Settled Science?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:56:16 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:24:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

I have a print of this on my home office wall:
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science"
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

11. Peer review by your students and pals, often shorthanded as "the Michael
Mann stain on the sheets".

In the distant past, I did a few peer reviews. Plenty of horror
stories which I won't bother to unload. Just about anyone, with
marginal qualifications, who has a well placed mentor can magically
become an authority on some topic. I know, because that's exactly
what I did. My only real complaint was that I rarely had enough time
to properly verify claims and references. This was before the
internet so I found myself living at various libraries. I gave up
before I went insane.

Also, various authorities with severe cases of premature judgement:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

Actually, this forecast was right for about 60 or 70 years, which is good going for any prediction:
***
"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909

The Model T had been introduced the year before, which was quite
revolutionary in the way automobiles were built. It was the first
time that they were assembled on a production line instead of custom
creations contrived by carriage builders and engine mechanics. Not
radical enough, I guess.

How about the Ford Nucleon as a radical departure from the mundane 40
years later?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
https://www.google.com/search?q=nucleon+ford&tbm=isch
Electric and steam cars preceded gasoline, so I guess those don't
really count as radical improvements. Diesel cars arrived in 1933,
which I would classify as a radical improvement. In 1909, I would
have placed my bets on the steam car over gasoline. However, that was
wrong because a steam car took 30 minutes to prepare for a drive,
while gasoline was ready immediately. Unibody construction came in
1960 and wasn't all that radical. Gas turbines became practical in
trucks in about 1950.

Credit where it is due

Yep. With the prices on todays automobiles, you'll need credit to
afford one.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 6:33:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists.. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

I'm sure you're making the world better for our brown-skinned brothers everyday, bringing them industry and enlightenment with your novellas, preferably in digital format to save trees.

Sneer all you like, pal. I ran food convoys across Africa to the hungry. What did you do?

The US EPA does not set international policy, and other nations are free to use DDT -- an they do use DDT -- to control mosquito populations,

This is an outright lie. For two generations of genocide by American environmentalists, governments who insisted on using DDT would find that the World Bank would not give the loans, that American aid was cut off, etc. At least you didn't say patronizingly, like another RBTer, the wretched Peter Cook, that "we now allow them to spray DDT on their houses". But he has a better grip on how American diplomacy and aid works than you do.

at least where mosquitoes have not developed a resistance. US C02 standards are not preventing any third-world nation from developing industry or keeping them in "peasant poverty" (say that ten times fast). India, for example, is enjoying the benefits of vigorous industry without the constraints of repressive environmental laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...beijing-s.html God bless them, each and every asthmatic one -- living free and unfettered by the genocidal environmental laws of their white oppressors.

In Paris the Indian foreign minister said plainly that CO2 control is a racist measure. I'm glad to see you're so tolerant towards Indians: "God bless them" -- though I'm not at all sure their god and yours are compatible.

-- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute
Listening

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 5:52:08 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

Actually, this forecast was right for about 60 or 70 years, which is good going for any prediction:
***
"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909

The Model T had been introduced the year before, which was quite
revolutionary in the way automobiles were built. It was the first
time that they were assembled on a production line instead of custom
creations contrived by carriage builders and engine mechanics. Not
radical enough, I guess.

How about the Ford Nucleon as a radical departure from the mundane 40
years later?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
https://www.google.com/search?q=nucleon+ford&tbm=isch
Electric and steam cars preceded gasoline, so I guess those don't
really count as radical improvements. Diesel cars arrived in 1933,
which I would classify as a radical improvement. In 1909, I would
have placed my bets on the steam car over gasoline. However, that was
wrong because a steam car took 30 minutes to prepare for a drive,
while gasoline was ready immediately.

I have a soft spot for steam cars: silent, instant torque, mechanically simple (no gearbox), no vibration. With today's electronics you could start it from your iPhone when its alarm wakes you, and have it ready by the time you want to leave for work.

Unibody construction came in
1960 and wasn't all that radical.

