Slashdot Mirror

Actually, you have a point. (Although I thnink it was flamebait.)

According to Arthur Robinson at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm, global warming doesn't exist.

Check your sources on that .5 degree C rise in 1 yr. The mosst reputable sources in the USA (Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA) if not the world says something different.

http://uahnews.uah.edu/read.asp?newsID=574

"Previously, the long-term (December 1978 through July 2005) climate trend in the UAH satellite dataset showed average global warming at the rate of about 0.88 C (about 1.58 degrees Fahrenheit) per century. The new trend, which includes the extra warming in the tropics, shows average global warming at the rate of about 1.23 C (about 2.21 degrees Fahrenheit) per century. " NOTE THAT THE WARMING RATE IS PER CENTURY (100 YRS) NOT PER YEAR (365 days).

You can also look at http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glanc e.htm which references the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA among others.

I think the 90% of the world that doesn't like obsessing with security would disagree with you about lassez-faire and how well it is handling identity theft and other criminal conduct that has exploded thanks to the internet. My dad *deserves* legal protections from phishing attacks (a specific example: banks should be required to guarantee client accounts... that is WHAT A BANK IS!!!). And a small business should have their online transactions safe from remote fraud (with banks again being held responsible for THEIR end of any fraudulent transaction). Doing so means legally-defined minimum standards and coverages for financial institutions.

Actually, a bank is there to store your valuable money, and that's all it is to do. A mortgage company is for home loans, a personal line of credit company is for credit cards. Banks just store money -- they used to store your gold very safely and give you a note guaranteeing you that gold -- it was called a dollar bill. Banks do not have to guarantee you anything, in fact, in a free market, banks that didn't guarantee you safety would not last as people would put their money in safe banks. Don't ask laws to give you what you can have for the asking.

You're quick to claim that all regulatory activity is a failure, but using your same (flawed) reasoning, technological remedies have also failed to 'solve' ID theft, viruses, trojans, spam, keyloggers, hacking, international abuses, and so on. These problems all remain, and they need a blend of tech and legal remedies. Tech wherever possible, legal to make sure that it is never cheaper/easier to deny or whitewash an expensive problem.

Interesting. I don't use my ID -- ever. I don't use my social security number except when I take payments from a customer and need to fill out a 1099. I don't bank, so I don't worry about banks. I don't have credit cards anymore. Why would I worry about identity theft? Everyone that knows me, KNOWS ME. Viruses are solved -- I haven't had one in years. Anyone who gets a virus is to blame, not the virus. Spam, all that? I don't get it either. My public e-mail address here got 2 spam messages last week, and I post my e-mail address for all to see!

We outgrew that silly business-will-self-regulate oversimplification with Love Canal and DDT, if not with child labor.

I'm glad I'm on your foe list, because you speak nonsense, seriously. I don't mean to write any flamebait, but Love Canal was proven a government problem, not a corporate one. The government you so loved made the problem what it is. In fact, in the media publications of the time before the disasters, many companies were warning the school board not to build there. Your government did it, not any big bad corporation.

As for DDT, this is another greenie myth. You might have "learned" some scary myths in your pro-environment rally or in your public school, but it's all just myths.

Don't spew authoritarian rhetoric if you're against my anti-authoritarian rhetoric. We'll just both flag each other -5 and be done with it. I personally like hearing debates against my opinions, but not when it is the same proven MYTHS over and over and over for the last decade. Come up with new things to find false, will you?

Recently I started wondering what evidence there was against human-caused global warming. I found some items on what's been going on in Alaska:

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/490 4Change.html

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/770 4Change.html

The two graphs above show that the average temps rose in 1977 and have remained fairly steady ever since.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.ht m

This graph shows the Little Ice Age and that today's temperatures have barely reached the Medieval Climactic Optimum.

And here's a Newsweek article from 1975 about... global cooling:

http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf

I'm sure some will discard the Junk Science site because of its political bent. I encourage people to ignore that and look at the data he presents as well as the links to climatology articles published in scientific journals. We know far less about how climate works than we think we do.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glanc e.htm

Recently I started wondering what evidence there was against human-caused global warming. I found some items on what's been going on in Alaska:

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/490 4Change.html

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/770 4Change.html

The two graphs above show that the average temps rose in 1977 and have remained fairly steady ever since.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.ht m

This graph shows the Little Ice Age and that today's temperatures have barely reached the Medieval Climactic Optimum.

