Slashdot Mirror

This is pretty well known stuff. Here's some reading material for you, the ban on DDT was fear mongering nothing more. The estimate is 50m-500m dead since it was banned, there's no solid figures because no one actually knows solidly how many people have died since the ban. But you can do out the math if you really want since 40% of the worlds population lives in areas where you can contract it.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF...
http://junkscience.com/2012/03...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...

More ad hominems to ignore.

Since when is a web site a hominus?

Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.

You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.

I'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.

What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.

It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source.

I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem. I do read scientific papers for a living (well, part of it). I do write reasonably well-regarded papers, and I frequently are asked to formally review papers (which I usually do). I find it quite hard to fully comprehend papers that are within my general area of science (computer science) and even my specialty (logic and deduction) if they are not within my area of micro-specialisation (first-order reasoning). Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry. What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?

That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.

Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.

At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.

No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.

Actually, JunkScience is, well, junk science. Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.

It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.

"It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs."

What? Are you serious?

What it is, is a "blatant" attempt to force EPA to user responsible and reproducible science. There is nothing in this world wrong with that. And no, it was not in response to the West Virginia situation. As another poster mentioned above, it is very clearly in response to things like this.

I think a "blatant attempt" to make public policy actually public is a good thing.

What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose?

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

There you go. Answered.

Quite easily found with a google, you just have to put down your confirmation bias first:

Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.

For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publically available.

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

I am sure there are more examples out there, but I you have the same access to Google I do.

The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government.

Don't think so Above. Quite easily found with a Google:

"Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.

For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publicly available."

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

Sorry, you are suffering from confirmation bias, you don't know of any because you did not look.

EPA did not release data even under subpoena:

"Chairman Smith: Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.

For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations."
http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

Kind of sweet that you'd post more sleight of hand from the "hockey team" propaganda website. Look once again, as they desperately attempt to hide the decline (or in this case, the fact that the models are embarrassingly wrong). Obviously the hind-cast is correct; it's just curve fitting. The forecast they have stuck a line through the middle. Yet this is not what the actual model results show. Here's the actual graph without RealClimate propaganda. Enjoy.

Yeah... junkscience says that insurance premiums aren't going to go up, so that must be correct. After-all, the founder Milloy, was never involved in disinformation campaigns, for example, saying the there are no problems with tobacco.

And he isn paid to fight for big carbon, but I'm sure he's a man of science.

But what of his claim? What does the insurance industry have to say on the matter.

But I'm sure the skeptics are right. After-all, they're right about everything.

Actually this is an urban myth. The bald eagle was not impacted by DDT, in either its decline or recovery.

http://junkscience.com/2012/01/02/bald-eagles-still-not-saved-by-ddt-ban/

Sure, if the people running the EPA were ethical.
Whups, no, they're as politically-invested as any other person inside the beltway:
http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/

III. EPA HEARINGS. DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge.

17. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that âoeDDT 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.â [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

18. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshausâ(TM) aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. [Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

19. After reversing the EPA hearing examinerâ(TM)s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just âoeinternal memos.â Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshausâ(TM) âoeOpinion and Order on DDT.â

http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/

Read it and weep. Or cheer, if you are one of those that believes Fox is the only propaganda station and all the ones you watch are "the truth".

All extensively noted.

I'm not as up on the DDT thing, but the fluorocarbon ban seems like a clear win to me. It was based on sound science, and the result matched the prediction fairly closely.

I would point you here for a start on the ozone topic: http://junksciencearchive.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

The DDT ban: http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/

I'm also not a fan of the European RoHS laws (which I assume is what you're talking about when you say "eutectic solder".) This was based on very sketchy science, and the lead-free stuff is much harder to work with. But, unless you're in Europe, 60/40 is still for sale everywhere, as is 63/37.

Traditional tin/lead rosin-core electronics solder is getting harder and harder to find, and prices are climbing. I agree, it's still pretty widely available through retail outfits like Radio Shack and similar in the US at full retail price, but I buy my electronics parts & supplies through wholesale distribution houses that sell exclusively to commercial businesses like factories, service shops, etc.

Fewer and fewer commercial wholesale distributors are carrying tin/lead solder because most OEMs and other producers of electronics equipment in the US and abroad are, or are becoming, RoHS-compliant because so much trade is international, so they design equipment to meet both EU and US regulations.

