Another call to arrest climate "deniers"

They believe people should be punished for being climate skeptics

They believe people should be punished for being climate skeptics.

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

This is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles. It was laid out earlier this month, with all the appropriate caveats, by Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Read More: http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

Weinstein bases his claim that man made climate change “kills a lot of people” on a WHO page, which estimates that 150,000 people per annum are dying because of climate related extreme weather and other problems, such as crop failure.

However, this claim simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even the IPCC has failed to establish a link between CO2 and extreme weather. In addition, the rise in CO2 has so far been strongly beneficial for crop yields – satellites have detected a substantial greening of the planet, thanks largely to the fertilisation effect of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

In recent years we have all seen a worrying surge of hate speech against climate skeptics, and a disturbing level of political acquiescence in the face of murderous fantasy and intolerance. These incidents include a government sponsored celebration of climate murder in a theatre production, MSM cartoons celebrating political violence, more cartoons, proposals for soviet style forced “reeducation”, calls for the death penalty, calls for “deniers” to be jailed, wishes for divine retribution against “deniers”, the gruesome 10:10 video fantasy about murdering the children of “deniers”, and prominent environmentalist David Suzuki’s repeated calls for “deniers” to be jailed, here, and here. There have been far too many threats against the liberty and lives of ordinary people, whose crime against humanity is to believe that 18 years with no change in global temperature, might be an indication that the climate “crisis” has been exaggerated.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Francisco

“We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths.” I could not agree more!!!! And this is just one example: http://www.waronwant.org/overseas-work/conflict-zones/hide/inform/15878-fuelling-fear

Wee Liam

YES, Francisco! YES!! BURN THE WITCHES!!!

littlepeaks

Hillary Clinton is a witch. Moderator — feel free to delete my post — I just had to say that – it just came out.

mike

@ littlepeaks
Please forgive my suspicions, here, littlepeaks, but are you, by any chance, a hive-plant provocateur?–the very same HIllary-bot operative, maybe even, who pulled-off that “Iron my shirt!”, false-flag PR-stunt, we all remember so fondly?

littlepeaks

@ mike — Not me. Sorry — I had to look that one up on the internet.

mike

@ littlepeaks
Yr. “Not me. Sorry–had to look that one up on the internet.”
C’mon, littlepeaks, your hive-tool “denial” is exactly what one of Hillary’s flying-monkeys would say, when caught out, right?
On the other hand, I do find your claim that you had to look up the “shirt” business on the internet to be credible, since I estimate that it’s very likely, littlepeaks, that you’re a brainwashed-lefty, dumb-kid, recent college-graduate, burdened with a crushing student-loan debt, and just discovering that a sense of entitlement, lousy work attitude, and a useless degree from some goof-off, party-time institution of “higher learning” ill equips you for much of any employment, other than that of an unpaid Hillary-troll, which, in turn, means that you are probably not of an age to personally recall many of Hillary’s little “adventures” from the past.
Don’t worry, though, littlepeaks, at some point–probably real soon–you’ll suddenly, one-day, wake up and be outraged at how academia’s parasite, “Hive Bozo” youth-masters manipulated, exploited, and abused your vulnerable adolescent mind and naive idealism. And then, you’ll proceed to get your act together, and move on to build a wholesome and productive life you can be proud of. That’s the usual progression, at least.
Fellow “Good Guy” lovers of liberty and ethical science!–look for more of this “misogyny”-baiting sort of thing, as HIllary’s campaign really gets rolling. Call it out when you see it!

Maurice Strong first, please.

MarkW

What about the millions who have died because DDT was banned? Or the thousands who die every year because the greenies have made heat too expensive?

The point I would make, that rabid “green” policies kill.

The DDT story is a myth.

Briefly:
– DDT is not banned for use against malaria, in contrast to many other insecticides, actually
– Resistance to DDT became a serious problem even before the ban for agricultural use and is now widespread
– Resistance to chloroquine and sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine, two affordable and effective early antimalarial drugs, undermined the second line of attack on malaria
– Realizing these difficulties, the WHO gave up on its goal of eradicating malaria as early as 1969, that is, 3 years before the ban of DDT for agricultural use

geronimo

The WHO lifted it’s ban on DDT in 2006, accepting that it’s use in homes would save lives. It is not a myth that DDT was banned, it was. It is a myth that agricultural use has increased mosquitos immunity to DDT.
The green movement is busy trying to eradicate a crime against humanity committed by the ban on DDT while simultaneously trying to ban Golden Rice with the same shameful disregard for the suffering of fellow human beings.

DDT was never banned for use against malaria. It was subject to the Stockholm protocol, which stipulated that such use be declared. In contrast, dieldrin and some other organochlorides are actually banned under the same protocol.
Exactly to what extent the agricultural use of DDT negatively impacted the application against malaria is difficult to determine without doubt. However, the categorical assertion that no negative impact occurred is implausible.
This has exactly nothing to do with CO2 or genetically modified rice, or with being left or right. CAGW is a crock, Frankenfood is a crock, and the DDT myth is a crock, too.

