GOP: the party of stupid

[Weegle777 78]

And while America is drawn away to focus on global warming and how much money needs to be flushed down the toilet trying to fix the unfixable, the other world powers are laughing and passing us. America has become a cause fighting country, instead of a country that is striving to be an economic leader.

[Weegle777 78]

Meanwhile, China and Russia are exploiting their oil and natural gas reserves, and making billion dollar deals, while our government is shutting down areas where we could be extracting reserves of oil and natural gas, and making these same billion dollar deals, becoming economically secure and energy self-sufficient, because we don't want to disturb the habitat of a field mouse.

[japantiger 4,104]

Actually, I think you're both right and wrong on different counts.... Let's take DDT as probably the best example. Here's a synopsis.

• DDT was banned in the US and as a result internationally based on in large part on the hysteria caused by the book Silent Spring; the 1960's version of "an Inconvenient Truth". Resulting research concluded that DDT caused egg shell thinning in birds and fish and that it was a human carcinogen...and deemed it responsible to the decline in eagle populations
  
• In 1971, authority over pesticides was transferred to the newly formed EPA. After 7 months of testimony, the presiding judge ruled that DDT was not a carcinogen and that "the regulations being used for DDT did not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, and other wildlife"
  
• In spite of this, new EPA head William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a hearing,declared DDT a potential human carcinogen and banned it for all uses. ... for those too young to remember, this was SOP at the time...everything caused cancer and had to be banned; see cyclamates and saccharin (banned at one point and later unbanned when actually studied empirically.)
  
• Study results in the interim 40 years have conflicted on the impact on bird eggs...it is clear that it does not impact all bird species. It looks equally clear it probably does impact some raptor eggs...I think the issue on the raptor eggs is that they still can't explain why it impacts them. in other words, the studies show correlation; but do not show causation; or the mechanism by which they think DDT has the impact that is does...this leads many to discredit the work. Also, there are studies that show the thinning raptor eggshells preceded the introduction of DDT by 50 years.
  
• The real kicker in all this is that in most parts of the world, DDT was the only effective insecticide to control malaria mosquitoes and resulting malaria deaths. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that in 2 decades, DDT had prevented 500m deaths world wide...the WHO stated that DDT killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.
  
• I think this is the most powerful piece of info related to the effect of DDT and malaria deaths from the National Academy of Sciences;" The population of India in 1947 was 344 million, of which a mind-bending 21.8 percent was infected with malaria. Deaths reported that year topped 800,000. In 1965, after DDT programs became widespread, outbreaks had dropped 99 percent and no deaths occurred. Today India has the world’s only high-capacity DDT production facility (the US capability is gone as a result of regulation) and continues to enjoy extremely low rates of insect-borne disease. (Interestingly, despite environmentalist claims that DDT is a human carcinogen, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer reports total rates of cancer in India are less than half those in the United States).
  
• Do the math on India with a population now at 1.2B. In 2006 the WHO reversed a longstanding policy against DDT by recommending that it be used as an indoor pesticide in regions where malaria is a major problem. It is used in ~ 2 dozen countries today... mostly in Asia and Africa and is now being reintroduced in more..
  

Environmentalist thought the departmental scientists that studied DDT and concluded it didn't have an impact favored Industry too much in their analysis... basically citing chrony capitalism at play. Also, the predicted widespread and dire consequences on humans, birds, the environment in general. The response from the other side has been was that "well meaning" government bureaucrats in the US reacted without all the facts; and largely based on anecdote banned DDT 1) ignoring the recommendations of the departmental scientists charged with making the recommendations 2) no consideration of the massive impacts on human life in the rest of the world and 3) did this with no viable alternatives in place to save lives elsewhere.. Facts are there is no viable alternatives still in place 40 years later...and the WHO finally answered this in 2006.

