Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[kimmielittle]

They had “fish ladders” and a glass tube about ~ 3 feet in diameter passed through the office and people sat there and counted the fish as they swam upstream.

Wecome to CAF

Hmmmmmmmm… my post was referring to the linked story.

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
On Plastic eaters:

woohooreport.com/2009/09/wci-…-plastic-bags/

The question: What happens when we OVER produce these microorganisms?

 

[kimmielittle]

I have to admit I’ve been thinking about polar bears and what confounding factors might be problematic in any research re population increase, decrease, or stability. The first thing I would need would be an operational definition of “increase.” This means a significant positive change from an accepted baseline number of polar bears in years past. Has this baseline number been established? How? Who did it? Has the research been repeated? Have the results been replicated? Have polar bear populations been running steady during the last century or so? What about the human population? Has it increased significantly?

I think you have identified, for yourself, what we have been up against with much of AGW claims…unreliable / lost / unpredictable / non - reproducible data.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Another question you may want to ask yourself concerning these bears…
In the frozen wasteland that is their natural habitat, how do they know how many there are?
Is that method of counting really reliable?
If so, how do we know the population is not simply moving from where they can be readily counted to some place even less hospitable?

Those are good points and ones which I have considered. One of the first tasks is to find out how many polar bears there actually are and if these polar bears are healthy. We need to form a baseline; otherwise any other data is meaningless.

What you’ve listed are confounding factors. They are problems in research that aren’t adequately removed by random selection of subjects.

These reasons are just some of why I don’t know about polar bears or AGW or really anything else involving the environment, except that I am sure that the amount of trash on the beach where I live is increasing. And the only reason I know that is because I’ve seen it increase with my own two eyes.

Thanks for pointing these out.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think you have identified, for yourself, what we have been up against with much of AGW claims…unreliable / lost / unpredictable / non - reproducible data.

Unfortunately that’s part of the problem inherent in all research. And it happens with research reporting that AGW doesn’t exist as well as that AGW does exist. Without knowing who the real experts are (and even that isn’t enough; even real experts can be greedy, can lie, can have ulterior motives) the average person can’t know the truth. I don’t see any way that it is possible. Even someone who understands research and can read the studies and be able to comprehend what happened during the study will be overwhelmed by study after study after study along with the poor reporting of these studies due to media/political involvement.

It’s enough to make one tear one’s hair out. It’s frustrating and exhausting.

I am impressed by the letter signed by the large number of respected scientists who have stated that AGW does not exist. Out of all the data, research, media reporting, political pressure, greed, and a plethora of other factors, that one letter speaks more to me than probably a thousand research reports.

If a scientist, well-known and respected, signs his name to that document, I believe him. I don’t believe that every single one of those scientists was paid off or blackmailed or pressured in any way to sign. By signing that document they were putting their reputations on the line. That is amazing to me. Probably some of them signed because of some outside pressure. Surely there was peer pressure and some may have signed it just because it was the easy thing to do. But all of them? I don’t think so. I hope not.

And I hope the polar bear population is healthy. They are amazing creatures, even if they have blue-black skin and tongues.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Guys I’m all for being a good steward, and I think I am. I clean up after myself. I don’t litter. I don’t leave the water running. I respect all the wildlife I encounter.

Only in the last decade or so did environmentalism and climate change activism become necessary for being a good steward. Perhaps I’m just naive but I think something funny is going on here.

I’m a student of science, and have studied this issue for several years now. The climate changes. It always has… But there’s not much else to say about the issue. Nobody has any clue as to the extent by which we can influence the climate. Anyone, scientist or lay person, who says otherwise is purely influenced by politics. That’s the biggest problem with science today is that it is so polluted with politics. It disgusts me as an aspiring scientist that lay people with no advanced education in the sciences place such a false value on the word “science.” “Science shows this, science proves that.” Science does not “prove” anything. It either disproves, or supports. The design of the scientific method is that of falsification, not proof. If a hypothesis is not falsified, it is not proven but is supported. Need I remind society of just how many times science has been wrong?

Though few like to admit it, the reality is we simply do not know many of the answers we seek.

Wow - it’s rare to come across someone who knows that science doesn’t prove anything. Thank you!!

