Monckton in a rift with Union college Earth scientist and activist

Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.

A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

IMG_3846

Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis

By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in |

As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.

And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.

Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.

Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore.  The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans.  While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.

[end excerpts]

===============================================================

Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this:  “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.

It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker

She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.

…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.

Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

===============================================================

Monckton responds in comments to that article

Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

Oh, come off it, Professor!

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!

The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.

He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.

The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.

– The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.

– Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.

– Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.

Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.

Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.

Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.

The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.

Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.

The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.

Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.

The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.

The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.

He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nerd

Ha ha ha. Classic.

TomRude

Earth scientists are among the most skeptical of AGW. Yet, many when asked about meteorology and climatology are sorely misinformed. Then, among these, some of them figure there is a career -or a sweet end of career- in switching to the alarmist side and becoming a convenient propagandist. Obviously Rodbell is one of them.

See - owe to Rich

Lord love a duck, you played a blinder with that one. (I hope you’ll forgive some English slang on this American blog, and I think that the “blinder” slang should occasionally be replayed to Muir Russell and Co, to show that both sides can do it; it does not mean anything untoward, but just perceived skill.)
Rich.

PaulR

Bravo Lord Monckton!
Having read the transcript of the assembly, it is plain the professor is hand waving. Keep up the good work.
Paul R.

Tom C

@Nerd,
Fresh.

Wonderful! Why is it that such otherwise intelligent and presumably rational people “go off the rails” when their cherished viewpoint is challenged? It’s rather as if one had invited a Southern Baptist Minister out for cocktails on a Sunday after services.

brennan

Have they also published this response in the Campus paper as well? That would be fair, no?
I think the most telling thing about it is that they had the opportunity to debate Lord Monckton either at the time, or by actually taking his topical points where they believe he is in error, but failed to do so in any way. Poor little Erin has leaned that she has sent all that time and money on her earth theology study, to find out there is no god; no wonder she expressed such “utter disgust and sheer anger”.

klem

“You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them ”
I think the more accurate word might be “indoctrinated” in that sentence.
And as a fellow geologist with a lifelong love of science, I can honestly say Donald Rodbell has publicly embarrassed himself.

Andrew

I wonder when there will be anybody that can counter in an intelligent, educated and thoughtful manner. Oops – sorry that will never happen whilst we have such brain-washed Earth citizens. Thank god for people like Monckton who can eloquently say the things that need to be said. Indeed Aristotle would be turning in his grave to hear such crass statements from the ‘consensus’.

Two childlike inhabitants of academia have tantrums in front of a kindly adult, and later quite shamelessy write a story about it. Still the kindly adult reasons with them and tries to help them out. Quite a moving tale of compassion and humanity.

Robin Hewitt

See the top Comment on that piece in Concordiensis, Earth Scientist Dr Norman Page tears them to shreds. Maybe I should copy it before it mysteriously disappears.

Mark Hladik

Does anyone know (or can we post a link) to respond to the student newspaper directly?
It would not be difficult to show that there is a ‘consensus’ (sensu stricto) of equally-educated equally proficient scientists of all stripes (physicists, chemists, etc) who do NOT accept CAGW dogma. I doubt if the student newspaper would bother to print/publish a single one, but at least we could show the student journalists that they still have some “homework” to do.
Just a thought,
Mark H.

Those college kiddies use the usual “progressive” argument.

Paul Coppin

Besides farmers and agronomists, what’s an “earth scientist”? (other then the obvious allusion to people who like to fling mud around….)

Beesaman

IMHO any academic involved in a scientific area that tries to openly prevent someone debating a scientific concept, especially at a university, should be fired.

Kaboom

Monckton of Brenchley, rouser of rabble. I’m quite sure that’s the ironic definition few had in mind when the term was first coined.

Claude Harvey

This is yet another example of why debating “The Lord” is not a good idea. As the professor just demonstrated, Monckton’s opponents are most often reduced to emotionally rooted, incoherent babbling. Gotta’ love a swash-buckling wit like Monckton’s on display in an intellectual showdown (very rare). The professor’s standing among even his “true believing” students cannot have been enhanced by his encounter and his juvenile “so’s your mother” defense of his position.

Either the pics are in the wrong position (right left) or the attributions are reveresed as tht is surely Erin on the right.

orkneylad

Here here m’lord!
A magisterial takedown.