The American Budd company had a complete working, perfectly practical monocoque system by the late 1920s but American carmakers didn't want to know, though Chrysler made a small bet on unitary construction with the Airflow. Budd instead sold their system to Citroen, whose Traction Avant was one of the most successful cars of all time, and enjoyed a run of a whole generation. The Traction Avant was underslung because the bulky separate chassis was gone, and got an aerodynamic advantage as well, and was excitingly beautiful in its time, much like the DS which replaced it.

Gas turbines became practical in
trucks in about 1950.

I would call turbines a radical motive power change.

Credit where it is due

Yep. With the prices on todays automobiles, you'll need credit to
afford one.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 6:56:16 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:24:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

I have a print of this on my home office wall:
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science"
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

Also, various authorities with severe cases of premature judgement:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Of that group the most abused is "Conflict of Interest". The environmentalists act as if they are pristine but if a science program is financed by an oil company they consider that "conflict of interest" and that none of the study could possibly be correct. In fact, most of the oil companies finance the best science since they NEED it to plan for the future.

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:52:08 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:56:16 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:24:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

I have a print of this on my home office wall:
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science"
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

11. Peer review by your students and pals, often shorthanded as "the Michael
Mann stain on the sheets".

In the distant past, I did a few peer reviews. Plenty of horror
stories which I won't bother to unload. Just about anyone, with
marginal qualifications, who has a well placed mentor can magically
become an authority on some topic. I know, because that's exactly
what I did. My only real complaint was that I rarely had enough time
to properly verify claims and references. This was before the
internet so I found myself living at various libraries. I gave up
before I went insane.

Also, various authorities with severe cases of premature judgement:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

Actually, this forecast was right for about 60 or 70 years, which is good going for any prediction:
***
"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909

The Model T had been introduced the year before, which was quite
revolutionary in the way automobiles were built. It was the first
time that they were assembled on a production line instead of custom
creations contrived by carriage builders and engine mechanics. Not
radical enough, I guess.

How about the Ford Nucleon as a radical departure from the mundane 40
years later?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
https://www.google.com/search?q=nucleon+ford&tbm=isch
Electric and steam cars preceded gasoline, so I guess those don't
really count as radical improvements. Diesel cars arrived in 1933,
which I would classify as a radical improvement. In 1909, I would
have placed my bets on the steam car over gasoline. However, that was
wrong because a steam car took 30 minutes to prepare for a drive,
while gasoline was ready immediately. Unibody construction came in
1960 and wasn't all that radical. Gas turbines became practical in
trucks in about 1950.

Credit where it is due

Yep. With the prices on todays automobiles, you'll need credit to
afford one.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In one of the latest AAAS magazines they essentially said that NONE of the modern physiological studies have been replicable. Taking a closer look at this I see that the study sizes are preposterously small. But you have a difficult time telling people that they may or may not be getting a life saving drug.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 5:52:08 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I have a soft spot for steam cars: silent, instant torque, mechanically
simple (no gearbox), no vibration. With today's electronics you could
start it from your iPhone when its alarm wakes you, and have it ready
by the time you want to leave for work.

I've watched Jay Leno's YouTube videos of his various steam cars
(White, Stanley, Doble, etc):
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jay+leno+steam+car
and am impressed by those attributes you mention, but not very
impressed with the difficulty in accelerating quickly, difficulty
getting smooth idling, low efficiency, and no air conditioner. In the
last week, I've had at least one occasion to need a fast get-away in
my vehicle. Waiting 30 minutes would not be acceptable. Despite all
that, I think it can be made to work as the advantages outweigh the
aforementioned disadvantages. What I like best is that faster it
goes, the faster it goes. There's no peak in the HP vs RPM curve like
a diesel or gasoline engine. Without a governor, most steam cars will
tear itself apart.

Unibody construction came in
1960 and wasn't all that radical.

The American Budd company had a complete working, perfectly practical
monocoque system by the late 1920s but American carmakers didn't want
to know, though Chrysler made a small bet on unitary construction
with the Airflow. Budd instead sold their system to Citroen, whose
Traction Avant was one of the most successful cars of all time, and
enjoyed a run of a whole generation. The Traction Avant was underslung
because the bulky separate chassis was gone, and got an aerodynamic
advantage as well, and was excitingly beautiful in its time, much
like the DS which replaced it.