I agree that science, or actually what is being passed off as science, is riddled with political factors. It is polluted. It disgusts me, too. I think it all comes down to greed. Money may not be the root of all evils, but it surely is the root of most evils. Out and out lying, falsifying data so that it appears to support one’s preconceived notions, not using random selection but carefully picking and choosing which subjects will be in the control and experimental groups, using small sample sizes but making huge claims when a “significant” result is conveniently obtained…it just goes on and on and on.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/04/11/what-does-fukushima’s-new-“level-7”-status-mean/

Chernobyl was a level 7 nuclear incident.

Those who do not learn from the past are bound to repeat it.

Once again it has been shown that nuclear power is not safe at our current level of technology. Sorry, guys. It isn’t safe no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[vz71]

Once again it has been shown that nuclear power is not safe at our current level of technology. Sorry, guys. It isn’t safe no matter how much you want it to be.

Let’s throw in some perspective.

The houses damaged by the quake are not safe.
The bridges effected by the quake are no longer safe.

Near everything that was hit with the quake is no longer safe.

You cannot take the problems caused by a reactor hit with an 8.9 quake and a tsunami and paint the nuclear industry.

It is an apples and oranges argument.

 

[JFarrish]

I think you have identified, for yourself, what we have been up against with much of AGW claims…unreliable / lost / unpredictable / non - reproducible data.

I am always concerned when alledged technical discussions adopt the language of tribalism (“we”, “them”). Science is an attempt to understand the truth of the objective material world.

It is a given that individuals are poor observers by nature and the bias and error are inherent in the human condition. That is why we have accepted methods of conducting research, the concept of peer review, and replication of experiment.

There is something in US culture that makes us like the idea of the lone genius bucking the corrupt, somewhat stupid, system, but in science, that is incredibly rare and tends to self correct.

The ‘Big Bang’ was a phrase coined to be insulting to a theory that many found incredulous when it was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, BTW), but science did its part. Hypothesis leads to prediction, prediction tested by experiment. Science is not the providence of God, it does not provide absolute truth, but the Big Bang is now almost universally accepted as the best hypothesis for the body of evidence available.

Andrew Wakefield ‘bravely’ took on the ‘evil’ vaccine makers and all the ‘trumped up science’ and created a vaccine/autism panic in the industrial world. Ethics and honesty were serious concerns right from the beginning (virtually all listed co-authors asked that their names be removed almost immediately because of evidence of professional misconduct), but, again, the best predictor over the long term has been science. The results have never been reproducable, in over 30 studies.

One of the latest, overseen by Cambridge, took the unusual step of inviting in advocates of autism/MMR causal theories to provide both methodology (name removed by moderator)ut and to have unfettered access to data and direct oversight of practices. The results, simultaneously reproduced at three facilities - Wakefield’s fundemental scientific assertions are false. Even ultra outspoken vaccine critic and parent activist Rick Rollens publicly acknoweldged that Wakefield’s theory was dead.

But here is the thing. No amount of scientific evidence, no amount of oversight, no amount of scrutiny, is going to convince a certain percentage of the population that the MMR vaccine doe not have a causal relationship to autism.

As Catholics, we should have great sympathy for these individuals, because they are very often dealing with the hurculean burden of raising and caring for a severely disabled child. But love and compassion should not include approval of certain practices, like accusing every researcher or scientist who has found evidence contrary to their deeply held emotional beliefs of being corrupt, incompetent, and/or simply dishonest. This sort of activity remains an offense against the 8th Commandment.

It is OK to be skeptical of any science. In fact, a good scientist is always skeptical. But skepticism should be framed in the context of honesty and the measurable world. A fair number of the links I have seen in this thread repeat claims which have been repeatedly debunked.

The reason that belief in a period of rapid climate change and human activity as a causal factor is so widespread in the scientific community is the preponderance of evidence from so many different disciplines, and its surprisingly good correlation.

Scientists are not a monolithic group. They are not all liberal atheists taking money from some nefarious global green conspiracy. More than half describe themselves as religiously devout and about 2/5 as politically conservative. What they have in common is that, ultimately, a good scientist follows the data.

Einstein is often quoted as saying that God does not play with dice. The context for that remark was that he found the uncertainty principle objectionable on even an emotional level. But Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum physics, he followed the evidence. And, today, we can demonstrate in the lab that his emotionally held objections were wrong.

