A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Settled Science?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 28th 18, 05:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Settled Science?

On 10/28/2018 7:29 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:27:11 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2018 7:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:27:43 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

My favorite was the US Federal Weather station that was
placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner.

Ummm... like this wx station mounted on top of the HVAC units?
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg
It's the weather station for the Santa Cruz sales office for KSBW. I'm
told it isn't used for forecasting or data collection.

All of your local NOAA stations are up in the mountains -- Ben Lomond, above Los Gatos, La Honda.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation

-- Jay Beattie.


Shh. You're using facts and logic. Not acceptable.


Maybe you missed Jay then saying that he didn't MEAN that ALL of the weather stations were in the mountains. But apparently you're ready to agree with him on that as well. Tell us - do you know which weather stations become part of the ground temperature data base? Or do you just shake your head up and down to agree with Jay because he's one of those smart lawyers?


I agree with Jay. We both must be very smart because we don't have to
make up incredibly ridiculous stories to justify our positions on
scientific issues.

Ads
  #62  
Old October 28th 18, 05:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Settled Science?

On 10/28/2018 8:12 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Wow. The terrible liberals who are typically vilified for creating the social welfare system are now Pol Pot?

Have you ever helped anyone through the welfare system? Done a QDROs or gotten SSI, Medicaid (Medical) get general assistance, Section 8? Not just giving someone a 5-spot or slopping soup in a kitchen and claiming sainthood?

There are ways of truly helping the physically disabled and/or economically disadvantaged. https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/SENIORS-D...e-Program.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ASSISTANCE/Pages/index.aspx I'm sure California has even more services.

If you want to be a crusader, do volunteer work for your local social services, legal aid etc. I did pro bono at shelters which, amazingly, often involved mundane things like child support, dom rel and the usual run of tort claims and landlord tenant issues, veterans benefits. Many of the people I worked with were already receiving welfare benefits, although some were not. You help them with applications and get them lined up. The people who you really worry about are those who don't qualify for any programs. Simply being poor may or may not get you anything more than food stamps. The soup kitchen (or for me, food bank) work is great too, but its short term. You're retired. This can be your thing -- working shoulder to shoulder with all the liberals, trying to help people in your community. Maybe you can convert a few while you're at it.

-- Jay Beattie.


Using logic to argue with Trump supporters is a zero-sum game. Accept
that you are Pol Pot and move on.

  #63  
Old October 28th 18, 08:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Settled Science?

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:44:52 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/28/2018 8:12 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Wow. The terrible liberals who are typically vilified for creating the social welfare system are now Pol Pot?

Have you ever helped anyone through the welfare system? Done a QDROs or gotten SSI, Medicaid (Medical) get general assistance, Section 8? Not just giving someone a 5-spot or slopping soup in a kitchen and claiming sainthood?

There are ways of truly helping the physically disabled and/or economically disadvantaged. https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/SENIORS-D...e-Program.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ASSISTANCE/Pages/index.aspx I'm sure California has even more services.

If you want to be a crusader, do volunteer work for your local social services, legal aid etc. I did pro bono at shelters which, amazingly, often involved mundane things like child support, dom rel and the usual run of tort claims and landlord tenant issues, veterans benefits. Many of the people I worked with were already receiving welfare benefits, although some were not. You help them with applications and get them lined up. The people who you really worry about are those who don't qualify for any programs. Simply being poor may or may not get you anything more than food stamps. The soup kitchen (or for me, food bank) work is great too, but its short term. You're retired. This can be your thing -- working shoulder to shoulder with all the liberals, trying to help people in your community. Maybe you can convert a few while you're at it.

-- Jay Beattie.


Using logic to argue with Trump supporters is a zero-sum game. Accept
that you are Pol Pot and move on.


I can't be Pol Pot. I went to college and wear glasses. I'd have to kill myself.

-- Jay Beattie
  #64  
Old October 28th 18, 08:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Settled Science?

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:58:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip
This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


I have no idea bout that or how much of her story is true.
Then again:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b0/7c/1c/b...400b9065b3.jpg


These kinds of memes are just grapeshot at the "other side" (whatever side that may be) and end any rational discussion or understanding of the role of social welfare systems in either creating or alleviating poverty. What would be productive is figuring out what works, but that is no longer part of national dialog. It's all about pointing fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #65  
Old October 28th 18, 09:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Settled Science?