Unfortunately, the American version of unibody construction started
rather badly. My mother's 1960 Ford Falcon 200 cid was one of the
first. The body was held together by something like 20,000 spot
welds. 95% of these held the body together. The remaining 5% was
were responsible for the chronic creaks, squeaks, snaps, crackles,
pops and occasional bangs coming from various body panels. This went
on for many years and models until robots finally were able to produce
more reliable spot welds. At the time, I considered unibody a step
backwards. Other steps backwards might be the Mazda Wankel engine,
wood gas fuel, rice burners, methane (natural gas and sewer gas
burners, LPG (propane), CNG (compressed natural gas), hydrogen, etc.
Yes, they are probably radical, but not really an overall improvement
as these typically solve one or two problems at the expensive of
losing some or many benefits.

Gas turbines became practical in
trucks in about 1950.

I would call turbines a radical motive power change.

Yep. Also 1963 Chrysler Turbine passenger car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs (24:29)


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 4:57:57 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 5:52:08 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I have a soft spot for steam cars: silent, instant torque, mechanically
simple (no gearbox), no vibration. With today's electronics you could
start it from your iPhone when its alarm wakes you, and have it ready
by the time you want to leave for work.

I've watched Jay Leno's YouTube videos of his various steam cars
(White, Stanley, Doble, etc):
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jay+leno+steam+car
and am impressed by those attributes you mention, but not very
impressed with the difficulty in accelerating quickly, difficulty
getting smooth idling, low efficiency, and no air conditioner. In the
last week, I've had at least one occasion to need a fast get-away in
my vehicle. Waiting 30 minutes would not be acceptable. Despite all
that, I think it can be made to work as the advantages outweigh the
aforementioned disadvantages. What I like best is that faster it
goes, the faster it goes. There's no peak in the HP vs RPM curve like
a diesel or gasoline engine. Without a governor, most steam cars will
tear itself apart.

I bet that with modern technology (electronics) one could design a steam car that would keep up steam 24 hours a day. But the electronics are the cheap bits. A consumer automobile steam engine that conforms to modern safety standards would be expensive to build: all that wire around it to contain shards from a runaway positive feedback state, for instance, is hand wrapped and tensioned (with a tool originally used for tensioning bicycle wheel spokes). According to one of my proteges, an engineer whose firm does high power consulting and development work, the smallest practical jet engine costs about the same as a container load of fully optioned and trimmed fit and drive Chevrolet V8 engines, FOB for export in both cases. I'd expect a licensable steam engine to run about the same as the small jet. She thinks it might be more, depending on where you want to homologate it, because the small jet engine has the benefit of decades of development and marginal costs coming down with ever-larger unit numbers. However, once you get into production line numbers, the jet is intrinsically, unavoidably expensive in it's machining and materials, while a steam engine, even if of great relative sophistication, is still by comparison to the jet a crude piece of agricultural equipment made of common and known internal combustion materials.

A governor on a steam engine is just a safety valve on the line somewhere, a concept well developed on modern turbochargers for internal combustion engines. But, in any event, the idea for a modern steam car I like best isn't one big dangerous boiler but a whole row of small, low profile flash boilers per cylinder, similar to the electrical type installed above taps in old-house restorations, the whole to fit under the floor of the car for almost all it's length. Then, if you make the crankshaft the axle, you have simplicity with security, and you can obtain instant acceleration when required by cutting in more flash boilers from their standby (not idle) state. I don't even pretend my idea will be economical to build or run in proto numbers, but if it were even 1% as common as the internal combustion engine it could no doubt be made semi-affordable. I was amazed at the low prices of the Tesla cars, for instance -- until I discovered they're heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

Unibody construction came in
1960 and wasn't all that radical.