We can see the same thing occuring here. There is still plenty of legitimate debate about degree and causal distribution, but outright skepticism of the two basic premises above is rapidly vanishing. Credentialed skeptics have no trouble receiving funding, but they are not finding the desired results when they use scientific methods. For example:

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Notice that praise turns quickly to scorn. There will always be skeptics and contrarians of even the most widely accepted scientific theories. But people need to ask themselves if they accept the word of, say MIT’s Richard Lindzen because they have a reasoned case to suggest that he is presenting better science, or simply because he is saying what they want to believe.

As Catholics, we have an obligation to moral consistancy. We cannot, for example, make vague assertions tht scientists who support theories of climate change are ‘corrupt’ and then ignore the serious financial incentives for people like Dr. Lindzen. (who appears to, at least at one point, have been receiving about $2500 a day from corporate energy interests). Likewise, we cannot make unspecific claims about data and methods and ignore that Lindzen’s supposed “Iris effect” and predictions about satallite data have now been scientifically debunked.

 

[kimmielittle]

I am always concerned when alledged technical discussions adopt the language of tribalism (“we”, “them”). Science is an attempt to understand the truth of the objective material world.

It is a given that individuals are poor observers by nature and the bias and error are inherent in the human condition. That is why we have accepted methods of conducting research, the concept of peer review, and replication of experiment.

There is something in US culture that makes us like the idea of the lone genius bucking the corrupt, somewhat stupid, system, but in science, that is incredibly rare and tends to self correct.

The ‘Big Bang’ was a phrase coined to be insulting to a theory that many found incredulous when it was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, BTW), but science did its part. Hypothesis leads to prediction, prediction tested by experiment. Science is not the providence of God, it does not provide absolute truth, but the Big Bang is now almost universally accepted as the best hypothesis for the body of evidence available.

Andrew Wakefield ‘bravely’ took on the ‘evil’ vaccine makers and all the ‘trumped up science’ and created a vaccine/autism panic in the industrial world. Ethics and honesty were serious concerns right from the beginning (virtually all listed co-authors asked that their names be removed almost immediately because of evidence of professional misconduct), but, again, the best predictor over the long term has been science. The results have never been reproducable, in over 30 studies.

One of the latest, overseen by Cambridge, took the unusual step of inviting in advocates of autism/MMR causal theories to provide both methodology (name removed by moderator)ut and to have unfettered access to data and direct oversight of practices. The results, simultaneously reproduced at three facilities - Wakefield’s fundemental scientific assertions are false. Even ultra outspoken vaccine critic and parent activist Rick Rollens publicly acknoweldged that Wakefield’s theory was dead.

But here is the thing. No amount of scientific evidence, no amount of oversight, no amount of scrutiny, is going to convince a certain percentage of the population that the MMR vaccine doe not have a causal relationship to autism.

As Catholics, we should have great sympathy for these individuals, because they are very often dealing with the hurculean burden of raising and caring for a severely disabled child. But love and compassion should not include approval of certain practices, like accusing every researcher or scientist who has found evidence contrary to their deeply held emotional beliefs of being corrupt, incompetent, and/or simply dishonest. This sort of activity remains an offense against the 8th Commandment.

It is OK to be skeptical of any science. In fact, a good scientist is always skeptical. But skepticism should be framed in the context of honesty and the measurable world. A fair number of the links I have seen in this thread repeat claims which have been repeatedly debunked.

The reason that belief in a period of rapid climate change and human activity as a causal factor is so widespread in the scientific community is the preponderance of evidence from so many different disciplines, and its surprisingly good correlation.

Scientists are not a monolithic group. They are not all liberal atheists taking money from some nefarious global green conspiracy. More than half describe themselves as religiously devout and about 2/5 as politically conservative. What they have in common is that, ultimately, a good scientist follows the data.

Einstein is often quoted as saying that God does not play with dice. The context for that remark was that he found the uncertainty principle objectionable on even an emotional level. But Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum physics, he followed the evidence. And, today, we can demonstrate in the lab that his emotionally held objections were wrong.

We can see the same thing occuring here. There is still plenty of legitimate debate about degree and causal distribution, but outright skepticism of the two basic premises above is rapidly vanishing. Credentialed skeptics have no trouble receiving funding, but they are not finding the desired results when they use scientific methods. For example:

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Notice that praise turns quickly to scorn. There will always be skeptics and contrarians of even the most widely accepted scientific theories. But people need to ask themselves if they accept the word of, say MIT’s Richard Lindzen because they have a reasoned case to suggest that he is presenting better science, or simply because he is saying what they want to believe.