Responding to Palmer, the USA did ban DDT, and otherwise, many many nations did curtail its use and indeed banned it within their own countries
For example, with South africa:
Shortly after South Africa had discontinued its use of DDT and replaced it with synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, a highly efficient malaria vector, Anopheles funestus (which had been completely eradicated from the country in the 1970s), reappeared. Within just a few years, the incidence of malaria nationwide increased more than tenfold (from 6,000 cases in 1995, to 62,000 cases in 2000). Desperate to scale back this re-emerging crisis, the South African government resumed its use of DDT in 2001 (disregarding UN warnings against such a course of action), and within months the malaria rate dropped by four-fifths.

NC Brian

Those of you who believe the DDT story is a myth should go back and read the story in the denier rag ,National Geographic, on Malaria. They put the unneeded death toll at 35 million children. they also said the evidence against DDT was very weak. They also said that once DDT has been reinstated in a very limited usage, the death rate has declined substantially.
Hitler only killed 6 million in his death camps.

Michael Palmer:
I do not know where you get your misconceptions, and no that web site is not proof!
I am old enough to remember when and how DDT was banned.
No matter what purpose you wanted DDT for, you could not find a supplier. Reason; the sale and use of DDT was made illegal!
Malaria is only one of the several diseases easily spread by mosquitos.

Ton T

Very little in this world is literally banned. Banned in the common means regulations that make use extremely difficult to nearly impossible. DDT was banned in any sense that law views a defacto government ban.
People who say it wasn’t banned are deceitful people with bad parents who never learned that there are forms of lying beyond lies of comission.

Solving the malaria crisis is not a matter of just spraying enough DDT. If it were, there would be very little malaria by now in India, where DDT has been in continuous use for many decades. As a result, DDT resistance there is now nearly universal. The main cause of the resurgence of malaria – since the 1970s, the case numbers have remained higher in most afflicted countries than they were in the 60s – is the combination of insect resistance to DDT and other insecticides, as well as the resistance of malaria parasites to antimalarial drugs.
The loony right perpetuates the DDT myth for the same reason that the loony left perpetuates the CAGW myth – not because it is true, but because it is effective propaganda, ammunition. In reality, neither side is guilty of genocide, so you could all just as well chuck the histrionics and treat each other like humans again. Imagine that.

Redmond Weissenberger says:
…the USA did ban DDT
Really? I’d like to buy some. Where do I get it? Home Depot?
And Michael Palmer: your link would have more credibility if it didn’t go straight to your own opinion paper.
DDT was widely banned, as any cursory search will show. Furthermore, the odious Rachel Carson was very instrumental in getting it banned. And it is not ineffective because a resistance has been built up. Quite the contrary: DDT-infused sleeping nets are very effective.
If DDT isn’t banned, then why can’t we go out and buy it? I really would like to have some on hand for garden use.

dbstealey … my own opinion paper inot only clearly declares intent and authorship upfront, it also lists 16 references from the scientific literature. These are, of course, listed at the bottom, so one would have to scroll down to see them. Too much to ask of you, obviously — which does not surprise me.
If you want to buy some DDT, please contact Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. For details on what uses of DDT are banned or permitted, please refer to the Stockholm protocol — one of the reference listed in my untrustworthy opinion paper.

TonyG

@Db
I have recently had need for serious pest control and looked into this extensively. DDT is actually not thoroughly banned, but the regulations on its use are an effective ban. It is not legal for retail sale or for personal or commercial use in the US. It IS, however, legal for the purpose of vector control. Good luck actually getting any outside of a major infestation.
This exception appears to be relatively new, as it was not legal even for vector control during the medfly crisis in California that I lived through in high school. They had to use malathion instead.
Apparently it remains legal to manufacture, provided your sales are to the government or to one of a small handful of countries that use it.
So, while perhaps not an ACTUAL ban, an effective ban, which really amounts to the same thing. The argument that it isn’t banned is a matter of semantics. If gunpowder were illegal to manufacture or possess, you could argue that guns were not banned, but it ends up having the same result.
Your point is quite valid – if it’s not banned (whether officially or effectively), where can I buy some? (And for my part, that is a real question – I could use some)

Tony — in the context of malaria control, it is not relevant whether DDT is banned in the U.S. The U.S. have not had a problem with malaria in many years, and they have plenty of effective alternatives at their disposal. If anything, the example of the U.S. shows that maintenance of malaria control is feasible without DDT, although DDT certainly played a key role in the initial eradication program.
Under the Stockholm protocol, countries can declare their intention to use DDT for malaria control and are then obligated to report on this use. Several malaria-afflicted countries continue to use DDT under this clause.

Oh, goody, now I can go and buy some DDT at the corner Hindustan Insecticide Limited!
Do I have to go to the Hindustan aisle in Home Depot to pick some up? Or maybe they can FedEx a can of it my way. Funny, Amazon doesn’t carry the stuff. But they have just about everything else.
On a serious note, just do a search using the keywords: “DDT, ban”, and you will find out how many countries have made it impossible to get — including the USA. And why do we need a “protocol” to control something so beneficial, and with so little (if any) downside?
DDT is impossible for the average citizen to get. And why? I recall a guy a long time ago bragging that he ate a spoonful of DDT every day to show how harmless it is to animals and people. DDT was one of the greatest benefits to humanity, ever. But the do-gooder contingent, the same people who demonize “carbon”, got it banned. Why? I notice that cigarettes and liquor are still available anywhere.
Always ask yourself: Cui bono? That will eventually get you to the real answer.