And here's a Newsweek article from 1975 about... global cooling:

http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf

I'm sure some will discard the Junk Science site because of its political bent. I encourage people to ignore that and look at the data he presents as well as the links to climatology articles published in scientific journals. We know far less about how climate works than we think we do.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glanc e.htm

Recently I started wondering what evidence there was against human-caused global warming. I found some items on what's been going on in Alaska:

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/490 4Change.html

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/770 4Change.html

The two graphs above show that the average temps rose in 1977 and have remained fairly steady ever since.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.ht m

This graph shows the Little Ice Age and that today's temperatures have barely reached the Medieval Climactic Optimum.

And here's a Newsweek article from 1975 about... global cooling:

http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf

I'm sure some will discard the Junk Science site because of its political bent. I encourage people to ignore that and look at the data he presents as well as the links to climatology articles published in scientific journals. We know far less about how climate works than we think we do.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glanc e.htm

Every day, I hear about it. Global warming this, global warming that, doom, gloom, and FUD. Got a hurricane problem? Well, it's obviously because of global warming, not a long-term, unrelated trend. Hot day? Well, that's global warming too, not just a high-pressure system. Global warming is even getting blamed for allergies:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051122_all ergy_rise.html

What's next, missing socks blamed on global warming?

Seriously, though, I'm not saying that there's no human factor in the current climate change, I'm just saying that the climate change is probably not as bad as some people are trying to make it out to be (FUD sells) and a significant portion of the climate change is probably natural. The fact is, we don't know for sure, and to make grandiose proclamations about climate change is unscientific.

And now, to the relevant portion, here's this link.

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

Yes, the Arctic has been warming, but then again, it also cooled for a while, (and the last few years haven't even been the warmest on record) according to these guys. Granted, they seem to be biased in the anti-global warming direction, but at least it's an alternative voice in a din of FUD.

Not that Kyoto would do jack anyway.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_U p.htm

Figures some hippie would mark this as a troll.

Here Ucklak http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Wow, dude, pass that joint over here ....

Dude, I'd say you've been massively hoodwinked. It took me all of two seconds with google to find this:

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

Now, that article is a bit long for you, and if you don't have time to read it, please at least read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173766,00.html

Don't worry, Fox News has dumbed it down to your level, dude.

Hey, ...don't bogart that joint, dude!

Keep surfing -- there's a link in the comments section of that blog to an FAQ on DDT that's more convincing, better documented, and entirely in favor of the original poster's thesis.

Consider the source. According to the Skeptic's Dictionary (not exactly a front for environmentalists), corporate whore Steven J. Milloy of junkscience.com is not exactly a source of objective information.

Thats funny, I was just reading up on DDT earlier today.

It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years.

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

"Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic."

"Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

"Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate."

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

Keep surfing -- there's a link in the comments section of that blog to an FAQ on DDT that's more convincing, better documented, and entirely in favor of the original poster's thesis.

Based on the available information, I'm going to have to assume that Rachel Carson's critics are closer to the truth.

Of course, nowadays, no responsible corporation would think of advocating the use of DDT... because the patents on it have expired.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."
[Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
[Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dad in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.
[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

This is beating a dead horse, but the IPCC (which if I understand correctly summarizes existing research on roughly an annual basis) does have some credibility problems. In particular, in the past they are accused of having exaggerated the confidence of contemporary climate research in order to reach the conclusion that global warming from human activity is a serious threat (though admitted by such as the Junk Science people who are routinely accused of being industry shills). Certainly, the 1991 IPCC report (over which much fuss had been made) had serious problems of this nature though it should be noted that the problems were in the conclusions drawn from otherwise solid work. Perhaps, the IPCC has improved this part of their process. I haven't kept up. Also, since the IPCC is a UN agency, it automatically has credibility problems among certain, mostly US groups.

The recent UK-sponsored conference (apparently titled "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change") was notable for the presence of a large number of falsifiable hypotheses and predictions in one place. I sincerely don't recall anyone putting that much together before or saying so much on the record with regards to climate change from global warming.

