Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Environmentalism Will Harm Us All (And It Has)

The following commentary about the "environmental" movement is very well done and said. It is particularly relevant today with the alarmism about global warming and climate change that has been going on for nearly two decades now. With the Obama Administration's efforts to pass "cap and trade" (tax) legislation on energy usage and the EPA running wild and declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, our entire economy is in serious trouble.
Peter

Genocide in Green (source)


The new leadership of the EPA proposed yesterday that the White House declare carbon dioxide a health danger. Carbon dioxide, which plants absorb and animals exhale, would be ruled a pollutant.

It is a lie and fraud. You can't live without carbon dioxide and you can't live without water. Never mind that almost all greenhouse gas is water vapor.

But since the Statists can't measure water vapor and condensation, they attempt to wrestle control of carbon dioxide instead, by claiming it's toxic. But the point is, they want to control you.

William Kovacs, vice president of environmental technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says such an effort would be "devastating to the economy... once the finding is made, no matter how limited, some environmental groups will sue to make sure it is applied to all aspects of the Clean Air Act."

The economy is on life support, so what does the Enviro-Statist do? He grabs more power. Because they don't care about the economy, they care about power! They're not about preserving or improving our society, they're bent on destroying it.

What does the hard left, environmentalist believe? I want you to know that they are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of children all over Africa and Southeast Asia. Because they successfully banned DDT.

DDT saved hundreds of millions of lives. DDT was used in the United States to destroy malaria.

National Park Service ecologist David Graber, writing in The Los Angeles Times in 1989, well articulated the perversity of the extreme environmental movement.

He wrote, "we contaminated the planet with atmospheric hydrocarbons and metals beginning in the Industrial Revolution."

"The atomic age wrote another indelible signature in radio-isotopes on every bit of the Earth's surface... DDT and its kin appear even in Antarctic ice. I, for one, cannot wish upon my children or the rest of Earth... a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or, however unlikely, benign."

"I am not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river ecosystem to mankind..."

"...They have intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them."

"Human happiness and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet," wrote Graber. "I know social scientists remind me that people are part of human nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere about a billion years ago... we quit the contract and became a cancer."

"We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth..."

"...Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along
."

The extreme environmentalist prays for the death of all of humanity.

A few years ago, Tina Rosenberg of The New York Times wrote, "Today, westerners with no memory of malaria often assume it has always been only a tropical disease. But malaria was once found as far north as Boston and Montreal. Oliver Cromwell died of malaria, and Shakespeare alludes to it (as ''ague'') in eight plays..."

"...Malaria no longer afflicts the United States, Canada and Northern Europe in part because of changes in living habits -- the shift to cities, better sanitation, window screens. But another major reason was DDT, sprayed from airplanes over American cities and towns while children played outside."

In 1970, the National Academy of Sciences wrote in a report that ''to only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT'' and it credited the insecticide with preventing as many as 500,000,000 human deaths.

But all of that changed in 1962, when Rachel Carson -- a rabid opponent of pesticides -- succeeded in spreading widespread hysteria about DDT's effects on wildlife and especially children. In her book Silent Spring, Carson decried the use of DDT.

She claimed DDT resulted in birth defects and mental retardation... and, yet, not one case has ever been proven. Not one.

Thus, it is a sickening irony that Carson's focus on children helped kill the use of DDT, when malaria causes the deaths of millions of children in the developing world. You see, the developing world is the target of the Enviro-Statist. For it is there that the Statist can more easily shape policy and control lives.

And the mainstream media gobbled up Carson's lies. The Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club brought litigation to pressure the government to ban DDT.

An administrative law judge heard the case for months -- and ruled against the extremists. He said that DDT was not a carcinogenic hazard to man; that it was not a mutagenic hazard to man. He said the use of DDT does not have deleterious effects on freshwater fish, organisms, wild birds, or othe wildlife, let alone human beings.

But the judge's ruling was rejected by the EPA administrator in 1972, William Ruckleshaus. He attended no hearings and reportedly never read the relevant documents. Evidence was later discovered that Ruckleshaus had a fatal conflict-of-interest: he served as a fundraiser for the Environmental Defense Fund, the very group spearheading the anti-DDT campaign.

