Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush is "wrong all the time"? Now there is a profound statement for our edification.

Always happy to edify you, Fox Smile

Foxfyre wrote:

It's sort of precisely what so many of you have been arguing for months and months on this thread.

Not me, though. I see nothing inherently wrong with guzzling oil, and never have.

0 Replies

What scientific consensus resulting in bad policy Fox?

For the scientific consensus on DDT try here
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:6.2

The only thing we are seeing Fox is an attempt to make a controversy in science where there is none. DDT causes shell thinning in some birds. That is a proven fact that is not disputed with any science. It doesn't cause it in all types of birds, mostly birds of prey. Any claim that there is a controversy in science completely ignores the science that was done.

0 Replies

Undisputable? Not according to other sources I've read. In the world of science, certainty should be a very big word, and there should be no possible margin of error whatsoever before something is 'undisputable'.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Any claim that there is a controversy in science completely ignores the science that was done.

The claim relevant to widespread outlawing DDT is that it causes more trouble than it helps. On that claim, there seems to be indeed some controversy between some scientists and some economists.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Undisputable? Not according to other sources I've read. In the world of science, certainty should be a very big word, and there should be no possible margin of error whatsoever before something is 'undisputable'.

Can you provide these scientific sources? Or are you going to play the unless it is absolute it can't be true argument?

There is a margin of error whether you might be human. Does that mean we can say there is a controversy involving your humanity?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Undisputable? Not according to other sources I've read. In the world of science, certainty should be a very big word, and there should be no possible margin of error whatsoever before something is 'undisputable'.

Can you provide these scientific sources? Or are you going to play the unless it is absolute it can't be true argument?

There is a margin of error whether you might be human. Does that mean we can say there is a controversy involving your humanity?

Can you "PROVE" that the issue is undisputable? Are you willing to bet that no credible scientist was not 100% convinced that DDT was the culprit re egg thinning etc.? And for what purpose would you make such an assertion when I have already agreed that there was MORE consensus on that issue than there has been on AGW?

I have no opinion on AGW other than I want the conclusions to be right before I significantly alter what I believe to be an entirely moral lifestyle and/or we incur unnecessary expense and economic repercussions based on what may be flawed theories.

I think the illustration of the ill advised results of DDT policy are pertinent to that. I do not wish to debate the merits for or against DDT on this thread. I only wished to compare the affect of policies re DDT and possible effects of policies re AGW.

I am of the 'open mind' school. I recommend that to everybody.

0 Replies

So provide your evidence then Fox.. Give me the science that says DDT is perfectly safe to use in the environment.

When you weigh the science for DDT and the science for GW you really can only come to one conclusion in both cases. Any other conclusion is hardly an open mind but rather is a closed one that refuses to look at the evidence in total.

Global Warming exists.
DDT is harmful to the environment.

Your comparison using DDT is a pretty good one but not for the reason you think. The people, like Sowell, making it are ignoring the science for DDT just as they are ignoring the science for GW. They make the same logical mistake in both cases. Because DDT is going to be used in a limited fashion indoors doesn't make it suddenly safe for the environment. Because Global Warming is partially caused by natural events doesn't eliminate all human causes nor does it mean humans aren't the primary cause.

One could as easily argue that the world could be flat because there might be someone that is not 100% convinced that it isn't. (I can't prove that it is an indisputable fact that all scientists think the world is round.) It is a false argument whether you are arguing about DDT, the world being flat, or Global warming.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
Any claim that there is a controversy in science completely ignores the science that was done.

The claim relevant to widespread outlawing DDT is that it causes more trouble than it helps. On that claim, there seems to be indeed some controversy between some scientists and some economists.

The same concern continues today. Yes, used in limited fashion indoors it can have some benefit without the environmental detriment. The concern is if you make it available it will be abused and used outdoors on fields again. There could well be a middle ground.

The problem is that people like Sowell and Gunga and others promote the proposed limited use as proof that the science was wrong. They do precisely what they and others try to do in the GW debate. Find a few small mistakes in the science and point to that molehill while ignoring the mountain next to it.