So, do I want someone spraying my house in the US with DDT? Nah, not if there is a good alternative. Did I want them doing it when I lived in Singapore...hell yes. And they did to control for malaria and dengue fever. If West Nile became prevalent in the US would I want them to use DDT; hell yes. I would still like to know the mechanism in DDT that causes thinning in raptor eggs.. at that point, debate goes away; until then I don't think it will because correlation is not causation. And, I would like well meaning US bureaucrats and "scientists" to act more on facts; rather than alarmist propaganda like Silent Spring and Inconvenient Truth. Enjoy...

Some reading:

http://reason.com/ar...ggshells-and-me

http://dwb.unl.edu/T...micals/ddt.html

the WHO 2011 report: http://whqlibdoc.who...11_eng.pdf?ua=1

http://www.forbes.co...ly-fantasies/2/

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, don't impose your religion on free people.

[homersapien 12,172]

Homer, don't impose your religion on free people.

My views have nothing to do with religion. If you refuse to believe in science, that's your (and the GOP's) problem. But I suppose you are right in that it is totally futile to attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.

Check back with me in a few years.

[homersapien 12,172]

Actually, I think you're both right and wrong on different counts.... Let's take DDT as probably the best example. Here's a synopsis....

The GOP should jump on this. I would make a great corollary to their AGW hoax campaign: "Bring Back DDT!"

[japantiger 4,104]

Actually, I think you're both right and wrong on different counts.... Let's take DDT as probably the best example. Here's a synopsis....

The GOP should jump on this. I would make a great corollary to their AGW hoax campaign: "Bring Back DDT!"

So Homey, you think we should let those African and Asian kids die from Malaria?

[homersapien 12,172]

Actually, I think you're both right and wrong on different counts.... Let's take DDT as probably the best example. Here's a synopsis....

The GOP should jump on this. I would make a great corollary to their AGW hoax campaign: "Bring Back DDT!"

So Homey, you think we should let those African and Asian kids die from Malaria?

You can add that to the bumper sticker!

Bring back DDT!

Do you think we should let those African and Asian kids die from Malaria?

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, don't impose your religion on free people.

My views have nothing to do with religion. If you refuse to believe in science, that's your (and the GOP's) problem. But I suppose you are right in that it is totally futile to attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.

Check back with me in a few years.

Your so called science is being discredited on a regular basis beginning with Michael Mann's study using tree rings in the northern hemisphere through the debunking of the 97% consensus meme. You have become the voice of anti-science and the willfully ignorant.

[gravejd 3,304]

Wow!! First time visiting this section of the forum. I thought the whole humans don't cause global warming mind set was pretty rare. This is pretty interesting....

So do you guys not believe that green house gases like CO₂ trap heat in the atmosphere causing the temp to rise? This is an honest question btw. I've never really had a conversation with someone that doesn't believe humans have affected global warming. Just for full disclosure my view on the matter is that there is no debating that humans have affected the climate, but by how much only time will tell. IMO its a scientific fact that green house gases trap heat in the atmosphere causing the temp to rise. It also a well known fact that since the industrial revolution humans have been pumping billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere. Now I agree the climate transitions from hot to cold periods and that just how much the warming is due to humans activities is very much debatable. But to say humans have had no effect at all is an interesting position that I would like to understand better.

I'm pretty amazed by the disregard for the environment that is being expressed in this thread and the belief that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know that at one point the Hudson river was so polluted that it actually caught on fire. Thats right a body of WATER actually caught on FIRE because it was so polluted! Is that what we want to go back to in the name of the almighty dollar?? I'm a big proponent of small government in all but 2 areas. Protection and business regulation. You have to have the government there to regulate businesses because businesses are in the business of making money and nothing else. If they can save .00001 cent they will do it and the consequences be damned! It's like the ignition stuff with GM (i think thats the right car company). They were able to save a few pennies per car by not changes in the ignition switch when they knew that the current igintion switch could cause problems and those problems would likely cause deaths. Thats right, they perferred to save pennies instead of lives! That is the mind set of business and that is why we need the government to control these businesses.

