We have heard a lot about one side of 'Global Warming' from the main stream media, and I saw it listed as a Critical Issue here. I urge everyone to take the time to see the other side too. This video is 1 hr 13 minutes.
Go to http://stage6.divx.com/user/krahosk/video/1174924/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
or google "The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
Deserve Victory
Rod Marklund
California
Even if you don't believe science, you must realize that a cleaner environment is good.
Global warming should not be a Unity08 plank, there is no consensus.
I see no scientific evidence for global warming, so I don't believe in global warming.
I believe in conservation, but I will not feel guilty because I don't conserve enough.
Global warming is eco-terrorism, green party advocation, and big business hating.
Global warming, brought to you by the same people who gave you 8 dollar cans of tuna.
Go to Glouchester, MA and ask them how the cod fishing is this year...
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Most of the problem with the codfishing is from overfishing. They need to manage their resources. The land based fisherman have been doing it for generations. Rainbow trout anyone?
Global warming is not a prank or plank or whatever it is you want to call it. I believe it could be possibly be twisted to some sort of sick marketing scheme, but that's only if you look at it incredibly deep. Honestly, it has happened several times, in several different periods in Earth's history. Sure it is possible Green House Gas sped up the process, but climate change on Earth is inevitable.
There is no question global warming exists. I have read that, if not for the greenhouse effect, the planet would be 60*F (34*C) colder than it is today. The question is: are we at an environmental turning point; or are we at the peak of a warm cycle, and the planet will start to cool for the next 50 years? I don't know. Scientists have said the past few years have been some of the warmest on record, but records have been kept for only 150 years or so, which of course coincides with the Industrial Revolution. Which leads to the additional question of whether humans are the primary cause of global warming. I suggest reading Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear, which fairly presents both arguements.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a veteran.
Bgood26,
Actually temperatures have been constant since 1998. Recently they discovered a miscalculation of some sort, by NASA, that changes the warmest year on record from being in the 1990's to being in the 1930's, before the major carbon emisions began. I'm all for cleaning up the environment, but I refuse to jump on the "it's all mans fault" train.
I have heard several versions of global warming crisis. It seems none of the so-called scientists have a clue. For every one that says it is a man made disaster you have a scientist showing it is all hype and just a natural chain of events that has been going on for millions of years. The thing I have found that proves, to me at least, that it is all hype is: Al Gore is the president of the company that sells carbon credits to industry so they could write off pollution controls. Kind of the hypocritical don't you think? This is up there with silicone breast implants cause cancer (proved false), the millions of asbestos cases (most of the x-rays are either doctored or show nothing), and sueing companies that made lead paint, used over fifty years ago, for pollution hazard (the paint was legal back then). I will stay neutral until the proof comes out in ten years. As for a cleaner environment if people stopped mowing their lawns it would cut pollution by about half (in US). Most of the pollution is from the third world countries that still employ slash and burn for farming.
Al Gore pushes Global Warming with this company. It is his money making machine.Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C.
So, Stumpy, you expect us to believe that the millions of dollars to be made, and political power to be had from the fear produced by his hype, are Mr. Gore's motives? And not that he wants to save the earth?
Maybe this would explain his still using a private jet, while telling others not to do this, and his lack of curbing the massive energy consumption in his mansion, while preaching to the rest of us that we must conserve?
But seriously, he is not only a major investor and co-founder. He is Chairman, which I bet brings him a healthy paycheck on top of what he realizes in his investments for pushing the world to use his "green" companies.
I love how JFK said, "if you don't believe science", as if man made global warming is scientific fact and there is some kind of "concensus" or something. Nice try JFK.
Now Autobob. Do I sound like a guy that is just trying to shoot holes into Al Gore's money making machine? I just call 'em, like I see 'em.
The greatest environmentalists in the world are the american hunting and fishing community. Saved the bear, eagle, wild turkey and thousands of species from extinction, Now that is a green army.