db — the U.S. have no malaria, so whether or not DDT is for sale there is of no consequence to malaria control. The same goes for many other countries. On the other hand, many of those countries that do have malaria continue to use DDT in compliance with the Stockholm protocol.
One benefit of controlling DDT is that its permitted use is limited to insect vector control, as opposed to agriculture. Had this selective ban been instituted sooner, it might have slowed the emergence of insect resistance, although by how much is of course anyone’s guess. The situation somewhat resembles the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry, which has been linked to the propagation of antibiotic resistance in human bacterial pathogens — but here, too, the empirical data available leaves much to be desired.
I have looked into the DDT story in the same spirit that I looked into CAGW — trying to understand the relevant science as best I could. I found that known effects on the environment and on human health do not provide substantial reasons to ban the limited, indoor use of DDT against malaria, and that DDT remains a legitimate option in malaria control. On the other hand, considering the whole picture, the past and current limited restrictions on its use are not a major cause of the current deplorable state of malaria control. It is all laid out in my paper, with references. Go read it, or go read something else if you prefer, but don’t expect to be taken seriously for posting such lazy and inane stuff as you did above.

Jtom

No, DDT was not banned in many countries, but the manufacture of it WAS banned, as well as its use, in the countries where it was manufactured. If it’s not made, it’s a rather moot point if it is not officially banned.
Those who claim DDT would not eliminate malaria need to address the results in the one country where it WAS used until malaria was wiped out – the USA. And DDT was used extensively on crops in the US, tons and tons and tons of it, including, and especially, in the deep, mosquitoe plagued South. Where are the DDT-resistant, malaria-carrying mosquitoes in the US?
As far as the paper linked in this thread, it gives short-shrift to the entire continent of Africa because DDT was banned, er, “manufacture discountinued”, in the industrialized countries before they had a chance to implement eradication programs. Just how do mosquitoes become resistant on a continent that never used the pesticide? Clearly, they don’t.
The application of DDT in Africa would have saved millions of lives before mosquitoes had a chance to produce large numbers resistant to DDT. If they were as fortunate as the US, they still might be virtually malaria-free.
So of course the lack of use of DDT cost millions of lives. You have to reject everything that has happened in history to deny that.

Jtom

Correction: discontinued, not discountinued.

jtom, DDT has been widely used in Africa as well, just not as widely and systematically as in India. You are right that my paper does not go into any detail about Africa; the reason is that the picture is quite heterogeneous, since Africa is not a single country, and moreover the data situation is even worse than in India; and even in India, the estimated and the reported case numbers differ by a factor of 20.
Another problem is that the abundance of insect vectors and the prevalence of malaria in humans in many African countries is so high that eradication never appeared feasible at all, and accordingly has never been seriously attempted, not even in the days when DDT and chloroquine could be counted on to be effective. Remember that the WHO officially abandoned their global eradication effort and restated their goal as mitigation in 1969, that is, three years before the initial ban on the agricultural use of DDT. By this time, insect resistance was well advanced, including in Africa.
Like India, several African countries continue to use DDT for malaria control.

Jtom

Clearly, you don’t see the self-contridiction in writing, “While data availability for Africa is limited, resistance is quite common there as well.” The mosquitos in Africa exhibit more of a tolerance to DDT than those in other areas, but are not necessarily resistant. More application of DDT is required, and it must be targeted. That’s why malaria rates in African countries TODAY have seen malaria rates plummet when DDT was reintroduced using appropriate methods.
The fact remains, and has been demonstrated many times in many countries, that malaria decrease when DDT is used, increases when its use is halted, and decreases when its use is resumed. If you don’t want to deal with those facts, then that is your right.

ROM

For Michael Palmer and his pernicious claim that DDT was not banned in the USA;
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect
_____________
DDT Ban Takes Effect
[EPA press release – December 31, 1972]
The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.
An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.
The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.
The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.
Major legal challenges to the EPA cancellation of DDT are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The courts have not ruled as yet in either of these suits brought by pesticide manufacturers.
DDT was developed as the first of the modern insecticides early in World War II. It was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations.
A persistent, broad-spectrum compound often termed the “miracle” pesticide, DDT came into wide agricultural and commercial usage in this country in the late 1940s. During the past 30 years, approximately 675,000 tons have been applied domestically. The peak year for use in the United States was 1959 when nearly 80 million pounds were applied. From that high point, usage declined steadily to about 13 million pounds in 1971, most of it applied to cotton.
The decline was attributed to a number of factors including increased insect resistance, development of more effective alternative pesticides, growing public and user concern over adverse environmental side effects–and governmental restriction on DDT use since 1969.
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
[ / ]

Michael Palmer:
Repeated endlessly does not make your premise or opinion fact. Which you yourself already claimed.

“…Solving the malaria crisis is not a matter of just spraying enough DDT…”

Remember, you are amongst many who were alive during the time, not only of DDT use, but of mankind’s war on mosquito transmitted diseases.
There are a number of mosquito transmitted illnesses, many that are very lethal.
When or while an area seeks to eradicate a vector mosquito, general spraying is not very effective. A number of ground troops are mobilized that seek every pocket, puddle, pond, backwater or tree bole harboring stagnant water. DDT is applied directly to that stagnant water, both as a soluble and as an oil to fully coat the water surface.
This is done several to many times. When illnesses cease transmission is when the local agencies consider that an area might be clear.
Michael Palmer, you really need to dig up the government pamphlets that were issued delineating how to best eradicate vector transmitters.
Oh, Malaria is not unknown in the Americas, nor is it an illness restricted to the tropics.