Oh, don't worry, we'll get there with banning DHMO. A few years ago the Green Party in New Zealand decided that starting a campaign to ban DHMO would be a good idea.

Yes... this really happened.

For those interested in this very nasty chemical, I suggest you visit http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

It keeps from trying to ban DHMO.

If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.

Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there's been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.

Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.

During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it's estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide - the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers - increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 - a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming - the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn't seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.

And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred much less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003 time frame.

Silicone breast implants have alleged HEALTH risks. And those are overwhelmingly likely to be bogus, at least as far as any link with auto-immune disease goes.

"Ehm, same change takes place on Mars"

"Oh, let's not then. Instead, let's spend the money instead on Malaria treatment and clean water or other things that actually makes sense"

Now, if this turns out to be true, who can honestly say that there's no cost-benefit to space research.

What pattern of slow, continual growth are you getting? Backup your assertions.

As a counterpoint, I'd point you at:
http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/Hurricanes.h tm, which granted dates to 2004 -- but certainly a "slow, continual growth" pattern where 2005 isn't a freak year would show up in that data.

More importantly, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml has the raw data. I tend to agree with the JunkScience analysis of it, which implies that we're simply on the rising edge of the cycle coming out of a lull.

And the analysis I read said that Santa Claus is real.

Post a reference, or admit that you're just making stuff up.

Try this on for size: http://www.junkscience.com/

Especially when critical studies that form the basis of global warming theory so poorly documented and have undergone no genuinely critical peer review. Our founding documents and main research on global climate change contain cherry-picked data series to produce the desired results to "prove" that global warming is a result of automobile emissions. Secondary research to confirm the original research was done with similarly cherry-picked series and is even less well-documented data series. When we can't even go back and review the physical evidence used by our researchers because they have misplaced or just "don't remember" where they gathered their data, any intelligent and appropriately skeptical scientific-thinking person ought to call for more and better research before advocating sweeping policies that will cost the world economies an amount of money so large as to be nearly uncountable.

Especially when critical studies that form the basis of global warming theory so poorly documented and have undergone no genuinely critical peer review. Our founding documents and main research on global climate change contain cherry-picked data series to produce the desired results to "prove" that global warming is a result of automobile emissions. Secondary research to confirm the original research was done with similarly cherry-picked series and is even less well-documented data series. When we can't even go back and review the physical evidence used by our researchers because they have misplaced or just "don't remember" where they gathered their data, any intelligent and appropriately skeptical scientific-thinking person ought to call for more and better research before advocating sweeping policies that will cost the world economies an amount of money so large as to be nearly uncountable.

Check out http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_U p.htm and see why. The entire junkscience.com website is great for debunking these kinds of lies.

What you don't understand is science.

Why does there always have to be a "policy" when it's clear that the invisible hand of higher prices adjusts demand automatically?

And, BTW, what does sunscreen have to do with this? Are you perhaps mixing up global warming and the ozone hole? I believe these are supposedly caused by two rather different human activities; CO2 emissions for global warming, and Freon for ozone depletion.

Why does there always have to be a "policy" when it's clear that the invisible hand of higher prices adjusts demand automatically?

And, BTW, what does sunscreen have to do with this? Are you perhaps mixing up global warming and the ozone hole? I believe these are supposedly caused by two rather different human activities; CO2 emissions for global warming, and Freon for ozone depletion.

Why does there always have to be a "policy" when it's clear that the invisible hand of higher prices adjusts demand automatically?

And, BTW, what does sunscreen have to do with this? Are you perhaps mixing up global warming and the ozone hole? I believe these are supposedly caused by two rather different human activities; CO2 emissions for global warming, and Freon for ozone depletion.

Historical Background of the _harms_

About the various substitutes mentioned and the lack of a "ban": From the American Council on Science and Health (disclaimer, they receive 75% of their funding from private chemical/pharmaceutical companies, although since DDT replacements are more patented and higher cost, you'd think that'd prejudice them the other way):
"Despite the cost in human lives, many groups stubbornly defend the ban. While the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and UNICEF have recommended continued DDT use, influential organizations such as the Norwegian Development Agency, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Swedish Aid Agency, and USAID -- the sorts of groups from whom some poor nations such as Belize, Mozambique, and Madagascar receive the majority of their public health money -- continue to insist that DDT be left out of malaria-control efforts.