BarryW

The utilize these tactics because when they try to debate the skeptics they get their clocks cleaned.
Also notice how the CAGW activists always use the “consensus” to support their position without specifying what that actually is. Thereby allowing them to insert their own extreme positions into the discussion as if they were agreed to by the majority. A favorite technique in the political realm that you can see in everything from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street.

Ian W

The ball is now well inside “The Concordiensis” court. Are they sufficiently open minded and ethical that they will also publish Lord Monckton’s rebuttal?
If they are really on the side of the Catastrophic Antrhopogenic Global Warming proponent climatologists, ethics cannot be expected to be one of their qualities. So will they be scientific or will they do all in their power not to shake faith in their ’cause’?

Robert of Ottawa

97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.

Kaboom

I think a good point is raised, if not put in the spotlight as it should, namely that it is impossible to be a good scientist and adhere to the consensus. Science is driven by testing, by doubting and by making the construct of ideas vibrate to see if pieces fall off. It’s no coincidence that a thesis has to be defended in front of an – sometimes hostile – panel of scientific peers. Every paper of significance needs to be held to an equal standard or it is just that, paper. You cannot be part of the 97% and be a scientist that advances the field, you’re just flotsam.

Hugh Pepper

Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

It’s not the AGW that is the problem, which most scientist agree is taking place to some degree, nor is it the GW or GC, which is a net number between natural climate change and AGW, it is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that would be the problem IF the positive feedbacks in the climate models are correct, which is unlikely since very little is known about feedbacks and they are more likely to be negative, and for which there is hardly a scientific consensus. The alarmist keep conflating the three GW, AGW, and CAGW. So when they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, that is probably a true statement, but it is also a meaningless statement. CAGW is hardly agreed and is the subject of much study and disagreement, but it is CAGW that has caused the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant. Just ridiculous!

Look at the picture of the President of the environmental club. She has very insecure body language for someone supported by 97% of the scientific community, does she not?

Hugh Pepper,
As the undefeated WUWT champion of totally content-free, baseless opinion, I would expect nothing less from you than that ignorant waste of pixels.

Hugh Pepper

Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.
Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

climatebeagle

> we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.
Hey guys, did you think about taking a scientific approach, either:
– we were looking forward to hearing alternative theories and evidence related to climate change
or
– we look forward to an engaging debate where we can demonstrate the strength of the AGW evidence
Your sentiment of disgust or anger doesn’t seem very suitable for institute of learning, maybe, just maybe, your response is because deep down you know AGW is faith, not science.

Michael Palmer

While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.
Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.
The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.
As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. If the countries most severely affected by malaria had any kind of capable and responsible government, these governments would have been free to make or procure DDT and use it. (Chances are, however, that the insect vectors would by now be largely resistant to DDT, had its widespread use continued.) The causes for the continued malaria problem are the same as those for the continued problems with tuberculosis and HIV: Poverty and government malfeasance.
Monckton’s positions on these affairs certainly show that he has his heart in the right place, but as illustrations of “failed consensus politices” the examples don’t work.

Adam Gallon

The comments are 100% in favour of his Lordship. And that’s ignoring his Lordship’s own response.

Dr. Dave

Robert of Ottawa says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.”
=====================================================
If you were to ask American Trial Lawyers if we should enact meaningful and sensible tort reform (like most of the rest of the civilized Western world). I’m quite sure at least 97% of them would agree that any such reform would be a terrible idea. It would be beneficial for society as a whole but it would be damaging to the financial interests of their practices. In this respect, explain to me how “climate scientists” who are essentially grant feeding parasites are morally superior to lawyers.

I’ve saved as a PDF the Concordiensis comments, up to comment 8 (the last comment when I last viewed). The comments so far simply, calmly, and scientifically eviscerate the Rodbell and Eldman opinion piece.
Good stuff.

Frank K.

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Smokey – the snarky comments by people like “Hugh Pepper” is a strong indication that their side is badly LOSING the CAGW argument with the public, and that Lord Monckton is in fact being very effective and persuasive in his debates and presentations.
Don’t worry, Hugh. It will all be over in November when America votes to defund CAGW-ism…

Dr. Dave

Smokey,
I’m afraid you were entirely too charitable with your response to Hugh Pepper. It’s funny though, that even the dullest, most witless of gormless cavilers believe they have a contribution to make.