As Catholics, we have an obligation to moral consistancy. We cannot, for example, make vague assertions tht scientists who support theories of climate change are ‘corrupt’ and then ignore the serious financial incentives for people like Dr. Lindzen. (who appears to, at least at one point, have been receiving about $2500 a day from corporate energy interests). Likewise, we cannot make unspecific claims about data and methods and ignore that Lindzen’s supposed “Iris effect” and predictions about satallite data have now been scientifically debunked.

Good post!!!

Because of time and space - please allow me to comment, piecemeal, as time permits me.

Agreeable?

Welcome to CAF

 

[John21652]

Bow Down To The New Religion

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Towards a Gaia Superorganism

So says Australia’s Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery who says humans will form an immensely cooperative world, just like an ant colony.

While you are counting Polar Bears and wondering over computer models, the Earth is being snatched away from Christianity and even God by a new group of True Beleivers.

Oh, by the way, March was the chilliest around the world since 1994.

It says so right here.

 

[JFarrish]

While you are counting Polar Bears and wondering over computer models, the Earth is being snatched away from Christianity and even God by a new group of True Beleivers.

Just so I’m clear. After a rebirth in Christ, St. Paul walked 20,000 miles and stood in blood spattered gladiator arenas spreading the Good News to blood sport loving pagans. He knew full well that martyrdom was a possibility (having previously been part the persecution himself). His work resulted in local churches we can trace in lineage to Catholic Churches today and the faith went from being persecuted by Rome to BEING Rome without lifting a fist or sword…

And you think that the faith is threatened by some Bolivians who want to make a point that deforesting their fairly fragile rain forest eco-system is bad?

Oh, by the way, March was the chilliest around the world since 1994.

Which it is why it is hard for a science type like me to have a meaningful discussion in a context like this. When one is trying to take complex issues and deal with them simplistically, it becomes common to try to use either inductive or deductive reasoning with a simplification, and end up with, well, gibberish.

Ha Ha, it was cold, so global warming doesn’t exist, duh…

The theory is that a relatively small shift upward in global average temperatures results in significant shifts in climate. So, if we are going to use simplistic thinking, we could just as easily say “weird, big earthquakes and really weird, unusually cold weather (true on the US coasts), Climate Change!”

But all climate models recognize significant point to point variation in weather. So, in of itself, weather in a particular month proves nothing (aside from people not generally even understanding the theory they reject). Even 2010 being tied for the warmest year on record:

noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Proves almost nothing by itself.

 

[John21652]

Just so I’m clear. After a rebirth in Christ, St. Paul walked 20,000 miles and stood in blood spattered gladiator arenas spreading the Good News to blood sport loving pagans. He knew full well that martyrdom was a possibility (having previously been part the persecution himself). His work resulted in local churches we can trace in lineage to Catholic Churches today and the faith went from being persecuted by Rome to BEING Rome without lifting a fist or sword…

Just so I’m clear, have you had your head buried in the sand so long you can’t see the attacks on the Judeo-Cristian West by the godless new pantheism? You can’t see the totalitarians crawling out of the woodwork ready and too willing to stifle over two thousand years of philosophical and ethical development? Do you care? Or did St. Paul go all that way for nothing?

And you think that the faith is threatened by some Bolivians who want to make a point that deforesting their fairly fragile rain forest eco-system is bad?

And you think some Bolivians is all there is to what is going on in the world? That totalitarians like Veneuzelas Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe’s Mugabwe didn’t really go to the global green talk fest and demand the evil west hand over billions in compensation? Mugabwe had the temerity to blame the West for the ills he has inflicted on his own people!!

Which it is why it is hard for a science type like me to have a meaningful discussion in a context like this. When one is trying to take complex issues and deal with them simplistically, it becomes common to try to use either inductive or deductive reasoning with a simplification, and end up with, well, gibberish.

Well, have you bothered to read through this entire thread? And its predecessor? Most of us have been having “a meaningful discussion” for around ten years, listening to scientists and politicians telling us how “settled” the science was. It isn’t and probably never will be. Figures have been fudged, spurious predictions made and incredibly drastic social changing policies drawn up while people like you count polar bears and argue over computer models.

Ha Ha, it was cold, so global warming doesn’t exist, duh…

Like I said, most of us have been having this debate for, like, ten years. Your little sarcastic jibe doesn’t register. By the way, most of the true beleivers have moved on from using “global warming”. It’s now “climate change”. They like to cover all bases.