Countries have found themselves faced with malaria upsurges due to pressure from such international aid organizations to avoid DDT use, according to a report in the March 11, 2000 British Medical Journal. The use of DDT in Mozambique, noted the Journal, "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."

The WHO estimates that malathion, the cheapest alternative to DDT, costs more than twice as much as DDT and must be sprayed twice as often, while another mosquito-fighting chemical, deltamethrin, is over three times as expensive, and the highly effective propoxur costs twenty-three times as much. For countries with minimal public health budgets, dependent on foreign aid, such substitutes are impractical. More importantly, there is no compelling public health reason to substitute these chemicals for DDT, which as stated is harmless to humans."

Anyway, Wikipedia has a relatively balanced article that covers both sides of the issue.

My conclusion is that DDT was banned in many areas in the early 70's at the behest of environmentalists relying on flawed science. A large number of people who would currently be alive are dead due to bans in various countries that still suffered malaria. Using DDT for regular agriculture instead of just anti-malarial spraying is probably a bad idea due to the possibility of mosquitos developing resistance.

The deaths are real, but probably exaggerated. Likely only hundreds of thousands per year have died uneccesarily since the bans started, not millions. The millions figure is an extrapolation that uses primarily most of the people who die from Malaria each year. Some contries who've substituted more expensive and/or less effective anti-malarial programs for widespread anti-malarial uses of DDT may not have as good of results as those who still use DDT widely have had, so it's better to be conservative on the numbers.

Finally, that hotbed of right-wing extremists, the British Medical journal states that "The Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty aims to completely phase out global use of dicophane (DDT), while many donor agencies will not fund any malaria control programmes that use this insecticide. But dicophane is effective, with a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions. Malaria cases soared in the KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa after it stopped using dicophane in 1996. Its reintroduction together with artemisinin based combination therapy for treating malaria brought the disease back under control. Dicophane, a "dirty word" in the malaria world, must surely be reintroduced into the conversation on rolling back malaria."

So it's fine and good to say "oops, the environmentalists screwed up and should stop pressuring people not to save li

All scientific information should be heralded and released the community without due diligence. And we should immediately begin basing public policy on it. There's no harm.

All scientific information should be heralded and released the community without due diligence. And we should immediately begin basing public policy on it. There's no harm.

450 million years ago (end of the Ordovician, first third of the Paleozoic) CO2 levels were nearly 4500 PPM. An order of magnitude higher than today. This coincided with an ice age. In fact, as far as I can see, there seems to be no corelation of CO2 levels to global temperature whatsoever. I'm not saying the Earth isn't getting hotter (I don't think we have enough historical data to make that statement) not am I saying that if it is warmer humans aren't somehow responsible. What I am saying is that CO2 apparently has nothing to do with global temperatures. http://junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Unemployed. Or barren of further grants, same thing.

For this kind of research I'd only put some faith in NASA or other entities that aren't beholden to results to further their existance (or grant money in the case of universities).

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
It's becoming fashionable to claim rapid Antarctic warming too - from NYT yesterday: "Antarctica, Warming, Looks Ever More Vulnerable" - "A continent is quickly changing. The questions are how and why." (New York Times) Antarctica, however, is not warming. While the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis insists the Antarctic should demonstrate the most dramatic response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels due to its cold, dry atmosphere, the simple fact is the Antarctic is not cooperating. South Polar air samples record atmospheric CO2 rising from 328 ppmv to 373 ppmv subsequent to the 1949-1974 temperature increase - almost 15% increase apparently without affecting Polar temperatures, while startling temperature changes of ~4 C (+ve and -ve) are recorded in periods when we know atmospheric CO2 was increasing at a more leisurely rate. A treasured hypothesis insists increasing atmospheric CO2 should lead to increasing temperature and the South Polar super-cold, super-dry air mass should respond dramatically. Well, we looked for the CO2 increment and it is obvious. We looked for the temperature increment and... what? Found it missing? There it was, gone?

it's just that I think that the US has way too high of standards when it comes to "acceptable" levels.