Finally, in 2006, after tens of millions of children had died, the World Health Organization changed its position on DDT.

The Enviro-Statists are responsible for the needless deaths of tens of millions of children from malaria, typhus and other diseases that could and were wiped out in other locations -- safely! -- by DDT.

In World War II, U.S. troops used to lather up with DDT. Years ago, Dr. J. Gordon Edwards wrote: "[In 1944,] I was ordered to dust every soldier in our company with [DDT]. For two weeks I dusted the insecticide on soldiers and civilians, breathing the fog of white dust for several hours each day. The body lice were killed, and the DDT persisted long enough to kill young lice when they emerged from the eggs... Fortunately, no human beings have ever been harmed by DDT."

The Sierra Club and the rest of the Enviro-Statists have never apologized for the tens of millions of needless deaths caused by their genocidal policies. Because, like Graber, the extremists seek the eradication of the human cancer.

Because that is the religion of environmentalism: and global warming is no different.

The Enviro-Statist seeks to destroy our economy and our way of life.

These are people that do not care about the misery they spread. They are doing this to control mankind and make humans poorer... because they believe you and I are cancers.

If there is global warming, humans have absolutely no control over it. The sun is a massive fireball, constantly changing its output of energy, warming and cooling the Earth as it waxes and wanes. And yet our bureaucracy marches on, no matter how cold the winters, no matter how clear the evidence.

But the EPA just issued a finding to the President that states that carbon dioxide -- which can't be any more of a pollutant than oxygen or water -- is toxic! And so the Enviro-Statist continues to grab our industry by the throat to crush the economy and impoverish mankind.

They were wrong about DDT... and they're just as wrong about global warming. Or whatever the hell it is they call it these days.

Call your representatives and tell them you oppose repression in green.


Based upon Mark Levin, 3/25/2009:

"The Enviro-Statist poses as a defender of clean air, clear water, penguins, seals, polar bears, glaciers, the poor, the Third World, and humanity itself... But he is already responsible for the death and impoverishment of tens of millions of human beings in the undeveloped world." -- Dr. Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny.

21 comments:

Ed Darrell said...

I hope people who write calling for policy change would consider it incumbent on themselves to do some research before publishing their claims. I'm working hard to find anything accurate about DDT in your piece, and I can't.

You wrote:

"What does the hard left, environmentalist believe? I want you to know that they are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of children all over Africa and Southeast Asia. Because they successfully banned DDT."

DDT use was stopped when mosquitoes became resistant to it. Bans on DDT use in agriculture did not occur until years later. DDT can't time travel, and mosquitoes don't migrate from Texas to Africa. There is no evidence that the ban on spraying DDT on cotton in Texas, spurred malaria in Africa.

DDT has never been banned in Africa, and even today, under the Persistent Organic Pesticides Treaty, there is a special carve out to keep DDT available.

The facts are that DDT is no panacea against malaria. We need better medical care. We need political resolve at the national and international level. We need new pharmaceuticals to treat the parasites, which have developed some resistance to most of our old standard pharmaceuticals.

DDT helps with none of those issues.

Peter said...

Ed Darnell,
You say:
"I hope people who write calling for policy change would consider it incumbent on themselves to do some research before publishing their claims. I'm working hard to find anything accurate about DDT in your piece, and I can't."

Tell this to Al Gore and all the other wild global warming, climate change alarmists and so-called environmentalists feeding off the government gravy train and their lap-dog mainstream media hacks.

Of cours "we" need better health care, and "we" need clean water, better nutrition, education, inexpensive energy, etc. But "we" meaning the people with underdeveloped countries will get none of these things if the generosity of the wealthier countries is killed by environmental extremism, which is happening.

This article about DDT is about the past history of the beneficial use of DDT, until it was banned. It is symptomatic and symbolic of what is happening around the world. We cut off our noses to spite our faces, and the poor suffer....as always.

Ed Darrell said...

So, you believe that if Al Gore were wrong, that gives you license to tell fairy tales about DDT?

Generally scientists, journalists and policy makers strive for accuracy. Let truth be our guide.

That would be good here, too, in both warming policy, and in policy on DDT.

Truth is DDT doesn't work so well as you claim, and it's a poison deadly to ecosystems. Odd that you'd think making up stories is the way to go, if you think made up stories got us into the mess in the first place.

Your "history" of DDT is wrong. If you get history wrong, Santayana warned, you run the high risk of repeating the bad stuff.

I don't think that you have license to tell tales about DDT and Rachel Carson even were Gore wrong. Truth is always a better stand than falsehood.

It's lives of African children at stake, though -- and the rest of the world. I don't think you should treat these issues so lightly.

Ed Darrell said...

I did forget to mention this one whopping falsehood you told -- though, judging by the depth of your research, I'll wager you did it in total ignorance.

The National Academy of Sciences did indeed say that DDT was one of the most valuable chemicals ever invented. They said that in a book that called for DDT to be banned because its harms outweigh its benefits.

You want people to tell the truth about science issues? Please lead the way.

Peter said...

Dear Ed Darnell,
Show me some real science. You're just full of hot air and opinion. Show the science that demonstrates that banning DDT was not a mistake.

Do you know anything from first hand experience or do you just repeat the party line? You're wasting my time.

Peter said...

Dearest Ed Darnell,
If you'll examine my blog a bit you'll see what I'm really against is the fraud behind the myth of man-caused global warming. I was on to this long before the ClimateGate scandal humiliated some of the world's leading climate "scientists", should put Al Gore in prison, and completely discredit the United Nations IPCC.

This makes Obama and his EPA labeling CO2 a "pollutant" look worse than fools, and nothing but power-hungry despots, aided by "useful idiots" like yourself.

I loathe the corruption and politization of science. Consider the following:

"Some scientists rationalize this corruption of their vocation by saying that people can lie for a good cause. The record shows otherwise. Fraudulent science and science journalism has led to AIDS going out of control; to DDT being banned and malaria gaining a new lease on life in Africa; to decades of famines in Russia; to children being badly mis-educated on such basics as reading and arithmetic; to end endless slew of unjustified health scares, like Mad Cow; and to a worldwide Leftist campaign cynically aiming to gain international power and enormous sums of money, based on a simple, unscientific fraud. When the truth-tellers in society begin to sell out and tell lies for some ideological goal, people end up dying."
Source

Ed Darrell said...

Show me some real science. You're just full of hot air and opinion. Show the science that demonstrates that banning DDT was not a mistake.

You could check out the NAS publication you and I cited earlier. The publication you cited calls for the phase out of DDT.

Ironic that you'd ask for science after providing none, don't you think?

Got any science that says our ban on agricultural use of DDT in 1972 caused an end to DDT use in Africa in 1965? Got any science that says our not spraying DDT in Texas causes malaria to spread in Asia?

I mean, get serious!

In the meantime, take a look at the report of the Alma Conference in 2008 -- probably the latest gathering of international health experts to focus specifically on DDT's benefits, and substantial harms. While fully cognizant of the potential benefits of DDT, the group also notes the increasing information linking DDT to human cancers, to human diabetes, reproductive and nerve defects.

On the other side? There is no study, anywhere, that demonstrates safety of DDT. None.

Stick with the science, and you'll come around to Rachel Carson's views. Discover Magazine did a literature search in 2007, and found more than 1,000 studies done since Carson published, all of them showing the damaging effects of DDT on birds. There are no studies to the other side.

Real science? There's some. You could read Rachel Carson and get a lot more. You could look it up.

Ed Darrell said...

If you'll examine my blog a bit you'll see what I'm really against is the fraud behind the myth of man-caused global warming. I was on to this long before the ClimateGate scandal humiliated some of the world's leading climate "scientists", should put Al Gore in prison, and completely discredit the United Nations IPCC.