I subscribe to the school of uncle Teddy. If we thin the herds, they grow stronger. If we eat it, and enjoy it, we're going to make sure it survives!
How dare you call a preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific opinion a consensus.
What it really is, is an um... consensus.
Sorry autobob, but I think you're full of it on this one...
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Thanks 62monzaman!
Too bad there is a consensus. Most scientists who work in any field related to the environment agree that mankind is warming the Earth at more then natural rates.
Unity08 must recognize that there are extremists on both sides of this issue. We must avoid them. There are those that say Gore is God and that everything he says is true. It is not. Many of the points in his video have been disproven by scientists - they were either outdated or just completely wrong (but not ALL he says is propaganda - much of it is scientific FACT!). And then there are those extremists that attack Gore. They point to his personal lifestyle as a scientific fact to prove that man made global warming is false. They disregard science, and choose to ignore whichever facts they like. Facts cannot be ignored. Theories? Maybe some. But not facts.
Oh, and 62monzaman, one more thing. My original point is still valid. If we keep increasing the carbon in the air (every scientist agrees here) there will soon be places where it is impossible for humans to live - because of air quality! I'm not talking small pockets like next to factories in China, I'm talking entire cities and regions. At high levels atmospheric carbon poses a serious health threat, and at lower levels for a longer time it does the same. This is kind of similar to the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico we have been hearing about recently. Except for humans. Dead zones on land. And then there are the countless other environmental examples which I don't have time to get into right now.
Whatever position you take on this, the remedy is helpful. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everyone agrees with that goal, even YOU! We need to use renewable and nuclear energy to build up our electricity providing capabilities. And then we need to switch to electric cars. This combination will eliminate almost 95% of our emissions! But it is all not just one step. There are layers. First, we up MPG standards, start building nuclear power plants, implement coal-liquification and carbon capture technologies, use ethanol, and develop more efficient renewable energy plants. Then we start switching cars over to electric and start building our renewable energy plants. This allows us to start shutting down our fossil fuel plants, and to slow our importation of oil. Finally, we arrive at our goal. A technology driven economy with little greenhouse gas emissions. This technology economy will allow us to keep making leaps and bounds in our energy independent future, and allow us to eventually expand into space. Mars is looking mighty-good a few hundred years from now!
(Please note some hypothetical, maybe "dreamy," situations and events were used in the closing sentences of this post)
No matter who you are or what you believe, this is for you.
For more information on the Nuclear and Renewable energy combo, see the energy sources forum.
First of all, I would like to say that as a geologist I have a unique understanding of the science behind the issue at hand and I welcome any questions that anyone has about the science and/or policy.
Global warming is a FACT, the Earth is warming. There are natural variations, however, we are in a period when the Earth should be getting COLDER, NOT WARMER. (by the Milankovitch Cycles) What is disputed is whether the warming is anthropogenic in origin. At present the scientific community places the certainty of global warming's anthropogenic nature at 90%.
In a comprehensive review of PEER REVIEWED literature on climate change it was found that 3/4 of articles state a finding in favour or anthropogenic warming, while the other 1/4 state that findings are inconclusive, and none claim to contradict those findings. There are of course numerous organizations funded by fossil fuel companies whose job it is to cast doubt upon the science. Last I checked Exxon Mobile by itself funds over 40 of these organizations and they also pay $10,000 per article to any scientist who will write something to discount global warming. Of course, none of these articles are peer reviewed.
And I recently posted on the issue of health concerns associated with increased carbon dioxide emissions, which must be considered regardless of whether you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not. Some excerpts are below:
At present, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at 385 ppm, but that is a global average. The concentration varies regionally up to about 630 ppm. The projected global average by the end of the century is 750 ppm or more, which after applying the same ratios as are currently measured for regional variability means that the actual concentration at any given location may exceed 1250 ppm. Below are some OSHA/NIOSH requirements and statistics:
The Immediate Danger to Life and Health value is 40,000 ppm
The Ten Minute Exposure Limit is 30,000 ppm
The Threshold Limit Value (exposure over an 8-hr time period) is 5000 ppm
At 1000 ppm, 20% of individuals begin to experience respiratory discomfort, some experience headaches, throat irritation, and fatigue. Chronic exposure to these levels will lead to increased incidence of bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and asthma attacks, COPD, etc.
