Slashdot Mirror

Take a look at this page. You should take it with a grain of salt, but they cite all of their sources and make a lot of claims that can't be dismissed as crackpot ramblings. Two especially interesting claims are that the editor of Science explicitly stated that he would not publish any article supporting DDT and that Rachel Carlson grossly misinterpreted one of her most important sources when she wrote Silent Spring (which really launched the environmentalist movement as we know it today).

I really think that the majority opinion is more than likely right about global warming, but I'm reluctant to support it wholeheartedly. Both sides seem to have a lot of people with ulterior motives.

On a certain level, the lack of published dissent worries me. There are always dissenters and if the Bogdanov brothers could get their physics papers published at least one of the dissenters should be able to get published somewhere.

• 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of CO2
  
• 50% global CO2 emission reduction would therefore account for a smidge of greenhouse effect
  
• about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
  
• Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent.
  

No one is disputing a warming trend, only the degree to which human emissions contribute. Of course people are alarmed by the reports, but perhaps a better question might be,

Will restricting emissions slow, stop, or reverse a global warming trend?

http://www.junkscience.com/

The Kyoto protocol was based on some dubious science. While it's pretty clear that human activity has boosted CO2 levels to record levels, and there's strong evidence that global warming is occuring, the two aren't properly linked. For example, it hasn't been shown that reducing CO2 levels will reverse global warming. Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity. There's some evidence that the IPCC study (I am unable to find the "first assessment" report on the web) that the Kyoto treaty is based on was presented in a misleading light (eg, the summary of the report doesn't agree with the body of the report).

Second, only reduction in CO2 production is considered for the Kyoto treaty. Some work has been done on carbon sequestration. While these methods may prove infeasible, it seems absurd to ignore them in the treaty.

Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not. I wonder how long this disparity can continue before we see countries withdraw from the treaty. In particular, I suspect that Russia will withdraw once it has entered the WTO (apparently the carrot used to lure them into the treaty by the EU).

No cost/benefit analysis has been performed. Is it really better to restrain economic activity rather than to deal with the costs of global warming due to greenhouse gases? The apparent reduction in economic activity that would be experienced by the EU (the most likely ones to comply with the treaty) might mean a significant drop in global standards of living.

For clarification for anyone that might read this and consider this conclusive, read this first, and understand that this just implies a POSSIBLE correlation, and in no way guarantees a correlation...this is also kind of implied in the story body, but I just wanted to make sure you all knew....

Maybe you should go find the section in the treaty that says "China and India can produce as much polution as they like".

Jesus...

Kyoto doesn't apply to developing nations like India and China.

Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?

1 milligram of plutonium spread on a field would kill the grass, no matter how you dilluted it and grass wouldn't grow again for a long time.

I'm sure I didn't explain this as well as he could have, but I hope you get the gist of it.

Your concept is correct, but your facts are horribly incorrect and it distracts from your point.

WIkipedia describes the myth of Pu toxicity you refer to.

A Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium also deals in reality on the effects and dangers of Plutonium. Plutonium's danger lies in it's radioactivity and a Mg spread out over a field of grass is all but inconsequential. Junkscience.com has a short blurb about the effects of low-level radioactivity that would suprise many who have been led to beleive that radioactivity is a large and deady threat.

Toxic is a relative term, not an absolute, and there are multiple avenues of toxicity. Most laymen use the term to mean a substance's chemical toxicity.

Plutonium's chemotoxicity is less than that of caffiene, acetiminophen, and so on. It's radiotoxicity is 1/200th that of Radium, a naturally occuring substance in soil.

So basically, that horse urine is a greater threat to that field of grass than that Mg of plutonium.

Tim Lambert has a good article on your source.

Everyone run for the hills.

Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I.

It's from this article.

Everyone run for the hills.

Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I.

It's from this article.

Actually, President Clinton DID sign the Kyoto protocol... he just did not bother submitting it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew that it would never pass. Even leading Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wrote President Clinton urging him NOT to sign the protocol, and noting that signing it would be contrary to the terms of a Senate resolution passed by a vote of 95-0. After leaving office, a number of Clinton aides spoke out against the protocol, acknowledging that it would be both more difficult and more expensive to comply with than they thought when they were in office. And the Democratic Party has dropped support for the Kyoto protocol from their party platform this year.

Why is it that when President Bush obtains the advice and consent of Congress to go to war he is criticized and ridiculed, but when President Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in defiance of a unanimous Senate who tells him it will not consent to the treaty, he is praised?

Because, you know, there's no way that a private consumer organization could ever replace government, or provide more value.

Thanks for demonstrating the benefits of public education there. While the government may keep people from "dieing", it has a very bad track record in education.

