I am glad that in the days of Richard Nixon republicans were not on an anti-science crusade. DDT would have never been banned in todays climate where, for every expert who found that DDT caused decreases in bird populations, there was an expert who said it didn't. That expert would then say, the person who said it did ate an apple that had been grown with DDT.
Yeah, I was just reading about this. Apparently there was a fellow going around in the 70's who sung the praises of DDT and it's ultimate benefits to mankind. The guy would drink a glass of DDT-laced water at the end of his lectures or speeches. He performed this little stunt all the time over a long period of years. The man finally died in the last five years or so at the age of 80-something.
Interesting that you bring up DDT too. It opens up a whole can of worms in relation to what's more important when dealing with the issue of the environment and preserving human life specifically.
Yes, there are studies that claim DDT can be poisonous to some species of birds, which is what ultimately led to it's being banned in the early 70's if I'm not mistaken. As a pesticide, it can work wonders and help serve to eliminate crop infestation that leads to famine in underdeveloped and poverty-stricken areas around the world. In other words, DDT can SAVE LIVES. Millions of them. Particularly in Africa. But it's largely been outlawed worldwide because a few birds could die.
So, YOU weigh the dilemma between using DDT - which can have an effect by decreasing certain bird populations, or using DDT - which could save millions of HUMAN LIVES.
This reminds me of that whole disgusting, utterly tragic and ultimately avoidable ordeal over genetically modified food, which could have (and should have) saved untold MILLIONS of African lives. Greenpeace, in all their infinite wisdom, decides that it would be far better to let those people starve than to actually FEED them, and incredibly, they convinced the government of South Africa NOT to accept the tons of free, donated food that could have (and should have) saved their starving citizens, Their argument was that genetically modified crops could potentially cause the people who ate them to become X-Men. When in truth, no other food is more stringently monitored or regulated, and that there is absolutely NO proof anywhere that says that genetically modified foods do anything to the person that eats it other than fill their bellies.
It is this kind of backwards, self-righteous thinking (rich, full-bellied people in powerfull positions telling the starving masses in the rest of the world how to eat), that worries me about the way global warming is often preached. Stop and think of that story next time you say to yourself, "what's the harm in simply wanting to make changes in policy that will have a postive effect on the world?" I don't want to think that those people at Greenpeace were pure evil in their intentions, but rather so focused on what they thought was the right thing to do, that they ended up losing sight of the larger picture.
And now sadly, as g.w. is the major platform for these very same environmental activist groups, there exists among many of it's advocates an absolutist philosophy which steamrolls over anyone who dares display the slightest dissent as an utter heretic. All I'm saying is that it should STILL be okay to raise questions without having to worry about potential repercussions for doing so.
On that note, it should be said that much of the environmental movement today has been hijacked by far left ideologues who are less about the environment and more about furthering their many anti-capitalist agendas, under the guise of saving the environment.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
To be fair, Governor Mitt Romney (Republican golden boy) opposes the same wind farm, so to me, both Kennedy and Romney are stupid douchebags, and stupid douchebaggery knows no party affiliation.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
To be fair, Governor Mitt Romney (Republican golden boy) opposes the same wind farm, so to me, both Kennedy and Romney are stupid douchebags, and stupid douchebaggery knows no party affiliation.
Interesting link on the german offshore windpower. Haven't they been trying to do that all over the US, but get resistance by politicians (a la Kennedy doesn't want wind power off the coast of martha's vineyard).
To be fair, Governor Mitt Romney (Republican golden boy) opposes the same wind farm, so to me, both Kennedy and Romney are stupid douchebags, and stupid douchebaggery knows no party affiliation.
Agreed
Double agreed, and from a Masshole. As I told someone with a cape house, "If we don't do ANYTHING, the view from your porch will be the least of your concerns."
This reminds me of that whole disgusting, utterly tragic and ultimately avoidable ordeal over genetically modified food, which could have (and should have) saved untold MILLIONS of African lives. Greenpeace, in all their infinite wisdom, decides that it would be far better to let those people starve than to actually FEED them, and incredibly, they convinced the government of South Africa NOT to accept the tons of free, donated food that could have (and should have) saved their starving citizens, Their argument was that genetically modified crops could potentially cause the people who ate them to become X-Men. When in truth, no other food is more stringently monitored or regulated, and that there is absolutely NO proof anywhere that says that genetically modified foods do anything to the person that eats it other than fill their bellies.