ROM and AtheoK, you are putting words in my mouth. As I have stated earlier, the current availability of DDT in the U.S. is not relevant to malaria control, since the U.S. has no more malaria. If you feel deprived of fundamental rights just because you can’t get the very one insecticide you fancy, take solace in your right to buy automatic weapons – maybe shooting the bugs will help you to get over yourselves.
I don’t deny that DDT was instrumental in eliminating malaria in many countries around the world. I’m happy it was invented, and I don’t see any reason for not continuing to use it where insect resistance has not yet rendered it useless. The point is, such use is acknowledged as legitimate under the Stockholm convention, it remains feasible, since DDT is still commercially available, and it is ongoing in several malaria-afflicted countries. If it is not used as widely as it should, this has more to do with inertia of the authorities than with international regulations.
Regarding JTOM’s objection regarding data availability and DDT resistance in Africa: The data are good enough to state that DDT resistance is common, but they are not good enough to construct a map such as that given for India in my paper (taken from a scientific paper by Indian authors).

TonyG

Michael,
Please tell me where in my statement I said anything about malaria control.
I’m aware that this is a major portion of the discussion here, but DDT can be used for other purposes.
I have an insect problem with insects that are resistant to practically all known pesticides – EXCEPT DDT. But I can’t obtain the one pesticide that WILL eliminate the problem, because it is not legal for me to purchase.
Seems a lot like a ban to me.

TonyG, this thread begun with a reiteration of the phony story that a ban on DDT use against malaria has caused tens of millions in avoidable casualties. All my responses focus on this theme.
I did not connect your name with malaria control – in fact, I did not reply to you at all, precisely because you were not commenting on malaria, and the issue that you brought up is not relevant to the main theme.

John Robinson

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure. Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content. Bitman’s research was published in Science. Bitman and coworkers demonstrated eggshell thinning with DDT by reducing calcium levels to 0.56 percent from the normal 2.5 percent. This work was exposed as anti-DDT propaganda by other scientists in the field after obtaining the data from his research.
Bitman continued his work for another year. Instead of the calcium-deficient diets, however, he fed the quail 2.7 percent calcium in their food. The shells they produced were not thinned at all by the DDT. Unfortunately, the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Thomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that “Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT”. Bitman therefore had to publish the results of his legitimate feeding experiments in an obscure specialty poultry journal. As a result many readers of Science continued to believe that DDT could cause birds to lay thin-shelled eggs.
I am aware of the fact that resorting to anecdote is intellectually suspect. to which I will reply that at some point a collection of anecdotes on the same subject becomes a dataset subject to statistical analysis.

kristy

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring and specifically targeted DDT. This book led to her testifying in the senate where she stated that DDT should be ELIMINATED. Based mainly on her book and testimony, this led to a ban in the US of DDT. Which is fine, we had already eradicated malaria and we did have other pesticides in our arsenal, as we no longer had to worry about malaria. But her book went worldwide and led to a push from environmental groups to eliminate DDT worldwide. So even though there was no worldwide ban at the time, DDT was very hard to acquire, and the problem with that is that DDT is the most effective insecticide against malaria vectors. African nations didn’t have the luxury of eradicating malaria as we did, but African nations also rely on foreign aid and much of the foreign aid refused to pay for DDT, so many nations went to other pesticides, which in turn upped malaria after a downswing.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.gourevitch.html
When the worldwide ban was being discussed in 1999, which led to the Stockholm Convention, DDT was put on a restricted use and production. Environmental groups pushed for a total ban on DDT. That led to this:
“More than 350 of the world’s leading experts in malaria have signed an open letter of protest against plans for a global ban on the pesticide DDT, which they say will lead to millions more people dying in the developing world from the disease. The 371 doctors, health economists and scientists, who include three Nobel laureates, warn of the consequences if the United Nations Environment Programme outlaws DDT along with a range of other pesticides known as persistent organic pollutants in a treaty to be negotiated next week….But specialists in the disease say cases and deaths have already risen since DDT was outlawed in the western world in the 70s, in turn putting pressure on developing countries not to use it.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/30/sarahboseley1
DDT was then banned worldwide by 2007, except for vector use in third-world countries based on the scientists’ input. What makes DDT the agent of choice is it’s spatial repellency (which was discovered in 1940) and malaria experts around the world say until we have a better option, DDT is the only viable option, as even mosquitoes that have acquired resistance to DDT, don’t go near anything sprayed with DDT, (such as inside homes) thus giving a barrier to the people.
http://www.malariaworld.org/blog/time-give-spatial-repellency-its-rightful-role-vector-control
.
The WHO has now recommended DDT to be used as the number 1 agent against the transmission of malaria, as other options have failed.
So to sum it up, Carson’s testimony and the activist community of enviromentalists pushed for elimination of DDT without thought of how it would affect third-world countries thus this pressure led foreign donors to refuse to pay for DDT for vector use thus African countries had to use less effective pesticides thus increasing the incidence of malaria and deaths.

kristy — what is missing from the picture you paint is the issue of DDT resistance. Where it is not prevalent, DDT is indeed the agent of choice. However, this problem is real. Even in the very first WHO-directed campaign, dieldrin was already included as a fallback option in order to deal with DDT resistance, which had first been observed as early as 1946. Ironically, dieldrin has been totally banned by the Stockholm protocol, while DDT has not, although the case against the limited use of dieldrin is no stronger than that against DDT.
The resistance of insects to DDT, and that of malaria parasites to chloroquine and sulfadoxine / pyrimethamine, had reached such proportions by 1969 that the WHO altogether abandoned its officially stated goal to eradicate malaria. This was three years before the ban of DDT in the U.S.

