Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Hole in the Ozone v. Global Warming Debates


Buckfast 1

Recommended Posts

I was trying to think back about how the debates went regarding the "hole in the ozone" problem that was being caused by the use of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs). Not suprisingly, the Republicans argued to delay the ban on CFCs and attempted to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence. Ultimately, 196 states ended up ratifying the Montreal Protocol, which sets guidelines for phasing out and eliminating the use of CFCs. The Montreal Protocol has been called the "single most successful international agreement to date" and, as far as I can tell, is generally regarded as having worked to prevent the "hole in the ozone" crisis. Some estimates suggest that the ozone level will return to pre-1980's levels by 2050-2075. In essence, the general consensus seems to be that scientists identified a significant environmental problem, the world eventually acted to curb the problem despite Republican/conservative/skeptics' advocacy against dealing with the problem, and the international cooperation has been successful in dealing with the ozone problem.

I'm not saying that the history of the "hole in the ozone" problem suggests that global warming exists, but I do think it is interesting to examine how the "hole in the ozone/banning CFCs" debate went on and what we might learn from it in order to further understand the debate surrounding climate change today.

I found this article, which I thought was an interesting look at the parallels between the ozone-CFC debate and the current climate change debate.

The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole

By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.

Introduction

On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer (Molina and Rowland, 1974). They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists from conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, a handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for many years. However, the stunning discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 proved the skeptics wrong. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat.

Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990's, with peak ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001; McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community adopted four amendments to the Montreal Protocol in the 1990's to promote an ever faster phase out of ozone-destroying chemicals. Finally, in the early 2000's, although the we cannot yet say that stratospheric ozone depletion has reached its maximum, atmospheric levels of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere are now declining, and a disappearance of the Antarctic ozone hole is expected by about 2050 (WMO, 2002). Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

On this 30th anniversary of the beginning of the ozone depletion debate, it is revealing to review the techniques the skeptics used in the CFC-ozone depletion issue over the past 30 years. All of them have parallels in the current global warming debate.

Techniques of the Skeptics

Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975).

The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

Such biased news reporting is hardly unusual in American journalism; several studies have shown that press releases are the basis for 40 - 50% of the content of U.S. newspapers (Lee and Solomon, 1990; Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The material appears to be written by the paper's own journalists, but is hardly changed from the press release.

Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

However, the economic reality has been less dire. As the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee stated in 1994: "Ozone-depleting substance replacement has been more rapid, less expensive, and more innovative than had been anticipated at the beginning of the substitution process. The alternative technologies already adopted have been effective and inexpensive enough that consumers have not yet felt any noticeable impacts (except for an increase in automobile air conditioning service costs)" (UNEP, 1994). A group of over two dozen industry experts estimated the total CFC phase-out cost in industrialized counties at $37 billion to business and industry, and $3 billion to consumers (Vogelsberg, 1997). A study done for Environment Canada presented to a UN meeting in 1997, estimated a total CFC phase-out cost of $235 billion through the year 2060, but economic benefits totaling $459 billion. These savings came from decreased UV light exposure to aquatic ecosystems, plants, forests, crops, plastics, paints and other outdoor building materials, and did not include the savings due to decreased health care costs. The report concluded that because of the Montreal Protocol, there would be 19.1 million fewer cases of non-melanoma skin cancer, 1.5 million fewer cases of melanoma, 129 million fewer cases of cataracts, and 330,000 fewer skin cancer deaths worldwide.

Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.

CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." Molina's response was, "The gentleman is good at attacking. But he has never published any scientific papers on the subject." (Roan, 1985).

Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

Articles published in traditional scientific journals undergo a process essential to good science--peer-review. The peer-review process starts when a prospective author submits their work to a journal. The editor of the journal reviews the article, and sends copies to three scientists who are experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their comments on errors that need correcting, omissions that need addressing, etc, back to the journal editor, who then asks the author to submit a revised article addressing the concerns of the reviewers. After making revisions, the author submits the article back to the journal editor, who can then accept the article, reject it, or send it back for another round of review. The rigors of peer-review are such that a large percentage of submitted articles never get published in the scientific literature.

In 1995, the year Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of the CFC-ozone depletion link, the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment began a series of hearings to revisit the issue of ozone depletion, where the issue of peer-review was brought up. During the hearings, Representative John Doolittle, a California Republican, stated, "My own belief, is that the question is still very much open to debate...Theories or speculation about this are not sufficient. We need science, not pseudo-science."

Doolittle was challenged by Lynn Rivers, a Michigan Democrat. They had the following interchange, taken from the Congressional Report, "Hearing on Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 -- Stratospheric Ozone: Myth and Realities", 104th Congress, 1st session, September 20, 1995, Report no. 31 (Gelbspan, 1998):

RIVERS: "Have you found in peer-reviewed articles or in the broader scientific discourse that people are saying this is not really a problem?"

DOOLITTLE: "I have found that there is no established consensus as what actually is the problem. I found extremely misleading representations by the government and government officials that are not founded on sound science."

RIVERS: "...[W]hat I was asking about is peer-reviewed articles [by] scientists who are...doing this work on a regular basis. Can you give me an example of some peer-reviewed publications that you consulted in formulating your opinion that there's no [sound] science?

DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer."

RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."

DOOLITTLE: "'m not going to get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of peer-reviewed documents. There's a politics within the scientific community, where they're all too intimidated to speak out once someone has staked out a position...And under this Congress, we're going to get to the truth and not just the academic politics."

RIVERS: "[T]he general way to feel certain that you're getting good science is that you put your ideas out in a straightforward way in a peer-reviewed publication and you allow others who are doing the same work to make comments, to criticize, to replicate your findings. And what I'm asking you, in your search for good science, is what peer-reviewed documentation did you use to come up with your decision? What good science did you rely on?"

DOOLITTLE: "My response to you is, it is the proponents of the ban that have the burden of producing the good science. I do not have that burden."

Later during the same hearing, House majority whip Tom DeLay was asked about his position opposing a ban on ozone depleting substances. Had he consulted the latest scientific assessment in ozone depletion (WMO/UNEP, 1994) put together by a team of virtually all of the relevant researchers publishing in peer-reviewed publications on the subject? He replied that he had not, because "Well, I just haven't been presented with the study of late." He also launched into a criticism of peer-reviewed science, claiming that "the conclusion is usually written before the study is even done, in many cases." DeLay cited Toxic Terror by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to support his criticism of peer-reviewed science. But according to the Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan praises the nutritional value of fast food in her writings, and dismisses the links between fatty diets and heart disease--but receives funding from Burger King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay, and Land O' Lakes (Kurtz, 1990). Unfortunately, our House Majority Leader is not the only one who relies on Dr. Whelan's "science". PR Watch notes that USA Today cites Whelan's American Council on Science and Health think tank as one of its most frequently-quoted sources for information on public health issues."

Dr. Fred Singer, the expert whom Representative Doolittle referred to, has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having "published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971. A search for his relevant publications in the atmospheric sciences reveals two peer-reviewed pieces since 1971: a 2-page "Technical Comment" criticizing a study showing increased UV-B light at the surface in response to ozone depletion (Michaels et. al., 1994), and one piece of original research, a 1988 paper on "nuclear winter" (Singer, 1988). A search of the Science Citation Index, the comprehensive scientific journal database that indexes virtually every citation a journal article gets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, reveals that this paper, which Dr. Singer calls a "key research publication", has been cited exactly zero times, as of 2004 (for comparison, Dr. Steven Schneider's 1988 publication in Nature on the same topic, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war", has gotten 16 citations). Furthermore, the think tank Dr. Singer founded and currently runs, The Science and Environmental Policy Project, has received substantial industry funding, including contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil, calling into question the objectivity of his testimony (Gelbspan, 1998).

Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

The skeptics primarily published in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there is no scientific uncertainty. For example, numerous critics of the ozone hole discovery (e.g., Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993; Bast et. al., 1994) claimed that Professor G.M.B. Dobson had measured an ozone hole in 1956 in the Antarctic, and thus an Antarctic ozone hole was a normal natural occurrence. This myth arose from a misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review article (Dobson, 1968), where he mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were about 150 Dobson Units below springtime levels in the Arctic. The skeptics repeatedly refer to "an ozone hole 150 Dobson Units below normal" that was discovered in 1957, when in fact the levels discovered in 1957 were normal for Antarctica. A trip to the British Antarctic Survey's web site will confirm that no such ozone hole was measured in the 1950s. Another myth the skeptics repeat states that a French scientist found an Antarctic ozone hole in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). There were measurements in 1958 that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement have been found to be false, due to instrument error. A study in Science magazine (Newman, 1994) concluded, "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

To be fair, environmentalists were also guilty of using discredited myths to support their positions. For example, in 1992, The New York Times reported ozone depletion over southern Chile had caused "an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts" (Nash, 1992). The story was repeated in many places, including the July 1, 1993 showing of ABC's Prime Time Live. Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, repeated the myth, stating: "In Patagonia, hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch blind salmon" (Gore, 1992). A group at Johns Hopkins has investigated the evidence and attributed the cases of sheep blindness to a local infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).

Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

The science behind the estimation of ozone depletion is and was subject to a great deal of uncertainty. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered that a chemical reaction involving chlorine nitrate might reduce ozone destruction from their previous estimate of 7-13% to about 7%. One editorial in the New York Daily News in 1976 concluded, "Now that scientists have been put in the position of crying wolf, who will listen to the new warnings?" Detractors also pointed to the fluctuating estimates of eventual global ozone depletion provided in reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as justification that since the science was so uncertain, action should not be taken.