The American Budd company had a complete working, perfectly practical
monocoque system by the late 1920s but American carmakers didn't want
to know, though Chrysler made a small bet on unitary construction
with the Airflow. Budd instead sold their system to Citroen, whose
Traction Avant was one of the most successful cars of all time, and
enjoyed a run of a whole generation. The Traction Avant was underslung
because the bulky separate chassis was gone, and got an aerodynamic
advantage as well, and was excitingly beautiful in its time, much
like the DS which replaced it.

Unfortunately, the American version of unibody construction started
rather badly. My mother's 1960 Ford Falcon 200 cid was one of the
first. The body was held together by something like 20,000 spot
welds. 95% of these held the body together. The remaining 5% was
were responsible for the chronic creaks, squeaks, snaps, crackles,
pops and occasional bangs coming from various body panels. This went
on for many years and models until robots finally were able to produce
more reliable spot welds. At the time, I considered unibody a step
backwards. Other steps backwards might be the Mazda Wankel engine,
wood gas fuel, rice burners, methane (natural gas and sewer gas
burners, LPG (propane), CNG (compressed natural gas), hydrogen, etc.
Yes, they are probably radical, but not really an overall improvement
as these typically solve one or two problems at the expensive of
losing some or many benefits.

Gas turbines became practical in
trucks in about 1950.

I would call turbines a radical motive power change.

Yep. Also 1963 Chrysler Turbine passenger car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs (24:29)

https://www.motortrend.com/news/c12-...r-turbine-car/

55 built, 47 crushed.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Andre Jute
Note the bicycle tech relevant on-topic content

Sorry, Jay. I wrote a reply and lost it when my computer crashed. Now I'm out of time. Gotta go cook pear jam. -- Andre Jute

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 12:24:12 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:45:30 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 6:33:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

I'm sure you're making the world better for our brown-skinned brothers everyday, bringing them industry and enlightenment with your novellas, preferably in digital format to save trees.

Sneer all you like, pal. I ran food convoys across Africa to the hungry.. What did you do?

I spent six years scraping up guts and taking people to hospitals. Want to talk about malaria?: http://botany.si.edu/colls/expeditio...m?ExpedName=17 That's my grandfather, William C. Steere. Here's his NYT obit:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/08/o...d-teacher.html


His grandfather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beal_Steere I have his expedition journals. Anyway, Grandad was king of quinine and a huge environmentalist -- out to subjugate the downtrodden by tromping through the jungle looking for quinine. If you're father was in WW II, he may have been eating my grandfather's quinine.


The US EPA does not set international policy, and other nations are free to use DDT -- an they do use DDT -- to control mosquito populations,

This is an outright lie.

Really? The EPA sets national policy, and it is no more responsible for the acts of foreign countries than is the UK Environmental Agency. The EPA may appear on behalf of the US and assist in the negotiate international treaties, but it has no international mandate. It does not control the world, and it barely has the funding to run its purely domestic operations.

The EPA is not USAID or the World Bank -- and you are free to criticize the policies of those entities at your leisure. But while you're going off the deep end, recall that the US can condition payments to other countries on whatever basis it so desires. If it decides to fund malaria abatement programs, it may chose not to fund DDT.

Moreover, it is not a secret that mosquito populations rose with the reduction in DDT use, and the USAID's early policies have been the subject to criticism and numerous congressional hearings, e.g. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-1...9shrg21437.pdf Policy makers have been looking at this for decades. Spoiler alert -- we're paying for DDT.

We also haven't ratified the Stockholm Convention, and the Convention also allows DDT use for disease vector control.
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral...936-017-2050-2

"In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.

Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ombat-malaria/ And although WHO recommends house spraying and not widespread spraying, that seems to do the trick according to the congressional testimony. I'm not an entomologist and do not play one on TV, but it seems to me that we should avoid rampant spraying to reduce the rapid proliferation of resistant mosquitoes. It also seems like a good idea to keep persistent organic pollutants -- pesticides -- out of the environment.

For two generations of genocide by American environmentalists, governments who insisted on using DDT would find that the World Bank would not give the loans, that American aid was cut off, etc. At least you didn't say patronizingly, like another RBTer, the wretched Peter Cook, that "we now allow them to spray DDT on their houses". But he has a better grip on how American diplomacy and aid works than you do.

