Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[_thaddeus]

DDT was effectively banned.

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.

DDT Ban Takes Effect
www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect
[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]
"The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.

An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material. …"

These non-hysterical links might possibly help you?

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

World Health Organization - DDT Information System - About DDT Information System - Objectives
chem.unep.ch/ddt/Objectives.html

Plagiarism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

If DDT exposure does decrease your risk of cancer; that would be a gold mine.

If mosquitoes could be trained to never bite outdoors; that would be wonderful.

Do supply links and do use quotation marks. It’s only courteous and honest. It helps to differentiate between appropriations and embeddings of cuttings and pastings as they are being strung together.

It appears that you are cribbing your posts from this article.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-ddt-breeds-death

Is that correct?

…
[The John Birch Society owns ‘American Opinion Publishing’, which publishes ‘The New American’. I didn’t even know they were still around.]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

 

[lynnvinc]

Gee! Why stop there…

1. Study Claims “Global Warming” Will Cause More Rapes

That’s actually true – my student did her thesis on warmer weather and violent crimes and found a significant increase in these crimes, including rape, during hotter times. And we also found out that the city she studied had indeed warmed some 1.6C since 1960.

There is actually a whole literature on heat and crime going back decades. It’s a done deal in criminology with plenty of evidence. And now those scholars are beginning to bring in the issue of climate change and projecting an increase in crime. However, the curvilinear school (which is what my student found by superimposing a loess curve over the scatterplot) makes it not so bad…if it gets really hot violent crimes tend to stabilize or even turn down slightly.

1. “Climate Change” Forces Women into Prostitution

I think the Pope is into this issue and just had a conference on it… Read LS. It has to do with subsistence bases being eroded by AGW, forcing people into illegal activities.

My husband, from a criminologist from India, had some insight. He suggested to me the other day that if an American were to be without food for one day, he/she would turn to stealing the next day; if an Indian were without food for 3 days, he/she would turn to stealing the 4th day.

So I’m thinking it is really horrible for us in America to be looking down our noses at 3rd world women pressed into human trafficking and prostitution…

1. Human-Caused “Warming” Lead to Rise of ISIS

Haven’t seen any studies yet on that, but I have seen them on how AGW has contributed to (a factor, but not the only factor) in the Arab Spring and the rebellions against the governments there.

1. “Global Warming” to End Civilization
2. “Global Warming” Causes Suicides
3. “Climate Change” Causes Salmonella Poisoning

Haven’t seen research on those latter 2, but it’s a pretty good assumption that once our agriculture (which led to the rise of civilization in the 1st place) fails, that could very well end civilization as we know it. One of my areas of study is the impact of AGW on food productivity, and let me tell you it doesn’t look good.

So… All those who were just longing for their women folk to get raped, their men folk to get beaten and murdered, and their children and progeny to suffer the collapse of civilization…keep going at it. Keep profligately and inefficiently emitting those GHGs and living a lifestyle of high consumption of junk you neither want nor need. All at great expense to yourselves. You’re on the right track to accomplish your mission!

 

[styrgwillidar]

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.

:

Uh… Lynnvic, it isn’t funny at all because it’s by design. Random data fed into the models he released will produce hockey sticks due to the forcing functions he put into them. You can change the temperature estimates from any of those sources making them colder or warmer and his models still produce a hockey stick.

And actual temperature measurements don’t line up with his hockey stick at all---- unless the data is forced to comply with it. In order to get the hockey stick, you have to go back and change the data vice use actual. And as the warming plateau gets longer you have to keep going back to adjust the pesky reality that doesn’t abide by the models.

 

[lynnvinc]

Uh… Lynnvic, it isn’t funny at all because it’s by design. Random data fed into the models he released will produce hockey sticks due to the forcing functions he put into them. You can change the temperature estimates from any of those sources making them colder or warmer and his models still produce a hockey stick.

And actual temperature measurements don’t line up with his hockey stick at all---- unless the data is forced to comply with it. In order to get the hockey stick, you have to go back and change the data vice use actual. And as the warming plateau gets longer you have to keep going back to adjust the pesky reality that doesn’t abide by the models.