The House of Commons report on the e-mails is in: The science behind warming is solid. The e-mail thieves have not been caught. Stick with the honest guys, not the thieves -- that's the Cowboy Way, isn't it, to defend the honest guys?

You said: This makes Obama and his EPA labeling CO2 a "pollutant" look worse than fools, and nothing but power-hungry despots, aided by "useful idiots" like yourself.

A pollutant is a substance in too great a concentration or simply in the wrong place. CO2 can be a deadly gas. It's an air pollutant, waste product from combustion of carbon-based fuels including especially fossil fuels.

Sure it's natural, but that doesn't stop it from being a pollutant. Human excrement is natural, and good, and necessary to life -- but you don't want it on your dinner table.

CO2 is like that, in gross quantities.

You said: I loathe the corruption and politization of science. Consider the following:

"Some scientists rationalize this corruption of their vocation by saying that people can lie for a good cause. The record shows otherwise. Fraudulent science and science journalism has led to AIDS going out of control; to DDT being banned and malaria gaining a new lease on life in Africa; to decades of famines in Russia; to children being badly mis-educated on such basics as reading and arithmetic; to end endless slew of unjustified health scares, like Mad Cow; and to a worldwide Leftist campaign cynically aiming to gain international power and enormous sums of money, based on a simple, unscientific fraud. When the truth-tellers in society begin to sell out and tell lies for some ideological goal, people end up dying."
Source


Don't quote harangues in favor of DDT from such unethical scientists, then. We can't poison Africa to health, and we've known that for at least 50 years.

Ed Darrell said...

Speaking of EPA's court-mandated hearings on the labeling of DDT, you said: He said the use of DDT does not have deleterious effects on freshwater fish, organisms, wild birds, or othe wildlife, let alone human beings.

No, Judge Sweeney did not say any of that. He said DDT is dangerous to fish, micro-organisms, domestic and wild birds, reptiles, amphibians, and livestock -- there was a case pending at the time about the deaths of cattle from DDT use.

Here, you can read Sweeney's full ruling:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/wp-content/images/ddt/Sweeney.pdf

It's a very large file for internet stuff, about 56mb, but you can see that he didn't find DDT to be harmless in any fashion. The question was whether the last-minute proposed new label from the DDT companies was sufficient. It ruled DDT could not be used in agriculture. Sweeney said that was sufficient. Ruckelshaus ruled that a regulation to that effect would be better, and less easy to violate.

Peter said...

Ed Darrel,
Are you a naive babe in the woods or what? Judge Sweeney is not a scientist, and his opinion is purely political correctness in action, under pressure by environmental lobbyists.

I mean Al Gore won and Oscar and a Nobel Prize for promoting totally fradulent man-caused global warming propaganda.

You've been brainwashed by these environmental zealots, and by definition, you don't even know it. I'll bet you even voted for Obama. Pity you, and America.

Ed Darrell said...

Here's what you wrote about Judge Sweeney in your post:

An administrative law judge heard the case for months -- and ruled against the extremists. He said that DDT was not a carcinogenic hazard to man; that it was not a mutagenic hazard to man. He said the use of DDT does not have deleterious effects on freshwater fish, organisms, wild birds, or othe wildlife, let alone human beings.

What has made your view change so dramatically? Did you go read what he wrote?

Peter said...

Ed Darrel,
You are truly an idiot when you say:

"A pollutant is a substance in too great a concentration or simply in the wrong place. CO2 can be a deadly gas. It's an air pollutant, waste product from combustion of carbon-based fuels including especially fossil fuels.

Sure it's natural, but that doesn't stop it from being a pollutant. Human excrement is natural, and good, and necessary to life -- but you don't want it on your dinner table."

By your definition of "pollutant", even pure water would be a pollutant, because too much of it can kill you, either in your stomach or your lungs.

You are a fool, pure and simple. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are significantly warming the Earth or causing climate change. Those claiming such have been exposed as frauds by the leaked Emails and computer codes of ClimateGate. They are not "scientists", they are shysters.

Peter said...

Ed Darrel,
You're beating a dead horse. DDT is and was effective in preventing or at least limiting malaria....fact.