One could even present the argument that a group of competing private testing companies would provide more value and safety than one centralized body that isn't accountable for the costs when they screw up.

As far as the FDA's real track record, look up the histories of things like Saccharin, Cyclamates...

Look at some of the new science being done about DDT

Because, you know, there's no way that a private consumer organization could ever replace government, or provide more value.

Thanks for demonstrating the benefits of public education there. While the government may keep people from "dieing", it has a very bad track record in education.

One could even present the argument that a group of competing private testing companies would provide more value and safety than one centralized body that isn't accountable for the costs when they screw up.

As far as the FDA's real track record, look up the histories of things like Saccharin, Cyclamates...

Look at some of the new science being done about DDT

This interview is debatably pro-Kerry. It appears to me that Kerry is merely finding Bush's "weak" points, then trying to "exploit" them. For instance, when the media attacks Bush's views on Global Warming, Kerry will decide it is in his best interest to voice that he will take action against emissions supposedly relating to global warming.

However, global warming is NOT occuring, at least in the "magnitude" that everyone is worried about. It is, technically, a lie by the uninformed media.

This "global warming" that everyone is worried about? It's really a variation in the earth's temperature of around 2 degrees over the last century and a half!

This article has more about it, as well as this chart:

Chart

Chart

[Image taken from this article here.]

Yes, that has data taken over only the last 25 years, but I assure you, the data sames relatively the same ever since scientists have started estimating the global temperature.

In addition, we see that the graph shows temperatures rising, yes, but then going way down the very next year, then bouncing back up! That is not how I would classify global warming!!!

Here is yet another graph, this one with data over the last century!

Chart

While the last graph was taken from an article that thinks global warming IS occuring, it provides no real data for their argument. And also, their chart directly contradicts their hypothesis!

So, to recap: Global warming is a lie. To blame Bush for not taking action against global warming is to blame him for not needlessly restricting industries actions.

- Yolego

This interview is debatably pro-Kerry. It appears to me that Kerry is merely finding Bush's "weak" points, then trying to "exploit" them. For instance, when the media attacks Bush's views on Global Warming, Kerry will decide it is in his best interest to voice that he will take action against emissions supposedly relating to global warming.

However, global warming is NOT occuring, at least in the "magnitude" that everyone is worried about. It is, technically, a lie by the uninformed media.

This "global warming" that everyone is worried about? It's really a variation in the earth's temperature of around 2 degrees over the last century and a half!

This article has more about it, as well as this chart:

Chart

Chart

[Image taken from this article here.]

Yes, that has data taken over only the last 25 years, but I assure you, the data sames relatively the same ever since scientists have started estimating the global temperature.

In addition, we see that the graph shows temperatures rising, yes, but then going way down the very next year, then bouncing back up! That is not how I would classify global warming!!!

Here is yet another graph, this one with data over the last century!

Chart

While the last graph was taken from an article that thinks global warming IS occuring, it provides no real data for their argument. And also, their chart directly contradicts their hypothesis!

So, to recap: Global warming is a lie. To blame Bush for not taking action against global warming is to blame him for not needlessly restricting industries actions.

- Yolego

Global Warming Is a myth

IIRC, Silent Spring mostly complained about egg shell thinning. It seems the evidence for that was much weaker than it was claimed. See 100 things you should know about DDT

It turns out that lead, oil, and mercury were far more likely to have been the culprit. Each of those contaninates DID have a profound and immediate effect on the animals tested.

Links

Haw haw, yes, funny. It's a Fox News story posted on JunkScience.com. If you find that particular messenger distasteful, you can read a dreary list of 100 counterpoints, complete with references to even duller source material, to the oft-repeated anti-DDT hysteria. Personally, I don't think the DDT ban made much difference one way or the other. I think it makes for a good cautionary tale, though, about taking something as truth just because a large group of people fervently believe it. This goes for anything, be it pesticides, armageddon predictions, or invasions of foreign countries.

Funny you should mention. While lead is indeed a Very Toxic Substance, as it turns out the whole DDT issue itself was the result of FUD spreading fearmongers.

Please stop propagating junk science.

He has the support of the CATO Institute, a neutral, non-profit organisation fighting against the spread of junk science such as "global warming" (a single volcano belches out more SO2 than humanity has in its entire history) and "acid rain" (last time I checked, "evil" CO2 was not acidic), not to mention the hysteria about DDT, dioxins, asbestos and lead in fuel, none of which have any scientific backing but all of which are supported by eco-fascists and pro-statist left-wing biased news "sources" who want to stop the growth of the US economy becuase they're jealous and they hate our freedom.