On 10/28/2018 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:58:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip
This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


I have no idea bout that or how much of her story is true.
Then again:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b0/7c/1c/b...400b9065b3.jpg


These kinds of memes are just grapeshot at the "other side" (whatever side that may be) and end any rational discussion or understanding of the role of social welfare systems in either creating or alleviating poverty. What would be productive is figuring out what works, but that is no longer part of national dialog. It's all about pointing fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's a direct quote from Elbert Guillory (who writes
compellingly).

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


  #66  
Old October 28th 18, 10:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Settled Science?

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2018 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:58:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip
This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


I have no idea bout that or how much of her story is true.
Then again:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b0/7c/1c/b...400b9065b3.jpg


These kinds of memes are just grapeshot at the "other side" (whatever side that may be) and end any rational discussion or understanding of the role of social welfare systems in either creating or alleviating poverty. What would be productive is figuring out what works, but that is no longer part of national dialog. It's all about pointing fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's a direct quote from Elbert Guillory (who writes
compellingly).


Yes, and he's a bomb thrower. Being a conservative black bomb thrower gets you center stage, much like my former English professor, Shelby Steele -- who, by the way, was an underwhelming English professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele Throwing bombs on both sides is a cottage industry -- and a lucrative one.

I think that as a society, we agree that some social safety net is appropriate. Figuring out which programs work should be our first priority. There are programs that produce ROI (getting people back to work, etc.), and some programs are simply charity because, as a society, we're unwilling to watch people die in the streets. There is undoubtedly a lot of chaff in between.. I'm fine with doing the science to determine what does or doesn't work. I'm absolutely sick and tired of all the bomb throwing -- and the enraged loose screws going on shooting sprees.

-- Jay Beattie.



  #67  
Old October 29th 18, 03:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Settled Science?

On 10/28/2018 5:45 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2018 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:58:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip
This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


I have no idea bout that or how much of her story is true.
Then again:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b0/7c/1c/b...400b9065b3.jpg

These kinds of memes are just grapeshot at the "other side" (whatever side that may be) and end any rational discussion or understanding of the role of social welfare systems in either creating or alleviating poverty. What would be productive is figuring out what works, but that is no longer part of national dialog. It's all about pointing fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's a direct quote from Elbert Guillory (who writes
compellingly).


Yes, and he's a bomb thrower. Being a conservative black bomb thrower gets you center stage, much like my former English professor, Shelby Steele -- who, by the way, was an underwhelming English professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele Throwing bombs on both sides is a cottage industry -- and a lucrative one.

I think that as a society, we agree that some social safety net is appropriate. Figuring out which programs work should be our first priority. There are programs that produce ROI (getting people back to work, etc.), and some programs are simply charity because, as a society, we're unwilling to watch people die in the streets. There is undoubtedly a lot of chaff in between. I'm fine with doing the science to determine what does or doesn't work. I'm absolutely sick and tired of all the bomb throwing -- and the enraged loose screws going on shooting sprees.


+1


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #68  
Old October 29th 18, 04:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default Settled Science?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2018 5:45 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2018 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:58:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip
This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are
mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the
entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


I have no idea bout that or how much of her story is true.
Then again:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b0/7c/1c/b...400b9065b3.jpg

These kinds of memes are just grapeshot at the "other side" (whatever
side that may be) and end any rational discussion or understanding of
the role of social welfare systems in either creating or alleviating
poverty. What would be productive is figuring out what works, but that
is no longer part of national dialog. It's all about pointing fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's a direct quote from Elbert Guillory (who writes
compellingly).


Yes, and he's a bomb thrower. Being a conservative black bomb thrower
gets you center stage, much like my former English professor, Shelby
Steele -- who, by the way, was an underwhelming English professor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele Throwing bombs on both
sides is a cottage industry -- and a lucrative one.

I think that as a society, we agree that some social safety net is
appropriate. Figuring out which programs work should be our first
priority. There are programs that produce ROI (getting people back to
work, etc.), and some programs are simply charity because, as a society,
we're unwilling to watch people die in the streets. There is undoubtedly
a lot of chaff in between. I'm fine with doing the science to determine
what does or doesn't work. I'm absolutely sick and tired of all the bomb
throwing -- and the enraged loose screws going on shooting sprees.