The theory is that a relatively small shift upward in global average temperatures results in significant shifts in climate. So, if we are going to use simplistic thinking, we could just as easily say “weird, big earthquakes and really weird, unusually cold weather (true on the US coasts), Climate Change!”

Earthquakes? Now I know you’ve been playing in the sand pit. This thread has as part of its title “The Sequal”.

But all climate models recognize significant point to point variation in weather. So, in of itself, weather in a particular month proves nothing (aside from people not generally even understanding the theory they reject). Even 2010 being tied for the warmest year on record:

NOAA is one of the mobs with egg on their face. Like Jones at East Anglia who tried to hide the decline.

noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Proves almost nothing by itself.

The history of the earth is marked by significant fluctuations in global temperatures. The modern science of climatology was concerned about global cooling in the 1970s and global warming since the late 1980s.Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.

And what’s the temperature rise since the beginning of the twentieth century?

Just enough to let the totalitarian green gaia worshipers grandstand their way into world politics.

Meanwhile the polar bears are doing just fine.

 

[kimmielittle]

I am always concerned when alledged technical discussions adopt the language of tribalism (“we”, “them”). Science is an attempt to understand the truth of the objective material world.

Absolutely, but that isn’t what’s been done.

When science / scientists become authoritarian thou shalt do ] they lose objectivity and setup tribalism.

Has this been done taken on an authoritarian position ] by the AGW scientists / IPCC / activist ?

Consistently!

On purpose.

One needs no further evidence then, attempt to suppress, within leaked documents / emails.

And In print

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1281&pictureid=8823

american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/29/science-says/

Indeed, it is tribalism and a “we - them” mentally / line… exists.

BUT “we”, the one’s looking for “objectivity in science”, are not at fault.

 

[kimmielittle]

As Catholics, we have an obligation to moral consistancy. We cannot, for example, make vague assertions tht scientists who support theories of climate change are ‘corrupt’ and then ignore the serious financial incentives for people like Dr. Lindzen. (who appears to, at least at one point, have been receiving about $2500 a day from corporate energy interests). Likewise, we cannot make unspecific claims about data and methods and ignore that Lindzen’s supposed “Iris effect” and predictions about satallite data have now been scientifically debunked.

Dr. Lindzen. (who appears to, at least at one point, have been receiving about $2500 a day from corporate energy interests).

Dr.Lindzen had actually accepted a ** total of $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from such interests on the day he ceased such activities two decades ago.**

I have asked this question MANY times on threads here - it goes unanswered.

How does money received from corporate energy sources used for travel / research expenses by say Dr. Lindzen - differ from money received by CRU from corporate energy / activist groups?

Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three – the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust – are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth – Renewables North West – is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

You can also count Esso [The old name for Exxon Mobile ], BP , Shell, Omar on a Partial list contributors of CRU. View it on CRU’s home page.

Source: cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants,
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd.,
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

“As Catholics, we have an obligation to moral consistency”

It would seem your attack on Dr. Lindzen…

 

[kimmielittle]

The ‘Big Bang’ was a phrase coined to be insulting to a theory that many found incredulous when it was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, BTW), but science did its part. Hypothesis leads to prediction, prediction tested by experiment. Science is not the providence of God, it does not provide absolute truth, but the Big Bang is now almost universally accepted as the best hypothesis for the body of evidence available.

Andrew Wakefield ‘bravely’ took on the ‘evil’ vaccine makers and all the ‘trumped up science’ and created a vaccine/autism panic in the industrial world. Ethics and honesty were serious concerns right from the beginning (virtually all listed co-authors asked that their names be removed almost immediately because of evidence of professional misconduct), but, again, the best predictor over the long term has been science. The results have never been reproducable, in over 30 studies.

Good Points.

However, an objective view would also acknowledge the failures of Authoritarian Science on society.

One Example:

Last week’s announcement that the World Health Organization lifted its nearly 30-year ban on the insecticide DDT is perhaps the most promising development in global public health since… well, 1943 when DDT was first used to combat insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria.

Overlooked in all the hoopla over the announcement, however, is the terrible toll in human lives (tens of millions dead — mostly pregnant women and children under the age of 5), illness (billions sickened) and poverty (more than $1 trillion dollars in lost GDP in sub-Saharan Africa alone) caused by the tragic, decades-long ban.

Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?

