no, you answer my question for a change... you never respond to my questions...

I just sent you cited data that proves about 250 countries ban it... and as another poster mentioned just above that a million people die PER YEAR... yes people... actual innocent people, from malaria...

and everyone of those people who die... and every single person who perishes from malaria, their blood is on the hands of Rachel Carson and every environmentalist that promotes the ban of it or effects the policy that banned it and continues to do so... and you tell me that I'm insane or a conspiracist? But the environmentalists are all great and good? HA... I feel like I'm in an alternative world, having to even argue this.

So when the environmentalists say we need to be green and have alternative energy and all drive prius' so we can save the polar bears...because wordwide c02 is warming the planet and our existence is in question...... I say **** 'em

lol at 'unethical e-mails by legitimate scientist'...does anyone else see the disconnect in that sentence

No it isn't, I just wanted to know who 13ball thought the sleazy politicians are since he brought it up. He has no idea though, oh well.

Well then allow me to fix the post I responded to.

to

Not much doubt that malaria has killed millions since DDT was banned.

LOL...my goodness... where do I even start with this...

Do you have ANY idea how many people that were involved in WW2 in one way or another that had their lives saved because of DDT??? Pretty much every liberated jew from nazi concentration camps went on living because of DDT... soldiers fighting in the war that got typhus, malaria also.

The estimates are between 50 million and 500 million people worldwide that have had their lives saved because of DDT...

and you are talking about a chick not being able to be borne properly in an egg? I must be dreaming right now, this can not be a serious counter-argument. You need to understand that extinction is part of life... 95% of the earth's species on the planet starting millions of years ago, are now extinct... That is a LOOOT of extinct species before man even walked on earth.

There are no other ways to prevent malaria that come even come close to the efficiency and effectiveness of the way DDT eradicates it.

The reason DDT is so vitally needed in Africa and possibly America, is because the malaria virus has grown resistant to other drugs, for example, chloroquine is one.

DDT causes less resistance than other pesticides. AAAAnd tthis is because it doesn't just KILL, it REPELS.

Think of DDT as working like an electric fence. If the bugs are stupid enough to stay on the "fence" or surface that DDT is sprayed on, they will very soon die. But the smart ones just fly away after the initial "shock." And because they weren't exposed to DDT for very long. resistance doesn't develop. And whether mosquitoes are killed or repelled, they don't enter homes to spread deadly infectious diseases. Your other methods of eradicating malaria, don't work like this!

You are so mis-informed on this subject... do a little research...

I dated a girl who is extremely far left for 2 or 3 months, and she even worked on Obama's campaign traveling with him everywhere since 2007. You can't change her stance on almost anything that the left stands for... and we had an argument on how dishonest and horrible environmentalists actually are, and we got on the subject of DDT... and she is saying the same mis-informed Rachel Carson-esque BS that you are... and then she researched it the next day and was like, wow, I can't believe you were right about all that pertaining to DDT. It's just amazing the propaganda that people believe, especially coming from environmentalists with agendas. do a little research on the subject instead of saying LOL silly stuff like comparing it to mercury.

Leave us commies out of this mess! And don't even start me on all the lies and misinformation about tov Stalin.

haha ok, I'll edit

Let's take a look at your proof again:

You claim this is proof of a ban, but read the sentence again. All it says is that many countries do not use DDT. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF 200 COUNTRIES BANNING DDT. But to people like you the only reason countries might stop using DDT is because Rachel Carson and other environmentalists are out to kill children. It couldn't be because DDT is ineffective because of increased resistance (let me guess, evolution is some socialist plot too), or DDT was not cost effective, or because a poor African state ran out of money (that would be the environmentalists fault too somehow, of course).

So your whole view on DDT is a sham. There is a reason you can't find information on third world nations banning DDT use in the fight against malaria, and that's because it never happened. But you and the other anti-environmentalists are too busy making paper Hitlers to care about reality.

The main reason DDT use was stopped was because of developed resistance to it by mosquitoes. There actually was a movement to ban DDT--in agriculture. Widespread agricultural use of DDT allowed mosquitoes to become resistant more quickly because they were exposed to smaller amounts over greater time periods. Bans on the agricultural use of DDT were fairly common for this reason (and also for health and conservation concerns). In fact, here's what one environmentalist wrote about it:

You know who wrote that? Rachel mother****ing Carson. Silent Spring, 1962.

One of the reasons for the decline in the efficacy of DDT was moronic people who thought that you could just toss it anywhere and everything would work out great. It turns out those people were not only damaging the environment, they were damaging the fight against malaria as well. Agricultural bans sought by the environmental movement likely saved many lives by slowing the spread of DDT resistance.

But what do facts and science have to do with your worldview?