Once demand drops below a certain level, many wholesale distributors will drop a product from their line-card like tin/lead solder or even vacuum tubes, for that matter. Where at one time I only had to deal with one distributor and shipping/invoicing/payment system, now I have to find, set up an account with, and learn the invoicing/shipping/payment system ropes of, one distributor for solder and another for my vacuum tubes, and yet another for other parts & tech supplies. Every so often, I've had to rinse and repeat to find another source for solder or vacuum tubes, or sometimes both.

Strat

Second, if by "humans and animals" you actually mean "mammals and birds,"

Yes, I do.

go back and read the Wikipedia page

Which I did.

If that doesn't convince you, fine, follow the references.

Which I did.

DDT cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called non-toxic.

It absolutely can. The purported effects on mammals and birds espoused by Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" were lies. DDT is safe for mammals, including humans, and safe for birds.

http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/

"10.Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact 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 Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs."

ok cult boy, so where is the proof that co2 causes warming?

and while your at it, tell me how this is taken out of context. http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/

"NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory has said to expect moderate global cooling for the next three decades due to a quiet period on the sun, and a consequent cooling of the Pacific Ocean’s huge heat mass." http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/earths-embarrassing-lack-of-warming-since-1998/

In response to an accusation that the mentioned statements by Muller's colleague and collaborator, Judith Curry, are "lies" promoted by one biased newspaper, I offer the following:

http://junkscience.com/2011/10/30/curry-damage-control-mullers-oversell-a-mistake-not-a-new-scandal/

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-">Curry says no warming "for 13 years".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/31/berkeley-temperature-study-update-colleague-says-claim-was-huge-mistake/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41840

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=65364f00-802a-23ad-4994-117066e014ea

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/10/climate-change-scientist-accused-of-hiding-truth-by-colleague/

As I mentioned in the beginning, the graphs shown in some of these articles are misleading, because the time scales are completely different:

In addition, if you really need more convincing, you can go to Curry's own blog and read her comment yourself.

The fundamental impediment has been fighting a fossil fuel corporate monolith which has hijacked our government. Its time for us to take back our future.

You mean we need to hijack our government to ban fossil fuel production and throw more money at some other industries? Not sure that's really going to work like you think it will.

Then how come they ignore the science theory that cosmic rays seed clouds. A solar minimum produces reduced solar winds and magnetic field which means more cosmic rays hit the Earth. If they theory is correct then more clouds will form reducing the solar heating of the oceans.

As an example of monthly variation of global temperature, see:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html

You'll see a span of about 1.2C from 1983 to 1997 (low point to high point).

Considering that we managed to survive a 1.2C change in less than 20 years, why would I believe that a 2C change over 100 years is going to harm me or my children or my grandchildren?

that demonstrated that low-dose radiation is actually beneficial, acting like a vaccination to reduce cancer rates and extend lifespan of nuclear workers and atomic bomb survivors.

Basically the guy looses all credibility here.

Well, maybe you can help me. I'm having serious difficulty finding any serious refutation of in-depth studies of radiation hormesis (which you claim makes someone lose all credibility). Maybe if you're so experienced in debating these issue, you could provide me with such a refutation to Bernard L. Cohen's paper published in Health Physics from 1995 titled "Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products."

Here is a link to the original paper: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/LNT-1995.PDF

A tl;dr version of it was described here.

Nope, it merely assumes that the party is not always right and that ignoring the scientific results increases that chance of falsity.

Is the answer to every social or political problem either right or wrong? Can you think of any scientific conclusions that were acted upon but turned out to have been wrong but that as a side-effect caused the deaths of millions of people?

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

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Although the resolution isn't close enough to hundreds of years to really see anything comparable to the ice core data we have that shows an 800 year lag, you can get an idea of the lack of temp change after such an enormous amount of CO2 released circa the La Garita Caldera supervolcano. I understand that this is only a preliminary refutation based on your assertion that this kind of data would be a problem for AGW, but it certainly shows it is possible.

Ah, argumentum ad linkium. Here's a few for you:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/

The warmists are the ones who are making the creationist argument - tell me if you've heard this one before:

"After understanding all of the natural drivers we know of, we cannot account for X degrees C of the observed global warming, therefore, changes must be due to man emitted CO2."