Yes, I know, Rachel Carlson -- dead or alive -- controlled United States foreign policy through five Republican administrations. Those poor Republican puppets of the faceless "American environmentalists." Time for torches and pitchforks. "Damn you Environmentalists . . . Damn you!" [curtain falls, house erupts in applause, author Jute appears and is showered with roses].


at least where mosquitoes have not developed a resistance. US C02 standards are not preventing any third-world nation from developing industry or keeping them in "peasant poverty" (say that ten times fast). India, for example, is enjoying the benefits of vigorous industry without the constraints of repressive environmental laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...beijing-s.html God bless them, each and every asthmatic one -- living free and unfettered by the genocidal environmental laws of their white oppressors.

In Paris the Indian foreign minister said plainly that CO2 control is a racist measure. I'm glad to see you're so tolerant towards Indians: "God bless them" -- though I'm not at all sure their god and yours are compatible..

Yup, and they apparently don't care that their people are dying of respiratory disease among other diseases. They are poster children for environmental ruination and its effect on human populations.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:45:30 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 6:33:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

I'm sure you're making the world better for our brown-skinned brothers everyday, bringing them industry and enlightenment with your novellas, preferably in digital format to save trees.

Sneer all you like, pal. I ran food convoys across Africa to the hungry.. What did you do?

I spent six years scraping up guts and taking people to hospitals. Want to talk about malaria?: http://botany.si.edu/colls/expeditio...m?ExpedName=17 That's my grandfather, William C. Steere. Here's his NYT obit:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/08/o...d-teacher.html


His grandfather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beal_Steere I have his expedition journals. Anyway, Grandad was king of quinine and a huge environmentalist -- out to subjugate the downtrodden by tromping through the jungle looking for quinine. If you're father was in WW II, he may have been eating my grandfather's quinine.


The US EPA does not set international policy, and other nations are free to use DDT -- an they do use DDT -- to control mosquito populations,

This is an outright lie.

Really? The EPA sets national policy, and it is no more responsible for the acts of foreign countries than is the UK Environmental Agency. The EPA may appear on behalf of the US and assist in the negotiate international treaties, but it has no international mandate. It does not control the world, and it barely has the funding to run its purely domestic operations.

The EPA is not USAID or the World Bank -- and you are free to criticize the policies of those entities at your leisure. But while you're going off the deep end, recall that the US can condition payments to other countries on whatever basis it so desires. If it decides to fund malaria abatement programs, it may chose not to fund DDT.

Moreover, it is not a secret that mosquito populations rose with the reduction in DDT use, and the USAID's early policies have been the subject to criticism and numerous congressional hearings, e.g. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-1...9shrg21437.pdf Policy makers have been looking at this for decades. Spoiler alert -- we're paying for DDT.

We also haven't ratified the Stockholm Convention, and the Convention also allows DDT use for disease vector control.
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral...936-017-2050-2

"In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.

Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ombat-malaria/ And although WHO recommends house spraying and not widespread spraying, that seems to do the trick according to the congressional testimony. I'm not an entomologist and do not play one on TV, but it seems to me that we should avoid rampant spraying to reduce the rapid proliferation of resistant mosquitoes. It also seems like a good idea to keep persistent organic pollutants -- pesticides -- out of the environment.

For two generations of genocide by American environmentalists, governments who insisted on using DDT would find that the World Bank would not give the loans, that American aid was cut off, etc. At least you didn't say patronizingly, like another RBTer, the wretched Peter Cook, that "we now allow them to spray DDT on their houses". But he has a better grip on how American diplomacy and aid works than you do.

Yes, I know, Rachel Carlson -- dead or alive -- controlled United States foreign policy through five Republican administrations. Those poor Republican puppets of the faceless "American environmentalists." Time for torches and pitchforks. "Damn you Environmentalists . . . Damn you!" [curtain falls, house erupts in applause, author Jute appears and is showered with roses].


at least where mosquitoes have not developed a resistance. US C02 standards are not preventing any third-world nation from developing industry or keeping them in "peasant poverty" (say that ten times fast). India, for example, is enjoying the benefits of vigorous industry without the constraints of repressive environmental laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...beijing-s.html God bless them, each and every asthmatic one -- living free and unfettered by the genocidal environmental laws of their white oppressors.