On that note, it should be said that much of the environmental movement today has been hijacked by far left ideologues who are less about the environment and more about furthering their many anti-capitalist agendas, under the guise of saving the environment.
I guess you saw the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! about genetically modified foods and the one about the environmental movement too, huh? I thought they were pretty good eps. They made a good argument regarding GM foods, and I should say that I'm not against GM food at all, but I do object to how said foods are used to create a business model (e.g. Monsanto creates a crop that only has a resistance to a particular brand of Monsanto pesticide, ensuring that anybody who uses that crop must also come to Monsanto and only Monsanto for pesticide).
The environmental episode...man, that girl the environmentalist group chose to be a spokesperson for the movement couldn't have been in more over her head if she was stuck on a sunken ship.
As far as the DDT thing goes, I believe the concern was less simply that birds were dying than that DDT would work its way up the food chain to humans sort of the way mercury presently does via fish, but I could be way off about that.
keep my name out your mouth, especially when you don't know me. show me where anyone on this thread ever said "fuck the planet"...or just keep spouting inflammatory bullshit. I have to guess at what you and others on this thread are thinking. You attack enviormentalist, you scoff at global climate change. Then you say beleive that climate change is real and humans contribute to it.
When I say you I am using the plural you not you hammer. While Paul, Rock, Dor and others have made intellagent posts, you have limited yourself to attacking Gore, other posters and scientists. Even though you say you agree that climate change is real. I really can't understand your viewpoint at all.
I guess you saw the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! about genetically modified foods and the one about the environmental movement too, huh? I thought they were pretty good eps. They made a good argument regarding GM foods, and I should say that I'm not against GM food at all, but I do object to how said foods are used to create a business model (e.g. Monsanto creates a crop that only has a resistance to a particular brand of Monsanto pesticide, ensuring that anybody who uses that crop must also come to Monsanto and only Monsanto for pesticide).
Yeah, I peeped the whole first season which I thought was really well-done. I'd been following the South African / Greenpeace story since it broke though and couldn't believe the general lack of indignation among people. I even had this whole big post here on SS and the reaction was pretty much...
The environmental episode...man, that girl the environmentalist group chose to be a spokesperson for the movement couldn't have been in more over her head if she was stuck on a sunken ship.
Yup. You almost kind of felt sorry for her, but at the same time, no. Her group should NEVER have chosen such an uniformed boob as their SPOKESPERSON! My ex at the time, who was actually involved with that Rainforest group when she went to UVM, got so pissed off after watching the episode that she wrote them this whole scathing letter. It was great.
As far as the DDT thing goes, I believe the concern was less simply that birds were dying than that DDT would work its way up the food chain to humans sort of the way mercury presently does via fish, but I could be way off about that.
I profess to know next to nothing on the subject, except that there are some African countries currently trying to reintroduce DDT as a means to fight off famine and starvation, and are (of course) being met with heavy resistance from the usual gang of stateside idiots on the fringe left who insist they know what's best for them.
Yeah, I peeped the whole first season which I thought was really well-done. I'd been following the South African / Greenpeace story since it broke though and couldn't believe the general lack of indignation among people. I even had this whole big post here on SS and the reaction was pretty much...
I haven't been able to see any of P&T:BS! since the second season. Muhfuckas need to step their DVD game up! But that whole thing about Greenpeace was kinda crazy. It's ill to see how a movement that began out of genuine environmental concern could so quickly (and sneakily) be turned into something else. As I was watching that episode, the whole thing struck me as branding: these folks took the Greenpeace "brand," which had built up some real goodwill, and used it as a Trojan horse for a totally different agenda.
Yup. You almost kind of felt sorry for her, but at the same time, no. Her group should NEVER have chosen such an uniformed boob as their SPOKESPERSON! My ex at the time, who was actually involved with that Rainforest group when she went to UVM, got so pissed off after watching the episode that she wrote them this whole scathing letter. It was great.
Exactly--I almost felt sorry for her, but then there were the constant reminders that she was the spokesperson the group had provided per an earlier request. She wasn't just some girl put on the spot, she was supposed to be the ambassador for the group, and she didn't know up from down. That's sad.
I figured as much, and that is where we will fundamentally disagree on most issues.
Dang Rob, I'm gonna have to disagree with you too. I think most people are stupid. Well, maybe I should say mindnumbingly ignorant.
And I'm gonna actually side with Paul here (for the most part).
If you are gonna preach about global warming then lead by example.