"After understanding all of the fossils that we know of, we cannot account for the gaps between the observed fossils, therefore, changes must be due to the Hand of God."

The point is that DDT harms people more than helps in non-malaria countries.

Without gov't to stop DDT spraying 3rd parties can get harmed. There is no way to prevent DDT from wiping out populations of animals without gov't regulation, just like i can't fish up mercury free Tuna. Private industry hasn't solved that problem.

Not proven. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html You're welcome to whatever you want to accept though, no problem.

It is a greenhouse gas. No blah blah bullshit, it really is. Physics says so, observation says so. Observation also tells us that levels of CO2 are skyrocketing.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, its effects decrease logarithmically - the change from 0 to 20ppm make a huge difference. From 20 to 80ppm a lot happens as well. From 280 to 380 ... not so much.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png

Regarding "sky rocketing" levels of CO2, quite the opposite. We're in a very CO2-starved environment compared to the majority of the time plants and animals have existed on the earth. We've had more than a magnitued higher CO2-levels in our atmosphere without oceans going acidic, the planet becomign like Venus etc.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

This is undisputed (really) science. The big question is, why's everyone pretending as if it wasn't?
 

unprecedented levels of CO2

CO2 levels have been more than an order of magnitude higher without runaway greenhouse effects before.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.html

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/AR4WG1GlobalMeanTemp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/global-temperature.html&h=384&w=567&sz=86&tbnid=ZkCq3VjJqZA8xM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bmean%2Btemperature&usg=__5O0QbT0FvssTY0dQkkMAt750tg8=&ei=vfcJS-jjMqGNtgennMj-Bw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAw

There are other graphs that show more data, if you actually want to look. The sun's activity is directly linked to the drop you're talking about, but the global daily mean temperature over the last few decades shows that it keeps climbing upwards, accounting for drastic spikes that correspond directly to solar activity.

So yes, it's a very serious man-made threat. Unless there's some invisible pink unicorn farting out heat in an amount that would be more influential than the sun. Note that the junk science link shows data for a whopping 3 years and concludes its hypotheses based on that, whereas the NASA link shows data for hundreds of years, with obvious cycles present, which correspond to the first graph.

It's sad that so long after this junk science myth was debunked that people continue to repeat it like a bad internet rumor.
 
  Please see #10 at the very least, or preferably read the whole article when you have time.

Environmentalists are anti-human. They would rather see everyone die than have a single blade of grass wither.

Read more about the evils of environmentalism here.

the technical issue is that he accomplished his goal and he doesn't need them.
His goal being aquiring water and land right via eminent domain.

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html

And here I thought Texans weren't afraid to use guns when someone steps out of line~

Fool? No.

Evil Genius?
Maybe... check this out:

--- begin ---
Pickens Gives New Meaning to 'Self-Government'

By Steven Milloy
July 31, 2008

The more you learn about T. Boone Pickens' plan to switch America to wind power, the more you realize that he seems willing to say and do just about anything to make another billion or two.

This column previously discussed the plan's technical and economic shortcomings and marketing ruses. Today, we'll look into the diabolical machinations behind it.

Simply put, Pickens' pitch is "embrace wind power to help break our 'addiction' to foreign oil." There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens' plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.

Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there's more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here's where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.

Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won't sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens' route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain? Are you sitting down?

At Pickens' behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens' wife and the manager of Pickens' nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel's three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens' employees.
--- end ---
excerpt from http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html
If this true, it is an impressive scheme.

There was an AC post to this link below.
If true, this explains the "technical problems" pretty well.

It was never about wind, it was about WATER, and Mr Pickens' newly-granted powers of Eminent Domain!

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc_302185743.shtml
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T_Boone_Pickens_wants_your_water.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you

There IS more to it...WATER and his newly-granted powers of Eminent Domain!

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc_302185743.shtml
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T_Boone_Pickens_wants_your_water.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you

Felt isn't exactly a boon to society because we had clothing already. And we're specifically talking about HATS, dude.

And no, I'm not uninformed about DDT.
The whole egg-shell thinning thing is bullshit.
As was the whole cancer thing, which the WHO has finally admitted, and now allows DDT for use in houses. Too bad it doesn't work anymore.)