Rachel Carson kicked-off DDT hysteria with her pseudo-scientific 1962 book, “Silent Spring.” Carson materially misrepresented DDT science in order to advance her anti-pesticide agenda. Today she is hailed as having launched the global environmental movement. A Pennsylvania state office building, Maryland elementary school, Pittsburgh bridge and a Maryland state park are named for her. The Smithsonian Institution commemorates her work against DDT. She was even honored with a 1981 U.S. postage stamp. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of her birth. Many celebrations are being planned.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html

One can not objectively / effectively preach from one side of one’s mouth - kimmie

 

[kimmielittle]

Who else was a player in Banning DDT?

Glad you asked.

The Audubon Society was a leader in the attack on DDT, including falsely

accusing DDT defenders (who subsequently won a libel suit) of lying. Not wanting to jeopardize its non-profit tax status, the Audubon Society formed the Environmental Defense Fund (now simply known as Environmental Defense) in 1967 to spearhead its anti-DDT efforts. Today the National Audubon Society takes in more than $100 million per year and has assets worth more than $200 million. Environmental Defense takes in more than $65 million per year with a net worth exceeding $73 million.

In a February 25, 1971, media release, the president of the Sierra Club stated that his organization wanted “a ban, not just a curb” on DDT, “even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." Today the Sierra Club rakes in more than $90 million per year and has more than $50 million in assets.

**It was, of course, then-Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who actually banned DDT after ignoring an EPA administrative law judge’s ruling that there was no evidence indicating that DDT posed any sort of threat to human health or the environment. Ruckleshaus never attended any of the agency’s hearings on DDT. He didn’t read the hearing transcripts and refused to explain his decision.

None of this is surprising given that, in a May 22, 1971, speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshaus said that EPA procedures had been streamlined so that DDT could be banned. Ruckleshaus was also a member of — and wrote fundraising letters for — the EDF.

The DDT ban solidified Ruckelshaus’ environmental credentials, which he has surfed to great success in business, including stints as CEO of Browning Ferris Industries and as a director of a number of other companies including Cummins Engine, Nordstrom, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Ruckelshaus currently is a principal in a Seattle, Wash., -based investment group called Madrona Venture Group.**

Is this the same EPA that now wants to direct laws and policies about CO2, with no Congressional (name removed by moderator)ut / accountability?

Finally

Finally, there is the question of the World Health Organization itself. What’s the WHO been doing for all these years? There are no new facts on DDT — all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html

Seems to me, we have the some of very same players in promoting AGW policies.

 

[John21652]

Who else was a player in Banning DDT?

Glad you asked.

Is this the same EPA that now wants to direct laws and policies about CO2, with no Congressional (name removed by moderator)ut / accountability?

Finally

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html

Seems to me, we have the some of very same players in promoting AGW policies.

All crooks, Kimmie, all crooks.

 

[Peepers]

Getting timed out.

Get a copy of “It’s the Sun, Not Your SUV … CO2 Won’t Destroy the Earth” by John Zyrkowski. With the forward by Peter Dietze, who is an IPCC Reviewer.

Important stuff and everyone needs to read up and get the insights into the various discussion points.

I attended a lecture recently on the acidification of the oceans at Scripps Institute or Oceanography. Scripps is among a handful of the best scientific oceanographic in the world. The lecturer put up a graph showing average temperatures and atmospheric products which are known to cause “global warming”. The graph was obtained from ice core evidence from Antarctica, tree ring evidence, sedimentary evidence, and so on. I could be wrong about the span, but I think it was about 100,000 years, with the span of the past 10,000 years being considered to have enough sources to be very accurate.

The correlation between these gases associated with industrial activity based on the consumption of fossil fuels is well established. The trend in the climate associated with the industrial revolution which started around 1900 is clear.

The up side of cleaning things up is that we will have a healthier and cleaner world. So, even people who disagree with science will still be healthier and have a nice planet to live on.

The down side is that if science if correct, that we will have some terrible problems with many people suffering. Carbon is sequestered very slowly compared to how fast we are releasing it from the ground. Whatever point we decide to stop polluting (if we do), then will leave us in a state where the environment continues to worsen for some time, and then stabilize. The carbon products which are causing the problem will remain in the atmosphere and the oceans for many thousands of years. This will not be like turning off a switch.

Anyone interested in the topic might want to look into the acidification of the oceans. There is accumulating evidence that the oceans are dying rapidly as a result of interaction at the surface with the carbon products in the atmosphere. This may be a bigger problem than the climactic problems which may be coming in the near future.