Michael Palmer,
Everything confers resistance eventually. So that argument doesn’t hold water.
You also say:
…the U.S. have no malaria, so whether or not DDT is for sale there is of no consequence to malaria control.
Strawman argument. There are lots of products available that are not necessary for certain things. The question is: why is DDT unavailable to the average citizen? As explained above, I would like to have it to use in my garden if I want to.
Since there is no danger to birds, people or animals, and since much more dangerous products are available, please give us a reasonable rationale why DDT cannot be bought at Home Depot, just like many similar (and probably more dangerous) products are?

Michael….What is missing from the picture you paint is the issue of the power of DDTs spatial resiliency.
DDT is still one of the most effective chemicals in preventing malaria transmission inside houses. Its powerful spatial repellent action prevents or slows the selection of resistance in mosquitoes [2]. DDT is the only chemical recommended for malaria control that often stops mosquitoes from entering houses and thus transmitting disease. A recent article by Nicole Achee and others, published in Malaria Journal, gives further evidence of the importance of spatial repellency in vector control and the need to develop new active ingredients with characteristics other than toxicity [3].
The modern arsenal of public health insecticides is antiquated and limited to just 12 insecticides, most belonging to one class (pyrethroids). Due to increased reliance on pyrethroids in malaria control and increasing insecticide resistance among mosquito populations, the WHO Global Malaria Programme (GMP) recently released the Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in malaria vectors (GPIRM) [4]. One of the five pillars of the Plan is the development of new and innovative vector control tools. However, there is a dearth of public funding in the search for new public health insecticides. Aside from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), no new public investment of any significance has been made in this area.
Lack of funding and political emphasis is probably due to two major factors. Influential environmentalist groups, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), and several non-governmental organizations are waging successful and aggressive advocacy campaigns to eliminate the insecticide DDT and move away from use of all insecticides by making false claims about the effectiveness of non-insecticidal malaria control [5]. Their efforts have translated into almost no popular advocacy, or advocacy targeted at policy-makers, for insecticide development.
http://www.malariaworld.org/blog/time-give-spatial-repellency-its-rightful-role-vector-control
This isn’t about resistance, but environmentalists wanting to totally ban the only effective means we have to help spread the transmission of malaria.
Here’s a quote from 1999 from Clifton Curtis of the WWF in 1999:
“DDT is such a potent chemical that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe”, said Clifton Curtis. He even brought up that polar bears aren’t safe from DDT….sound familiar?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/262698.stm

Carolyn Brannon

[Snip. We do not discuss Chemtrails here. Please see site Policy. ~mod.]

george e. smith

Well Do you have a facsimile of the death certificate of any deceased person, for whom the competent medically diagnosed cause of death was “Climate Change.”
If not then I suggest that you should stop lying to people yourself.

Brute

Careful here. Don’t give ideas. The death toll for tobacco has been fattened for years with spurious death certificates.

Yirgach

Brute is right about spurious death certificates.
When my mother died of heart failure at the age of 91, her doctor put down “Smoking” as the cause of death.
The only thing was, she had quit smoking some 65 years earlier…

george e. smith

And for the record, I do not now, nor have I ever, nor do I ever intend to in the future, deny climate change.
While not an authority on the subject, I am not aware of any instance in which the climate repeated a path previously taken, at some earlier time. Well of course any such earlier time would presumably be at least one 30 year climate cycle time previous to any purported repeat performance.
A repeat performance would be a new data set for which all of the entries do not differ from those of an earlier replica of the climate, as documented by credible recorders of climate data that are used to assert anomalous climate changes due to anthropogenes; by an amount greater than the statistical uncertainty of such climate records.

auto

Well, based on a few comments – beware trolls.
Not sure if rational debate resumes later.
It may do . . . . . . . . . .
Auto

Neo

We also have laws against sedition

Roy

Michael Palmer, thank you for admitting you are not honest. You wrote: “…one of the reference listed in my untrustworthy opinion paper.”

AmoebaMan

While I am firmly convinced that global warming exist and it is man made; I am totally against censoring or punishing those who believe differently.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Thomas Jefferson

Henry

In the USA, we have laws on the book (Called the Constitution of the United States) which guarantees, in part, the right to free speech. Whether you agree or disagree and for what ever reason, those who disagree on any topic have that right here in the USA! The only things you can not do are yell ‘fire in a crowded theater’, which could lead to injury or death OR call for the overthrow of the United States Government. Live with it!!!

The patriot

I focused more on the line ” it’s time to punish the climate change liars” I agree whole heartedly! These fools lying about climate change are causing a lot of people to lose their jobs, shutting down industries and making the price of energy go through the roof! Arrest them all, starting with Al Gore and Obama!