The logical conclusion is that banning its use would and did encourage the spread of malaria.

With scant and shoddy evidence of the dangers of DDT, it was a mistake to ban it.


The demonizing of carbon dioxide is a far larger scandal and atrocity that has already cost Billions of dollars, countless jobs lost, burning of food as fuel (ethanol) and is choking the economies of the world.....all because of fraudulent and corrupted science.....you can't even begin to defend what has been revealed by ClimateGate....not that the fraud behind the myth of man-caused global warming has not been plain to see by anyone with an inkling of knowledge of science and earth history and a bit of integrity.

Whoever you are, whatever you are....you're acting as a useful idiot for the leftist, socialist, statists.....whatever you want to call your political ideology.

You and the Obama-isms are rapidly destroying America.

Ed Darrell said...

You are truly an idiot when you say:

"A pollutant is a substance in too great a concentration or simply in the wrong place. CO2 can be a deadly gas. It's an air pollutant, waste product from combustion of carbon-based fuels including especially fossil fuels.


A stunning example of Dunning Kruger Syndrome!

I've taught pollution fighting at the graduate level in both biology and law. My definition is pretty vanilla, run-of-the-mill, but deadly accurate. You make astounding claims contrary to science, history and common sense, but call me an idiot.

Were I wrong, it would be demonstration enough of my idiocy to cite the information that shows my error.

Of course, I'm not wrong.

I pointed out how "natural" and "good for you" don't make something NOT a pollutant: Sure it's natural, but that doesn't stop it from being a pollutant. Human excrement is natural, and good, and necessary to life -- but you don't want it on your dinner table.

Pete replied: By your definition of "pollutant", even pure water would be a pollutant, because too much of it can kill you, either in your stomach or your lungs.

That's one of the first things we learn and teach in Red Cross First Aid and Red Cross Lifesaving. You're right, pure water can be deadly, and if in your system in too great a quantity, a pollutant of acutely deadly type.

Good example. Glad you thought of it. You're right about water, and that's why you're not right about CO2.

By the way, there are slight differences in the causes of circulatory collapse as a result of too much water, depending on whether it's a salt water or fresh water drowning. The addition of the saline solution slightly modifies the chain of events leading to the death. It's as if you had a mixture of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in with your carbon dioxide.

Will you pay attention to your own example?

Pete wrote: You are a fool, pure and simple.

Wait a minute. I'm not the one who writes one day that Judge Sweeney is a hero, and the next that he's a tool of political correctness -- for the same action. I'm not the one who offers a fine example of how a natural and essential substance in the wrong place can be a pollutant, and then ignores it completely.

[More, next post]

Ed Darrell said...

[Continued from previous post]

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are significantly warming the Earth or causing climate change.

Without the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide, this planet would be frozen. That is evidence that the stuff is significantly warming the planet.

The real question you probably meant to address is whether CO2 is overwarming the planet. Physics tells us that CO2 acts like CO2 always -- an excess of CO2 will overwarm the planet.

Now, you can argue that the laws of physics were repealed by the Alabama legislature, but somebody has to go tell God, and they haven't done that yet. Until God gets the news that the laws of the universe are repealed, yes, CO2 will warm the planet, and warm it too much if there is too much CO2.

Those claiming such have been exposed as frauds by the leaked Emails and computer codes of ClimateGate.

I provided the link to the investigation conclusion earlier. There was no fraud. There was no exposure of any fraud. Those victims of the e-mail burglars are honest men whose science is right.

If someone breaks into your house and steals your money, that does not make you a spendthrift.

They are not "scientists", they are shysters.

They aren't claiming that water isn't dangerous as you appear to do. They are not claiming that the laws of physics have been repealed, as you do. They are not telling tall tales contrary to history as you relate about DDT. They are not claiming, contrary to all evidence, that DDT is not poisonous.

How, exactly, can they be shysters, and you not?

Anonymous said...

Ed, Pete is constitutionally unable to see anything but a global conspiracy. His blog is, first of all, largely unread by anyone, secondly, full of pure amateur nonsense,and thirdly, as you have found out, unverified by actual science or history.