Long-term Ozone Depletion Estimates from National Academy of Sciences Reports

Year Depletion Estimate

1976 2-20% (7% most likely)

1979 16.5%

1982 5-9%

1984 2-4%

Of course, in the end, it did turn out that the estimates of ozone depletion were quite inaccurate--they were far too low! No scientist anticipated the stunning 70% losses of ozone that appeared in the Antarctic ozone hole, nor the 30% losses in ozone that appeared in the Arctic. The lesson to be learned here should be this: just because the reality is uncertain is not an excuse to delay action. The reality could be far worse than the expectation.

Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

Many skeptics pointed out that UV-B levels as measured in some U.S. cities actually declined in the 1980s and 1990s. This is true, and has been attributed to higher levels of pollution aerosol particles, which commonly cause 20% decreases in UV-B radiation in the summer (Wenny et. al., 2001). However, the relationship between ozone loss and increased UV-B light is well established. For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss. Changes in cloud cover and surface albedo also play a part.

Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's 1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget requests" (Bailey, 1993).

Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

Dr. Fred Singer commented on environmentalists' reaction to Molina and Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone depletion as follows: "The ecofreaks were ecstatic. At last, an industrial chemical--and produced by big bad DuPont and others of that ilk" (Singer, 1989).

Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.

Of course, other countries complained that they were unwilling to act until the U.S., the number one manufacturer and emitter of CFCs, showed leadership on the issue and took action first.

Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and government officials continually asked for an additional three years for more research. Molina called this tactic, "the sliding three years".

Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

In 1987, the Reagan Administration officials advocated a "Personal Protection Plan" as an alternative to controlling CFC emissions. Scoffers noted that if each American bought 2 bottles of sunscreen, a hat and pair of sunglasses, the bill would come to $8 billion for the nation. They also asked how Americans would go about putting sunscreen and hats on cows and stalks of corn, since plants and animals are adversely affected by UV light, as well.

Conclusion

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was brief. Do you have anymore material on the subject?

Yeah, science and history don't always lend themselves well to brevity. I have no doubt that the length of the article will scare most posters away. Yet, I still think that it is valuable and pertinent information for all of the people weighing in on the current climate change debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, CFCs and CO2 are almost identical - aside from the fact that CFCs were invented in the 1930s as propellents and coolants, and CO2 is naturally occurring and has been at levels much higher than now (in fact levels now are at almost all time lows over the past 600 million years) for the overwhelming predominance of the past few hundreds of millions of years - somtimes levels that are an order of magnitude or higher for tens of millions of years.

Brilliantly parallel analogy. I can see where the arguments are almost interchangeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linkage between CFC and the ozone hole >>>>>>>>>> CO2 and climate change.

Something else, too, was that it was relatively trivial to find CFC alternatives and just start using them. It didn't require that people change anything about their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, CFCs and CO2 are almost identical - aside from the fact that CFCs were invented in the 1930s as propellents and coolants, and CO2 is naturally occurring and has been at levels much higher than now (in fact levels now are at almost all time lows over the past 600 million years) for the overwhelming predominance of the past few hundreds of millions of years - somtimes levels that are an order of magnitude or higher for tens of millions of years. Brilliantly parallel analogy. I can see where the arguments are almost interchangeable.

It's like they're twins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, CFCs and CO2 are almost identical - aside from the fact that CFCs were invented in the 1930s as propellents and coolants, and CO2 is naturally occurring and has been at levels much higher than now (in fact levels now are at almost all time lows over the past 600 million years) for the overwhelming predominance of the past few hundreds of millions of years - somtimes levels that are an order of magnitude or higher for tens of millions of years.

Brilliantly parallel analogy. I can see where the arguments are almost interchangeable.

As I said in the original post, the past debate about ozone/CFCs doesn't suggest that global warming exists. It has no absolutely no bearing on the scientific merit of whether global warming actually exists.

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

As jon_mx stated above, the linkage between CFC and the ozone hole was much stronger the linkage between CO2 and climate change (the statement is debatable, but I'll just accept it for the sake of argument). Nonetheless, the fact that the science was undeniable did not stop the Republicans from challenging and disputing the science and attempting to delay any types of regulation on the use of CFCs. In fact, they did just that. And back in the mid-1990's, the same people who are on these boards parroting GOP talking points about climate change would be stating the same thing about ozone.

The point is just that, in order to fully understand the current climate change debate, it is worthwhile to understand how similar past debates have been waged because they involve the same characters, the same biases, and the same motivations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, CFCs and CO2 are almost identical - aside from the fact that CFCs were invented in the 1930s as propellents and coolants, and CO2 is naturally occurring and has been at levels much higher than now (in fact levels now are at almost all time lows over the past 600 million years) for the overwhelming predominance of the past few hundreds of millions of years - somtimes levels that are an order of magnitude or higher for tens of millions of years.

Brilliantly parallel analogy. I can see where the arguments are almost interchangeable.

As I said in the original post, the past debate about ozone/CFCs doesn't suggest that global warming exists. It has no absolutely no bearing on the scientific merit of whether global warming actually exists.

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

As jon_mx stated above, the linkage between CFC and the ozone hole was much stronger the linkage between CO2 and climate change (the statement is debatable, but I'll just accept it for the sake of argument). Nonetheless, the fact that the science was undeniable did not stop the Republicans from challenging and disputing the science and attempting to delay any types of regulation on the use of CFCs. In fact, they did just that. And back in the mid-1990's, the same people who are on these boards parroting GOP talking points about climate change would be stating the same thing about ozone.

That's a hilarious (in a not funny way)...as mentioned before you could find the exact same articles on ddt and pcbs. Oh no, the economy will collapse, its not happening anyway, millions of jobs will be lost etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, CFCs and CO2 are almost identical - aside from the fact that CFCs were invented in the 1930s as propellents and coolants, and CO2 is naturally occurring and has been at levels much higher than now (in fact levels now are at almost all time lows over the past 600 million years) for the overwhelming predominance of the past few hundreds of millions of years - somtimes levels that are an order of magnitude or higher for tens of millions of years.

Brilliantly parallel analogy. I can see where the arguments are almost interchangeable.

As I said in the original post, the past debate about ozone/CFCs doesn't suggest that global warming exists. It has no absolutely no bearing on the scientific merit of whether global warming actually exists.

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

As jon_mx stated above, the linkage between CFC and the ozone hole was much stronger the linkage between CO2 and climate change (the statement is debatable, but I'll just accept it for the sake of argument). Nonetheless, the fact that the science was undeniable did not stop the Republicans from challenging and disputing the science and attempting to delay any types of regulation on the use of CFCs. In fact, they did just that. And back in the mid-1990's, the same people who are on these boards parroting GOP talking points about climate change would be stating the same thing about ozone.

That's a hilarious (in a not funny way)...as mentioned before you could find the exact same articles on ddt and pcbs. Oh no, the economy will collapse, its not happening anyway, millions of jobs will be lost etc...
That's a great point. Those past interactions between science and politics are all relevant to way that the current climate change debate is being handled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

:mellow: Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.And good effort at slipping in "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence". Those applying politics to situations like this have learned well the value of repeating untruths to the point where they become simply accepted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

:loco: Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.And good effort at slipping in "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence". Those applying politics to situations like this have learned well the value of repeating untruths to the point where they become simply accepted.
You can claim thirty years of conspiracy at dozens of independent universities around the world but you cannot deny that the "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence" on global warming is that it is real and induced by human activity. That is no doubt where the consensus lies.I also forgot to add, and i'm glad you brought it up, the other favorite one of the deniers --- if they ban this you know they are coming to eat your baby !!! it's a classic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

I don't think anyone is saying that...see the comment above"Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can claim thirty years of conspiracy at dozens of independent universities around the world but you cannot deny that the "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence" on global warming is that it is real and induced by human activity. That is no doubt where the consensus lies.

This is why there is no way to have an intelligent debate on this. Pro-AGWers believe the statement above to be absolute truth just as passionately as Creationists believe the Bible when it dates the age of the earth to 6,000 years. There is no way to introduce enough verifiable evidence to make them preclude their belief in the slightest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

:lmao: Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.And good effort at slipping in "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence". Those applying politics to situations like this have learned well the value of repeating untruths to the point where they become simply accepted.
If the overwhelming consensus of scientists determined that H2O was a poison that decreased your life expectancy by 20 years, wouldn't you want to know? Yes, I get that it would be annoying to replace water with another liquid substance, but if the evidence shows that water is poisonous, then it is a path that anyone wanting to live a healthy life must at least consider. Don't hate the science because it makes us consider alternative paths that are less easy.I fully understand that there is plenty of room for honest and vigorous debate for how we deal with emerging scientific problems. How deep of current economic sacrifices are we willing to make to accomodate future potential environmental problems is a legitimate question that must be debated. However, that debate should not be run by repeatedly questioning the well-established science that supports the future environmental problem. As noted above, this exact same technique has been used repeatedly in questioning the harmful effects of smoking, DDT, and ozone. The opponents to changing to accomodate environmental problems will always attack the science linking the detrimental effects to the industry practice, regardless of whether their attacks on the science lack validity entirely. You can try to dispute the "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence" if you want, but it remains a fact that the overwhelming percentage of scientists believe that human behavior has contributed to the climate change phenomenon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can claim thirty years of conspiracy at dozens of independent universities around the world but you cannot deny that the "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence" on global warming is that it is real and induced by human activity. That is no doubt where the consensus lies.