Nylo

“We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths.” So, if Weinstein’s lies contribute to some ecofascist with severe mental issues murder a so-called denier, we have laws to punish him? Good to know.

RWturner

Indeed yes, once nature proves the alarmists to be wrong it could be open season on alarmists in civil court.

Carolyn Brannon

RWturner, all any of these alarmists need to do is go out on someone’s property that has a tree over 150 years old and cut the tree down. Then saw a slice off the butt of the tree to get a good view of the growth rings. Check these rings and they can see where we have had droughts and rainy seasons throughout time.
My son has a tree removal business and he showed me how the growth rings in any older tree will show that we have had seasonal wet and dry spells throughout time.
[Snip. We do not discuss Chemtrails here. Please see site Policy. ~mod.]

So, are they saying the president and all leaders of the world should be executed for not making an executive order or dictate to end all man made CO2 generating activities?
That may sound right to some…eh Gavin?

parochial old windbag

This is what the internet has turned us into. If you disagree with me, if you will not bake me a gay cake, first step is forced conversion, followed by execution. No mercy to those who don’t understand the basic physics.

Old'un

Sadly, I agree.
The vitriol spewed by alarmists against anyone questioning the content of articles and blogs related to Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change in the Guardian is becoming frightengly jihadist.

Old'un

Whoops: ‘frighteningly’

kim

‘frightengly’ is good. Try ‘gang aft frightengly’.
or
‘I do not like frightengly green’
==================

knr

And right now they have a article asking if they can ‘learn’ from religion about how to sell their lessons of climate doom. Now that is truly ironic given they already act like a religion and they deny they behaving this way.

RWturner

If they study whether there is anything to learn from religious indoctrination they will surely find out that they have already exercised these techniques, or then again maybe they will find something unprecedented.

Roy

You forgot to put the “in” in frighteningly.

MarkW

The desire of those on the left to exterminate anyone who disagrees with predates the internet by many decades.

Chris

What are some specific examples of this?

MarkW

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
Is that sufficient?

Let’s see, Chris, how about the Soviets, the Chinese under Mao, Cambodia (the Killing Fields), Nazi Germany, Cuba, and those are just in the 20th century. Venezuela is heading there today as it’s been imprisoning dissidents at an increasing rate. I figure executions are coming in the near future.

Pat Frank

Chris: the Soviet Union, about 40 million murdered; communist China, about 80 million murdered; Communist Cambodia, about 2 million murdered; Castro’s Cuba, about 20,000 murdered; North Vietnam prior to 1960, about 75,000 murdered; and so on. All political murders.
All those regimes were uncritically supported by western progressives, all the while those murders were committed and afterward as well. Che Gevara was a psychopathic murderer and sadist and is still lionized by the progressive left.
Even Germany was hailed as a socialist triumph and supported by the progressive left, until the falling out with the Soviet Union.
Understand, I have no love for the religious right, either. Those of us who eschew the embrace of ideology and the seduction of the pervasive two-valued political logic, left and right, have been disenfranchised.

nigelf

DCE,I too think the mass killings will start soon in Venezuela. Once other peoples money runs out those in the socialist paradise have to resort to killing to keep the restless hordes at bay.

Paul Mackey

Are you referring to the case in Belfast? Where the government is punishing a bakery for not baking a gay cake that also would have been guilty of copyright abuse? Funny how some laws need to be strictly enforced and others totally ignored, even on the same cake……

cba

naw that’s business as usual for retrogressives. this predates the internet.

j.peter,
The scary part is, they have those dictators as real world examples of what can be done.
Everything goes to extremes. We are not nearly at an extreme yet.

Jtom

I likely won’t live long enough to see this, but an interesting (?) dynamic has begun, and getting to the end result will be in history books for as long as Man exists.
Those on the progressive left (yes, CAGW is a tool of that group, even if some do not believe in it) are in a concerted effort to control not just our actions, but our thoughts. They are like great white sharks circling around us, wanting to take apart the economy, redistribute wealth, and do away with the military.
What they don’t seem to appreciate is that 30 or 40 percent of the world are Orcas, following a religion that requires the extermination or subjugation of non-believers. That religion is totally incompatible with the tenets of the progressive left, and they don’t give a second thought to climate, redistribution of wealth, or economics, whatsoever, and they are VERY militaristic. Their first order of business were they to gain control, would be the extermination of many of the subgroups of the progressive left.
If the great whites defeat us and weaken the world economically and militarily, the orcas will dine on them virtually unopposed. Either we take it all, or the orcas. There is no path to victory for the great whites.

Gary

Isn’t it about time to compile a list of these incidents of hate speech?

Roy

It has likely already been done. Google it, I’m too busy right now to find it for you.

Peter Miller

The guy is a second rate fruit cake, just ignore him.

highflight56433

Yes, he is a fruit cake, but the rhetoric of hate will turn into action of hate if left to simply ignoring. History repeats over and over with “fruit cakes” following like good little soldiers the tyrannical leadership over a cliff.

MarkW

That’s what they said about Stalin and Hitler.

Tim

So was Hitler.