0 Replies

For goodness sake get off the DDT, thats something you are becoming addicted to.

Its got nothing to do with climate change.

And if the scientific concensus was wrong about it thats the exception that proves the rule.

Are you going to chuck the IPCC report out the window because it could be wrong because a report on DDT was wrong 30 years ago?

If so its a darn funny way to proceed.

Bush wants America to reduce its dependency on middle eastern oil for entirely different and more immediate reasons than climate change.

Can you guess what they are?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

For goodness sake get off the DDT, thats something you are becoming addicted to.

Its got nothing to do with climate change.

And if the scientific concensus was wrong about it thats the exception that proves the rule.

Are you going to chuck the IPCC report out the window because it could be wrong because a report on DDT was wrong 30 years ago?

If so its a darn funny way to proceed.

Bush wants America to reduce its dependency on middle eastern oil for entirely different and more immediate reasons than climate change.

Can you guess what they are?

As to what 'they are', I think I pretty clearly expressed what 'they are' in a previous post that you apparently didn't read.

And no, it isn't 'a funny way to proceed' when the DDT issue clearly illustrates that policy resulting from 'scientific consensus' can be pretty disastrous. That's all I think most of us in the anti-Kyoto camp have been saying: Let's get it right and consider all the possible consequences and THEN make policy.

And don't worry, I'm not taking Parados's bait as he obviously hasn't followed what this discussion is about.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

the DDT issue clearly illustrates that policy resulting from 'scientific consensus' can be pretty disastrous.

Can be...might be...possible that it is...but what alternative do we have to guide us

Gambling? Ouija boarding? Keeping fingers crossed? (or dont give a damn because we are not around in 75 years?)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

DDT causes shell thinning in some birds. That is a proven fact that is not disputed with any science.

According to who and what evidence?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
the DDT issue clearly illustrates that policy resulting from 'scientific consensus' can be pretty disastrous.

Can be...might be...possible that it is...but what alternative do we have to guide us

Gambling? Ouija boarding? Keeping fingers crossed? (or dont give a damn because we are not around in 75 years?)

How about listening to the minority voices that offer alternate possibilities? They were out there when the DDT policy was implemented, but they were ignored in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Had the policy makers been willing to look and consider just one or two alternative plans that were proposed, many millions of people might not have died from malaria.

No ouiji board. Rejection of the herd instinct and keeping an open mind is often the best way to achieve best solutions to just about anything.

0 Replies

Amen Fox. The alternative is to quit using "pop science," which includes politically driven science. Use real honest science instead. No need for gambling and Ouija boards, although they might be as good as pop science by the way, and probably better for reasons that could be explained.

0 Replies

DDT in breastmilk makes strong babies and prevends cancer.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The problem is that people like Sowell and Gunga and others promote the proposed limited use as proof that the science was wrong. They do precisely what they and others try to do in the GW debate. Find a few small mistakes in the science and point to that molehill while ignoring the mountain next to it.

Can you quantify the molehill and the mountain? How many extra people died of DDT before its ban in the early 70s? And how many extra people died of Malaria because of the ban since the early 70s? Admittedly, I haven't researched this particular issue a lot, so I can't point you to data of my own. But I do have a vague recollection that your talk of "molehill" and "mountain" misrepresents the proportion of the death tolls.

0 Replies

I don't think the WHO would suggest using DDT if the they thought the results would not be better then not using DDT. No other pesticide has had the positive results against mesquito populations that DDT has had and Malaria is killing far more people then the use of DDT ever would.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

DDT in breastmilk makes strong babies and prevends cancer.

Walter, the world is full of tradeoffs. We just need to use a degree of sound judgement to correctly evaluate the best course of action along with the inherent risks. For example, car accidents apparently kill about 1.2 million people each year worldwide. Should we outlaw cars?

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

0 Replies

Haven't seen you in a while, Okie

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know