This is why there is no way to have an intelligent debate on this. Pro-AGWers believe the statement above to be absolute truth just as passionately as Creationists believe the Bible when it dates the age of the earth to 6,000 years. There is no way to introduce enough verifiable evidence to make them preclude their belief in the slightest.
I'll have to look it up but in New Scientist they tabulated how many peer reviewed scientific journal articles supporting climate change have been published in the last 30 years vs. how many against. It something in the 1000's to 0. They then published how many editorials in the last 10 years from the US's 5 big papers have pro/anti an the anti was 60/40so once again if you are calling all the refereed published articles at independent universities for the past 30 years junk...then i guess you are right. There is no consensus.You can be on whatever side of the debate you choose to be on...don't care personally. But there is no doubt what the overwhelming majority of research supports
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

I don't think anyone is saying that...see the comment above

"Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence."

It offers no insight because that is not the way it went down. There is no similarity here. A=B so C=B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

I don't think anyone is saying that...see the comment above

"Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence."

It offers no insight because that is not the way it went down. There is no similarity here. A=B so C=B.
Did you read the article...those sound like a lot of the same articles you hear now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can claim thirty years of conspiracy at dozens of independent universities around the world but you cannot deny that the "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence" on global warming is that it is real and induced by human activity. That is no doubt where the consensus lies.

This is why there is no way to have an intelligent debate on this. Pro-AGWers believe the statement above to be absolute truth just as passionately as Creationists believe the Bible when it dates the age of the earth to 6,000 years. There is no way to introduce enough verifiable evidence to make them preclude their belief in the slightest.
That is just wrong entirely. That is the difference between what I view as the pro-scientist crowd and the anti-scientist crowd. If there is legitimate evidence which suggests that AGW does not exist, why would I want to deny it? I am a seeker of the truth. I have nothing to gain by AGW existing. I have no reason to wish additional economic inconveniences on American industry. If there is legitimate evidence that AGW does not exist, I would celebrate and embrace it. However, to this point, the overwhelming concensus of peer-reviewed scientific experts believe that AGW does exist and that it poses a problem for our future. The only agenda of the pro-scientist crowd is seeking the truth. There is no scientific religion as the anti-scientist crowds constantly assert.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

I don't think anyone is saying that...see the comment above

"Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence."

It offers no insight because that is not the way it went down. There is no similarity here. A=B so C=B.
No similarities? Really?

You sound like an ostrich with his head in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

I don't think anyone is saying that...see the comment above

"Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence."

It offers no insight because that is not the way it went down. There is no similarity here. A=B so C=B.
Did you read the article...those sound like a lot of the same articles you hear now.
0% chance that Phurfur read the article. He came in here posting anti-AGW responses without having any clue as to what he was even responding to. No one has made a A=B, therefore C=B argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just wrong entirely. That is the difference between what I view as the pro-scientist crowd and the anti-scientist crowd. If there is legitimate evidence which suggests that AGW does not exist, why would I want to deny it? I am a seeker of the truth. I have nothing to gain by AGW existing. I have no reason to wish additional economic inconveniences on American industry. If there is legitimate evidence that AGW does not exist, I would celebrate and embrace it. However, to this point, the overwhelming concensus of peer-reviewed scientific experts believe that AGW does exist and that it poses a problem for our future. The only agenda of the pro-scientist crowd is seeking the truth. There is no scientific religion as the anti-scientist crowds constantly assert.

Yet you claim that there is a scientific "consensus" on the effects of AGW being the principle cause of global warming. Or is it that AGW merely exists? Or are we discussing simply global warming? The arguments seem to get relentlessly intermingled by the pro-AGW crowd, yet they are very distinct and independent topics.Tell me, Diogenes, what you think of the following statements:1) CO2 levels are currently at by far their lowest levels in the past 600 million years with the possible exception of the roughly 80 million years of the late Cretaceous/early Permian periods.2) There are instances of hundreds of millions of consecutive years in the Earth's past history when it supported life and CO2 levels were ten times or more what they are now.3) During the late Orduvician period, mean temperature levels were approximately what they are now for a relatively short period (10 to 15 million years), yet CO2 levels were more than 13 times what they are now - and life still existed. 4) Man contributes 0.28% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.5) Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for more almost 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere.6) Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, and man can do virtually nothing to change water vapor levels.7) In the past 600 thousand years, the Earth has experienced relatively regular ice age and interglacial cycles, and that the Earth is currently at or near a peak in an interglacial. 8) Data shows that COs levels are vastly predominant as a lagging factor rather than a leading indicator when compared with temperature trends.9) Mean temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when life has flourished on Earth.10) Current climate models indicating global warming can not produce accurate results when run to past years, indicating models that are not functional.11) It has been verified that temperature readings have been taken at points where warming would occur due to other independent causes (near sewage plants, in heat sinks, or near exhaust ports).12) When producing computations using data for global warming, data points that do not support the warming conclusion have been intentionally omitted.13) There have been billions of dollars spent to investigate global warming. If global warming were shown to be in the overwhelming predominance to be a natural event, the vast majority of those funds would be apportioned elsewhere.14) No one can state whether global warming is harmful to the environment. There are indications that global warming could actually be largely beneficial by increasing growing cycles and introducing more water into the water cycle.Let's start with these statements and your assessments of them, and then perhaps - dependent upon your responses - we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:pirate: Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.

I love all these A=B so C=B arguements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

:pirate:

Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.

And good effort at slipping in "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence". Those applying politics to situations like this have learned well the value of repeating untruths to the point where they become simply accepted.

Beating us over the head is more like it. OP, can you post that phrase about 50 more times so we get it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just wrong entirely. That is the difference between what I view as the pro-scientist crowd and the anti-scientist crowd. If there is legitimate evidence which suggests that AGW does not exist, why would I want to deny it? I am a seeker of the truth. I have nothing to gain by AGW existing. I have no reason to wish additional economic inconveniences on American industry. If there is legitimate evidence that AGW does not exist, I would celebrate and embrace it. However, to this point, the overwhelming concensus of peer-reviewed scientific experts believe that AGW does exist and that it poses a problem for our future. The only agenda of the pro-scientist crowd is seeking the truth. There is no scientific religion as the anti-scientist crowds constantly assert.

Yet you claim that there is a scientific "consensus" on the effects of AGW being the principle cause of global warming. Or is it that AGW merely exists? Or are we discussing simply global warming? The arguments seem to get relentlessly intermingled by the pro-AGW crowd, yet they are very distinct and independent topics.Tell me, Diogenes, what you think of the following statements:1) CO2 levels are currently at by far their lowest levels in the past 600 million years with the possible exception of the roughly 80 million years of the late Cretaceous/early Permian periods.2) There are instances of hundreds of millions of consecutive years in the Earth's past history when it supported life and CO2 levels were ten times or more what they are now.3) During the late Orduvician period, mean temperature levels were approximately what they are now for a relatively short period (10 to 15 million years), yet CO2 levels were more than 13 times what they are now - and life still existed. 4) Man contributes 0.28% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.5) Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for more almost 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere.6) Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, and man can do virtually nothing to change water vapor levels.7) In the past 600 thousand years, the Earth has experienced relatively regular ice age and interglacial cycles, and that the Earth is currently at or near a peak in an interglacial. 8) Data shows that COs levels are vastly predominant as a lagging factor rather than a leading indicator when compared with temperature trends.9) Mean temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when life has flourished on Earth.10) Current climate models indicating global warming can not produce accurate results when run to past years, indicating models that are not functional.11) It has been verified that temperature readings have been taken at points where warming would occur due to other independent causes (near sewage plants, in heat sinks, or near exhaust ports).12) When producing computations using data for global warming, data points that do not support the warming conclusion have been intentionally omitted.13) There have been billions of dollars spent to investigate global warming. If global warming were shown to be in the overwhelming predominance to be a natural event, the vast majority of those funds would be apportioned elsewhere.14) No one can state whether global warming is harmful to the environment. There are indications that global warming could actually be largely beneficial by increasing growing cycles and introducing more water into the water cycle.Let's start with these statements and your assessments of them, and then perhaps - dependent upon your responses - we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Look, I'm not going to waste my time going through and specifically disputing each and every misleading fact and political talking point that you just likely re-posted from an anti-AGW website. I've seen these exact same facts discussed in an article by a scientist who coherently explained why those facts did not support the anti-AGW conclusion. In fact, I posted it in a previous thread about global warming. However, I'm sure you probably didn't read it because it came from a "pro-AGW scientist" motivated by his devious plot to fraudulently obtain more funding grants. I'll see if I can find it.I didn't start this thread to debate the existence of global warming. That topic has been covered over and over again on this board to no avail. I wasn't starting a "Does Global Warming Exist?" thread. I started the thread to discuss some of the externalities of the debate and to contemplate the process that our political debate has undertaken in similar discussions in the past.Why is it that Republicans in the mid-1990's tried to dispute the science behind the ozone/CFC phenomenon and resisted implementing CFC restrictions when today it is well-established that the science was correct and the regulations have helped to cure the problem? Did the Republicans truly believe that the overwhelming consensus of scientists were wrong about the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer? Did they really believe that their minority of "oppressed" "anti-ozone alarmist" scientists had the true answer? What tactics did they use in fighting the promotion of CFC regulation? Are these tactics being still used today? These are questions that we are as an informed republic must understand when considering issues such as the current global warming debate. The past ozone debate by no means proves that AGW exists, but it does offer us some insight into how the politics work in dealing with proposed environmental regulations and how politicians approach scientific topics. Consideration of those facts is what this thread was supposed to address.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other one was PCB's and DDT. People were people laughed out the door in the media and by industry when they tried to tie them to their negative affects.The other one, of course, is smoking.