Sure China's economy is exploding right now due to unregulated business but at what cost to the every day person? Their government have down played pollution concerns for years but it has gotten so bad that the government can no longer ignore it. It is unheard of for a Communist government to give in to the people but that is what they are being forced to do because of how bad it has gotten. On some days people in china's major cities are asked to stay inside because the air quality is so bad. Do we really want the same here in America just so some corporate CEO can make another million and buy another jet?? I know I don't.....

America has already been through our industrial revolution and china is just now going through theirs. Soon they will learn the lessons that we as Americans did that you cannot let business go uncontrolled. The next revolution will be the green revolution and personally I hope America is at the fore front of that and not looking to go backwards. Business can be done in a matter where the world and the inhabitants of the world do not have to suffer for it. But it takes time and effort to figure out how that can be done. I hope we as Americans continue to find BETTER ways to do business and not the EASY/CHEAP way to do it.

[AFTiger 282]

You have crammed many disparate items into one post. CO2 is a gas necessary for life. Pollution is different. The United States and western nations have gone to great lengths to clean up pollution at great expense (which only wealthy nations can afford to do). Very few object to cleaning the environment but climate change is normal and has occurred for 4 billion years.

I am surprised that you have just now encountered a counter view toward climate change and you have not sought out scientific views that support contrary views. I hope you are more open minded than homersapien and are willing to at least consider a different view.

The current hysteria on climate change is more about control of populations than it is about climate.

[AUisAll 2]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Weegle777 78]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

If they go against the agenda, they are no longer scientists, they are deniers.

[Tigermike 3,657]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

Don't present him with facts his head will explode.

[AUDub 11,784]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

It's a survey of professional geologists and geological engineers in Alberta. The center of the Canadian oil industry. Not researchers. Not surprisingly, they take a pretty dim view of climate change.

[gravejd 3,304]

You have crammed many disparate items into one post. CO2 is a gas necessary for life. Pollution is different. The United States and western nations have gone to great lengths to clean up pollution at great expense (which only wealthy nations can afford to do). Very few object to cleaning the environment but climate change is normal and has occurred for 4 billion years.

I am surprised that you have just now encountered a counter view toward climate change and you have not sought out scientific views that support contrary views. I hope you are more open minded than homersapien and are willing to at least consider a different view.

The current hysteria on climate change is more about control of populations than it is about climate.

What was desparate about what I brought up?

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for people to not believe human activity effects the environment. I knew that line of reasoning existed but had not come across anyone who shared it. Hence why I reached out to those in this thread to explain their position if anyone cared too.

CO₂ is pollution or at least a bi-product of pollution. It is also a natural occuring gas that plants produce. For the science lesson of the day oil is made of decayed plant matter. Decaying plant matter puts off CO₂ gas. Hence why running your car puts of CO₂ when it burns through gasoline. Regardless, that was just an example of a green house gas that I used because I thought everyone would instantly recognize it. I agree that the world goes through periods of warming and cooling and said so in my post. The concern is that humans are augmenting this normal cycle with our polluting ways. It seemed folks in this thread don't subscribe to that theory and I was curious why?

So whats this about climate change and controlling populations? Is this from a book you read or a website you visit? I don't mind researching myself but would be curious to know what the source is so I'm researching what brought you to that conclusion. Heck I may even agree with you when all is said and done!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

It's a survey of professional geologists and geological engineers in Alberta. The center of the Canadian oil industry. Not researchers. Not surprisingly, they take a pretty dim view of climate change.

That dont madder. They is scientist aint they?

[AUDub 11,784]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

It's a survey of professional geologists and geological engineers in Alberta. The center of the Canadian oil industry. Not researchers. Not surprisingly, they take a pretty dim view of climate change.

That dont madder. They is scientist aint they?

LOL!

Would you go see an endocrinologist if you had a broken leg?

[homersapien 12,172]

Homer, don't impose your religion on free people.

My views have nothing to do with religion. If you refuse to believe in science, that's your (and the GOP's) problem. But I suppose you are right in that it is totally futile to attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.

Check back with me in a few years.

Your so called science is being discredited on a regular basis beginning with Michael Mann's study using tree rings in the northern hemisphere through the debunking of the 97% consensus meme. You have become the voice of anti-science and the willfully ignorant.