Link please.

Edit: to the bans in Africa.

Link to agreement that banned DDT, please. Thanks.

Could someone clear this up for me? I've heard over and over that CO2 goes up AFTER the temp increase, not prior. I have heard this was brought up in most of the skeptic arguments, and that a children's book with a graph purporting to show a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temp used in Inconv. Truth had to have the temp chart removed during printing after the author conceded that the relationship was actually the opposite...

Im surprised the thread lasted so long before being trainwrecked.

Coming out of an ice age, the temperature of the planet begins to warm (the theory is that changes in the orbit and tilt of the Earth change how much sunlight the northern hemisphere gets.) as the oceans slowly warm, CO2 is outgassed to the atmosphere. So yes, CO2 follows temp in ice ages.

Then, the greenhouse properties of CO2 further warm the earth causing more CO2 outgassing from the oceans until a new equilibrium state is reached.

The lag has been suspected since the 1980s and was confirmed in the early 1990s. These facts fit in perfectly well with AGW theory and, in fact, there are many studies that estimate the effect of CO2 based on deglaciations and they get about the same answer as climate models for the effect of a doubling of CO2 (although with (usually) wider error bars).

I dont know much about science, what keeps me from blindly believing the stuff the consensus says it that there is also a consensus to ban drugs.
Without knowing anything about science I already see horrible arguments from both sides, the AGW crowd just appeals to authority.
While I think sex is some fanatical right winger he did bring a very intresting point that I had not heard of before if AGW is such a big deal then why the chinese dont give a ****?? Are they just horrible people? Are their scientists stupid?


Also why everybody cares about polar bears, what about the camels , al gore hates camels imo

As for DDT's benefits, Malcolm Gidwell stated in the New Yorker, "Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions---even tens of millions--- of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man made drug of chemical before or since." Gosh gosh gosh... DDT what a horrific drug! about on par with mercury? or cyanide? Most certainly!!!!

Chemical pioneer Joseph Jacobs was critical of the precautionary principle. He noted that one of the products he helped develop saved many lives, but also "caused quite a few deaths." But this substance was not DDT. It was penicillin, which has caused allergic fatalities. No deaths of humans, by contrast have been linked to DDT. Yet "no one has ever bemoaned the discovery of penicillin or caused it to be BANNED", Jacobs wrote. "If this had been given the RACHEL CARSON treatment, think of all the lives which would not have been saved"

One of the few factual statements in "Silent Spring" was Carson's assertion that the pesticide "industry was a child of Second World War" She was right about THAT. But then in describing the development of DDT Rachel Carson not only managed to mangle science, she also smeared the noble efforts of the American military that was fighting to save the world from the Nazis.

According to Carson's fractured WW2 fairy tale, "in the course of developing agents of chemical warfare, some of the chemicals developed in the laboratory were found to be lethal to insects. The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents of death for man." This is one of Carson's most notorious lies, and yes this is either an outright lie or EXTREMELY willful ignorance...is that DDT was developed in WW@ as an "agent of death" She compared it to the development of poison gas! Read that??? This is the whackjob that started the environmental movement... if it wasn't for her it would have been long delayed or never even came to fruition... as Al Gore is quoted as saying...

Here is the TRUTH.... During WW2, the military never developed insecticides to kill anyone but bugs, DDT and others were specifically developed to save the lives of our troops!!!! General Douglas MacArthur said that at any given time 2/3 of his troops at any given time were afflicted with malaria.

After the initial DDT tests turned out to be right. DDT, used as intended, poses no harm to human health. Even Rachel Carson had to square her apocalyptic warnings with DDT's successful use in WW@. After all, the war ad only ended seventeen years before "Silent Spring" was published, and DDT's use in the battlefields would be in many readers' memories. So she conceded in a line that during the war, "so many people came into extremely intimate contact with DDT and suffered no IMMEDIATE (remember this, IMMEDIATE) ill effects." BUT she never conceded that DDT saved lives. AND SHE THEN tried to explain that DDT would have long term effects that could not be known. LOL.

A 1971 study in particular demonstrated that DDT posed no hazards to people. In that long term study, volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for a year and a half. Sixteen years later, they had suffered no increased risk of adverse health effects.

But now DDT's benefits and risks---or lack of them---are known, and some perceptive journalists, even some who are liberal, are noting them. Alexander Gourevitch, a scribe for the Pro-Democrat American Prospect, wrote in the liberal opinion magazine Washington Monthly, "But when it comes to the kinds of uses once permitted in the United States and abroad, there's simply no solid scientific evidence that exposure to DDT causes cancer or is otherwise harmful to human beings. Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated"

Malcolm Gidwell also wrote in the New Yorker in 2001 that if DDT was still being used to eradicate malaria, it would today be viewed "in the same heroic light as penicillin and the polio vaccine"

The Chinese Academy of Sciences signed the national academies' joint statement on climate change:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

And China has stated goals to reduce GHG emissions (though they aren't doing very well). Their fuel efficiency is better than the US. I don't know where you are getting the idea that China doesn't give a ****.