Probably not the best example to strengthen your argument. DDT still hasn't ever been proven to cause any harm. Allegations of egg shell thinning is probably the claim closest to possible, but even that is not definitive. Yet millions, yes, millions of African and Asian children around the 3rd world are dead from malaria because it was banned. All the nets in the world aren't as effective as DDT.When South Africa banned DDT in 1996 malaria cases when from 6k in 1995 to 60k in 2000. Then when they resumed using it in 2001 malaria cases fell 80%. This happened all across Africa when rich, white U.S. environmentalists decided they wanted to fix the world again.The great untold story of the environmentalist death toll. Talk about media influence. One fear-mongering book full of inaccuracies started it all, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.And once again when teh AGW crowd pushes its way through it will be the third world who pays the steepest price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just wrong entirely. That is the difference between what I view as the pro-scientist crowd and the anti-scientist crowd. If there is legitimate evidence which suggests that AGW does not exist, why would I want to deny it? I am a seeker of the truth. I have nothing to gain by AGW existing. I have no reason to wish additional economic inconveniences on American industry. If there is legitimate evidence that AGW does not exist, I would celebrate and embrace it. However, to this point, the overwhelming concensus of peer-reviewed scientific experts believe that AGW does exist and that it poses a problem for our future. The only agenda of the pro-scientist crowd is seeking the truth. There is no scientific religion as the anti-scientist crowds constantly assert.

Yet you claim that there is a scientific "consensus" on the effects of AGW being the principle cause of global warming. Or is it that AGW merely exists? Or are we discussing simply global warming? The arguments seem to get relentlessly intermingled by the pro-AGW crowd, yet they are very distinct and independent topics.Tell me, Diogenes, what you think of the following statements:1) CO2 levels are currently at by far their lowest levels in the past 600 million years with the possible exception of the roughly 80 million years of the late Cretaceous/early Permian periods.2) There are instances of hundreds of millions of consecutive years in the Earth's past history when it supported life and CO2 levels were ten times or more what they are now.3) During the late Orduvician period, mean temperature levels were approximately what they are now for a relatively short period (10 to 15 million years), yet CO2 levels were more than 13 times what they are now - and life still existed. 4) Man contributes 0.28% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.5) Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for more almost 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere.6) Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, and man can do virtually nothing to change water vapor levels.7) In the past 600 thousand years, the Earth has experienced relatively regular ice age and interglacial cycles, and that the Earth is currently at or near a peak in an interglacial. 8) Data shows that COs levels are vastly predominant as a lagging factor rather than a leading indicator when compared with temperature trends.9) Mean temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when life has flourished on Earth.10) Current climate models indicating global warming can not produce accurate results when run to past years, indicating models that are not functional.11) It has been verified that temperature readings have been taken at points where warming would occur due to other independent causes (near sewage plants, in heat sinks, or near exhaust ports).12) When producing computations using data for global warming, data points that do not support the warming conclusion have been intentionally omitted.13) There have been billions of dollars spent to investigate global warming. If global warming were shown to be in the overwhelming predominance to be a natural event, the vast majority of those funds would be apportioned elsewhere.14) No one can state whether global warming is harmful to the environment. There are indications that global warming could actually be largely beneficial by increasing growing cycles and introducing more water into the water cycle.Let's start with these statements and your assessments of them, and then perhaps - dependent upon your responses - we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Look, I'm not going to waste my time going through and specifically disputing each and every misleading fact and political talking point that you just likely re-posted from an anti-AGW website. I've seen these exact same facts discussed in an article by a scientist who coherently explained why those facts did not support the anti-AGW conclusion. In fact, I posted it in a previous thread about global warming. However, I'm sure you probably didn't read it because it came from a "pro-AGW scientist" motivated by his devious plot to fraudulently obtain more funding grants. I'll see if I can find it.
That's a terribly disingenuous response from a self-proclaimed "seeker of truth". None of this is from any specific anti-AGW website. It's from an amalgamation of sites, many of which have nothing to do with AGW at all.Which are the misleading facts in your mind (and are you conceding that they are facts)? Why would you consider them misleading?Do you want to have a discussion based upon facts or not? Or would you prefer to be spoon fed your opinion?It seems to me that you simply don't want to get dragged into a discussion where the truth is a result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, it just offers insight into how these debates have gone in the past and what we can learn about how politics are used to dispute the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence.

:thumbup:

Got it. So when the EPA decides to label H2O as a poison in a similar manner that it labeled CO2 as a pollutant, we should all just meekly accept the brilliance of this decision because of its undeniable truth and the infinite wisdom of the argument.

And good effort at slipping in "overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence". Those applying politics to situations like this have learned well the value of repeating untruths to the point where they become simply accepted.

Beating us over the head is more like it. OP, can you post that phrase about 50 more times so we get it?
:lmao:

I don't know how else to say it. It is a fact. I'm sorry if that fact does not agree with your pre-conceived conclusion.

From Wikipedia:

Consensus

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[27]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[28][29][30]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[33] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[34][35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just wrong entirely. That is the difference between what I view as the pro-scientist crowd and the anti-scientist crowd. If there is legitimate evidence which suggests that AGW does not exist, why would I want to deny it? I am a seeker of the truth. I have nothing to gain by AGW existing. I have no reason to wish additional economic inconveniences on American industry. If there is legitimate evidence that AGW does not exist, I would celebrate and embrace it. However, to this point, the overwhelming concensus of peer-reviewed scientific experts believe that AGW does exist and that it poses a problem for our future. The only agenda of the pro-scientist crowd is seeking the truth. There is no scientific religion as the anti-scientist crowds constantly assert.

Yet you claim that there is a scientific "consensus" on the effects of AGW being the principle cause of global warming. Or is it that AGW merely exists? Or are we discussing simply global warming? The arguments seem to get relentlessly intermingled by the pro-AGW crowd, yet they are very distinct and independent topics.Tell me, Diogenes, what you think of the following statements:1) CO2 levels are currently at by far their lowest levels in the past 600 million years with the possible exception of the roughly 80 million years of the late Cretaceous/early Permian periods.2) There are instances of hundreds of millions of consecutive years in the Earth's past history when it supported life and CO2 levels were ten times or more what they are now.3) During the late Orduvician period, mean temperature levels were approximately what they are now for a relatively short period (10 to 15 million years), yet CO2 levels were more than 13 times what they are now - and life still existed. 4) Man contributes 0.28% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.5) Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for more almost 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere.6) Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, and man can do virtually nothing to change water vapor levels.7) In the past 600 thousand years, the Earth has experienced relatively regular ice age and interglacial cycles, and that the Earth is currently at or near a peak in an interglacial. 8) Data shows that COs levels are vastly predominant as a lagging factor rather than a leading indicator when compared with temperature trends.9) Mean temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when life has flourished on Earth.10) Current climate models indicating global warming can not produce accurate results when run to past years, indicating models that are not functional.11) It has been verified that temperature readings have been taken at points where warming would occur due to other independent causes (near sewage plants, in heat sinks, or near exhaust ports).12) When producing computations using data for global warming, data points that do not support the warming conclusion have been intentionally omitted.13) There have been billions of dollars spent to investigate global warming. If global warming were shown to be in the overwhelming predominance to be a natural event, the vast majority of those funds would be apportioned elsewhere.14) No one can state whether global warming is harmful to the environment. There are indications that global warming could actually be largely beneficial by increasing growing cycles and introducing more water into the water cycle.Let's start with these statements and your assessments of them, and then perhaps - dependent upon your responses - we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Look, I'm not going to waste my time going through and specifically disputing each and every misleading fact and political talking point that you just likely re-posted from an anti-AGW website. I've seen these exact same facts discussed in an article by a scientist who coherently explained why those facts did not support the anti-AGW conclusion. In fact, I posted it in a previous thread about global warming. However, I'm sure you probably didn't read it because it came from a "pro-AGW scientist" motivated by his devious plot to fraudulently obtain more funding grants. I'll see if I can find it.
That's a terribly disingenuous response from a self-proclaimed "seeker of truth". None of this is from any anti-AGW website. It's from an amalgamation of sites, many of which have nothing to do with AGW at all.Which are the misleading facts in your mind (and are you conceding that they are facts)? Why would you consider them misleading?Do you want to have a discussion based upon facts or not? Or would you prefer to be spoon fed your opinion?It seems to me that you simply don't want to get dragged into a discussion where the truth is a result.
No. There is a difference between a layman taking facts which sound like they support his position without understanding the full context of the facts and an expert in the field discussing the true meaning of the facts within the context of the discussion. You really believe that by posting little snippets from an assortment of websites (some of which are patently absurd on their face and you should be embarassed to set forth in a reasonable discussion about global warming), you believe that you have a better overall understanding on climate issues than nearly every expert scientist in the world? I have feeling that you are overestimating your own abilities. I'd be happy to discuss the facts at length. And when I have time, I'd be more than happy to go through debunking or explaining each one to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I'm at work, have a brief due tomorrow, and don't have the time to do so currently. So, you'll have to wait. I'm certainly not scared of uncovering the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There is a difference between a layman taking facts which sound like they support his position without understanding the full context of the facts and an expert in the field discussing the true meaning of the facts within the context of the discussion. You really believe that by posting little snippets from an assortment of websites (some of which are patently absurd on their face and you should be embarassed to set forth in a reasonable discussion about global warming), you believe that you have a better overall understanding on climate issues than nearly every expert scientist in the world? I have feeling that you are overestimating your own abilities. I'd be happy to discuss the facts at length. And when I have time, I'd be more than happy to go through debunking or explaining each one to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I'm at work, have a brief due tomorrow, and don't have the time to do so currently. So, you'll have to wait. I'm certainly not scared of uncovering the truth.