Who speaks for science?

[homersapien 12,172]

You have crammed many disparate items into one post. CO2 is a gas necessary for life. Pollution is different. The United States and western nations have gone to great lengths to clean up pollution at great expense (which only wealthy nations can afford to do). Very few object to cleaning the environment but climate change is normal and has occurred for 4 billion years.

I am surprised that you have just now encountered a counter view toward climate change and you have not sought out scientific views that support contrary views. I hope you are more open minded than homersapien and are willing to at least consider a different view.

The current hysteria on climate change is more about control of populations than it is about climate.

LOL!!! That's rich coming from someone who supports legislation to prevent the DOD from considering the risk of global warming. If that's not close-minded, what is?

And please don't mischaracterize my position without asking for clarification first. I am perfectly open to the possibility that AGW can be falsified. After all, belief in a non-falsifiable thesis wouldn't be scientific. And my defense of AGW theory is nothing if not scientific.

In other words, because we disagree on the existing science doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain a compelling argument that AGW is false.

I'll also point out your dismissal of AGW theory on political grounds rather than scientific grounds suggests you are the one who is close-minded to the facts. You'd rather argue the politics, which are non-scientific by definition.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

It's a survey of professional geologists and geological engineers in Alberta. The center of the Canadian oil industry. Not researchers. Not surprisingly, they take a pretty dim view of climate change.

That dont madder. They is scientist aint they?

LOL!

Would you go see an endocrinologist if you had a broken leg?

You done got schooled about globul warmin so you wanna talk about oblammacare?

[AFTiger 282]

You have crammed many disparate items into one post. CO2 is a gas necessary for life. Pollution is different. The United States and western nations have gone to great lengths to clean up pollution at great expense (which only wealthy nations can afford to do). Very few object to cleaning the environment but climate change is normal and has occurred for 4 billion years.

I am surprised that you have just now encountered a counter view toward climate change and you have not sought out scientific views that support contrary views. I hope you are more open minded than homersapien and are willing to at least consider a different view.

The current hysteria on climate change is more about control of populations than it is about climate.

What was desparate about what I brought up?

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for people to not believe human activity effects the environment. I knew that line of reasoning existed but had not come across anyone who shared it. Hence why I reached out to those in this thread to explain their position if anyone cared too.

CO₂ is pollution or at least a bi-product of pollution. It is also a natural occuring gas that plants produce. For the science lesson of the day oil is made of decayed plant matter. Decaying plant matter puts off CO₂ gas. Hence why running your car puts of CO₂ when it burns through gasoline. Regardless, that was just an example of a green house gas that I used because I thought everyone would instantly recognize it. I agree that the world goes through periods of warming and cooling and said so in my post. The concern is that humans are augmenting this normal cycle with our polluting ways. It seemed folks in this thread don't subscribe to that theory and I was curious why?

So whats this about climate change and controlling populations? Is this from a book you read or a website you visit? I don't mind researching myself but would be curious to know what the source is so I'm researching what brought you to that conclusion. Heck I may even agree with you when all is said and done!

dis·pa·rate

ˈdispərit,diˈsparit

adjective

1.essentially different in kind; not allowing comparison.

"they inhabit disparate worlds of thought"

synonyms: contrasting, different, differing, dissimilar, unalike, poles apart; More

antonyms: homogeneous

containing elements very different from one another.

"a culturally disparate country"

nounarchaic

plural noun: disparates; noun: disparate

1. things so unlike that there is no basis for comparison.

[AUDub 11,784]

You done got schooled about globul warmin so you wanna talk about oblammacare?

[homersapien 12,172]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

If they go against the agenda, they are no longer scientists, they are deniers.

Don't present him with facts his head will explode.

First,Forbes is a right-wing political rag, not a scientific journal.

To that point, I bet none of you bothered to read the publication this Forbes "disinformation" piece referenced. Right?

Read the subject publication then come back and let me know if you really want to argue the findings.

[Weegle777 78]

I was just aggravating you Homer.