At 2024 ppm, over 50% experience respiratory discomfort or distress and begin to develop nausea, headaches, and vomiting.
Indoor Air Quality standards suggest that carbon dioxide should not exceed 800-1000 ppm. This is an indicator of "inadequate ventilation".
Studies show that concentrations as low as 426 ppm can have toxic effects over the course of a lifetime.
And all of the above values are for healthy adults. The values are significantly lowered for infants, children, the elderly, those with asthma, COPD, or any respiratory ailment.
The standard "stuffy room" is due to a carbon dioxide concentration of 600-800 ppm. Within the next century the entire Earth will be a stuffy room.
All of that is JUST FROM THE CARBON DIOXIDE. Along with carbon dioxide emissions come other nasty toxins such as mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, which has already become a problem in some states. In New York for instance, at one point 17% of babies were born with toxic mercury level. And mercury causes learning disabilities, weakened immune systems, and brain damage.
Someone stated that most greenhouse emissions are from third world countries, which I don't believe is true. The United States alone holds 23% of those emissions, then there's Europe which is a big producer, though I don't have the figures off the top of my head, and China and India, neither of which I would call third world countries. They have many of the best scientists in the world and large economies, all they lack to become powers is a more developed infrastructure.
Nuclear energy is a good short term solution, but we do need to continue to grow other forms of energy, solar and wind in particular. As for the carbon capture and sequestration, I'm rather wary of that alternative. We have no idea what the residence time of the gases in the strata will be and what I am concerned about is leaking and possible catastrophic releases that may be cause by something like a minor earthquake.
After watching the above mentioned program I think I need to comment on it.
First, to address the legitimacy of some of the sources used: Tim Ball and Pierce Corbyn both head organizations funded by fossil fuel and electric companies. Paul Reiter is a medical doctor, so he has no special expertise to deny that global warming is happening. The "New Scientist" has a reputation for sensationalism and is not peer reviewed. AND TWO OF THOSE USED ACTUALLY SUPPORT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
Now to disspell misinformation:
1. About the Little Ice Age and the Medievel Warm Period.... Neither of them actually existed. They were merely local phenomena that are not reflected in the global record. So that thing about the sunspots, solar activity, and the Maunder minimum causing it is just false. (PS- I almost went to grad school for astrophysics instead, so I kinda know about this too)
2. The Holocene Maximum was the result of the well known and well established Milankovitch Cycles, and it was not warmer than it is now.
3. Clouds form around particles, NOT COSMIC RAYS. So the whole cosmic ray thing causing the weather is kinda crazy.
4. In the program they stated that wind and solar energy are 3x as expensive as conventional sources. ONCE AGAIN NOT TRUE. Ten years ago when I checked it was twenty percent more expensive if you bought it from a power company. But my brother is a systems engineer with a renewable energy company and he tells me that any system will over its lifetime end up costing significantly LESS than if you just purchased traditional sources.
5. Global warming causes the surface temperature to increase. The average overall temperature of the atmosphere actually dos not change, I believe that the physics says that the atmosphere will expand a bit so that the system can maintain an equilibrium, therefore while the surface temp increases you shouldn't expect as significant of increases higher up. Also, you can't use the same instrument to measure temperature at the surface and high up because the density decreases with altitude. A traditional thermometer at higher altitude would measure heat instead of actual temperature and the program was unclear as to how the work was performed.