It would be like Bush talking about how the world needs peace. Dems would throw a shit fit, then repubs would be like "oh you just don't like him" and then Dems would be like "how can he preach about peace and then be starting all these wars???" and then the repubs would be all like "well aren't you nitpicky... He HAS to start these wars because he's the prez, but he still thinks peace is important and so should you!"
Like motherfucking Ronald McDonald telling me to eat right.
I personally don't have strong feelings about Gore one way or the other. I would have preferred that a scientist make this movie rather than a politician, but then again maybe we need a big name like gore to get the movie out. In the end I don't think it will have much impact on the world. People will basically verbally recreate this thread for a few months and then move on to the next story, and forget all about manbearpig. I mean global warming.
I profess to know next to nothing on the subject[/b], except that there are some African countries currently trying to reintroduce DDT as a means to fight off famine and starvation, and are (of course) being met with heavy resistance from the usual gang of stateside idiots on the fringe left who insist they know what's best for them.
Believe that pesticides made from carcinogens are not a good idea if you want to build a nice little society. We are at the top of the food chain, what Enki said was correct. Also, killing off predators like Hawks (aka "God's rodenticide") is a study in the law of diminishing returns (unless you are talking about petro-chemical industry profits). Whether there is a case for using it to try to stave of mass death, is another issue, and possibly a bit of a Hail Mary.
On a related note, within most of our lifetimes, fish will be off the menu.
But I'd like to point out that to much of the world 'climate change' is seen as fact. It's only in the US that it's all "controversial". Most Scientists agree it's going on. Scientists may agree with Al Gore, but he agreed with them first. This comes out of decades of scientific observation/ research. It only entered politics with initiatives to curb emissions,etc.
sabadabada said:
The AP also chose to ignore Gore???s reliance on the now-discredited ???hockey stick??? by Dr. Michael Mann,
Comments
Yeah, I was just reading about this. Apparently there was a fellow going around in the 70's who sung the praises of DDT and it's ultimate benefits to mankind.
The guy would drink a glass of DDT-laced water at the end of his lectures or speeches.
He performed this little stunt all the time over a long period of years.
The man finally died in the last five years or so at the age of 80-something.
Interesting that you bring up DDT too.
It opens up a whole can of worms in relation to what's more important when dealing with the issue of the environment and preserving human life specifically.
Yes, there are studies that claim DDT can be poisonous to some species of birds, which is what ultimately led to it's being banned in the early 70's if I'm not mistaken.
As a pesticide, it can work wonders and help serve to eliminate crop infestation that leads to famine in underdeveloped and poverty-stricken areas around the world.
In other words, DDT can SAVE LIVES. Millions of them. Particularly in Africa. But it's largely been outlawed worldwide because a few birds could die.
So, YOU weigh the dilemma between using DDT - which can have an effect by decreasing certain bird populations, or using DDT - which could save millions of HUMAN LIVES.
This reminds me of that whole disgusting, utterly tragic and ultimately avoidable ordeal over genetically modified food, which could have (and should have) saved untold MILLIONS of African lives.
Greenpeace, in all their infinite wisdom, decides that it would be far better to let those people starve than to actually FEED them, and incredibly, they convinced the government of South Africa NOT to accept the tons of free, donated food that could have (and should have) saved their starving citizens,
Their argument was that genetically modified crops could potentially cause the people who ate them to become X-Men.
When in truth, no other food is more stringently monitored or regulated, and that there is absolutely NO proof anywhere that says that genetically modified foods do anything to the person that eats it other than fill their bellies.
It is this kind of backwards, self-righteous thinking (rich, full-bellied people in powerfull positions telling the starving masses in the rest of the world how to eat), that worries me about the way global warming is often preached.
Stop and think of that story next time you say to yourself, "what's the harm in simply wanting to make changes in policy that will have a postive effect on the world?"
I don't want to think that those people at Greenpeace were pure evil in their intentions, but rather so focused on what they thought was the right thing to do, that they ended up losing sight of the larger picture.
And now sadly, as g.w. is the major platform for these very same environmental activist groups, there exists among many of it's advocates an absolutist philosophy which steamrolls over anyone who dares display the slightest dissent as an utter heretic.
All I'm saying is that it should STILL be okay to raise questions without having to worry about potential repercussions for doing so.
On that note, it should be said that much of the environmental movement today has been hijacked by far left ideologues who are less about the environment and more about furthering their many anti-capitalist agendas, under the guise of saving the environment.
Just ask this fellow...
They took what he started and created a monster.