Whoa there now. You’re confusing climate modelers who are projecting into the future factoring in various known climate forcings based on instrumental surface temps over the past 130 years with paleoclimatologists who are studying past climates over the past 1000 to 600,000 to millions of years in the past using actual proxy data (not climate forcings). They are NOT projecting into the future and are NOT using forcings, but simply letting the proxies tell their stories.

The latter are using this proxy observational data, since dinosaurs didn’t have thermometers in those days

However, I just read a paleoclimatologist (not Mann) explain that “trees don’t lie.”

It sort of reminds me of how people talk about how only people can go to Heaven, not animals. To which I now reply, “Yes, that’s true, but the real issue is that animals and plants can’t go to Hell either, only people can.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It appears that you are cribbing your posts from this article.

DDT Ban Breeds Death
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-ddt-breeds-death

Is that correct? …

I used that article for RESEARCH. I would encourage you to read it. It makes a great case against the DDT hoax. Specially the implications of global population control. According to the article even the Sierra Club had positive thoughts about reducing the population of third world countries.

If you can refute any of the points presented by the author, I would be interested in your comments.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This sounds very familiar. It is the usual cry of the conspiracy theorist, composed of unsubstantiatable claims and irrelevancies.

It is true.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

…

However, I just read a paleoclimatologist (not Mann) explain that “trees don’t lie.”

…

That is true. Just like ice cores, sediment cores, thermometer measurements… They are the data and they are what they are. Only people can lie. And they do.

 

[katiedidrn]

Laudato Si identifies climate change as an environmental problem that demands immediate action. Pope Francis believes that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming or climate change. Is he justified in this belief?

I do not believe that Pope Francis should be commenting on climate change one way or the other as the science supporting global warming is in question. He can have his own opinion but should clarify it as his opinion and not as a tenant of the Church. I personally, believe science that supports that global warming is flawed just as global cooling, in the 1960–70’s was erroneous. God is the one who determines the temperature of the earth and regulates it as needed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That’s actually true – my student did her thesis on warmer weather and violent crimes and found a significant increase in these crimes, including rape, during hotter times.

.

I would give her a Masters for her grasp of the obvious…

Crime increases during warmer weather…That would lay the blame for crime on the Seasons.

And we also found out that the city she studied had indeed warmed some 1.6C since 1960.

Ahhhh…and why did the city warm? Maybe a population increase…more people = more heat.

There is actually a whole literature on heat and crime going back decades. It’s a done deal in criminology with plenty of evidence. And now those scholars are beginning to bring in the issue of climate change and projecting an increase in crime. However, the curvilinear school (which is what my student found by superimposing a loess curve over the scatterplot) makes it not so bad…if it gets really hot violent crimes tend to stabilize or even turn down slightly.

What exactly is a “scatterplot”? What is a “loess curve”? Is a “curvilinear school” something like a charter school?

I think the Pope is into this issue and just had a conference on it… Read LS. It has to do with subsistence bases being eroded by AGW, forcing people into illegal activities.

Remember I am a skeptic. I don’t believe in AGW. Until there is some relevant reproducible scientific results that are verifiable by reference to the real world proving AGW…global warming is nothing more than Mother Nature’s plan.

My husband, from a criminologist from India, had some insight. He suggested to me the other day that if an American were to be without food for one day, he/she would turn to stealing the next day; if an Indian were without food for 3 days, he/she would turn to stealing the 4th day.

So I’m thinking it is really horrible for us in America to be looking down our noses at 3rd world women pressed into human trafficking and prostitution…

.

Wow! You should read this article. About how environmentalists want to kill off much of the third world.
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-ddt-breeds-death

Haven’t seen any studies yet on that, but I have seen them on how AGW has contributed to (a factor, but not the only factor) in the Arab Spring and the rebellions against the governments there.

Haven’t seen research on those latter 2, but it’s a pretty good assumption that once our agriculture (which led to the rise of civilization in the 1st place) fails, that could very well end civilization as we know it. One of my areas of study is the impact of AGW on food productivity, and let me tell you it doesn’t look good.

You won’t find and studies or research about those claims. They are claims made by journalists who revise scientific papers into doomsday scaremongering.

The real crime is that no one refutes them.