6. The 800 year lag of carbon dioxide behind temperature only occurs at the end of ice ages which are themselves governed by the Milankovitch Cycles (AGAIN!!!), when the temperature rises due to these cycles the oceans cannot hold as much carbon dioxide hence the excess is released. This release takes 800 years before the system again gains a measure of equilibrium. The lag is thus a part of the feedback loop that we expect as part of the warming.
7. The temperature decrease from 1940-1975 was not drastic as was claimed by the show, it was in fact at the maximum -0.1 C. It is well known that this decrease was due to global dimming which was from teh massive increase in particulate and aerosol emissions. Ironically the process of global dimming, while temporarily stopping global warming also depleted our Ozone layer, but when we stopped producing some of the ozone depleting materials it opened the door back up to global warming.
So, all in all I believe that the program was a blatant attempt at misinformation and an obvious attempt to create controversy or at least the appearance of such.
It is nice to have someone around who knows their stuff!
When your 1st attempt to "disspell misinformation" is so flawed, do you expect me to check your other points for accuracy? I will just assume that these are also flawed.
As for the Little Ice age and the Medievil Warm Period, by "local phenomena" do you meen the local of the Northern Hemisphere? That's an awfull large local. And, while there is some debate as to the extent of the effects on the Southern Hemisphere, ocean sediment cores from the Antarctic Peninsula show centenial climactic events that coincide with both the Little Ice Age and the Medievil Warm Period. The Little Ice Age is also distinguishable in the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Peruvian Andes (South America).
While I know that the globe is warming, what I am SCEPTICAL of (not a denier, that is a devisive term used to describe people that disagree with PROVEN FACT) is the anthropogenic cause.
Up until about the last two years both the Little Ice Age and Medievel Warm Periods were considered to be fact. However, recently there has been a great deal of work that has cast doubt upon how wide spread the effects really were. At last year's fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in SF I would say that the presentations were distributed 50-50 between those who were studying the cause and/or effect of these phenomena and those who were presenting data that contradicted their existence. Most of the new work, at least the studies that have stuck in my mind, has been using deep sea sediments and other markers in the ocean rather than the mountain glaciers.
I think that current scientific opinion is tipping toward the view that the two events were just occurrences of North America and Europe while the average global temperature actually remained fairly constant. Of course since this line of research has only been prominent in the literature for the past couple years all the avenues have yet to be explored.
And on a side note that I think everyone should keep in mind - it is just about impossible to PROVE that global warming is anthropogenic. Technically , we can't even prove that gravity exists because we can't detect gravitons yet.
PS - Here's a good, though old, treatment of the evidence about the purported events from the IPCC. I didn't take the time to read the articles cited on the page though: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
I take issue with the idea that we have not seen "the other side" of the global warming debate. That is a misinformed statement, at best. The media has given time to many of those who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming. That is how the people on this thread have gotten their Rush Limbaugh talking points about Al Gore and his campaign to do something about it. He may not be the perfect character for the job, but the scientific community does agree with him. I think ngc8609 says the rest of what is required below.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I decided to myself a long time ago that "global warming" is a scam. The only thing that I couldn't figure out was how those individuals responsible for the proclaimation of such would profit from doing so. Until now. I believe it was a couple of years ago (maybe someone could help me out with this) that the government quietly signed a backdoor bill giving themselves the authority to research and/or initialize the possiblity of scientific climate control. I would be interested to find out if any of the forerunners in the global warming movement have any investment in companies involved with electro-magnetic research and development. Again, maybe someone could help me out with this.
I'm rather interested as to how you could control climate using electromagnetics. I've never heard of anything remotely similar to what you are talking about.
It seems to me that there are extremes on both sides of this issue. Whether global warming is human caused or natural. The truth is it is probably somewhere in the middle. It is getting warmer naturally but humans are moving it faster. However the sky is not falling so don't panic.
You're right. I believe someone said the sky would actually be rising.
My 2 cents, is basically all your discussion is, lots of scientific facts but you do not relate the facts to the big picture. As a geologists, you are not A)trained in the hard sciences of physics and chemistry. Let me begin. I recently attended, a scientist myself, a lecture from a Dr. Harry Kloor who is by the way, the only person in the world to receive a double PH'D in Physics and chemistry. His stature comes not because of that as I am sure there are many persons who could claim this fame, but Dr. Kloor received these degrees simultaneously within 4 months. Dr. Kloor had analyzed Al Gore's movie personnally as he was in the midst of the science record that Al Gore's Hollywood staff received their .... scientific.... data. Dr. Kloor showed us the real graphs and charts of the science and guess what, looked nothing like what was within "An Inconvenient Truth". Fact of the matter, it was a fraud, another deception like what occurred the in the 1970's, ie the hysteria that we were going into an ice age and in the 1980's, the hysteria that our hair was going to fall out due to acid rain. You name it, but every decade or so there is this mass hysteria brought on from wanna be scientists who shun the scientific process and go forth with hyped up false data. If you look long enough one can find someone to back up just about any falsified data.
I hate to be blunt, but "My 2 cents worth" forgot to mention that since 1880, the warmest period occurred in the 1930's (ever hear of the dirty thirties) whereas that decade of 1931 to 1941 holds the majority of record temperature years recorded, including the year 1934 where it is noted as the hottest year since 1880. How could this be? I really doubt there was that much carbon polluting emissions coming from the few cars they had in the 30's. Temperature data out of Greenland also eluded to this fact and was the warmest period recorded in this northern glaciered country. So why, all of a sudden, are we heading into global warming, or as it is now called lovingly, "Climate Change"? Are we. Just 30 days ago, NASA, a proponent of global warming came out in a low keyed announcement that oops they made a mistake and the temperatures previously recorded by NASA scientists were wrong and showed no appreciable warming of the earth within their studies. Now what is going on? Well, one person whispers into the ear of another that the sky is falling and he/she in turn whispers into anothers ear and by the end of this discourse, the whisper turns to a shout and holy moly, we are all dying and will be fried within 10 years. This is just nonsense.
Carbon Dioxide has a molecular weight heavier than oxygen and air and thus it fall, in time to the ground where plants use it in their respiration process. Man's involvement of release of C02 is currently set at approximately .28% of 1%. The majority of C02 gas is released by the earth's biomass, ie decaying material in the sea and on land. A healthy growing forest utilizes much C02 in their respiration process and in turn transforms this into oxygen. Remember Einstein's law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed into one entity to another. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor and would have much more affect to the planet's climatic change than C02. Ever heard of cycles. If the earth is warming a degree or so, according to Dr. Kloor, there are facts of sun activity and global wobbling of the earth at its axis. Just a minute wobble, and by the way, the earth does wobble, can cause what we are seeing today if or if not there is any warming. I tend to believe that even the temperature takers are incorrect, NASA was. I do believe that our earth has pollution problems, but let's call it what it is, not some hysterical money making nonsense so guys like Al Gore can make 200 million on it. Let's develop a platform to find another energy source, start a Manhattan Project so to speak and fund it until a alternative is found that is cheap and efficient. Not for global warmings sake, but for our environment and to rid ourselves of our dependance on OPEC. Let's be the leader in this area, like America has been in so many other sectors of industry.
Every reputable scientist looks at all facts before making an hypothesis, that is the way of science. To look at a study or several studies and then make a conclusion is not good science, but a waste of time and effort. Remember that coffee was bad for you, then it was good for you and just recently I saw a study was back to saying it is bad for you.
Hysteria is what we are talking about, contrived by Hollywood starlets like Daryl Hannah and a host more who never spent a day in a science class. Hysteria most often supercedes science. Case in point. During the 1970's their was a mass hysteria about the use of DDT, a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide that was thought to be the cause of many evils, including damage to bird and mammal reproductive systems, ie the thin birdshells of the 1970's. Today, modern science has disproved this hysteria and in the process 50 million people died of insect borne diseases in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Some hysteria correct?