Duster

+1

Keitho

It is indicative of the importance the true believers place on our position.
On the one hand they ridicule and traduce us as “flat Earthers”, “science deniers” and we are in the pay of “Big Oil” or “Big Coal” and so on. They claim we are few and that 97% of some group or other simply know that our carbon dioxide is warming the planet dangerously and that virtually all scientists say we should stop burning stuff as quickly as is humanly possible. They claim we are so stupid and wilfully ignorant as to need locking up yet they won’t enter into a decent debate with us so that the world can better understand our position compared with theirs.
On the other hand they seem to think that we have immense power over the elected governments around the world. So much so that we have forced them to ignore the plaintive warnings of the eco-activists. What is it, I wonder, that makes us so scary?
I notice that the way the alarmists are now dealing with the “pause”, “hiatus”, “plateau” etc. is just to deny it actually exists. This is notwithstanding the 56, 65, 71 ??? papers that attempt to explain it coming from the activist side of things. That this equivalent of sticking ones fingers solidly in our ears and singing la-la-la is rather telling regarding just how confident they are in their robust science.
This is very nuanced science that has been seized by political forces to advance their agenda be it economic or ecological. That someone like Mr Weinstein can advocate we be locked up is typical of those who have faith without knowledge.

RWturner

I liken the recent desperation on part of the activists to Hitler’s Battle of the Bulge.

Menicholas

For a goodly measure of “stupid and willfully ignorant”, check out the real David Suzuki, who was mentioned in the article above as also calling for the arrest of various politicians and scientists. This is a truly stunning tour de force of leftist jackassery:
https://youtu.be/1mIVZnnqm7o

Menicholas

I should have skipped the “leftist” label. Apologies.
Ignorance is ignorance, no matter the political stripe it wears.

Thank you MeNicholas. I didn’t see this Q and A as I prefer my BP not to go too high! Hypocrisy and ignorance make a dangerous combination.

ConfusedPhoton

josef goebbels would be proud of those people.
Who needs democracy when you can have cruel tyranny to push through perverted thinking.

Non Nomen

No, he wouldn’t. He didn’t like communist Bunglers at all.

DirkH

Hitler admired the communists for their resolve. He and Stalin were buddies. Nazis visited Moscow and had various deals with the bolshevics going on. Friendship went downhill only in 1941.

indefatigablefrog

Haven’t we been here before?
“Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”
“Malleus Malleficarum” published in 1484, in which Witches were blamed for climate disruption, calamity and crop failures.
And note that “no doubt at all remains on these points”, is actually what they said about that particular delusion.
After, many years of witch burning, the Little Ice Age, and the related low-temperature weather disturbance came to an end.
Something for which we should all be very thankful.
So, one must assume that the program of arrest torture and death was effective.
Indeed, just as planned. And just as the renewables revolution will eventually be held to be responsible for the notable lack of global warming in 2100.
More weather persecution and related delusion from the LIA, here. It’s a joy to behold:
http://home.uchicago.edu/eoster/witchec.pdf

I bet the remaining witches were also happy to see nature return to a more normal. {humor}

Pamela Gray

Why, yes.

Jason Calley

“After, many years of witch burning, the Little Ice Age, and the related low-temperature weather disturbance came to an end.”
Obvious proof that the witch-burning was successful… 🙂

indefatigablefrog

Obvious proof, indeed.
My thoughts exactly.
Thankfully, the people of the LIA were thinking ahead and putting in place policies that would allow us, their ingrate descendants to live in a warmer witch-free world.
The least that we can do, is make a similar gesture for our own children’s children.
Something self-defeating, so that the people of the future can marvel at our lack of prescience and our total lack of insight into our own psychological limitations. 🙂

Eustace Cranch

Moral bullies, like most bullies, are cowards. They fear a debate on the merits. They throw rocks from behind the skirts of State.
…this whole ridiculous, insane, paranoid, sanctimonious, bullying, freak-out has me despairing for the country… Everywhere you look there are moral bullies utterly uninterested in conversation, introspection, or persuasion who are instead hell-bent on grinding down people they don’t like to make themselves feel good.
-Jonah Goldberg

“Everywhere you look there are moral bullies utterly uninterested in conversation, introspection, or persuasion who are instead hell-bent on grinding down people they don’t like to make themselves feel good.”
Gawker Media described in one sentence.

Odin2

If we are going to go after those whose lies contribute to the death of others, we should start with the lies that have contributed to the ban of DDT and who still oppose its use (even in a judicious and environmentally appropriate manner) today:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

climatologist

And the lies about the WMDs

MarkW

There were no lies about WMDs.

kim

See Judith Miller on Patrick Fitzgerald.
==============================

MarkW

Huffington Post.
Nuff said.
No there were no lies, all of the western intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had both chemical and nuclear programs.
In the aftermath of the war, evidence of both programs were found. Mostly mothballed, but ready to be restarted as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which leftists like Miller were demanding in the months before the war.

george e. smith

“””””…..
MarkW
April 7, 2015 at 10:06 am
There were no lies about WMDs……”””””
Well I can’t agree with your statement. The view that WMDs and WMD programs existed was NOT limited to “western” intelligence agencies.
All the “other intelligence agencies” also believed they existed, and their evidence was more convincing, since they tended to be the suppliers of such.

Greg Cavanagh

The French were selling nuclear tech to Sadam in the years before the first Gulf War. They were building a nuclear power station for him.
During the Iran – Iraq 10 year war, both sides threw chemical weapons at each other.
Where is the lie?

