F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Lynn (Karen, you too), how is your reading assignment coming along?
- Status
K
Karen107
Guest
Its better as I’m not being biased by reading only the skeptics writings …
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Karen,Its better as I’m not being biased by reading only the skeptics writings …
You really need to expose yerself to the other side. So, in addition to reading Mann’s book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, you should read Montford’s two books, The Hockey Stick Illusion and Climategate.
And you should check out McIntyre’s site Climateaudit.
ferd
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That’s a good point and a favorite of mine.
I was around during the DDT scandal and debates. When I learned that the only way Rachel Carson could kill birds with DDT was to drown them in a 55 gal. vat of it…I knew it was a hoax.
I really like Dr. Crichton’s comments on that:
“So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven’t read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don’t report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world.** Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn.”**
There are so many similarities between the DDT hoax and AGW that I cannot grant any credibility to those promoting the idea that man can control the climate.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Right on Zoltan!
T
_thaddeus
Guest
You do know that the use of DDT for malaria control was never banned. Was Crichton promoting his novel “State of Fear”?
Michael Crichton hysterical for DDT
Ever notice how hysteric people claim they are normal, and everyone around them is hysterical? Case in point: Michael Crichton promoting DDT to students while taking leave of his science sense, at Cleveland High School in Reseda, California, in 2005:
timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/michael-crichton-hysterical-for-ddt/
"There are a few things to say about it. One is because it is actually quite safe, you can eat it, and the reason that we know that is there was an experiment in which they fed it to prisoners for a couple of years and they ate a certain ammount of powder that in they were ok.
There was also at one time a very unusual and much undiscussed study that seemed to suggest that DDT exposure decreased you risk of cancer. …"
From 2005
If Malaria’s the Problem, DDT’s Not the Only Answer
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html
"
They have accused environmental activists of having “blood on their hands” and causing more than 50 million “needless deaths” by enforcing DDT bans in developing nations. In his best-selling anti-environmentalist novel “State of Fear,” Michael Crichton writes that a ban on using DDT to control malaria “has killed more people than Hitler.”
.
.
What people aren’t remembering about the history of DDT is that, in many places, it failed to eradicate malaria not because of environmentalist restrictions on its use but because it simply stopped working. Insects have a phenomenal capacity to adapt to new poisons; anything that kills a large proportion of a population ends up changing the insects’ genetic composition so as to favor those few individuals that manage to survive due to random mutation. In the continued presence of the insecticide, susceptible populations can be rapidly replaced by resistant ones. Though widespread use of DDT didn’t begin until WWII, there were resistant houseflies in Europe by 1947, and by 1949, DDT-resistant mosquitoes were documented on two continents.
"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13193972&postcount=29
“Introduction,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, vii aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It was not a hoax. You are just misunderstanding what the threat was. DDT did not generally kill the birds outright. Its most damaging effect was to alter the bird’s calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Karen and Lynn,
Have you read Mann’s paper yet? He’s your guy, so why not read it?
ferd
Have you read Mann’s paper yet? He’s your guy, so why not read it?
ferd
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
DDT was effectively banned.You do know that the use of DDT for malaria control was never banned. Was Crichton promoting his novel “State of Fear”?
The general use of DDT was banned in the U.S. by the EPA in 1972. A result of “the state of fear” produced by Rachel Carson’s hoax Silent Spring
After the EPS ruling, environmentalists targeted DDT production and export. The industry had no incentive to produce the inexpensive powder because they could make more money on higher-priced “alternatives” that were, ironically, toxic to humans and the environment.
“Environmental groups then sued to ban DDT export. This prompted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the bureau responsible for foreign assistance, to threaten “to stop foreign aid to any country using it,” That threat spread the ban worldwide.” – 2005 special report DDT, Fraud and Tragedyby Gerald and Natalie Sirkin
Mike was right…
J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., of San Jose State University who campaigned to defend DDT and oppose unwarranted environmental regulations, would eat a tablespoon of DDT during public lectures to show its non-toxicity.
Wait…I thought you said “You do know that the use of DDT for malaria control was never banned.”