I'm looking forward to it, especially since you have proclaimed these little snippets meaningless and unrelated to the current scourge of AGW caused global warming.And would you please stop with what is an obvious falsehood - that "nearly every expert scientist in the world" supports the claim of AGW being the primary cause of the current trend in global climate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There is a difference between a layman taking facts which sound like they support his position without understanding the full context of the facts and an expert in the field discussing the true meaning of the facts within the context of the discussion. You really believe that by posting little snippets from an assortment of websites (some of which are patently absurd on their face and you should be embarassed to set forth in a reasonable discussion about global warming), you believe that you have a better overall understanding on climate issues than nearly every expert scientist in the world? I have feeling that you are overestimating your own abilities. I'd be happy to discuss the facts at length. And when I have time, I'd be more than happy to go through debunking or explaining each one to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I'm at work, have a brief due tomorrow, and don't have the time to do so currently. So, you'll have to wait. I'm certainly not scared of uncovering the truth.

I'm looking forward to it, especially since you have proclaimed these little snippets meaningless and unrelated to the current scourge of AGW caused global warming.And would you please stop with what is an obvious falsehood - that "nearly every expert scientist in the world" supports the claim of AGW being the primary cause of the current trend in global climate?
Please feel free to post some peer reviewed published literature from a respectable scientific journal to show otherwise...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other one was PCB's and DDT. People were people laughed out the door in the media and by industry when they tried to tie them to their negative affects.

The other one, of course, is smoking.

Probably not the best example to strengthen your argument. DDT still hasn't ever been proven to cause any harm. Allegations of egg shell thinning is probably the claim closest to possible, but even that is not definitive. Yet millions, yes, millions of African and Asian children around the 3rd world are dead from malaria because it was banned. All the nets in the world aren't as effective as DDT.

When South Africa banned DDT in 1996 malaria cases when from 6k in 1995 to 60k in 2000. Then when they resumed using it in 2001 malaria cases fell 80%. This happened all across Africa when rich, white U.S. environmentalists decided they wanted to fix the world again.

The great untold story of the environmentalist death toll. Talk about media influence. One fear-mongering book full of inaccuracies started it all, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

And once again when teh AGW crowd pushes its way through it will be the third world who pays the steepest price.

seems like plenty of evidence to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_o...gshell_thinning

not to change the debate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linkage between CFC and the ozone hole >>>>>>>>>> CO2 and climate change.On a side note, a big hole in the ozone could be the perfect solution to combating atmospheric CO2.

And everything else too. Many republicans don't care about global warming because Jesus will return before it's a problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There is a difference between a layman taking facts which sound like they support his position without understanding the full context of the facts and an expert in the field discussing the true meaning of the facts within the context of the discussion. You really believe that by posting little snippets from an assortment of websites (some of which are patently absurd on their face and you should be embarassed to set forth in a reasonable discussion about global warming), you believe that you have a better overall understanding on climate issues than nearly every expert scientist in the world? I have feeling that you are overestimating your own abilities.

I'd be happy to discuss the facts at length. And when I have time, I'd be more than happy to go through debunking or explaining each one to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I'm at work, have a brief due tomorrow, and don't have the time to do so currently. So, you'll have to wait. I'm certainly not scared of uncovering the truth.

I'm looking forward to it, especially since you have proclaimed these little snippets meaningless and unrelated to the current scourge of AGW caused global warming.

And would you please stop with what is an obvious falsehood - that "nearly every expert scientist in the world" supports the claim of AGW being the primary cause of the current trend in global climate?

Here is some more reading for you:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other one was PCB's and DDT. People were people laughed out the door in the media and by industry when they tried to tie them to their negative affects.

The other one, of course, is smoking.

Probably not the best example to strengthen your argument. DDT still hasn't ever been proven to cause any harm. Allegations of egg shell thinning is probably the claim closest to possible, but even that is not definitive. Yet millions, yes, millions of African and Asian children around the 3rd world are dead from malaria because it was banned. All the nets in the world aren't as effective as DDT.

When South Africa banned DDT in 1996 malaria cases when from 6k in 1995 to 60k in 2000. Then when they resumed using it in 2001 malaria cases fell 80%. This happened all across Africa when rich, white U.S. environmentalists decided they wanted to fix the world again.

The great untold story of the environmentalist death toll. Talk about media influence. One fear-mongering book full of inaccuracies started it all, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

And once again when teh AGW crowd pushes its way through it will be the third world who pays the steepest price.

seems like plenty of evidence to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_o...gshell_thinning

not to change the debate

Well the UN must be full of a bunch of deniers of that unbiased science because they reversed course.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...alaria&Cr1=

“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programm

That's my favorite quote. What you wont read in that or any other story as this junk science nightmare reverses itself over the years is any acknowledgement by any environmental or scientific organization of their mistakes or their horrible consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other one was PCB's and DDT. People were people laughed out the door in the media and by industry when they tried to tie them to their negative affects.

The other one, of course, is smoking.

Probably not the best example to strengthen your argument. DDT still hasn't ever been proven to cause any harm. Allegations of egg shell thinning is probably the claim closest to possible, but even that is not definitive. Yet millions, yes, millions of African and Asian children around the 3rd world are dead from malaria because it was banned. All the nets in the world aren't as effective as DDT.

When South Africa banned DDT in 1996 malaria cases when from 6k in 1995 to 60k in 2000. Then when they resumed using it in 2001 malaria cases fell 80%. This happened all across Africa when rich, white U.S. environmentalists decided they wanted to fix the world again.

The great untold story of the environmentalist death toll. Talk about media influence. One fear-mongering book full of inaccuracies started it all, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

And once again when teh AGW crowd pushes its way through it will be the third world who pays the steepest price.

seems like plenty of evidence to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_o...gshell_thinning

not to change the debate

Well the UN must be full of a bunch of deniers of that unbiased science because they reversed course.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...alaria&Cr1=

“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programm

That's my favorite quote. What you wont read in that or any other story as this junk science nightmare reverses itself over the years is any acknowledgement by any environmental or scientific organization of their mistakes or their horrible consequences.

Nobody is debating the benefits to malaria (although a good portion of mosquitoes are becoming resistant to it) but the point of the link was to provide a lot of evidence of the poor epidemiological record of DDT both in the natural world and to humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linkage between CFC and the ozone hole >>>>>>>>>> CO2 and climate change.

On a side note, a big hole in the ozone could be the perfect solution to combating atmospheric CO2.

That is an interesting irony of the matter. Apparently, scientists do believe that the hole in the ozone actually mitigates some of the effects of global warming. However, it is obviously not the solution to global warming, as holes in the ozone bring numerous other negative effects. The fact that the holes in the ozone are gradually closing as a result of the Montreal Protocol is more reason why the impact of global warming could increase even further in the future if we don't take the proper precautions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan Declaration

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

List of 707 endorsers with qualified scientific background

********************

I'm guessing that you probably haven't seen this, gaging from where you like to get your information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan Declaration

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

List of 707 endorsers with qualified scientific background

********************

I'm guessing that you probably haven't seen this, gaging from where you like to get your information.

Once again show me some refereed articles published in respected scientific journals. The research has been going on for 30 years...

A list of people doesn't really shift my sense of where the scientific community unless those people are publishing research in this area...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so first you post this:

Please feel free to post some peer reviewed published literature from a respectable scientific journal to show otherwise...

and then, to support one of your assertions you use Wikipedia?

seems like plenty of evidence to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_o...gshell_thinning

not to change the debate

So apparently Wikipedia is the ultimate respectable peer reviewed science journal now!!!!

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so first you post this:

Please feel free to post some peer reviewed published literature from a respectable scientific journal to show otherwise...

and then, to support one of your assertions you use Wikipedia?

seems like plenty of evidence to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_o...gshell_thinning

not to change the debate

So apparently Wikipedia is the ultimate respectable peer reviewed science journal now!!!!

:lmao:

Seriously you are either really dumb or can't read...i'm going to guess both.

Here are the links in the wiki article to the published science in peer reviewed journals...it was at the bottom of the page the whole time. you have to use your mouse to scroll down...i know its tough, slow down, don't try and do everything at once.

# ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Toxicological Profile: for DDT, DDE, and DDE. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2002.

# ^ a b NobelPrize.org: The Nobel Prize in Physiology of Medicine 1948 Accessed July 26, 2007.

# ^ a b c d e f Environmental Health Criteria 9: DDT and its derivatives, World Health Organization, 1979.

# ^ a b Lear, Linda (1997). Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature. New York: Henry Hoyten.

# ^ a b Larson, Kim (December 1, 2007). "Bad Blood". On Earth (Winter 2008). http://www.onearth.org/article/bad-blood?. Retrieved 2008-06-05.

# ^ ""The Bald Eagle - USA's National Emblem"". http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle9.html. Retrieved 2009-07-17.

# ^ a b E. Stokstad, "Species conservation. Can the bald eagle still soar after it is delisted?", Science 316, 5832 (2007), p. 1689f. doi: [1][2]

# ^ Geisz HN, Dickhut RM, Cochran MA, Fraser WR, Ducklow HW (2005). "Melting Glaciers: A Probable Source of DDT to the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem". Environ. Sci. Technol. ASAP: 3958. doi:10.1021/es702919n. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/e.../es702919n.html. Retrieved 2008-05-07.