To be fair, Governor Mitt Romney (Republican golden boy) opposes the same wind farm, so to me, both Kennedy and Romney are stupid douchebags, and stupid douchebaggery knows no party affiliation.
Agreed
Double agreed, and from a Masshole. As I told someone with a cape house, "If we don't do ANYTHING, the view from your porch will be the least of your concerns."
I guess you saw the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! about genetically modified foods and the one about the environmental movement too, huh? I thought they were pretty good eps. They made a good argument regarding GM foods, and I should say that I'm not against GM food at all, but I do object to how said foods are used to create a business model (e.g. Monsanto creates a crop that only has a resistance to a particular brand of Monsanto pesticide, ensuring that anybody who uses that crop must also come to Monsanto and only Monsanto for pesticide).
The environmental episode...man, that girl the environmentalist group chose to be a spokesperson for the movement couldn't have been in more over her head if she was stuck on a sunken ship.
As far as the DDT thing goes, I believe the concern was less simply that birds were dying than that DDT would work its way up the food chain to humans sort of the way mercury presently does via fish, but I could be way off about that.
keep my name out your mouth, especially when you don't know me. show me where anyone on this thread ever said "fuck the planet"...or just keep spouting inflammatory bullshit.
I have to guess at what you and others on this thread are thinking. You attack enviormentalist, you scoff at global climate change. Then you say beleive that climate change is real and humans contribute to it.
When I say you I am using the plural you not you hammer. While Paul, Rock,
Dor and others have made intellagent posts, you have limited yourself to attacking Gore, other posters and scientists. Even though you say you agree that climate change is real. I really can't understand your viewpoint at all.
I'm done.
Yeah, I peeped the whole first season which I thought was really well-done.
I'd been following the South African / Greenpeace story since it broke though and couldn't believe the general lack of indignation among people.
I even had this whole big post here on SS and the reaction was pretty much...
Yup. You almost kind of felt sorry for her, but at the same time, no.
Her group should NEVER have chosen such an uniformed boob as their SPOKESPERSON!
My ex at the time, who was actually involved with that Rainforest group when she went to UVM, got so pissed off after watching the episode that she wrote them this whole scathing letter.
It was great.
I profess to know next to nothing on the subject, except that there are some African countries currently trying to reintroduce DDT as a means to fight off famine and starvation, and are (of course) being met with heavy resistance from the usual gang of stateside idiots on the fringe left who insist they know what's best for them.
I haven't been able to see any of P&T:BS! since the second season. Muhfuckas need to step their DVD game up! But that whole thing about Greenpeace was kinda crazy. It's ill to see how a movement that began out of genuine environmental concern could so quickly (and sneakily) be turned into something else. As I was watching that episode, the whole thing struck me as branding: these folks took the Greenpeace "brand," which had built up some real goodwill, and used it as a Trojan horse for a totally different agenda.
Exactly--I almost felt sorry for her, but then there were the constant reminders that she was the spokesperson the group had provided per an earlier request. She wasn't just some girl put on the spot, she was supposed to be the ambassador for the group, and she didn't know up from down. That's sad.
Dang Rob, I'm gonna have to disagree with you too. I think most people are stupid. Well, maybe I should say mindnumbingly ignorant.
And I'm gonna actually side with Paul here (for the most part).
If you are gonna preach about global warming then lead by example.
It would be like Bush talking about how the world needs peace. Dems would throw a shit fit, then repubs would be like "oh you just don't like him" and then Dems would be like "how can he preach about peace and then be starting all these wars???" and then the repubs would be all like "well aren't you nitpicky... He HAS to start these wars because he's the prez, but he still thinks peace is important and so should you!"
Like motherfucking Ronald McDonald telling me to eat right.
I personally don't have strong feelings about Gore one way or the other. I would have preferred that a scientist make this movie rather than a politician, but then again maybe we need a big name like gore to get the movie out. In the end I don't think it will have much impact on the world. People will basically verbally recreate this thread for a few months and then move on to the next story, and forget all about manbearpig. I mean global warming.
Believe that pesticides made from carcinogens are not a good idea if you want to build a nice little society. We are at the top of the food chain, what Enki said was correct. Also, killing off predators like Hawks (aka "God's rodenticide") is a study in the law of diminishing returns (unless you are talking about petro-chemical industry profits). Whether there is a case for using it to try to stave of mass death, is another issue, and possibly a bit of a Hail Mary.
On a related note, within most of our lifetimes, fish will be off the menu.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/michael-mann-climate-war