Again Mike was right…
Originally the Hitler reference was applied to EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who back in 1971 made the unscientific assertion that DDT poses “unacceptable risk to the environment and potential harm to human health.”. “Hitler, 20.9 million deaths; Stalin, 61.9 million deaths; Mao Tse-Tung, 77 million deaths; Ruckelshaus, estimates range from 100 million to more than the competition combined.”
What people aren’t remembering about DDT is that It is an extremely effect repellent and irritant. More than 70 percent of mosquitoes flying into a treated area just turn around and fly back out. The others rest on a treated surface where they are irritated and leave. Less than 10 percent remain long enough to absorb a lethal dose. Over time the genus dies out in an IRS-treated area, not because DDT killed it but because DDT deprived it of its main food source necessary for reproduction.
Rachel Carson alleged in one of her famous myths that “mosquitoes quickly build resistance to DDT’s toxic effects, negating its usefulness as an insecticide.”
DDT doesn’t have to kill one mosquito to eradicate malaria. Mosquitoes that develop toxic resistance are just as repelled and irritated as ever. This can be proven by two simple facts: Numbers of malaria deaths plummet when DDT is used; when it is stopped, malaria again becomes epidemic.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
"In 1970 when the journal Science published a study by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chemist Joel Bitman and two colleagues demonstrating that DDT in birds’ diets causes eggshell thinning. The scientific community demanded a retrial when it discovered Bitman had significantly reduced calcium in the diets of the test birds, though calcium is necessary for healthy eggshells. Bitman repeated the study with adequate dietary calcium, and the shells were not thinned at all. However, Science refused to publish the corrected research! When challenged, editor Philip Abelson said his journal “would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT.”
Sound familiar?
Today scientific journals refuse, limit or edit peer reviews that refute claims made by alarmist political scientists.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
There is no question that DDT was overused, but that doesn’t justify the de facto ban on its use in places like Africa, put into place the “developed world”.
But to keep us on topic, I see similar eco-imperialism at play with climate change. The world bank and other agencies are actively working against coal fired generation plants in Africa. As I’ve said before, the baneful effects of climate change policy are already upon us.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Continuing to use Michael Mann as my poster boy for why the climate establishment cannot be trusted (and should not be trusted by the Holy Father), I submit, along with philosopher Onora O’Neill, the following:
I do not lament the fact that ordinary folks do not trust scientific experts. That is not a problem. The task is not to increase the public’s trust in scientists. The task is to increase scientists’ trustworthiness. Scientists do that by increasing their competence, honesty and reliability. Mann was clearly incompetent in the way he wielded his statistical methods. Mann was not honest in how he portrayed his methods and in how he failed to disclose results adverse to the conclusion he wanted. He was not reliable and consistent in how he conducted his PC analysis.
All this is in the public record. Lynn and Karen, you would come at least half way to truth if you read his paper.
I do not lament the fact that ordinary folks do not trust scientific experts. That is not a problem. The task is not to increase the public’s trust in scientists. The task is to increase scientists’ trustworthiness. Scientists do that by increasing their competence, honesty and reliability. Mann was clearly incompetent in the way he wielded his statistical methods. Mann was not honest in how he portrayed his methods and in how he failed to disclose results adverse to the conclusion he wanted. He was not reliable and consistent in how he conducted his PC analysis.
All this is in the public record. Lynn and Karen, you would come at least half way to truth if you read his paper.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This sounds very familiar. It is the usual cry of the conspiracy theorist, composed of unsubstantiatable claims and irrelevancies.
K
Karen107
Guest
Actually Mr Mann has filed a defamation of character lawsuit with the US Court of Appeals so why would I peg him as purposely being dishonest and defame his character as you are. I’m not saying it was or it wasn’t but if his work was flawed at some point, which it seems to be the subject of concern, it doesn’t mean his data came with malice intention. From what I understand going back in time when reconstructing temperature data is very difficult at best and pales in comparison to measure current data. I understand the way they test temperatures from ancient times is through bubbles found in the glaciers and that’s only one location as compared to how we analyze current temps now through many different testing sites so knowing temperatures from long ago is much less exact but they still learn from them.
