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

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

If we don't change the manner and degree to which we use our resources, we will suffer consequences. You don't need to understand science for a realization of this. Water shortages and the impending collapse of our seafood supply are two examples that are already present. My position is that notwithstanding the cause of climate change, actions should be taken to halt the problems that are realized from the overuse of our resources.

We lay people can muse about whether or not the fact that the majority of climate scientists are correct as they try to enlighten us that humans are, in fact, contributing to a warming planet. It doesn't matter. Our consumption, along with the increasing consumption of developing countries, will not be sustainable. The results of this are already present.

And DDT. That's just bad. Enviro-whackos got this one right. This compound placed species on extinction watch and caused serious population declines in others. Most of these species were birds, which help clear our environment of these pesky insects. Is it more logical to retain healthy bird/bat populations to control these pests or advocate the use of a harmful compound? As any harmful compound is used, the pest species evolve increased resistance until the compound is nary effective and another toxic compound must be introduced to control the pest species. These compounds do not discriminate between dna profiles. What kills or harms one species, will kill or harm all. It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

[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...

[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?

[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 Mr. I - Man

Yeah its dirty if you hate suburban cookie cutter sprawl.

I hear Tower Road is the dirtiest place to be in that town. Lots of cattle-produced methane and increased sunspot radiation from the resulting ozone hole directly overhead.

[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

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?

[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.