Actually the DDT thing was real. Although, if you have info to the contrary I would be open to reading it of course.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 2:42 AM

MirCat… here are a couple of links about the DDT scare being total fraud. But there are many sources for this information on the web…. just try typing “DDT Fraud” into any search engine such as Yahoo.

Scientists to Goracle: Relax

And me to all Doomsayers: STFU

there’s dissent a plenty in the scientific community. I can’t believe how dishonest these guys are about where the community stands on this stuff.

It’s not so much that he’s wrong, they say, as that he’s, well, hysterical.

Correction. He is wrong too.

Does the publication of this article in the left-wing paper of record mean global-warming skepticism is officially bien pensant?

Oh, please. It just puts a ‘presented both sides’ tickie in the opposing column, so they can claim balance in their reporting.

And it was more a gentle drubbing with a dull outdoor thermometer (one “he got the facts right” for every two “he’s hysterical”) than tarring Gorezilla with a “Sod Off Swampy” ‘T’*.

Quisp on March 13, 2007 at 7:10 AM

That’s awesome Quisp! I’ve actually done the same, haha. I did a 30 page term paper on the devastating effects of the “environmental” movement in my undergrad Bio-ethics class and covered DDT, Carson, and Silent Spring pretty extensively. I even brought up the case that she personally should have been held accountable for those deaths in a court of law. It was a classic example demonstrating the fundamental principle of “environmentalism”: Anti-Human.

Now you may think that the NYT has finally seen the light, but you’d be mistaken. I’m sure they felt they did their due dilligence with this article likely won’t touch the subject again except to report Gore’s press releases in the future. …

By the way, since when did Gore start claiming that he’s been speaking about global warming for 30 years? In the mid-70’s cooling was the worry. Isn’t the NY Times going to question that claim?

eagles5 on March 13, 2007 at 12:12 AM

This was my exact thought, too, when I read that. But hey, he also invented the internet, so what do you expect??

If he hadn’t wasted all that time on global warming, he might have invented the internet a lot sooner.

Now MY theory is that it’s all the computers causing global warming. Ironic, no?

…since when did Gore start claiming that he’s been speaking about global warming for 30 years?

If he hadn’t wasted all that time on global warming, he might have invented the internet a lot sooner.

Riiiiiiiiiiggghhhht.

(Inteligent copnsumption can be defined as using ones resources wisely. For example, some native american indians would start fires so the buffolo would flee over a cliff while trying to escape. This would kill many more buffulo then they could use, and was a poor use of resources. Inteligent consumption would have killed off just what they needed, and would not involve setting fires)

Al Gore is facing mounting criticism, now with this piece from the New York Times, of all places. I think they’re just covering their tracks, but at least some of his critics are getting noticed….

If it isn’t bad enough that the left tries their best to kill each and every clean energy source (hydroelectric for one) with legislation and law suits now AlGore and his ilk have painted the entire matter as a money making scam.

Yes it is:
Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers

But Demetry’s money did not make as much difference as she thought it would. While half of it went to plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide, the other half went to a Bethlehem, N.H., facility that destroys methane — a gas that contributes to global warming. The facility has been operating since 2001 — years before the company began selling offsets — and Demetry’s money did not lead the company to destroy any more methane than it would have anyway.

Moreover, the project received a “dirty dozen” award from a New England environmental group in 2004 because it burns the methane as fuel to incinerate contaminated water from the landfill, emitting tons of pollution each year in the process. This method of destroying methane can emit more pollution than other burning methods

I don’t have the link right now, or the energy to look it up, but the short story is, more people would be alive if DDT was used to kill malaria carrying mosquitos in third world countries, instead of getting environmental, and trying to save the world.

I’ll confess here to hiding the copy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that my library put out in the display of “Great Springtime Reads.”

Rachel Carson was a blithering idiot. The Testing they did to show that DDT would make birds have thinning eggshells was bogus, during the testing they fed the birds a calcium deficient diet, so of course they got the results they wanred.
And of course, they just named a bridge after her here in Pittsburgh. AAAAAGH!

geosciences and international affairs?

Where is the connection there? Is there any more solid evidence of the politicalization of climate science?