I certainly don’t want to be accused of defaming Mr. Mann’s character as I see being done here. That comes in the realm of bearing false witness against another and you know that’s a commandment we have to confess about… . It’s reminds me of what happened to Galileo. I bet they thought he had ill intentions as well…
climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/03/michael-mann-dc-appeals-court-brief-sept3-2014/
No need to ask me again Ferd. I have already said what I have to say on Mr. Mann…
L
lynnvinc
Guest
If Mann it wrong then it’s really funny how all the other proxies – ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments – line up a similar way with Mann’s hockey stick. So you must be accusing the whole lot of climate scientists who use proxies of deception.
Whatever errors or mistakes Mann made, if indeed he made any, were without intent and non-biased mistakes that cancelled each other out and did not make any significant difference to his outcomes. If I recall he did say that in hindsight he could have used a better statistical method, but that it would not have changed the results.
While those who falsely slander him, as well as those practicing real and intentional deceit re CC, seem to like it really hot…
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Karen,
Actually Mann has at least two defamation cases going, one in the US and one in Canada against Tim Ball. Ball’s offense was to say something like: “Michael Mann shouldn’t be at Penn State, he should be in the State Pen!”
I wonder who is paying for his expensive DC lawyer. What do they charge nowadays? $1000 per hour?
Actually Mann has at least two defamation cases going, one in the US and one in Canada against Tim Ball. Ball’s offense was to say something like: “Michael Mann shouldn’t be at Penn State, he should be in the State Pen!”
I wonder who is paying for his expensive DC lawyer. What do they charge nowadays? $1000 per hour?
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Karen,
You and Lynn accuse me of defaming Mann, but you won’t engage in a factual discussion to determine whether or not I have spoken falsely. I have made very specific factual statements. check em out.
You and Lynn accuse me of defaming Mann, but you won’t engage in a factual discussion to determine whether or not I have spoken falsely. I have made very specific factual statements. check em out.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
McIntyre found that there really is a paucity of hockey-stick shaped proxies. The challenge then facing the paleo scientists is then how to make them dominate. Mann’s method was to fiddle with the principal component algorithm so that it mined the data for hockey sticks.
If Mann it wrong then it’s really funny how all the other proxies – ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments – line up a similar way with Mann’s hockey stick. So you must be accusing the whole lot of climate scientists who use proxies of deception.
…
He also used tree ring series (bristlecone pines) which were not suitable for temperature reconstructions but were used anyway because they had the desired hockey stick shape. Even his own NAS panel dinged him for that.
Other paleo studies have used different methods, but they continue to find ways to make the hockey stick dominate. McIntyre audited a number of these studies and found fatal flaws in all of them.
I think some of the members of the paleo community are guilty of deception. Phil Jones and his “hide the decline” graph published in WMS journal comes to mind. Keith Briffa is another.
The paleo community has been shown to be tight-knot and insular. They tend not to interact much with professional statiticians. There is also a culture of “cherry-picking” the data. This was shockingly admitted by Rosanne D’Arrigo in her testimony before the NAS panel. Cherrypicking, she said was necessary if you wanted to make cherry pie! IOW, you need to first peek at the data and only pick the data that gives you the result you want.
McIntyre also found an appalling lack of standards. For example, data was not being archived (this is now changing, thanks to McIntyre et al’s efforts at auditing). There is also a culture of stonewalling and hindering the efforts of auditors.
You really need to read Montford’s books for the full story.
E
estesbob
Guest
And the reason he has filed the suit in the Court of Appeals is he lost in the lower courts . In fact the lower court judge found his claims to be specious . By the way I suspect you don’t know what really happened to Gallileo and why it happened . You might want to study on it- it’s an interesting story .
E
estesbob
Guest
He also filed a similar suit against the national review magazine .Like his other suits it is going nowhere fast . I think one can judge the credibility of Mr. Man by two things . Contrary to his predictions lower Manhattan is not underwater and contrary to his claims he did not win a Nobel Prize
- Status