So… All those who were just longing for their women folk to get raped, their men folk to get beaten and murdered, and their children and progeny to suffer the collapse of civilization…keep going at it. Keep profligately and inefficiently emitting those GHGs and living a lifestyle of high consumption of junk you neither want nor need. All at great expense to yourselves. You’re on the right track to accomplish your mission!

Please spare us the Church of Environmentalism sermon.

 

[Cassianus]

Of course human action has an effect upon the overall environment, of which the climate is one part. That’s self evident. The industrial era is a fairly recent phenomenon & it’s only reasonable to assume that digging up oil stored within the earth for thousands & millions of years & burning it all up, releasing its fumes into the atmosphere, will have an adverse effect upon the environment & the habitat of mankind & all the living creatures of the area & even the whole earth. Just like nuclear power plants also constantly emit amounts of radiation which has an effect upon the cell of all living organisms that comes into contact with it. Even small doses that are below the level that’s termed “safe” by western governments.

People aren’t as smart as they think they are. The earth is an incredibly complex system & the climate isn’t just 1 “part” that will be degraded in isolation. Everything else is interconnected with everything else on this earth & that’s why I’m for ecological living & against things such as GMO’s as well.

There’s a consensus among scientists that humans have affected climate change that has adverse effects upon the whole system. Those that disagree are in a minority & some of them are probably funded by the oil companies. Humanity won’t lose anything by striving to remove all emissions.

One should be humble & remembered that mankind are to be God’s gardeners upon His earth & caretakers of all animals & plants.

The fact is that the American & European way of life is not sustainable in the long run if applied to the whole of mankind. Probably not even to the minority of mankind that are Europeans & Americans. When all the Chinese, Pakistanis & Indians have 2 family cars,ma consumer economy of yearly replacement of gadgets made out of plastic - the effects of climate change will dramatically increase & humanity owes it to God & to the future generations to be overly cautious about any actions that can make large sections the planet uninhabitable in the future.

Even if the climate change skeptics are right & humans doesn’t cause adverse climate change, it’s still common sense to reduce the emissions & do the best one can to modify industrial civilization to be “green” or neutral. That’s how I’d want a caretaker to handle my own garden if he’d been entrusted by me to be its caretaker.

 

[lynnvinc]

That is true. Just like ice cores, sediment cores, thermometer measurements… They are the data and they are what they are. Only people can lie. And they do.

You really hit the CC denialist industry nail on the head there.

I choose to believe Pope Francis, JPII, and BXVI and the 2000 climate scientists when it comes to climate change over the handful of fossil-fuel hack non-climate scientists.

But that’s just me.

Also I’m not trembling in fear of facing that reality, but instead dug in and started mitigating CC some 25 years ago…around the same time JPII came out with his admonishing that we should mitigate CC.

 

[lynnvinc]

…What exactly is a “scatterplot”? What is a “loess curve”? Is a “curvilinear school” something like a charter school?..

There are two “schools of thought” re the relationship between heat and crime – the “linear school” that says crime increases linearly with increasing heat, and the “curvilinear school” that says it only increases slightly at the lower end of increasing heat; then increases more greatly; then increases more slowly, flatlines, or even decreases a bit at the higher end of increasing heat…sort of a slanted “S” shape curve.

The loess (or lowess) curve is a best-fitting curved line to a scatterplot of data (like heat-crime data); it was a neat thing we found in the SPSS statistical program we were using. Usually folks just superimpose a “regression line” which is the best-fitting straight line to that scatterplot.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There are two “schools of thought” re the relationship between heat and crime – the “linear school” that says crime increases linearly with increasing heat, and the “curvilinear school” that says it only increases slightly at the lower end of increasing heat; then increases more greatly; then increases more slowly, flatlines, or even decreases a bit at the higher end of increasing heat…sort of a slanted “S” shape curve.

Well if that is the case…then you really can’t say that man made CO2 is responsible for crime…can you?

The loess (or lowess) curve is a best-fitting curved line to a scatterplot of data (like heat-crime data); it was a neat thing we found in the SPSS statistical program we were using. Usually folks just superimpose a “regression line” which is the best-fitting straight line to that scatterplot.

I have to be honest. I am not a scientist or an engineer. I am not a statistician or a researcher. I can’t tell a SPSS program from an iPhone. All I have done is gone round the world three times and shook hands with EVERYBODY twice. My opinions, which are correct more than not, are based on a lifetime of intelligent observation. I am also gifted with the ability to know when someone it trying to blow smoke up my butt. In short, I am not impressed by people who superimpose a “regression line” on a scatterblot ( whatever it is)

Just show me some real scientific proof that I am causing the world to heat up and I will join your camp. Until then I will continue to enjoy my pool, and hot tub, and I will drive my Porsche Cayenne Diesel (suv) two blocks to the store for more cigars.

 

[estesbob]

Well if that is the case…then you really can’t say that man made CO2 is responsible for crime…can you?

I have to be honest. I am not a scientist or an engineer. I am not a statistician or a researcher. I can’t tell a SPSS program from an iPhone. All I have done is gone round the world three times and shook hands with EVERYBODY twice. My opinions, which are correct more than not, are based on a lifetime of intelligent observation. I am also gifted with the ability to know when someone it trying to blow smoke up my butt. In short, I am not impressed by people who superimpose a “regression line” on a scatterblot ( whatever it is)

Just show me some real scientific proof that I am causing the world to heat up and I will join your camp. Until then I will continue to enjoy my pool, and hot tub, and I will drive my Porsche Cayenne Diesel (suv) two blocks to the store for more cigars.

Whenever I see a graph posted to do these AGW threads I just roll my eyes. Every once in a while I’ll point my pirate population decrease is the cause of AGW graph just to even things out . By the way is the owner of a Dodge ram 350 diesel I agree with you .

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Whenever I see a graph posted to do these AGW threads I just roll my eyes. Every once in a while I’ll point my pirate population decrease is the cause of AGW graph just to even things out . By the way is the owner of a Dodge ram 350 diesel I agree with you .

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

I do not believe that Pope Francis should be commenting on climate change one way or the other as the science supporting global warming is in question. He can have his own opinion but should clarify it as his opinion and not as a tenant of the Church. I personally, believe science that supports that global warming is flawed just as global cooling, in the 1960–70’s was erroneous. God is the one who determines the temperature of the earth and regulates it as needed.

Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate. We just doubt that our CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming.

I am dismayed that the Holy Father has become a climate activist, given the collapse of global warming science and the lack of credibility of the climate science establishment led the IPCC.

I am doubly dismayed because the Pontiff’s embrace of climate activism will do real harm to environment and the poor he so clearly wants to serve.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You really hit the CC denialist industry nail on the head there.

…

So who is part of the CC denialist industry? Please name names.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

…

People aren’t as smart as they think they are. The earth is an incredibly complex system …

There’s a consensus among scientists that humans have affected climate change that has adverse effects upon the whole system. Those that disagree are in a minority & some of them are probably funded by the oil companies. Humanity won’t lose anything by striving to remove all emissions.

…

Even if the climate change skeptics are right & humans doesn’t cause adverse climate change, it’s still common sense to reduce the emissions & do the best one can to modify industrial civilization to be “green” or neutral. That’s how I’d want a caretaker to handle my own garden if he’d been entrusted by me to be its caretaker.

Hi Cassianus,

welcome to the fray.

Yes, I agree that hooman beans aren’t as smart as they think they are. That is one of the reasons I distrust the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. Go on youtube and check out some of Michael Crichton’s critique of the hubris of the modern scientific elite. fer example, our notion that we are smart enough to manage Yellowstone National Park. If we can’t manage Yellowstone, a complex system, how can we expect to manage the climate, an even more complex system?

I admit that I am in the minority and that there is a conventional wisdom on the subject. However, the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change is vastly overstated. How can there by 97% consensus in anything in science, let alone in an infant science such as climate? Doesn’t the sheer puffery going on cause a blip on your BS o’meter?

You are mistaken, my friend, to assume that there are no costs in embracing the global warming agenda. For example, we now put more than 40% of our corn production into our gas tanks in our mad pursuit for sustainable energy. In doing so, we produce more greenhouse gasses and use more energy than we are supposedly preventing or saving. As the Germans say, Sehr dumm!

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

So who is part of the CC denialist industry? Please name names.

besides mahself, of couse.

ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

and I git nary a dime from the oily, coaly, gassy, fossil fuel industry.