After the good guys won WW2, public health officials launched a global war on malaria with amazing results from the amazing chemical DDT. In the American South and much of the world, malaria infections were reduced to VIRTUALLY ZERO. In the 1950's, the World Health organization began the Global Malaria Eradication program. The US congress, with bi-partisan backing from those such as democratic senator and future president John F. Kennedy, approved spending the equivalent of billions of today's dollars to spray DDT around the globe. And even with the usual bureaucratic encumbrances, it was working. As Malcolm Gidwell retrospectively wrote, ".The results were dramatic. In, Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific, malaria was ELIMINATED."""

Before DDT spraying, India suffered 75 MILLION malaria infections and 800 THOUSAND deaths per YEAR. By the early 1960's, after continued spraying, malaria deaths had dropped to ZZZZEEERRRRROOOOOO.

in 1970 as the DDT ban was being debated, the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES put forward this OFFICIAL STATEMENT: "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It is estimated that, in a little more then two decades, DDT has PREVENTED 500 MILLION HUMAN DEATHS, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable"

Now this is the great part............ which is why environmentalists are the scum of the planet.


But what were we to do with so many people? Environmentalists wanted to know. After all, according to some greens, people are a "plague" on the "natural" world. As environmentalist critic Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of Washington and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, noted, "If we are to believe statements of some people, including several well-known biologists, that was just the problem with DDT. It SAVED human lives." For instance, in justifying withholding money from DDT spraying in the third world, US agency for International Development (USAID) economist Edwin J. Cohn said in the early 1970's, "better dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

Population control also appeared to be a big concern for Michael McCloskey , then director of the Sierra Club. McCloskey said in 1971 that "Sierra Club wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." He further explained, "By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations"

Similarly, Alexander King, co-founder of the doomsaying Club of Rome, also worried about DDT's effectiveness at saving lives. In a memoir published in 1990, King recounts, "In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem."

And even today, in the wake of a malaria epidemic in southern Africa, population control is still a motivation for some environmentalists not to allow DDT's use. Consider this shocking statement on an organ of mainline environmental discussion, the Gristmill blog. In 2005, a blogger who identified himself as Jeff Hoffman, a former organizer for the eco-terrorist group Earth First! and now an environmental attorney, wrote, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life?...I don't see any respect for the mosquitoes in these posts."

Of course the guru of the "overpopulation crisis" is Paul Ehrlich, and his best selling book The population Bomb was published in 1968 as DDT's use was being hotly debated. It's probably no coincidence that Ehrlich is also one of DDT's staunchest opponents . Even after the New York Times recently proclaimed the chemical's virtues in fighting malaria, Ehrlich cowrote a letter to the paper in 2005 opposing its use, saying, "there is no safe way to use it," and DDT was not a "cure of malaria." LOL, That's like saying hand washing is not a "cure" for germs

These people are sick...Carson and all her other environmentalist nutjob friends... I'll stick to having the stupid birds eggshells be messed up and save 500 million HUMAN lives instead...

So there you have it... mis-information about a life saving chemical, to get it banned all in the name of MURDER, *ahem* *cough*.... I mean population control.....

and this is the same crew, doing the same scamming B.S. with climate change...

Actual quote:

You are so blinded by your ideology that you can't even read the sources you present.

Once again, DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use. If it were, it would be trivially easy to prove.

The whole "environmentalists want to kill everyone" is another bull**** conspiracy theory, so take it to the conspiracy thread.

Wait do you not think that the two quotes are saying the same thing?

It's true that DDT was never banned for anti-malaria use. It's also irrelevant. The WHO stopped its DDT programs and pretty much every African country completely stopped using it after Carson's propoganda.

But yet China refuses to allow any independent audit of their supposed voluntary CO2 reduction. I think there is a reason their economy has grown so much recently.

The rest of the world is actually making production more expensive for themselves, while China pays lip service to keep believers and does nothing but produce cheaply and efficiently.

Well played China, wish my gov't had the foresight to follow that plan

I swear you are the David Icke of right wing nut jobs. Is there any stone left untouched by all the murderous, tree hugging, ultra liberal, big government, shape shifting lizard women from the fifth dimension?

It's obvious they are not saying the same thing. It's even more obvious if you read the article. Soper's eradication program failed because of resistance and unrealistic goals:

http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm