In response to all the global warming threads, who thinks its a myth, or true?

[KenP]

Good grief, it's as if you read Counter Currents and other enviro sites, and are using snippets from it in your arguements.

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

OK !

Is man adding to Global Warming, YES HE IS but in a small amount...we should control poisons more that leach back into our drinking water, that get into our food crops, both plant and animal, that go into the air we breathe because they effect us directly and sometimes very fast...that get into the seas from which we also farm and rely on for food products...

Our big worry should be the deletion of non-replaceable natural resourses. Try and find trees in Haiti, or fresh water in the desert (except of course in ISRAEL).

There has ALWAYS been one person more powerful then another, one city more powerful then another, one country more powerful then another. When controls for flourocarbons or mercury or arsinic are put forth then need to apply to all countries, not just first world nations (koyoto) ...

WE NEED to develop PRACTABLE Wind Power, Solar Power, Tidal Power, Hydrogen Cars, Greatly improve Nucular Power Plants, improve our ability to drill OUR OWN OIL SAFELY, find fertalizer thats are safer for our bodies.

We also need to save some areas from any human encrochment but in doing so we must also make areas for off roaders, for campers, for horseback riding etc...

We need to get back into space...With the population growing like it is NOW is the time to push for NEAR FUTURE development on habitable stations in space, for development on habitats on the moon. If we don't start now it will be just like our roads here...we build homes and after the roads are jammed from these new homeowners then we work on improving the road jams (STUPID)
When new housing development are offered the larger roads need to be a part of the development...

I can offer a major leadership role in this... JUST MAKE ME WORLD DICTATOR...

[deserth3]

ALL HAIL RYD, ALL HAIL RYD

Don't forget the bannanas

[KenP]

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

[SnakeH2]

Star is a global warmer lurker...

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Blah, blah blah ... It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

If so, only by the most moronic of all enrviro-whakos. The absence of DDT now is (with a real basis) credited with the annual deaths of three million children per year worldwide due to malaria. http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/20...orses-ddt.html

[MarineHawk]

BTW, it was the World Health Organization that was behind the anti-DDT hysteria of the 1960s and which was instrumental in its banning. Now, it says that it was wrong and that there are NO negative affects of the use of DDT, which, if renewed, would save millions of lives in developing countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5350068.stm

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...osquitoes.html

[star]

Rely on DDT and mosquitoes will evolve a resistance to it. In the meanwhile, we?ll have rendered many other species extinct. I know it?s typical to maintain that human lives are more worthy than that of all other species residing on this planet but that statement will usually come from someone with an uninformed or ill-informed position on our environment. We need other species to survive. We need them for clean water, for the all of the food that we eat and for the oxygen that we breathe.

The problem isn?t that we?re not using DDT. The problem is that access to drugs remains far too costly to get to those that reside in developing countries that require the protection. My U.S. domiciled friend travels overseas has no trouble affording the anti malaria drug to protect him from this risk.

So instead of contaminating the species on which we rely on for our very existence, we should continue to enforce active, regimented programs to treat those that are infected. The statistics reflect that malaria cases had declined upwards of 89% when antimalarial drugs were prescribed in a "test" province.

I read something similar to the link you posted on DDT. I'm attaching it below. It's the actual WHO link that specifies that due to the hazards of DDT, it's recommended that the compound be used indoors only on mosquito netting and such. The hazards to the environment would be vastly reduced with this method of application.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Their disclaimer will help prevent them from being sued for any deaths or health problems with this type of application.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine.

Hmmm, really:

Originally Posted by 500 scientists

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Originally Posted by 500 scientists

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index...04661425&EDATE

I still don't understand how we're going to counteract the affects of fluctuations in solar output. Build a big umbrella in outer space?

[KenP]

Originally Posted by KenP

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

That's a good question, Ken.

How about you, Star?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Rely on DDT and mosquitoes will evolve a resistance to it. In the meanwhile, we’ll have rendered many other species extinct. I know it’s typical to maintain that human lives are more worthy than that of all other species residing on this planet but that statement will usually come from someone with an uninformed or ill-informed position on our environment. We need other species to survive. We need them for clean water, for the all of the food that we eat and for the oxygen that we breathe.