+1



+100

  #69  
Old October 29th 18, 05:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Settled Science?

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:06:52 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:44:52 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/28/2018 8:12 AM, jbeattie wrote:


Using logic to argue with Trump supporters is a zero-sum game. Accept
that you are Pol Pot and move on.


I can't be Pol Pot. I went to college and wear glasses. I'd have to kill myself.

-- Jay Beattie


Pol Pot went to college. He won a prestigious scholarship to study engineering in France.

AJ
Just the fax, mam
  #70  
Old October 29th 18, 02:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Settled Science?

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 8:12:05 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:24:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 5:51:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 9:36:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:50:37 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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/...eijing-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.

One of the latest papers in Science states that almost none of these experiments are replicable because the survey samples are far too small and the statistics are very poorly done. But continue posting your garbage because, after all, you're a member of AAAS like I am.

Tom, do you mean I'm not a member of AAAS? I could be a member of AAAS by pushing a button and paying $50. https://purchase.aaas.org/order/301/...enu&dmc=P8A3O3 I'd rather save the $50, although the t-shirt is kind of neat, and having full access to the old issues of Science would be neat, too.

And BTW, when you go to the AAAS site and type "DDT" in the search bar, it brings up (among many other things): "DDT may quadruple breast cancer risk" By Kelly ServickJun. 16, 2015 https://tinyurl.com/ydgmwjc9 And the study was in Oakland! Lucky you don't have breasts. Here's the synopsis:

"It’s been 42 years since the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was banned in the United States for its harmful effects on wildlife. But scientists are still untangling its connection to human health. A new study published today in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism suggests that exposure to the compound in utero may increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer later in life. The study relies on a unique database of pregnancies in members of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan in Oakland, California, between 1959 and 1967, when DDT was still used heavily on crops. Women whose mothers had elevated levels of DDT in their blood had a nearly fourfold increase in risk of developing breast cancer by age 52, compared with controls who were matched for a variety of factors, including maternal history of breast cancer. Previous evidence for a breast cancer link has been mixed—one study found increased risk in women exposed before age 14, whereas others found no association—but in a lab dish, DDT has been shown to activate the HER2 gene in human breast cells, which is expressed in some breast cancers. Understanding the risks of DDT is critical, the authors note, because the compound is still used to control mosquitoes and prevent the spread of malaria in Africa and Asia."

That site is awesome. It has articles going back to the '50s on DDT and covers the suit against the EPA when it announced its intent to ban DDT. I can only get pieces because I'M NOT A MEMBER! I do have access to medical literature through LEXIS, but I'll have to see if I can get Science.

Also read the articles I posted. They're articles from peer reviewed journals including Lancet. You would like the Lancet article because it notes the weak association between DDT and certain illnesses and the stronger association with others. Go to the local med school library, do a MedLine search and read up. Unless you do primary research, you're just stuck in an echo chamber with all the other lunatics.

-- Jay Beattie.

P.S. for And It looks like the Indians are indeed living the good life, free of the environmental laws of the colonial oppressors. https://tinyurl.com/ycy75atr

I am not in the least surprised that you think that you join AAAS for the t-shirt.

Hey, it's a cool t-shirt.


Yesterday I went up to the post office. I was there a couple of minutes early so I was going to walk around. All of the local signs are in Spanish so I can practice reading. Only ONE store is in English - a Music Shop..

There was what looked like a homeless person and I had two fives so I thought I would pass them on. Unlike Oregon Democrats who call the cops.

WTF are you talking about? It is clearly time for you meds. I thought we were talking about DDT. No?

As I approached it was an old black lady crying unconsolably. She had just been evicted from her one room apartment so that the illegal land owner could rent that room out to an illegal family or two for more money.

She was crying "inconsolably." Note that she didn't "just get evicted.." It is a 30/60 day process for an eviction without cause in California. She is probably receiving housing choice vouchers (formerly Section 8) which makes it unlikely that she had an "illegal" landlord -- and it also makes it difficult to evict her. You should have asked her about her voucher situation and sent her to the evil liberal legal aid if she was forced out without sufficient cause or notice. Then point her to a shelter which are typically staffed with social workers. If you encounter these people frequently, then you should keep details and directions with you.