# ^ DAVID, DAVID (July 4, 2008). "McIntosh residents file suit against Ciba". http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/inde....xml&coll=3. Retrieved 2008-07-07.

# ^ Environmental Cleanup Site Information Database for Arkema (former Pennwalt) facility, Oregon DEQ, April 2009.

# ^ ROSEMARY, ROSEMARY (2008-01-27). "Tests shed light on how pCBSA got into St. Louis water". Morning Sun. http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/012708/loc_tests.shtml. Retrieved 2008-05-16.

# ^ a b c d e DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975), U.S. EPA, July 1975.

# ^ a b c d e van den Berg, Henk; Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention (October 23, 2008). "Global status of DDT and its alternatives for use in vector control to prevent disease". Stockholm Convention/United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.pops.int/documents/ddt/Global%2...C%2020Oct08.pdf. Retrieved 2008-11-22.

# ^ Denholm I, Devine GJ, Williamson MS (2002). "Evolutionary genetics. Insecticide resistance on the move". Science 297 (5590): 2222–3. doi:10.1126/science.1077266. PMID 12351778.

# ^ a b c Dunlap, Thomas R. (1981). DDT: Scientists, Citizens, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04680-8.

# ^ Shah, Sonia “Don’t Blame Environmentalists for Malaria,” The Nation. April 2006.

# ^ a b c Gladwell, Malcolm (July 2, 2001). "The Mosquito Killer". The New Yorker. http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm. .

# ^ a b Harrison, Gordon A (1978). Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Man: A History of the Hostilities Since 1880. Dutton. ISBN 0525160256.

# ^ a b c d Chapin G, Wasserstrom R (1981). "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India". Nature 293 (5829): 181–5. doi:10.1038/293181a0. PMID 7278974.

# ^ a b c d Sadasivaiah, Shobha; Tozan, Yesim; Breman, Joel G. (1 December 2007). "Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for Indoor Residual Spraying in Africa: How Can It Be Used for Malaria Control?". Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 77 (Suppl 6): 249–263. http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/77/6_Suppl/249.

# ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67182-6. PMID 16125595.

# ^ Greenberg DS (May 1963). "Pesticides: White House Advisory Body Issues Report Recommending Steps to Reduce Hazard to Public". Science (journal) 140 (3569): 878–879. doi:10.1126/science.140.3569.878. PMID 17810673. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pmidlookup?v...p;pmid=17810673. Retrieved 2008-05-21. cited in Graham Jr., Frank. "Nature’s Protector and Provocateur". Audubon Magazine. http://audubonmagazine.org/books/editorchoice0709.html.

# ^ a b Michaels, David (2008). Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195300673.

# ^ "Sue the Bastards", TIME October 18, 1971

# ^ "AEI - Short Publications - The Rise, Fall, Rise, and Imminent Fall of DDT". http://www.aei.org/outlook/27063.

# ^ "Selected passages from the history of the Hungarian plant protection administration on the 50th anniversary of establishing the county plant protection stations". http://www.fvm.hu/main.php?folderID=1564&a...id=1∂=2.

# ^ "MFI second page". Malaria Foundation International. http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html. Retrieved 2006-03-15.

# ^ "Concern over excessive DDT use in Jiribam fields". The Imphal Free Press. 2008-05-05. http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?temp...15&typeid=1. Retrieved 2008-05-05.

# ^ "Is DDT still effective and needed in malaria control?". Malaria Foundation International. http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html. Retrieved 2006-03-15.

# ^ a b Roberts, Donald R.; Laughlin, LL; Hsheih, P; Legters, LJ (July-September 1997). "DDT, global strategies, and a malaria control crisis in South America". Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (3): 295–302. doi:10.3201/eid0303.970305. PMID 9284373. PMC 2627649. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm.

# ^ "The Grasshopper Effect and Tracking Hazardous Air Pollutants" ([dead link]). The Science and the Environment Bulletin (Environment Canada) (May/June 1998). http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay/Print...n/print2_e.html.

# ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Eskenazi, Brenda (May 4, 2009). "The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use". Environ. Health Perspect.. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2009/11748/11748.pdf.

# ^ USDA, Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary Calendar Year 2005, November 2006.

# ^ D Kantachote, R Naidu, B Williams, N McClure, M Megharaj, I Singleton (2004). "Bioremediation of DDT-contaminated soil: enhancement by seaweed addition". Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 79 (6): 632–638. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...060819/abstract. Retrieved 2009-05-26.

# ^ O'Shaughnessy PT (November 2008). "Parachuting cats and crushed eggs the controversy over the use of DDT to control malaria". Am J Public Health 98 (11): 1940–8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.122523. PMID 18799776. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=lo...p;pmid=18799776.

# ^ "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To Remove the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule," Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, February 20, 2008. 73 F.R. 9407

# ^ Walker et al, 2006, Principles of Ecotoxicology

# ^ Guillette, Louis J., Jr. (2006). "Endocrine Disrupting Contaminants" (PDF). http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8045/8045.pdf. Retrieved 2007-02-02.

# ^ Lundholm, C.E. (1997). "DDE-Induced eggshell thinning in birds". Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol 118 (118): 113. doi:10.1016/S0742-8413(97)00105-9.

# ^ Holm L, Blomqvist A, Brandt I, Brunström B, Ridderstråle Y, Berg C (October 2006). "Embryonic exposure to o,p'-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen". Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25 (10): 2787–93. doi:10.1897/05-619R.1. PMID 17022422.

# ^ Division of Environmental Quality

# ^ a b c d e Cohn BA, Wolff MS, Cirillo PM, Sholtz RI (October 2007). "DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure". Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (10): 1406–14. doi:10.1289/ehp.10260. PMID 17938728.

# ^ Pesticideinfo.org

# ^ World Health Organization, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard, 2005.

# ^ Rappolt, RT (1973). "Use of oral DDT in three human barbiturate intoxications: hepatic enzyme induction by reciprocal detoxicants". Clin Toxicol 6 (2): 147–51. doi:10.3109/15563657308990512. PMID 4715198.

# ^ Jones, Oliver AH; Maguire, Mahon L; Griffin, Julian L (January 26, 2008). "Environmental pollution and diabetes: a neglected association" (PDF). Lancet 371 (9609): 287–288. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60147-6. PMID 18294985. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=M...=/sdarticle.pdf.

# ^ Turyk, Mary (March 6, 2009). "Organochlorine Exposure and Incidence of Diabetes in a Cohort of Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumers". Environ. Health Perspect.. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/0800281/abstract.html.

# ^ Codru, Neculai; Schymura, MJ; Negoita, S; Akwesasne Task Force on Environment; Rej, R; Carpenter, DO (2007). "Diabetes in Relation to Serum Levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Adult Native Americans" (PDF). Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (10): 1442–7. doi:10.1289/ehp.10315. PMID 17938733. PMC 2022671. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10315/10315.pdf.

# ^ Cox, Shanna; Niskar, AS; Narayan, KM; Marcus, M (2007). "Prevalence of Self-Reported Diabetes and Exposure to Organochlorine Pesticides among Mexican Americans: Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982–1984" (PDF). Environ. Health Perspect 115 (12): 1747–52. doi:10.1289/ehp.10258. PMID 18087594. PMC 2137130. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10258/10258.pdf.

# ^ Turyk M, Anderson H, Knobeloch L, Imm P, Persky V (July 2009). "Organochlorine exposure and incidence of diabetes in a cohort of Great Lakes sport fish consumers". Environ. Health Perspect. 117 (7): 1076–82. doi:10.1289/ehp.0800281. PMID 19654916.

# ^ Philibert, Aline; Harold Schwartz and Donna Mergler (11 December 2009). "An Exploratory Study of Diabetes in a First Nation Community with Respect to Serum Concentrations of p,p’-DDE and PCBs and Fish Consumption". Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6 (12): 3179–3189. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3179.

# ^ Rogan WJ, Ragan NB (2003). "Evidence of effects of environmental chemicals on the endocrine system in children". Pediatrics 112 (1 Pt 2): 247–52. doi:10.1542/peds.112.1.S1.247 (inactive 2009-11-27). PMID 12837917. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...p;pmid=12837917.

# ^ Chen A, Rogan WJ (2003). "Nonmalarial infant deaths and DDT use for malaria control". Emerging Infect. Dis. 9 (8): 960–4. PMID 12967494. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm.

# ^ Roberts D, Curtis C, Tren R, Sharp B, Shiff C, Bate R (2004). "Malaria control and public health". Emerging Infect. Dis. 10 (6): 1170–1; author reply 1171–2. PMID 15224677. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/03-0787_03-1116.htm.

# ^ Chen A, Rogan WJ. Malaria control and public health (replies). Emerging Infectious Disease, 10(6):1171-1172, June 2004

# ^ Cupul-Uicab, LA; Gladen, BC; Hernández-Avila, M; Weber, JP; Longnecker, MP (2008). "DDE, a Degradation Product of DDT, and Duration of Lactation in a Highly Exposed Area of Mexico". Environ. Health Perspect. 116 (2): 179–183. doi:10.1289/ehp.10550. PMID 18288315. PMC 2235222. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10550/abstract.html.

# ^ BBC (2006-07-05). "DDT 'link' to slow child progress". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5145450.stm. Retrieved 2006-07-05.

