylor noted. “He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist theory. And there are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason and science. All are being censored.”

Where is the outrage?

“The ICSC scientists don’t agree with the pre-determined ‘Bali Mandate,’ so instead of discussion and debate, we get censorship. Until the UN rejects the politicization of climate change, their reports, protocols, and mandates aren’t worth reading–much less ratifying.”

It is alarming that 600 scientists are being censored in Bali for not being ‘politically correct’ and agreeing with Al Gorical type alarmism on the subject.

Isn’t it a shame that it’s come to this. The UN has fulfilled what I was predicting over 20 years ago: it is not only stealing from people on false pretenses (as in the Oil for Food program example), it is lying to them to further its agenda, as well.

Read Full Post »

The arguments they come up with are amazing. Seriously.

clipped from www.moonbattery.com

Does Divorce Cause Global Warming?

Here’s news that will horrify Tinseltown glitterpigs, known for their 6-month marriages and righteous belief in global warming: Divorce is bad for the environment.

The Sunday Times reports:

Scientists have quantified for the first time the extent to which divorce damages the environment.

  blog it

X Posted at CB

Read Full Post »