During our Revolutionary War, some may remember the painting of good ole George crossing the Delaware on his little boat surrounded by very big ice cubes. Their is an agreement among scientist over a long period of time study on this that apparently during that period of time according to records, that the earth was in a mini ice age. But it warmed up in the 1800's. How could that be with no cars. There are records of some very violent storms, speaking mainly of hurricanes in the 1800's according to historical records. Climate change, yes, it has been occurring since the dawn of time and to think that a biomass may maintain a temperature exactly the same each and every year throughout time is a person who is not thinking. Global warming due to Man's involvment? No, man has no effect on the temperature, unless one looks at the entire equation and the root of all environmental problems and that being over population. This itself is the number one environmental concern that each and every person should take a look at. The cutting of the rain forest in our tropical regions of this planet, no not by cutting timber for forest product useages, but timber being cut for the clearing of land for agriculture purposes of food production, cattle grazing and the majority of the timber being cut today by the infamous drug cartels for production of non-edible agriculture products. Yes, DRUGS. If not for the United States' insatiable demand for illicit drugs, millions of hectares of the Amazon forest would still be intact. You didn't know that did you? Don't debate me on this issue as you will lose.
In summary, for anyone to analyze any scientific data or take its recommendations or conclusion as the truth, one must know a lot about said subject. Otherwise, you don't have a clue to what you are hearing or reading and do not understand the context. I am sure Daryl Hannah understands the scientific process. Study before you spread hysteria, think before you leap. The southern hemisphere is cooling today (how could that be?). There is a lot of facts that I cannot get into here, but Dr. Kloor stated it correctly when I heard him speak. Scientific hysteria is just that, bad science. Btw, Dr. Kloor was the chief judge for the X awards that awarded Paul Allen and his team as the winner.
Remember one final thought. Five hundred years ago, England was a major wine producing country due to its climate. Today that would be impossible. I am now going out to buy a sweater as last year in San Diego was one of the coldest winters on record and yes many of my plants died as they just could not take this global warming.
Except maybe me.
If you say geologists should have no say in environmental matters, physicists should have less so. What about environmental scientists? They are trained in Biology, geology, chemistry and other fields. They should be the ones we listen to. I don't know (or want to know) what crevice you pulled half this stuff from. It is absolutely ridiculous. And you say that DDT does not harm the environment? Again, absolute BS. Making up facts does not help your credibility. You also refer to countless mini-ice ages and mini-warm periods. They are exactly that. Mini. Mini in temperature and mini in scale. They were all localized events. Global Warming (which causes Global Climate Change) is not distributed evenly across the world. The extremes of the planet (arctic, antarctic) will have a much higher rate of warming. That means that say, San Diego, would not have as high a rate of warming. But we must also remember that Global Warming is just that - GLOBAL. It is the GLOBAL mean temperature that changes. That is why it is climate CHANGE. The halting of the gulf stream would drive Europe into a mini ice age, while the rest of the globe continued to warm. Every reputable scientist looks at all facts before making an hypothesis, that is the way of science. To look at a study or several studies and then make a conclusion is not good science, but a waste of time and effort. You must base your conclusions off of ALL information gained. Not convenient examples as you have done, and I must admit (as I try and make fair arguments), so have I.
To JFK, who is one of those obvious nutcakes the film above points out who do not want to know the facts. Where did I get the facts, from wherevery other person who studies science does. For example, I am an analytical chemist and toxicologist and yes DDT does not have the effects once noted by so called alarmist scientists with 40 year old science and equipment. You are an idiot..... by the way your kind always start calling people who disagree with themselves by names, and an uninformed Sunday afternoon scientist. I am a former scientist with the EPA and I think I know what I am talking about, just a little. The halting of the Gulf Stream, I assume you got that information from the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quaid. My god Dennis Quaid starred in a movie about global warming and now JFK believes Hollywood. I guess you didn't see the press about NASA admitting they made a mistake on their temperature readings. I guess not and you probably will not realize, based on your poor comebacks. When asked if the planet earth was closest to the sun or farthest away from the sun during the summer solstice, your pal Al Gore replied it was closest to the sun. Yea, it is hot, we must be real close. Mini ice age, the Little ice age, the ice age are all cycles in our past and you are so smart to refer to them as JUST MINI. What does that mean in scientific terms.