The problem isn’t that we’re not using DDT. The problem is that access to drugs remains far too costly to get to those that reside in developing countries that require the protection. My U.S. domiciled friend travels overseas has no trouble affording the anti malaria drug to protect him from this risk.

So instead of contaminating the species on which we rely on for our very existence, we should continue to enforce active, regimented programs to treat those that are infected. The statistics reflect that malaria cases had declined upwards of 89% when antimalarial drugs were prescribed in a "test" province.

I read something similar to the link you posted on DDT. I'm attaching it below. It's the actual WHO link that specifies that due to the hazards of DDT, it's recommended that the compound be used indoors only on mosquito netting and such. The hazards to the environment would be vastly reduced with this method of application.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Their disclaimer will help prevent them from being sued for any deaths or health problems with this type of application.

Yeah, WHO didn't completely admit the full extent of their prior, unprecedented stupidity, but they came pretty close. Bottom line: there no evidence that DDT has ever injured a single person, ever. On the other hand, "Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria." http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...umm02/DDT.html

The problem with administering drugs to billions of people is that it costs thousands of times more than using DDT. We're talking about third world countries where people make an average of $50 per year. No one, not even we, have enough money to administer these drugs to all the third world's billions of people. DDT is the only solution.

[star]

You speak in absolutes across the board.

Based on the replies to this thread, it's understood that many don't respect the disciplines of science. Or could it be that they just don't appreciate the message? Here is a link from a U.S. governmental agency outlining the known risks and potential risks to humans exposed to DDT.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles...tml#bookmark05

I recognize the limitations when testing animals for chemical interactions and how those effects transfer to humans, but it seems that even in light of this, there is more than enough cause for concern about DDT.

And, if DDT is the only answer, where do you propose we get our resources that may be compromised by the use of this compound?

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Hmmm, really:

[color=black] http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index...04661425&EDATE

space?

This scientist is an agricultural analyst. I see no evidence of climatology in his background. Dismissed.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

This scientist is an agricultural analyst. I see no evidence of climatology in his background. Dismissed.

Originally Posted by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery & climate physicist S. Fred Singer

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies.

[Mr. I - Man]

Originally Posted by KenP

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

Yeah its dirty if you hate suburban cookie cutter sprawl.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

where do you propose we get our resources that may be compromised by the use of this compound?

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

[/font]

Dear god! That's even worse. I'll take ignorance over pure deceit any day.

This "scientist" S. Fred Singer was once employed by the tobacco industry to debunk the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us. That science has proven out so he's looking for more corrupt work to keep him busy. He now admits to performing climate "research" for big oil. He receives annual grants from Exxon.

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.

You're still not getting it. DDT kills insects. It doesn't discriminate between which are "bad" insects and which are "good" insects. We need insects to pollinate all of our food (fruit, nuts, veggies) as well as all the food that's fed to the animals that we eat. Kill off the pollinators and we don't have food.

Side question....are you actually a Marine? Were you in Iraq? If so, what's your position on this war? I'm very curious as I've talked with two other parties that served there and their representation is completely different than that of what our media conveys. If the question isn't proper, or you find it offsensive, I apologize. Thanks for your consideration.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

This "scientist" S. Fred Singer was once employed by the tobacco industry to debunk the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us. That science has proven out so he's looking for more corrupt work to keep him busy.

No. He attacked the EPA for its 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science," which it was. He never said smoking didn't harm human health. You simply just don't know what you're talking about on any one topic.

Originally Posted by star

He now admits to performing climate "research" for big oil. He receives annual grants from Exxon.

Show me where. In 1998 and 2000 a non-profit corporation he worked for received grants from ExxonMobile. Is that what you are talking about? Either way, big deal. Are oil companies evil for trying to find out what's really going on. Do you deny the evidence of climate cycles predating any human impact?

Nevermind. I'm not going to engage in yet another long debate about the war, which is not a simple or intuitive issue. You can search my earlier posts if you really care or you can safely assume that I agree with almost all of what this Democrat, with no ties to Bush, says: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010107

Also, these are fairly parallel with what I believe:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...DBhMWY2YTZkNTI=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...2FmOWZiMjMyMTY=

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.

hahahahahahaha!!!!!