And Tom, are you against the free market? Don't you want to rent your property for the highest amount the market will bear? Hmmm, don't tell me you're for rent control. That's totally un-Trump, the great gamer of rent control on earth -- well, after Fred.

Everything she had in the world was in a shopping cart. Since she was on welfare she couldn't even begin to find another place. The rent on a trailer space cost more than most three room apartments. Without a permanent address she couldn't get welfare. So out on the street as the cold part of the year is arriving she will probably commit suicide soon. This is the Democrat way of fixing things by letting in Illegals and destroying ICE. Your kind of people doing your kind of thing.

Sure she can get welfare without a permanent address. Most shelters provide drop boxes, and in most states, checks can be picked up in the office. You need to read-up on welfare benefits.

She had no idea what she was going to do and neither did I in a state where you get more money as a healthy illegal alien than you do as a sick senior citizen American.

You assume she is an imbecile or an infant -- the soft bigotry of low expectations. She probably knows exactly what to do -- including getting money from you.

If there's one thing that the Democrats are ALWAYS good for it is destroying people's lives with empty idealism.

And Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, CHIP, SNAP, etc., etc. I thought you hated Democrats because they were giving money away. No? Now not enough money is being given away? Welfare programs are typically reviled by the conservatives and identified with Democrats, like a black mark.

I did legal aid when I was in law school and some pro bono over the last 30 years -- Section 8, general assistance, SNAP, etc. I learned that the mentally aware but economically disadvantaged can be quite sophisticated in terms of knowing their rights. The folks in the state welfare offices -- all those deep state dead-weights you hate -- are actually very helpful.

-- Jay Beattie.


Again, I am not surprised that this woman doesn't distress you in the least. You are all for the Democrat plan of open borders and abolishing ICE.

This is why the Democrat Party has destroyed itself. You are mentally deranged and should be in an institution to protect the entire world from your kind. Do you have icons of Pol Pot on your walls?


Wow. The terrible liberals who are typically vilified for creating the social welfare system are now Pol Pot?

Have you ever helped anyone through the welfare system? Done a QDROs or gotten SSI, Medicaid (Medical) get general assistance, Section 8? Not just giving someone a 5-spot or slopping soup in a kitchen and claiming sainthood?

There are ways of truly helping the physically disabled and/or economically disadvantaged. https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/SENIORS-D...e-Program.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ASSISTANCE/Pages/index.aspx I'm sure California has even more services.

If you want to be a crusader, do volunteer work for your local social services, legal aid etc. I did pro bono at shelters which, amazingly, often involved mundane things like child support, dom rel and the usual run of tort claims and landlord tenant issues, veterans benefits. Many of the people I worked with were already receiving welfare benefits, although some were not. You help them with applications and get them lined up. The people who you really worry about are those who don't qualify for any programs. Simply being poor may or may not get you anything more than food stamps. The soup kitchen (or for me, food bank) work is great too, but its short term. You're retired. This can be your thing -- working shoulder to shoulder with all the liberals, trying to help people in your community. Maybe you can convert a few while you're at it.

-- Jay Beattie.


Sorry, you're not going to get away with that. You are not "liberal". You are a socialist proud and loud. You are NOT for more freedom as liberalism was originally but for not less but none at all. No one in any walk of life that knows even 1000 times more about anything than you has the slightest right not to just a right to speak it but in even daring to hold and opinion contrary to yours. You are looking for all the good little Germans that would drape the NAZI flag over their balconies so that the Brown Shirts would know that they wouldn't oppose the socialist Hitler in anything he did.

What used to be a Democrat Party is now the Brown Shirts. Those who believe that anything no matter how corrupt is fine when opposing conservatism. You have shown a level of evil even in these conversations that would have you beaten almost to death in any bar in California in the 1950's. And you actually glory in it thinking that YOU are going to be one of the ones that Pol Pot takes over onto his side. Sorry he murdered everyone without discrimination. He even had his own murderers murdered. That is the socialist way - there can be only one king and he must prove it. Whether it be Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin or any other of the communist states.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reprised: Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by97% of scientists? [email protected] Techniques 7 December 1st 16 08:26 PM
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 3 November 28th 15 03:54 AM
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 7 November 23rd 15 04:27 AM
Altoona case settled I guess GoneBeforeMyTime Racing 2 July 24th 10 08:08 PM
I've settled on a chain lube landotter Techniques 9 May 25th 10 11:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.