And JFK, what is an environmental scientist? Is that like an environmental lawyer? What an idiot, anyone can call themselves an environmental scientist. Do you think that physicists, chemists, foresters, biologists are not trained in most of the hard sciences? I think you may be talking about a climatologist, like Dennis Quaid on the movie where you got all your scientific information. I did make one mistake, the wine was produced in England approximately 1000 years ago.
By the way, the geologist should have known that the inland empire was once an ocean as per the fossils found hundreds of miles inland. And what about the dinosaurs in Montana? I would hate to be a reptile up their the last several hundred years as would be a little cold for a cold blooded animal.
JFK, use your head and not you left wing wacko opinionated useless verbage. Remember you attacked me with your intended insults. The movie I just watch, I believe you were the one they were talking about.
Finally, global warming explained in one sentence as you prefer. Only a left winger would propose such a feat.
Based on your writing skills, there is no evidence that you have the acuity to pass an eighth-grade biology course.
If you are a scientist, than you must have been a Bush administration appointee; they seem to make a habit of recruiting unqualified people for important positions ("Brownie, your doing a heck of a job").
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
An attack on a purely personal level, because of grammer no less, is very unlike you.
And for you, JFK, Jlassle is absolutely correct on the DDT issue. We know as much about DDT today as we did in the 1960's, and that is that there have been no detrimental environmental affects on humans or animals. The book "Silent Spring", by Rachael Carson, was an un-informed load of crap that was pushed by the environmentalists because of their political agenda. I believe that 10's of millions of deaths can be directly attributed to this woman. You can Google DDT and read from any number of sources about the safe use of DDT. Here are two for you;
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/10/04/hooray_for_ddts_life-saving_comeback
An attack on a purely personal level, because of grammer no less, is very unlike you.
And for you, JFK, Jlassle is absolutely correct on the DDT issue. We know as much about DDT today as we did in the 1960's, and that is that there have been no detrimental environmental affects on humans or animals. The book "Silent Spring", by Rachael Carson, was an un-informed load of crap that was pushed by the environmentalists because of their political agenda. I believe that 10's of millions of deaths can be directly attributed to this woman. You can Google DDT and read from any number of sources about the safe use of DDT. Here are two for you;
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/10/04/hooray_for_ddts_life-saving_comeback
Autobob,
Normally I would never call anyone on spelling or structure. He is different; he is presenting his views as an expert. Nobody could get through college-level science classes with his writing skills.
But, because I respect you, I will apologize for my behavior.
Also, Rachael Carson's science was rock-solid. She was an authentic American hero. Her work has never been successfully challenged. I believe what you are referring to is the re-combining (and I'm no scientist - I'm not sure that is the proper term) of DDT that was developed after her death. As I understand it, other compounds are combined with the base chemical to mitigate some of the worst effects of DDT.
I don't see how she can be blamed for any deaths - and there is no doubt that she discovered previously unknown data about how chemicals can be absorbed and stored in tissue.
If you are worried about fair treatment of people (and I think you are), then you should be concerned about Rachel Carson being dragged through the mud so unfairly by people who wish to score political capital - years after she is unable to defend herslf.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
My spelling is atrocious, so I take spelling and grammer shots personally.