 

[Warrior1979]

I am always concerned when alledged technical discussions adopt the language of tribalism (“we”, “them”). Science is an attempt to understand the truth of the objective material world.

It is a given that individuals are poor observers by nature and the bias and error are inherent in the human condition. That is why we have accepted methods of conducting research, the concept of peer review, and replication of experiment.

There is something in US culture that makes us like the idea of the lone genius bucking the corrupt, somewhat stupid, system, but in science, that is incredibly rare and tends to self correct.

The ‘Big Bang’ was a phrase coined to be insulting to a theory that many found incredulous when it was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, BTW), but science did its part. Hypothesis leads to prediction, prediction tested by experiment. Science is not the providence of God, it does not provide absolute truth, but the Big Bang is now almost universally accepted as the best hypothesis for the body of evidence available.

Andrew Wakefield ‘bravely’ took on the ‘evil’ vaccine makers and all the ‘trumped up science’ and created a vaccine/autism panic in the industrial world. Ethics and honesty were serious concerns right from the beginning (virtually all listed co-authors asked that their names be removed almost immediately because of evidence of professional misconduct), but, again, the best predictor over the long term has been science. The results have never been reproducable, in over 30 studies.

One of the latest, overseen by Cambridge, took the unusual step of inviting in advocates of autism/MMR causal theories to provide both methodology (name removed by moderator)ut and to have unfettered access to data and direct oversight of practices. The results, simultaneously reproduced at three facilities - Wakefield’s fundemental scientific assertions are false. Even ultra outspoken vaccine critic and parent activist Rick Rollens publicly acknoweldged that Wakefield’s theory was dead.

But here is the thing. No amount of scientific evidence, no amount of oversight, no amount of scrutiny, is going to convince a certain percentage of the population that the MMR vaccine doe not have a causal relationship to autism.

As Catholics, we should have great sympathy for these individuals, because they are very often dealing with the hurculean burden of raising and caring for a severely disabled child. But love and compassion should not include approval of certain practices, like accusing every researcher or scientist who has found evidence contrary to their deeply held emotional beliefs of being corrupt, incompetent, and/or simply dishonest. This sort of activity remains an offense against the 8th Commandment.

It is OK to be skeptical of any science. In fact, a good scientist is always skeptical. But skepticism should be framed in the context of honesty and the measurable world. A fair number of the links I have seen in this thread repeat claims which have been repeatedly debunked.

The reason that belief in a period of rapid climate change and human activity as a causal factor is so widespread in the scientific community is the preponderance of evidence from so many different disciplines, and its surprisingly good correlation.

Scientists are not a monolithic group. They are not all liberal atheists taking money from some nefarious global green conspiracy. More than half describe themselves as religiously devout and about 2/5 as politically conservative. What they have in common is that, ultimately, a good scientist follows the data.

Einstein is often quoted as saying that God does not play with dice. The context for that remark was that he found the uncertainty principle objectionable on even an emotional level. But Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum physics, he followed the evidence. And, today, we can demonstrate in the lab that his emotionally held objections were wrong.

We can see the same thing occuring here. There is still plenty of legitimate debate about degree and causal distribution, but outright skepticism of the two basic premises above is rapidly vanishing. Credentialed skeptics have no trouble receiving funding, but they are not finding the desired results when they use scientific methods. For example:

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Notice that praise turns quickly to scorn. There will always be skeptics and contrarians of even the most widely accepted scientific theories. But people need to ask themselves if they accept the word of, say MIT’s Richard Lindzen because they have a reasoned case to suggest that he is presenting better science, or simply because he is saying what they want to believe.

As Catholics, we have an obligation to moral consistancy. We cannot, for example, make vague assertions tht scientists who support theories of climate change are ‘corrupt’ and then ignore the serious financial incentives for people like Dr. Lindzen. (who appears to, at least at one point, have been receiving about $2500 a day from corporate energy interests). Likewise, we cannot make unspecific claims about data and methods and ignore that Lindzen’s supposed “Iris effect” and predictions about satallite data have now been scientifically debunked.

Excellent post.

 

[Peepers]

Excellent post.

Einstein called himself spiritual, but he did not believe in a supernatural God as Christians do. He was upset when the press represented him as believing in God, and he made a public statement to clarify his position. He was attacked vehemently for that by clergy and politicians for that statement. It is an interesting read if you google it.