Granite and marble are both naturally radioactive, as are bricks used for building materials. The US capitol building has a natural background radation of 30 microrems per hour. which is higher than EPA limits for "safe" LINK

Strom Thurman and Congress brain damage jokes may now start.

Funny you should mention DDT... I can't quite make our your point.

Nanotech and nanomachines an have awesome properties and show huge potentional, however, the non-thinking super-critically charged activist landscape may end up damaging the long-term prospects of the technology.

DDT is, incidentally, a great example of what can happen when an issue becomes super heated. Without a doubt, DDT saved well-over 500 million lives in the 20th century.

A combination of cases of dramatic overuse (hundreds or thousands the recommended dosage) and widespread misinterpretation of solid scientific findings led to DDT being banned in the US, and to this day, it being fought in 3rd world nations by enviornmentalists and other activist groups.

Once people started singing songs about DDT being about stopping spots on apples and killing all the birds and the bees, the fight was over.
By reasonable standards the dramatic health benefits of DDT far outweigh potential health side-effects, percieved or real (A good article here).

Anyways, if what happens to DDT happens to nanotech, we'll likely never get to see the potential of the science explored. Caution is called for, but the rate things are going it'll be outright banned within the decade.

Did you actually read some of those links ?

From this link:

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Hardly seems a considered scientific opinion to me. You may, of course, think differently.

And considering this link:

Try reading something about the person who wrote it, in his own words, on the same site, here:

My esteem for my peers became replaced by contempt, and planted the seed of suspicion in my mind that my whole community was of the same calibre foolish cowards. A notion that experience rarely confounded but often confirmed, so insensibly I became a social exile. This was just as well, for in a declining community any citizen who retains respect for the truth must become alienated from the majority of his fellow citizens because they hate the truth.

Is this really the sort of considered scientific opinion you consider valuable ?

There are no solid conclusions among all scientist on the effects of global warming. You can look here, here, here, and here to see the lack of consensus on this subject among scientists.

This is nothing more that a main stream media hype of one guys opinion to try to invoke fear in the general population.

Anyone can single out and focus on one area of the planet for a 100 year period in the Earth's history and come to a conclusion that would sound devastating if it really did apply to the whole planet for a longer period of time.

There is no evidence that DDT itself was responsible for the effects on birds (ie bald eagles). The buildup of levels of DDT in the food chain is not the cause of the problems with the birds. There is no "toxic level" of DDT which kills a bird or causes cancer.

The connection is that DDT is so effective as a pesticide that it wipes out the insect larvae that are the food source for the fish, the fish are the food source for the eagles. Fewer insects, fewer and smaller fish... fewer fish, the Eagles have a smaller food supply and have to look to alternate types of food for survival. Their eggs are fewer and the shells are thinner, their offspring are more likely to be deformed.

This misunderstanding of cause and effect and the resulting ban on DDT now plays a major role in the 2.7 million deaths per year from Malaria.

Curiously, the one presidential candidate who favors undoing this mistake and lifting the ban on DDT is Ralph Nader:
http://www.csrl.org/malaria/
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate20040603 0904.asp
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

So consider transferring to a school where the science professors aren't teaching propoganda or teaching Rachel Carson's fictional writings as fact.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

I'll say to start that the supposed smear tactics weren't targeted at you or even Schnieder, and they are pretty close to direct quotes. The only purpose was to illustrate the duplicity of people (all people not just Clinton and Schnieder), and that when people are caught in a wrongdoing the first thing they tend to do is backpedal "What I really meant was..." It's human nature and I don't condemn Scnieder for doing it, my only point is that I don't consider it a defense he said what he said. (And looked at the right way you could consider this paragraph in a similar light).

I say all this because while I may not agree with your position you've been reasonable and civil, if, in my opinion, deluded. While I'm perfectly happy to be wallowing in the mud as required, my intention was not to bring this particular conversation there. Though all this has gone my curiosity is piqued. Why so verbose about such a comment. While there has been a fair bit of controversy over it within certain circles, I wouldn't consider it of any interest to someone not focused on the subject, and the way you've continued this leads me to suspect ulterior motives. And certainly not worthy of such a long semantics argument. though I will put that aside and continue on ignoring the thought.