Look around at any of his sources. My favorite is when Pete claims to be a "scientist." Clearly he is not.

So be of good cheer, reasonable people know what they are looking at and generally look the other way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
What is a "scientist" anyway? What makes you qualified to know? Oh, you're to your opinion, in America at least. So go ahead and make a fool of yourself as a whiny cry-baby.

And if nobody reads Pete's blog, (which is obviously not true), why bother? Does the truth about the man-caused global warming hoax hurt you so much? You must have a lot invested in the myth....pity you....you're going down with a rotten, leaky ship.

Ed Darrell said...

It's not the truth about warming that does the damage here in Texas -- it's the warming itself that hurts. Droughts and floods at the same time, more hailstorms, stronger hailstorms, disease-carrying insects expanding their range, water-sucking weeds expanding their range . . .

The truth can set us free, but only if we understand it and act on it.

What's a scientist? Someone who asks important questions and methodically searches for the correct, illuminating answers, especially those answers that lead to better solutions for better lives.

Christopher Monckton is not. Al Gore works with many.

Peter said...

Ed Darrell,
A fellow Texan. I would never have guessed. What baloney you spew, but then you said something about teaching law. That says a lot.

What "damage" by "global warming" here in Texas? There have always been droughts and floods, hailstorms, insects, and water-sucking weeds. Global warming or climate change isn't even caused by man's activity in any significant way, so how can man's actions be responsible for any of these other catastrophes? You've swallowed the alarmist bullshit hook, line and sinker.

I suggest you read a bit of history, geologic, anthropologic, and otherwise. The truth is there. Stop listening to the self-serving propaganda put out by the mainstream leftist media like NBC, MSNBC, Newsweek,etc., and most of all, the biggest liar of all, Al Gore. They're playing you for a sucker.

The best thing that could happen to the people of the Earth is to dump and abandon the myth of man-caused global warming. It is bleeding us all dry. Over $50 Billion has been spent in the U.S. alone, perpetuating the hoax and the fraud of man-caused global warming. That money could have been spent on something useful. You've benefitted from this governmental boondoggle. Hide your head in shame.

Anonymous said...

First of all, CO2 does NOT warm our planet, the sun does. Second, the fraud of anthroprogenic global warming is based on theoretical climate models that are incomplete, as no "scientist" knows all the variables that go into the climate system or what changes it. We can only really study it after the fact. If it were otherwise, we could get dead-on accurate weather forecasts a year in advance. Also, those climate models are run on high-performance computing platforms that have varying results based on type of system (is it a scalar system or a vector system, single system image or massively parallel?). The models are just giant programs with thousands or millions of lines of code. Who ever heard of a mistake in a million lines of code? These models cannot be verified by empirical methods. There is no earthly way any theoretician can possibly account for all or even most of the variable that provide input into the climate system or accurately predict the variables behavior over time. Can you tell us how many volcano eruptions will happen this year? Over the next fifty years? Solar behavior over the next fifty years? The size of said volcanic eruptions? Simulations are good if they are used to back up empirical testing in the lab, otherwise it isn't "science", it is simply hyperbole and fancy guesswork or stupid, expensive math tricks. Those climate models are usually run on systems that are tuned for the specific application or simulation. That tuning is, again, fancy guesswork of real smart system admins on big, high performance computing systems or what they call in the movies "supercomputers". So don't drag this corpse that was the fraud and hoax of anthroprogenic global warming around and pompously talk about science. Science is the practice of developing a theory that is reproducible and testable. We don't even have real good temperature data from over the last 150 years. There has been no consistency in types of devices used or even the means by which temperature measuring devices are used in measuring temperature. It even varies by country. It has been only since the 80's that we have had some standardization of temperature measurement devices. Even then no real standardization in deployment of those devices. So the data is nice for putting in the Old Farmer's Almanac, but not for real scientific inquiry.

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Right on about the absence of science behind the myth of man-caused global warming. It is all hype, hyteria, and now power politics.