In Paris the Indian foreign minister said plainly that CO2 control is a racist measure. I'm glad to see you're so tolerant towards Indians: "God bless them" -- though I'm not at all sure their god and yours are compatible..

Yup, and they apparently don't care that their people are dying of respiratory disease among other diseases. They are poster children for environmental ruination and its effect on human populations.

-- Jay Beattie.

Wouldn't anyone think that before writing all of this crap, Jay would actually look up DDT and discover that it isn't as much of a problem in the environment as ASPIRIN?

According to the CDC, "No effects have been reported in adults given small daily doses of DDT by capsule for 18 months (up to 35 milligrams [mg] every day)." (35 mg is NOT a small dose - it is 3 1/2 times the daily dose of Prozac)

Just to take a clear shot at this - there are problems with DDT. It can accumulate in the system and it has an extremely long half-life though with today's technology they could no doubt make a drug that would unhook DDT from the body fat where it accumulates.

It is by FAR the least dangerous of the truly effective insecticides.

"Some studies in humans linked DDT levels in the body with breast cancer, but other studies have not made this link. Other studies in humans have linked exposure to DDT/DDE [a DDT metabolite] with having lymphoma, leukemia, and pancreatic cancer. No definitive association with these cancers has been made."
Even more revealing is the lack of a dose-response: "Workers heavily exposed to DDT never had more cancer than workers not exposed to DDT."

To bad Jay wouldn't go off tramping through swamps and jungle searching for quinine.

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 12:11:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:45:30 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 6:33:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science.. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both).. Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals.. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

I'm sure you're making the world better for our brown-skinned brothers everyday, bringing them industry and enlightenment with your novellas, preferably in digital format to save trees.

Sneer all you like, pal. I ran food convoys across Africa to the hungry. What did you do?

I spent six years scraping up guts and taking people to hospitals. Want to talk about malaria?: http://botany.si.edu/colls/expeditio...m?ExpedName=17 That's my grandfather, William C. Steere. Here's his NYT obit:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/08/o...d-teacher.html


His grandfather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beal_Steere I have his expedition journals. Anyway, Grandad was king of quinine and a huge environmentalist -- out to subjugate the downtrodden by tromping through the jungle looking for quinine. If you're father was in WW II, he may have been eating my grandfather's quinine.


The US EPA does not set international policy, and other nations are free to use DDT -- an they do use DDT -- to control mosquito populations,

This is an outright lie.

Really? The EPA sets national policy, and it is no more responsible for the acts of foreign countries than is the UK Environmental Agency. The EPA may appear on behalf of the US and assist in the negotiate international treaties, but it has no international mandate. It does not control the world, and it barely has the funding to run its purely domestic operations.

The EPA is not USAID or the World Bank -- and you are free to criticize the policies of those entities at your leisure. But while you're going off the deep end, recall that the US can condition payments to other countries on whatever basis it so desires. If it decides to fund malaria abatement programs, it may chose not to fund DDT.

Moreover, it is not a secret that mosquito populations rose with the reduction in DDT use, and the USAID's early policies have been the subject to criticism and numerous congressional hearings, e.g. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-1...9shrg21437.pdf Policy makers have been looking at this for decades. Spoiler alert -- we're paying for DDT.

We also haven't ratified the Stockholm Convention, and the Convention also allows DDT use for disease vector control.
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral...936-017-2050-2

"In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.

Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ombat-malaria/ And although WHO recommends house spraying and not widespread spraying, that seems to do the trick according to the congressional testimony. I'm not an entomologist and do not play one on TV, but it seems to me that we should avoid rampant spraying to reduce the rapid proliferation of resistant mosquitoes. It also seems like a good idea to keep persistent organic pollutants -- pesticides -- out of the environment.