Tez

They must be giving away Phd’s in cornflake packets nowadays. How thick must you be to attack the master of facts and repartee with opinions dressed as science?
The Lord has dispatched this unworthy adversary with his usual aplomb.
The shamed “professor” should not be employed in an education facility. Reminds me of a saying: Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach.

David A

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.
====================================================
What is it with your non-sense. You Sir are a poster child of baseless assertion without evidence, just like the high priest professor and his devotee devotee.

David A

Ronald P. Abate says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm
————————————————————–
BINGO Ronald. I have both won and lost debates about GW, and AGW, but I have never lost a debate when the subject turned to CAGW, consequently I always remeber to turn the debate in that direction.

harrywr2

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science.
I can sit down with a piece of paper and calculator and come up with Monkton’s numbers or Bill McKibbons numbers using just basic radiative physics.
McKibbons number –
We’ve have had between 8 and 9 doublings of CO2. The current temperature of the earth is 33C higher then is no greenhouse gases(including water vapor) were in the atmosphere. Hence 33/8 ~ 4C per doubling.
Monktons number – CO2 alone will cause about 1.2C increase in warming all other things remaining equal.
Yeah…brilliant me…I can be either a catastrophist or the head denier…all with ‘back of the envelope calculations.
The problem I have is that while I can calculate the ‘average’ feedback from a doubling I don’t know if it is a straight line, an accelerating curve, a decelerating curve or a sine wave.
It all depends on clouds and we don’t have very good historical records of global cloud cover, even the IPCC has stated that the role of ‘clouds’ is highly uncertain.

David Allen Borth

Hugh Pepper!
The pure unadulterated “logic” of Lord Moncton pervades any discussion of the CAGW topic and shreds the self congratulating paper tigers that stand for the “peer reviewed” science of the alarmists.

Hugh Pepper

SCience is not a consequence of “unadulterated logic”, as David Allen Booth maintains. SCience is all about empirical research, expressed reasonably , and even logically. Logic is a word which fits philosophy, a discipline which actually reflects Mr Monckton’s training.

JDN

@Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

Latitude

………..between utter disgust and sheer anger
=================================
That’s all they have left…………

TANSTAAFL

“We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.”
Scratch a leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.

u.k.(us)

Very well done Mr. Monckton.
Even your last sentence, was nicely restrained.

johnl

Is Monkton right about DDT? Lambert has argued that DDT is no better than other insecticides for vector control, and also that banning DDT for agricultural use has extended its useful life for vector control. Malaria is caused by the presence of standing water and the lack of vector control.

When they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, doesn’t that make you want to know just who the other 3% are?
Especially since their “97%” was only based on “…the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2…”
Rephrase that last, then. Of these specialists, 3.79% (3 of 79) answered something other than “risen” to question 1, 2.59% (2 of 77) answered no to question 2, and two (2.53%) failed to make a comment on question 2.
Imagine that – there are actually some of the “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change)” that didn’t answer “risen” to question one.
And there were some scientists “who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”, who didn’t agree with question 2.
Finally, there were two “climate scientists” who were brave enough to totally refuse to answer this question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”.
I applaud those brave souls, daring to be on the “other side” in the Climate Wars.

That’s going to leave a mark!

Michael Palmer says:
“As to the DDT ‘ban’, there is no such thing, at least not internationally.”
Good! So where can I buy some?
. . .
Hugh Pepper says:
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized…”
That’s only in your universe, Hugh. In the real universe some folks may criticize Lord Monckton. But they’re all afraid to debate him. Instead, people like you take potshots from the sidelines, where it’s safe.

Hugh Pepper

It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!

John Blake

A New York City subway token-taker has more to offer than these two fatuous dolts. While this quavering enviro-wacko hones her water-baby skills in hopes of a rent-seeking schtick with such as Gleick, one has to ask: Why Rochester? Having just parachuted into Durban, mayhap His Lordship like Odysseus got blown a tad off-course.

DirkH

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.”
No, I’m not. I did follow all of that, and you are deluded if you think any honest person with a brain comes to that conclusion. Note, I do not say the alarmists have no brains. It’s just that they had to make a decision between being honest and being efficient. Turns out they are neither.

DirkH

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. ”
There is one, effectively, as even in-house DDT use causes EU importers to refuse accepting agricultural produce as organic, leaving farmers with no income. EU greens are totalitarian – NO to any kind of chemicals means an absolute no.