# ^ Sagiv SK, Nugent JK, Brazelton TB, et al. (May 2008). "Prenatal organochlorine exposure and measures of behavior in infancy using the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS)". Environ. Health Perspect. 116 (5): 666–73. doi:10.1289/ehp.10553. PMID 18470320. PMC 2367684. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10553/abstract.html.

# ^ Ribas-Fitó N, Torrent M, Carrizo D (2006). "In utero exposure to background concentrations of DDT and cognitive functioning among preschoolers". Am. J. Epidemiol. 164 (10): 955–62. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj299. PMID 16968864.

# ^ Torres-Sánchez L, Rothenberg SJ, Schnaas L (2007). "In utero p, p'-DDE exposure and infant neurodevelopment: a perinatal cohort in Mexico". Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (3): 435–9. doi:10.1289/ehp.9566. PMID 17431495.

# ^ Jurewicz J, Hanke W, Radwan M, Bonde JP (January 2010). "Environmental factors and semen quality". Int J Occup Med Environ Health: 1–25. doi:10.2478/v10001-009-0036-1. PMID 20053623.

# ^ Aneck-Hahn NH, Schulenburg GW, Bornman MS, Farias P, de Jager C (2007). "Impaired semen quality associated with environmental DDT exposure in young men living in a malaria area in the Limpopo Province, South Africa". J. Androl. 28 (3): 423–34. doi:10.2164/jandrol.106.001701. PMID 17192596.

# ^ De Jager C, Farias P, Barraza-Villarreal A (2006). "Reduced seminal parameters associated with environmental DDT exposure and p, p'-DDE concentrations in men in Chiapas, Mexico: a cross-sectional study". J. Androl. 27 (1): 16–27. doi:10.2164/jandrol.05121. PMID 16400073.

# ^ Harley KG, Marks AR, Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B (December 2008). "DDT Exposure, Work in Agriculture, and Time to Pregnancy Among Farmworkers in California". J. Occup. Environ. Med. 50 (12): 1335–1342. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31818f684d. PMID 19092487. PMC 2684791. http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/templa...200812000-00003.

# ^ Cohn BA, Cirillo PM, Wolff MS (2003). "DDT and DDE exposure in mothers and time to pregnancy in daughters". Lancet 361 (9376): 2205–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13776-2. PMID 12842376.

# ^ Venners SA, Korrick S, Xu X (2005). "Preconception serum DDT and pregnancy loss: a prospective study using a biomarker of pregnancy". Am. J. Epidemiol. 162 (8): 709–16. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi275. PMID 16120699.

# ^ Longnecker MP (2005). "Invited Commentary: Why DDT matters now". Am. J. Epidemiol. 162 (8): 726–8. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi277. PMID 16120697.

# ^ Nagayama J, Kohno H, Kunisue T (2007). "Concentrations of organochlorine pollutants in mothers who gave birth to neonates with congenital hypothyroidism". Chemosphere 68 (5): 972–6. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.01.010. PMID 17307219. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...6535(07)00040-9.

# ^ Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Ribas-Fito N, Torrent M, Carrizo D, Grimalt JO, Sunyer J (October 2007). "Effects of PCBs, p, p'-DDT, p, p'-DDE, HCB and {beta}-HCH on thyroid function in preschoolers". Occup Environ Med. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.032763. PMID 17933884.

# ^ Schell LM, Gallo MV, Denham M, Ravenscroft J, Decaprio AP, Carpenter DO (June 2008). "Relationship of Thyroid Hormone Levels to Levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Lead, p, p'- DDE, and Other Toxicants in Akwesasne Mohawk Youth". Environ. Health Perspect. 116 (6): 806–13. doi:10.1289/ehp.10490. PMID 18560538.

# ^ van Wendel de Joode B, Wesseling C, Kromhout H, Monge P, Garcia M, Mergler D (2001). "Chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT". Lancet 357 (9261): 1014–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04249-5. PMID 11293598.

# ^ Anthony J Brown, Pesticide Exposure Linked to Asthma, Scientific American, September 17, 2007.

# ^ McGlynn, Katherine A.; Quraishi, Sabah M.; Graubard, BI; Weber, JP; Rubertone, MV; Erickson, RL (April 29, 2008). "Persistent Organochlorine Pesticides and Risk of Testicular Germ Cell Tumors". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100 (9): 663. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn101. PMID 18445826. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djn101v1. .

# ^ Spinelli, John J.; Ng, CH; Weber, JP; Connors, JM; Gascoyne, RD; Lai, AS; Brooks-Wilson, AR; Le, ND et al. (2007-12-15). "Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma". Int. J. Cancer 121 (12): 2767–75. doi:10.1002/ijc.23005. PMID 17722095. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...807299/ABSTRACT.

# ^ Clapp RW, Jacobs MM, Loechler EL (2008). "Environmental and occupational causes of cancer: new evidence 2005-2007". Rev Environ Health 23 (1): 1–37. PMID 18557596.

# ^ Verner MA, Charbonneau M, López-Carrillo L, Haddad S (July 2008). "Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of persistent organic pollutants for lifetime exposure assessment: a new tool in breast cancer epidemiologic studies". Environ. Health Perspect. 116 (7): 886–92. doi:10.1289/ehp.10917. PMID 18629310.

# ^ Brody JG, Moysich KB, Humblet O, Attfield KR, Beehler GP, Rudel RA (June 2007). "Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: epidemiologic studies". Cancer 109 (12 Suppl): 2667–711. doi:10.1002/cncr.22655. PMID 17503436. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...=1&SRETRY=0.

# ^ López-Cervantes M, Torres-Sánchez L, Tobías A, López-Carrillo L (February 2004). "Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane burden and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of the epidemiologic evidence". Environ. Health Perspect. 112 (2): 207–14. PMID 14754575. PMC 1241830. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6492/6492.html.

# ^ News media articles about this study: (a) Exposure to DDT is linked to cancer, Douglas Fischer, Contra Costa Times, August 8th, 2007. (b) Study suggests DDT, breast cancer link, Marla Cone, LA Times, September 30th, 2007.

# ^ a b c 2009 WHO World Malaria Report 2009

# ^ a b Rachel Carson's birthday bashing, Kirsten Weir, Salon.com, June 29, 2007, accessed July 1, 2007.

# ^ Paull, John (3 November 2007). "Toxic Colonialism". New Scientist (2628): 25. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1962...lonialism.html/.

# ^ Feachem RG, Sabot OJ (2007). "Global malaria control in the 21st century: a historic but fleeting opportunity". JAMA 297 (20): 2281–4. doi:10.1001/jama.297.20.2281. PMID 17519417.

# ^ WHO | WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria

# ^ Countries move toward more sustainable ways to roll back malaria

# ^ Yamey, Gavin (8 May 2004). "Roll Back Malaria: a failing global health campaign". BMJ 328 (7448): 1086–1087. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1086. PMID 15130956.

# ^ a b Indoor Residual Spraying: Use of Indoor Residual Spraying for Scaling Up Global Malaria Control and Elimination. World Health Organization, 2006.

# ^ a b c d e f g Control of Malaria Vectors in Africa and Asia C.F.Curtis

# ^ Sharma, V.P. (1999). "Current scenario of malaria in India". Parassitologia 41 (1-3): 349–53. PMID 10697882.

# ^ Agarwal, Ravi (May 2001). "No Future in DDT: A case study of India". Pesticide Safety News.

# ^ Art Fisher, Mark Walker, Pam Powell. "DDT and DDE: Sources of Exposure and How to Avoid Them" (PDF). http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/SP03/SP0316.pdf. Retrieved 2006-03-15.

# ^ a b Sharma SN, Shukla RP, Raghavendra K, Subbarao SK (June 2005). "Impact of DDT spraying on malaria transmission in Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh, India". J Vector Borne Dis 42 (2): 54–60. PMID 16161701.

# ^ Hargreaves K, Hunt RH, Brooke BD (2003). "Anopheles arabiensis and An. quadriannulatus resistance to DDT in South Africa". Med. Vet. Entomol. 17 (4): 417–22. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.2003.00460.x. PMID 14651656.

# ^ a b Grieco JP, Achee NL, Chareonviriyaphap T (2007). "A new classification system for the actions of IRS chemicals traditionally used for malaria control". PLoS ONE 2 (1): e716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000716. PMID 17684562.

# ^ a b c Mabaso ML, Sharp B, Lengeler C (2004). "Historical review of malarial control in southern African with emphasis on the use of indoor residual house-spraying". Trop. Med. Int. Health 9 (8): 846–56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01263.x. PMID 15303988.

# ^ Sharma, V. P. (10 December 2003). "DDT: The fallen angel" (PDF). Current Science 85 (11): 1532–1537. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102003/1532.pdf.

# ^ In Malaria War, South Africa Turns To Pesticide Long Banned in the West, Roger Thurow, Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2001

# ^ a b Bouwman H, Sereda B, Meinhardt HM (2006). "Simultaneous presence of DDT and pyrethroid residues in human breast milk from a malaria endemic area in South Africa". Environ. Pollut. 144 (3): 902–17. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2006.02.002. PMID 16564119.

# ^ a b Ntow WJ, Tagoe LM, Drechsel P, Kelderman P, Gijzen HJ, Nyarko E (2008). "Accumulation of persistent organochlorine contaminants in milk and serum of farmers from Ghana". Environ. Res. 106 (1): 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2007.05.020. PMID 17931619.

# ^ Spicer PE, Kereu RK (April 1993). "Organochlorine insecticide residues in human breast milk: a survey of lactating mothers from a remote area in Papua New Guinea". Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 50 (4): 540–6. PMID 8467139.