Please stop propagating junk science propagated by anti-American communists. "Pollution" is just FUD spread by the anti-Progress communo-envirofascist lobby. For a fair and balanced view of the "environment", please see Fox News - Fair And Balanced or The CATO Institute, Protecting America Against Statism.

We also had to ban DDT and all those other nasty pesiticides because the aliens are big bugs!
Visit www.junkscience.com and get educated.

What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

The bigger threat is agenda based junk science.

www.junkscience.com

I always read that as:

# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated +5

Dumbest warnings I ever saw were on a laptop's power supply:

FOR USERS IN CALIFORNIA:

WARNING: The power cord on this product contains lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

Of course, there's no word on whether the lead in the power cord is transmuted to gold when I cross the border into Nevada, or whether or not residents of other states need to wash their hands after plugging things in or not.

(The background is that a bunch of twits fell for the junk science on PVC softened with lead phthalates. Consider that if studies on intravenous bags with the stuff are questionable, it's Not Bloody Likely that failing to wash your hands after you plug in your laptop is going to kill you. But since when did science matter to the granola-crunchin' hypesters of the People's Republic of California? It's to protect the chilllllldren and the enviiiiiiirunmennnnnt!

DDT on the other hand is definitely dangerous when overused, and it was overused, but it arguably should still have its place today.

I can't locate any online copies of the article, but the 15 year study of Seveso is in Epidemiology 1997;8:646-652. The study didn't find any statistically significant increased risk of cancer in those exposed very heavily to dioxin. See JunkScience.com for a brief analysis.

Just to put the capper on this, there isn't any real evidence that dioxin harms people either.

Do you perchance remember Seveso, Italy and the dioxin scare there? It was just a big scare based on junk science. No one actually got hurt by all the dioxin.

The DDT ban is mostly due to junk science.

Not to be mean, but these little fluff science pieces just don't cut it. These days, knowing how the popular media spit out "science" reports without checking it, this item could be junk science for all I know unless I see the hard data including a serious peer review to cross check the findings.

A coffee review on /. ?? You guys are putting me to sleep with dull items like this. I need another cup of coffee.

Not to mention DDT which could stop millions of deaths due to malaria.

Which was killed by enviromental groups to increase their political power despite being no danger to anything but insects.

Changing the *angle* between the hydrogen atoms?!?!

...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH---HA-HAHAHAH AHAHAHAH!


By the way, Quackwatch and Junk Science are great places to get info for "enlightening the unclean", so to speak.

I took a look at Hogan's website a while back. See my followup comments here. He's about a reliable source on scientific issues as Steven Milloy. That is, anything he says is highly colored by his ideological views and lots of rhetoric with little argument.

This is a rant. If you don't want to read it, don't.

It's been clear to me for some time that when it comes to energy policy, stupidity and fear rule the day. I believe Heinlein once wrote: "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity". Can there be a more truthful statement? Consider:

We humans handily ignore the 13 TRILLION pounds of carbon emitted by our chemical-fuel economy, nearly all pumped out of the ground, causing global climatic change. Many people go so far as to argue that this would have no effect on the global ecology!

How can you argue that this much CO2 will not have an effect on our environment?

We pay little more than lip service to all of the apparent results of our decisions to persue chemical energy.

I'm not one to say that we should go back to banging rocks, and eat bark and bugs, but since we all think so highly of our children WHY AREN'T WE THINKING ABOUT THE WORLD THEY WILL LIVE IN?

I cringe every time I see a new make of unsafe, inefficient, ecologically expensive SUV and consider the irony of the owners of such vehicles being among the most likely to have an "I love America" bumper sticker when such vehicles provide only a dependence on foreign oil. Even funnier still is the idea that an SUV is a good car "for the kids"...

And yet, when you mention alternatives, such as this ultra-clean and efficient compressed-air car that cleans the air as it drives, refuels in under 2 minutes, and provides reliable transportation at an equivalent cost of around $0.35 per gallon of gas, it's "nerdy" or "unsafe" or "a hassle".

And, perish the thought that having a clean, safe, self-sufficient micronuclear power plant ! I mean, cheap, safe, non-polluting energy! Oh, "but it's DANGEROUS!" they say. Never mind the annual death toll of just under 1.2 MILLION people from those wonderful cars. If 2 dozen people died in a power plant, it'd be a "national disaster" in the papers, but 1.2 million people dying in cars barely make the obituaries column on page B-11.

How is stupidity not in power?

And one of the primary reasons why the SUV is so popular is because of all the stupid legal benefits that automakers enjoy for making large, cheap, polluting, inefficient, over-priced-but-"stylish" SUVs and light trucks.