For two generations of genocide by American environmentalists, governments who insisted on using DDT would find that the World Bank would not give the loans, that American aid was cut off, etc. At least you didn't say patronizingly, like another RBTer, the wretched Peter Cook, that "we now allow them to spray DDT on their houses". But he has a better grip on how American diplomacy and aid works than you do.

Yes, I know, Rachel Carlson -- dead or alive -- controlled United States foreign policy through five Republican administrations. Those poor Republican puppets of the faceless "American environmentalists." Time for torches and pitchforks. "Damn you Environmentalists . . . Damn you!" [curtain falls, house erupts in applause, author Jute appears and is showered with roses].


at least where mosquitoes have not developed a resistance. US C02 standards are not preventing any third-world nation from developing industry or keeping them in "peasant poverty" (say that ten times fast). India, for example, is enjoying the benefits of vigorous industry without the constraints of repressive environmental laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...beijing-s.html God bless them, each and every asthmatic one -- living free and unfettered by the genocidal environmental laws of their white oppressors.

In Paris the Indian foreign minister said plainly that CO2 control is a racist measure. I'm glad to see you're so tolerant towards Indians: "God bless them" -- though I'm not at all sure their god and yours are compatible.

Yup, and they apparently don't care that their people are dying of respiratory disease among other diseases. They are poster children for environmental ruination and its effect on human populations.

-- Jay Beattie.

Wouldn't anyone think that before writing all of this crap, Jay would actually look up DDT and discover that it isn't as much of a problem in the environment as ASPIRIN?

According to the CDC, "No effects have been reported in adults given small daily doses of DDT by capsule for 18 months (up to 35 milligrams [mg] every day)." (35 mg is NOT a small dose - it is 3 1/2 times the daily dose of Prozac)

Just to take a clear shot at this - there are problems with DDT. It can accumulate in the system and it has an extremely long half-life though with today's technology they could no doubt make a drug that would unhook DDT from the body fat where it accumulates.

It is by FAR the least dangerous of the truly effective insecticides.

"Some studies in humans linked DDT levels in the body with breast cancer, but other studies have not made this link. Other studies in humans have linked exposure to DDT/DDE [a DDT metabolite] with having lymphoma, leukemia, and pancreatic cancer. No definitive association with these cancers has been made."
Even more revealing is the lack of a dose-response: "Workers heavily exposed to DDT never had more cancer than workers not exposed to DDT."

To bad Jay wouldn't go off tramping through swamps and jungle searching for quinine.

Eat up Tom! And then read: Male fertility following occupational exposure to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); (2015) 77 EEVRNI C 42-47; Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) Lancet Vol 366 No. 9467 2005; Factors influencing the ecological and human health risks of DDTs in soils and air at the isomeric and enantiomeric levels; (2018) 359 ESJNHM 316-324 (2018) 359 ESJNHM 316-324; DDTs in mothers' milk, placenta and hair, and health risk assessment for infants at two coastal and inland cities in China; (2014) 65 EEVRNI C 73-82; Disruption of dopamine transport by DDT and its metabolites; (2008) 29 ENEURO 4 682-690. LD 50 is high, cancer risk is low (although it is currently classified as "probably carcinogenic"); nonetheless, it has hormonal and other effects in humans, and it is demonstrably bad for children, born and in utero. But I'm sure you're familiar with all the published literature, so I won't summarize them for you.

Plus, a "problem in the environment" isn't limited to the fact that DDT has effects on humans and wildlife. You just don't throw pesticides around willy-nilly -- any pesticide. Pesticides kill beneficial insects and invertebrates. Over-use also leads to earlier resistance. https://sites.duke.edu/malaria/4-gen...de-resistence/ There are many reasons for wanting to limit the use of DDT of which I'm sure you are aware, being that you are such an autodidact -- but in case you missed the memo, the over-exuberant use of DDT has created swarms of resistant mosquitoes.

BTW, I do tromp around Safeway searching for tonic water. And for more family lore, my grandfather also went on Arctic and Anarctic expeditions. He has a mountain named after him in the Antarctic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Steere He was a big opponent of drilling on the Alaska West Slope (University of Alaska gave him an honorary Doctorate). Damned Environmentalists! Curse you!

-- Jay Beattie.