As for Ms. Carson, what I have read that discredits her is the false statements about the DDT studies on quails (and another bird I think, I'll look it up) reproduction. When the quails were fed something like 200ppm of DDT on ALL of their food, and they produced the normal amount of eggs, she stated some greatly reduced amount hatched when in reality, compared to the control group, there was an increased percentage of hatched eggs. I believe it was the other bird studied that had a slight decrease, but it was very minimal, like 3 or 4 percent.
That is the fact changing that I have regularly heard about. I will try to find that bird study and post it.
UPDATE;
It was quails and pheasants, an excerpt from the website
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.
This was #10 on the list from the Junk Science link in the earlier post. Here's another interesting read on the subject:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/28/154924.shtml
wow if you are a scientist then i must be an astrophysicist.
first off approximately 92% of scientists who study global warming
agree that it is in fact real. sure it is a combination of earths cycles that plays a part in warming. but the facts are man has contributed more and more as we evolve to this problem. now here is what i don't understand about those who are adamant that global warming is no big deal and nothing to worry about...why would anyone who is sane and cares about the environment and our future not want to embrace the actions put forth by the movie an inconvenient truth or any enviromentalists to slow down global warming? i have to think those folks either hate gore or since he was a dem just cant stand the fact that he is more popular now than ever before. only idiots would look at the warming issue with partisan politics in mind, but lets face it many do.
I have not seen "The Day After Tomorrow", I assure you. There are sources for real scientific information besides Hollywood. And when I saw Gore's film, even I recognized that some of it wasn't correct.
Also, jlassle, please take note that I did not, and have not, called you any "names". If you want to get into what is actual name calling, I should have some time this weekend. But your own post should is a pretty good example of what it is. I questioned your facts and opinions with harsh language, but never did I call you an idiot.
I don't get your point about Gore, it is the tilt of the Earth that dictates seasons, not the distance from the sun.
When you refer to the movie in the topic post, please also read this accompanying article:
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
What does mini mean in scientific terms? Your the scientist, you tell me. I would say that it means not part of a global system; localized would be another good word. But no matter what your definition, you should be able to understand the point of the argument.
Try making your points more specific, most are of little relevance. Dinosaurs in Montana? Again, just another example that has a perfectly logical and lengthy answer. There were dinosaurs in Alaska too! Wow!
I also resent being called "left wing". I am a moderate, that is why I am here, though my other positions may speak more toward that fact than what this does.
I am also a realist and a solutionist (if you allow me to make up a word). Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever is only a part of a whole. I realize that this thread is in the "Environment" category, but I believe that the environment and energy are inseparably intertwined. Energy independence should also be a key element in one's reasoning for promoting "sustainability" and clean energy. In an effort to respect the organization that Unity08 has given us, please head over to the energy section for my energy policy. It could use some polishing.
The safe use of DDT would be good, or other mosquito killing chemicals that were safe(r) could be used as well. The same experiments that you quoted, when tested on birds more similar to falcons and eagles confirmed the results that their eggs were thinner. Localized bans may have been better, but then again there is the classic example of DDT in Borneo.
The EPA, which jlassle worked for, still believes that DDT is harmful, though it does condone the use in malaria prone regions.
http://www.epa.gov/ and search for DDT.
Jeff,
The DDT & DDE study on Red Tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles actually showed an increase (6% and 5% respectively) in shell thickness. Also, after 15 years of heavy, widespread usage, the Audubon Society observers counted 25% more Bald Eagles in 1960 than they had in 1945.
In one of the studies that had shown shell thinning, the birds were fed a known shell thinner with the DDT. The Junk Science link below has a section on shell thinning.
The main problem, that I have found stated, is the massive overuse by farmers that helped to breed a resistant population of mosquito. But even on this resistant population, it was still a very effective repelent and so could still be used to keep the mosquito out of populated areas.
Oh, by the way, nice "Evil Madman" heading on your post.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
A nova program called "The Dimming of the Sun."
Scientist are looking at the average light lose at areas around the globe. Israel had a 22 percent reduction in sunlight between 1950's and 1980's.
Browncoats Unite!