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html#ref6

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_35_16/ai_65493894/

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jun/22/after-decades-ddt-still-poisoning-animals-sand/

Notice the date. DDT was banned in 1972, and guess what, it doesn't persist for decades.

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

Notice the ol' half-life in water of about 2 years, and 15 in soil. And we're talking about a beach here!

But go ahead and believe the green!

That Wal-Mart case reminds me of the person who broke a compact fluorescent bulb and made the mistake of contacting the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, who sent a specialist out and charged $2000 to clean up the dangerous levels of mercury in the room. Once the authorities have been contacted, they feel they must respond, even if it's benign. So with this Wal-Mart case, it was probably just a cautious employee who got this crazy process started.

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history

... in reality, they've been more than a magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

Technically those would be prehistoric times.

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history

... in reality, they've been more than a magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

We emit more than ten times the CO2 emitted by volcanoes on average ... but what about the oceans?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

since the inception of the large-scale use of fossil fuels the rate of increase of airborne carbon has exceeded any in the historical record

No, absolutely not.

For God's sake, educate yourself. Use Google

I have. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

First off, the point was that DDT was NOT in fact banned for use as mosquito control. It is used around the world for this purpose. And you should know that overuse of DDT in India merely resulted in DDT-resistant mosquitos.

Second, fuck junkscience.com. Milloy is either an unrepentant liar or he has the reading comprehension of a used condom.

Exhibit A:

In early 2004, a study came out showing a link between breast cancer and antibiotic use. I remember the lead researcher was on NPR. She explicitly said there was no causal link and she offered at least three non-causal explanations for the link. For example, one explanation was simply that some women are more susceptible to disease. They tend to need more antibiotics and tend to get breast cancer more frequently. She said more research was needed to fully understand the link, which seems quite reasonable to me.

Milloy totally misrepresented this. He explicitly said the study claimed that antibiotics cause breast cancer. He explicitly said that the study was done to get grant money and to scare people. Yet he offers no actual evidence for any of this, just scary claims.

No evidence was presented that antibiotics were the biological cause of any of the cases of breast cancer considered in the study. This is no surprise since no demonstrable biological explanation exists as to why antibiotics would cause cancer in the first place.

Well no shit, Steve, but the study didn't claim that antibiotics cause breast cancer.

But I don't expect you to take my word for this.

Here is his pack of bullshit:
http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/jsa200407.html.

Here are two more articles, which actually quote the study's authors.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/17/antibiotics.cancer/

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/bcancerstudy.htm

But researchers caution that the findings do not mean antibiotics cause breast cancer.

"These results only show that there is an association between the two," co-author Dr. Stephen Taplin of the National Cancer Institute said in a statement. "More studies must be conducted to determine whether there is indeed a direct cause-and-effect relationship."

Total and absolute misrepresentation on the part of Milloy.

junkscience.com is ironically named.

I think it goes back to the showing the DDT is a harmful chemical (

Was that actually shown?

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

But we've never had over about 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 levels

Wrong. We've had much higher levels than that. More than an order of magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm

We're making HUGE increases in the CO2 levels and starting to see the effects

No, there's been a tiny increase and we haven't seen any causual effects at all. We're worrying about a 2-3 decades long and very small trend (that has reversed) without putting it into historic context (the Mann hockeystick has been thoroughly debunked - yes - the one Gore used in his fantasy movie).

There's absolutely nothing special about the climate today compared with the early 20th century - or many other times since recorded history. What we _should_ worry about are the cold snaps since those correlate perfectly with the fall of civilizations and spread of diseases.

Depends on your point of view. Most bird habitats are threatened. Humans are overpopulated.

If you're concerned about overpopulation you're free to not have children, or even kill yourself. What you're not free to do is ban DDT and thus indirectly kill millions of people in the third world.

And that's not just rhetoric

http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm

Tens of millions of excess malaria deaths have occured since DDT was banned in the developed world.

Breathing also adds carbon to the atmosphere you know? http://www.junkscience.com/ *says goodbye to karma*

I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.

In addition it is the only record that is confirmed by weather balloons measurements, an independent record.

This is a site, which shows the most used temperature records with its sources:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU

But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature. Neither the speed nor the magnitude of the temperature change is unique in the climate history of the earth. On the contrary it is a normal change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Funny that Cosmic Rays and Earth's heating and cooling can be demonstrated experimentally, see: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html