So anyways, onward.

While I will agree your comments about debate, and being influenced by outside sources, and it can only be reduced, not eliminated. This is true about just about everything.

What you say we disagree about is the level of misbalance. I would agree that we disagree about this. At the same time I'll defend my position to the end, because it's so grossly obvious.

On the one side we have the business interests, and those that are supposedly on their side, and more importantly, accused of being in their pocket. I've still seen little evidence to prove massive funding (later link will show one "egregious" study showed 5% funding by the American Petroleum institute). I could argue the chicken and egg are they funded to prove something, or do business end up funding those who aren't out to put them out of business, business is hardly going to give money to people whose expressed goal is to put them out of business. That comes back to my comment, don't argue their funding, argue the science, show me where it's wrong.

On the other side we have the environmentalists groups. What is Greenpeace but a PR company. Granted they have different motivation, but they are a still nothing but a PR group, and they spend all of their money and promoting what science they think promotes their cause (minus of course what they use for other things like picketing Japanese whale boats). But other than publicity they don't have any other goal, and that is to include research. But is it chump change?

Not a GW group, but in the news today Last year, the IFAW raised $77.5 million U.S

200 Budget for Greenpeace In 2000, the total budget for. all Greenpeace organizations, including Greenpeace International, was $143 million

So while I admit that the above money is minor compared to the total worth of the likes of Mobil, it far exceeds Mobil's PR budget as you discussed it and far exceeds the sum that you mentioned with GCC in the anti-Kyoto campaign. And remember that all of the environmentalist budgets goes towards PR. More importantly, they receive plenty of PR for free, and I beg you to show me where the amount of media coverage on the Big Warming side exceeds that of the skeptic side. Head on over to Junkscience any particular day, where he reviews the news of the day (most without commentary) Pro GW articles outnumber anti about 6 to 1 at minimum.

Continued.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/nrc-emf.html/

It is in the book Milloy called Junk Science Judo. Hope this helps.

Finally someone looks at NATURAL causes instead of using junk science to explain things. Here's a site to look at.

Let's see how many enviro-crack-pots claim that humans are STILL a significant detrimental factor in the depletion of the ozone.

What you say is NOT supported by scientific facts and reflects the inane hysteria supported by movies put out by Hollywood. Whether global warming exists or not, Kyoto is not going to do a damned thing about it - read it and weep

Do you think maybe this is why we didn't sign it?

Junk Science has a couple of counters up, one detailing Kyoto's costs and one the benefits it's estimated to provide. You may find them interesting. . .

Yeah, you're right. Global warming isn't real. But a lot of us liberals know it, too.

Extensive information about global warming, particularly why it is not a threat, is explained very nicely in Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It's a great read.

Long story short: climates changes are cyclical, we just finished a period of warming, now we're in a period of cooling.

It's just like DDT, man...which is not dangerous. People jump on a bandwagon and believe anything that's popular.

>> Despite the fact that women are better drivers on average than men? Rate car insurance lately?

Insurance rates don't indicate that females are 'better' drivers than males, it means that insurance companies feel that males are more of a risk than females.

It appears that males are more a risk since males tend to drive much more than females, generally, and that males tend to like to be involved in fatal/severe accidents more frequently than females.

In fact, females, tend to have a higher accident rate per mile than males do.

See this link for support of statements.

I am curious about why males are involved in severe accidents more frequently than females, and would openly speculate that it is due to more risk-taking behavior on the part of males.

Ok here are some actual numbers and facts, not hype
The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.ht m
Sorry I had to burst many of your media driven opinions into the dirt....................

How convenient for the environmental alarmists. Now any weather event, hot or cold, can be used as "evidence" for further scaremongering.

Guess what folks, there were floods and hurricanes and blizzards before humans ever existed. Before the first caveman learned to tame fire, Earth's temperature and climate varied in ways that dwarf today's minor fluctuations.

Junk science-- mere blips of statistical noise tortured out of dubious computer simulations-- is being harnessed to the service of a coercive, collectivist political agenda.