# ^ Science Daily (May 9, 2009). "Unprecedented Use Of DDT Concerns Experts". ScienceDaily.com. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90504122058.htm. Retrieved 2009-05-30.

# ^ Jayashree, Jayashree (June 10, 2009). "Pesticide level in veggies, fruits rises". Economic Times. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Market...how/4637527.cms. Retrieved 2009-06-10.

# ^ SANJANA (June 13, 2009). "A Whole Fruit". Tehelka Magazine 6 (23). http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?fi...0609a_whole.asp.

# ^ Chakravartty, Anupam (June 8, 2009.). "State public libraries gasp for breath". Indian Express. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/State-pu...r-breath/472785. Retrieved 2009-06-08.

# ^ Katima, Jamidu (June 2009). "African NGOs outline commitment to malaria control without DDT". Pesticides News (84): 5.

# ^ Ghana News Agency (November 17, 2009). "Ministry moves to check unorthodox fishing methods". Ghana News Agency. http://www.ghananewsagency.org/s_social/r_9596/. Retrieved 2009-11-18.

# ^ Kristof, Nicholas D. (March 12 2005). "I Have a Nightmare". New York Times: Section A, Page 15 , Column 1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...20D%2520Kristof.

# ^ Finkel, Michael, "Malaria," National Geographic, July 2007

# ^ Sarvana, Adam (May 28, 2009). "Bate and Switch: How a free-market magician manipulated two decades of environmental science". Natural Resources New Service. http://www.nrns.org/index.php?option=com_c...mental-science-. Retrieved 2009-06-02.

# ^ Gutstein, Donald (November 24, 2009). Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy. Key Porter Books. ISBN 1554701910. . Relevant section excepted at: Gutstein, Donald (January 22, 2010). "Inside the DDT Propaganda Machine". The Tyee. http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/01/22/DDTPropaganda/. Retrieved 22 January 2010.

# ^ Rehabilitating Carson, John Quiggin & Tim Lambert, Prospect, May 2008.

# ^ Attaran A, Roberts DR, Curtis CF, Kilama WL (2000). "Balancing risks on the backs of the poor". Nat. Med. 6 (7): 729–31. doi:10.1038/77438. PMID 10888909.

# ^ Sidley P (2000). "Malaria epidemic expected in Mozambique". BMJ 320 (7236): 669. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7236.669. PMID 10710569.

# ^ Bate, Roger (May 14 2001). "A Case of the DDTs: The war against the war against malaria". National Review LIII (9). http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/ar.../nr_051401.html.

# ^ a b "USAID Health: Infectious Diseases, Malaria, Technical Areas, Prevention and Control, Indoor Residual Spraying". USAID. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_healt...hareas/irs.html. Retrieved 2008-10-14.

# ^ Stossel, John (November 16, 2007). "Excerpt: 'Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity'". ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1898820. Retrieved 2008-10-14.

# ^ Kent R. Hill (2005). "USAID isn’t against using DDT in worldwide malaria battle". http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...tor/111505.html. Retrieved 2006-04-03.

# ^ "USAID Health: Infectious Diseases, Malaria, News, Africa Malaria Day, USAID Support for Malaria Control in Countries Using DDT". 2005. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_healt...afrmal_ddt.html. Retrieved 2006-03-15.

# ^ Killeen GF, Fillinger U, Kiche I, Gouagna LC, Knols BG (2002). "Eradication of Anopheles gambiae from Brazil: lessons for malaria control in Africa?". Lancet Infect Dis 2 (10): 618–27. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(02)00397-3. PMID 12383612.

# ^ Impact of long-lasting insecticidal-treated nets (LLINs) and artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) measured using surveillance data in four African countries. World Health Organization, January 31, 2008. News article about the study: Malaria deaths halved in Rwanda and Ethiopia Better drugs, mosquito nets are the crucial tools, David Brown (Washington Post), SF Chronicle, A-12, February 1, 2008.

# ^ http://www.afronets.org/files/malaria.pdf World Health Organization, "A story to be shared: The successful fight against malaria in Vietnam," November 6, 2000.

# ^ a b "404 error" (PDF). http://www.ems.org/malaria/ddt_ipen.pdf. Retrieved 2006-03-15.

# ^ C. A. Goodman and A. J. Mills (1999). "The evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of malaria control measures in Africa" (PDF). Health Policy and Planning 14 (4): 301–312. doi:10.1093/heapol/14.4.301. PMID 10787646. http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/4/301.pdf.

# ^ Kamolratanakul, P.; Butraporn, P; Prasittisuk, M; Prasittisuk, C; Indaratna, K; Gumede, J. K. (2001). "Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of lambdacyhalothrin-treated mosquito nets in comparison to DDT spraying for malaria control in western Thailand". American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 65 (4): 279–84. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00700.x. PMID 11693869.

# ^ Goodman CA, Mnzava AE, Dlamini SS, Sharp BL, Mthembu DJ, Gumede JK (2001). "Comparison of the cost and cost-effectiveness of insecticide-treated bednets and residual house-spraying in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa". Trop. Med. Int. Health 6 (4): 280–95. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00700.x. PMID 11348519.

# ^ Corin, S. E & Weaver, S.A. (2005). "A risk analysis model with an ecological perspective on DDT and malaria control in South Africa" (PDF). Journal of Rural and Tropical Public Health 4: 21–32. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00700.x. http://www.jcu.edu.au/jrtph/vol/v04corin.pdf.

# ^ Over, M; Bakote'e, B; Velayudhan, R; Wilikai, P; Graves, PM (2004). "Impregnated nets or DDT residual spraying? Field effectiveness of malaria prevention techniques in solomon islands, 1993-1999". Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71 (2 Suppl): 214–23. PMID 15331840. http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/71/2_suppl/214.

# ^ Barat LM (2006). "Four malaria success stories: how malaria burden was successfully reduced in Brazil, Eritrea, India, and Vietnam". Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 74 (1): 12–6. PMID 16407339.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again show me some refereed articles published in respected scientific journals. The research has been going on for 30 years...

A list of people doesn't really shift my sense of where the scientific community unless those people are publishing research in this area...

US Senate report on suppression of peer reviewed reports

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression

NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims

New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]

The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. (See: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” and see climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference here.)

The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game. "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK)

Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of." (LINK)

*****************

List of numerous peer reviewed articles regarding AGW skepticism

**************

Bet you didn't check these out either, since Wiki is apparently the ultimate authority to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again show me some refereed articles published in respected scientific journals. The research has been going on for 30 years...

A list of people doesn't really shift my sense of where the scientific community unless those people are publishing research in this area...

US Senate report on suppression of peer reviewed reports

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression

NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims

New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]

The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. (See: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” and see climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference here.)

The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game. "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK)

Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of." (LINK)

*****************

List of numerous peer reviewed articles regarding AGW skepticism

**************

Bet you didn't check these out either, since Wiki is apparently the ultimate authority to you.

Hee hee...you should open some of those articles. Most are actually opinion/editorials and the ones that aren't even contain the words along the line of

"The purpose of such a limited review of

the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement.

Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." -- taken right from one of them.

Someone should tell "Pete" to do some research before he post crap

Edit to add -- to get us back to the original point -- is that its not that you don't think the majority of peer review literature supports climate change its that YOU THINK its crap and a big conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hee hee...you should open some of those articles. Most are actually opinion/editorials and the ones that aren't even contain the words along the line of "The purpose of such a limited review ofthe deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement.Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." -- taken right from one of them. Someone should tell "Pete" to do some research before he post crap

Like I said. It's like arguing with a Creationist that the age of the Earth is well beyond 6,000 years.If you really want a balanced education - which I seriously doubt - read the link to the Senate report that I provided. Read the whole thing, and you can see all sorts of credible documentation and very strong arguments.As I said, I seriously doubt that you'll do so - you don't want to know the truth and prefer to be willfully hoodwinked by charlatans. That's fine. Some people believe in the tooth fairy too.(BTW - it's pretty obvious you didn't even look at any of the peer reviewed articles. They are all documented from professional industry journals. Nice try on that, though. About as credible as using Wiki as your authority)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hee hee...you should open some of those articles. Most are actually opinion/editorials and the ones that aren't even contain the words along the line of "The purpose of such a limited review ofthe deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement.Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." -- taken right from one of them. Someone should tell "Pete" to do some research before he post crap

Like I said. It's like arguing with a Creationist that the age of the Earth is well beyond 6,000 years.If you really want a balanced education - which I seriously doubt - read the link to the Senate report that I provided. Read the whole thing, and you can see all sorts of credible documentation and very strong arguments.As I said, I seriously doubt that you'll do so - you don't want to know the truth and prefer to be willfully hoodwinked by charlatans. That's fine. Some people believe in the tooth fairy too.
And once again I'm supposed to believe a senate report and a guy with a blog called pete's place and not the 100's of peer reviewed journal articles that were published from 1985-2000 before this was even a political issue? I'm also to believe that 1000's of scientists at universities and academies across the globe got together in the 1970's and decided to make something up and only publish articles supporting this big lie? Their plan was long range, to take 30s before anyone paid attention all for the big payoff of that grant application that can only be spent on research. Seems like a good plan to me.I'm not even arguing whether they are right or wrong...just pointing out that there is a very strong consensus in the community that it is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your source....

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yep, what more credible authority than the IPCC..... :towelwave:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your source....

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yep, what more credible authority than the IPCC..... :towelwave:
What you are saying doesn't even make sense....that quote means that the IPCC reports is just mimicking what is out there in academies and universities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...