If we just applied some sense to the situation, we'd have cars that didn't pollute, we'd have energy that didn't force us to sell the birthrights of our children, all combined with a reasonable economy we could all be proud of.

What kind of world are your grandchildren going to live in?

Think about it this way - if I worked for Fox News and I wrote a scathing book about GWB on my own my own time then I shouldn't be surprised if I was fired the next day.

I was looking around for an article I read a few years ago, I thought in one of the valley papers, but stumbled on this , which seemed to cover the same points and might have just been republished out there. You might also want to take a look at this from the EPA.

The fact that you bring up sperm count suggests to me that it may be you who has been had. The best current evidence is that sperm counts haven't changed much at all in the last 50 years. Here are a couple relevant links:

Reuters article on male fertility study
medline reference, same study

As to the DDT issue, I don't find Prof. Wurster's letter terribly convincing since he doesn't refer to any new data to counter what seems to have been a vast flood of contrary data that came in well after the EPA ban to which he refers. Why don't we focus on eggshell thinning. Could you speak to the references (and summaries) here? Are you claiming these references don't exist, aren't relevant, are being mis-described, are nonrepresentative? Or, if all these references do exist and do show what they are purported to show, do you have some specific reason for doubting them?

And in particular, There aren't any large-scale studies showing a clear negative effect on human health. Despite many attempts. Even the claims of damage to birds have mostly been debunked. I didn't say anything about Dursban. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Dursban. But I'd like to point out that we don't need to "introduce" vast quantities of toxins into our environment; our environment is already full of natural "toxins" whether we choose to introduce new ones or not. Introducing new chemicals that - like everything that exists - are toxic to some at some dosage level, often reduces our overall health risk and removing old chemicals often increases health risk. For instance, outlawing DDT just meant that most people who would have used DDT used some other chemical as a substitute, and I don't believe anybody bothered to determine that DDT was MORE toxic than the likely replacements before banning it. It's also pretty clear that the short-term effect of banning DDT was to drastically increase human deaths due to malaria.

Junkscience.com's DDT FAQ

Did Steven Milloy let one of his trolls out of the basement? I guess all the florists will be going out of business, seeing how that "Greenhouse Theory" has been refuted.

This link has more context. To clarify, I don't want to be in the position of defending this site. However, if anyone thinks Consumer Reports is above criticism, then think again. No ads does not equal objectivity. It is their spin, the line they use - like "Hey babe, I'm a doctor". BFD.

If you are looking for an opinion on Consumer Reports, then Check out this "Consumer Distorts" page. So they do have their non-anonymous critics.

But, I thought the US Senate was supposed to ratify treaties--not the President. If so, then blaming President Bush ignores US law. I found this article that indirectly brings up this point.

For your reading pleasure, I also cite an article from the opposing viewpoint stating why the treaty is not in the short- or long-term interests of the United States. Additionally, the article futher points to the Senate's perogative in ratification of treaties, stating, "[t]hough the Senate hasn't ratified the treaty . . . ."

So, please place blame with the agency responsible. If the US Senate does not ratify a treaty, then it is not valid. Oddly enough, some Geneva Convention articles did not pass the US Senate in the 1950s.

Anyways, incidences of CJD are 1 in 1 million, so don't worry about it anyways. You're much more likely to die from exiting your home. :)

That and I do still think that by being selective about your meat you can avoid mad cow disease or anything similar. Up to now the FDA hasn't found a single case of Mad Cow Disease in any tested cows in the US (AFAIK).

Maybe you should read This link. Common sense and a little scientific method make the world a much less scary place!

"The dose makes the poison."

Everything is toxic in the proper amount.

The report was aired twice before Stossel was forced to retract the statements which were patently false because the group that supposedly did the tests kept complaining that the tests described had never been done.

The first actual study of the issue was completed in May and showed that organically grown produce contained a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.

Stossel knew there was no study to support his ridiculous claims, but it meshed with his political beliefs and he didn't think anyone would call him on it.

More details about the real study are here. More about Stossel's junk science can be found here.

Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.

Yes, and the myth that it is a "well-respected theory within the scientific community" is one of them.

There has been a great deal of misinformation, propaganda and flat-out Junk Science on this issue disseminated in the last decade or so -- including statements from so-called "scientific societies" that turn out to contain nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al.

The FACTS remain that there is NO scientific consensus on the issue, regardless Al Gore's unsubstantiated claims in his Earth in the Balance polemic. The only reliable data on the subject, a Gallup Poll, shows that the majority of climatologists do not believe that global warming is human-caused.

You are correct that information on Global Warming is easy to find, such as here, here, here and here among others too numerous to list.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but "global warming" isn't real.

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."