Duster

george e. smith
April 7, 2015 at 11:04 am

I will have to do some digging for the sources now (its been 10 years since I was reading about this), but the western intelligences services did not just “believe” Saddam had WMD capacity, they knew he did. The capacity came from the west when Saddam was the west’s bulwark against Iran and Shiite expansion. At the times of Gulf I and II he had already employed chemical weapons against both the Iranian “army” and against the Kurds. The western intelligence organizations had no choice but to assume those weapons were still in play.
What would really be interesting to read is the classified traffic between the Iraqi government and the western powers before Gulf II. Saddam almost certainly thought he was fairly safe because the west really did not want an unstable Iraq with an indeterminate political and religious line up (the situation at present in fact). Iraq was a buffer between Iran and the other Arab states to the west and south. Not many people really appreciate how very, very strange George W’s redirection of US military effort away from Afghanistan to Iraq really was.

RWturner

Even if DDT is 100% safe for vertebrates I still have some reservations for using it to purposely attempt to eradicate entire species of insects, even if they are nuisances and spread disease. Mosquitoes are important pollinators and big parts of the food chain after all. I agree that it should be brought back but it should be used with this in mind.

joelobryan

“Mosquitos are important pollinators???”
Absurd claim.
Mosquitos have 3 roles in the ecosystems they inhabit.
1) their waterborne laval stage puts them in the food chain between unicellular algae and microbes they feed on, and the small fish, mayfly nymphs, and tadpoles that then feed on lavae.
2)the flying stage we hate, they become a foodsource for bats some birds.
3) the diseases they transmit have for 100’s of millions of years acted as a population. control on everything from birds (and likey dinosaur relatives), and mammals.
Mosquitos have no role as pollinators. They evolved in an ecosystem niche as bloodfeeders and a role long before flowering plants evolved and turned to wind and insect pollination for sexual reproduction.

Menicholas

1) Disagree
2) Wrong
3) Disagree. Wipe them out to the last one. We can adapt to a world without them.

Menicholas

Comment above is @ RWturner.

Menicholas

“it should be brought back”
Turns out it never really went away. Even here in the US, the CDC found as recently as 2005 that nearly all blood samples tested contained DDT and it’s metabolites and breakdown products.
DOH!

mebbe

I live on the eastern side of Vancouver Island (where the Spring weather Is Fantastic, this year).
We have liberal (not that kind of liberal) rainfall. We have extensive marshland. We have short rivers that flow furiously and dwindle to a trickle. We don’t have many mosquitoes.
Why not?
We have a few, and all summer long, you can find larvae in puddles and tires, but they just never amount to much.
The assertion that mosquitoes are nectar-feeders is very familiar and I don’t dispute it at all.
I see no evidence that they are an irreplaceable pollinator, although date palms and bougainvilleas may be absent for lack of mosquitoes.
As for the sanctity of species; does one bemoan the ‘never existed’ status of culiseta frustrans (I invented it) as one would the contrived extinction of anopheles stephensi? Why doesn’t everyone run around long-faced bemoaning the fact that there are only 574 species of some genus, when more would be better?
No, we’re only bummed when one disappears, even though we’d never heard of it before, much less seen it.

MarkW

1) DDT isn’t used to kill misquitos, it’s an irritant to them causing them to go elsewhere.
2) Misquitos play no role in polination.
3) Off the top of my head I can only think of one or two things that eat misquitos, and they aren’t a major portion of their diet.
4) Is there anything you know that is actually correct?

joelobryan

To MarkW.
DDT is quite lethal to many insects that haven’t evolved resistance. In Africa where it is still primarily used, the walls are whitewash painted, then sprayed with DDT.
A curious behavior of mosquitos is that after gorging on a bloodmeal, they prefer landing on light colored vertical surfaces and excreting (pissing if you prefer) most of the water from their blood meal to concentrate and greatly lighten their flying load. It is there they pickup a lethal dose of DDT, and die before feeding again or laying eggs. The DDT on walls limits its environmental release by exploiting this habit of mosquitos.
As for an “irritant” you may be thinking of DEET, a common ingredient in insect repellants. DEET blocks many insects olfactory receptor cell ion channels preventing them from smelling, which is extremely important to mosquitos. Unable to smell when they near a DEET treated skin or surface, they fly away trying to get away from the DEET source.

Endless repetition doesn’t make this true. The DDT ban story is a myth.

You are correct Michael, but only about endless repetition doesn’t make it true.
DDT was banned! There are many of us who remember when it was banned.

We’re getting side-tracked, this thread is about climate ugliness and hate speech against those who dare question the non-science of climatology and their messages of doom.

Dave N

“There are many of us who remember when it was banned”
Including governments and environmental groups that heralded the bans as a success (and vehemently defend them as being “just”). It seems very odd that they would do that if it didn’t actually happen. Should they be labeled as “d*niers”?

Dr.Palmer, thank you for linking your paper (internet report). My take-hoe is, had we hit malaria in all affected regions with inside-dwellings semiannual DDT sprayings, but not used DDT as a large-scale crops insecticide, and had we concurrently used chloroquinone to treat infected malaria victims, we could have eradicated malaria as effectively as we eradicated smallpox. But for some reason, we, er, the UN WHO, failed to fully test malaria-susceptible populations in India and Ceylon, and treat the infected, combined with our allowance of widespread outdoor spraying of DDT, which could never eradicate Aenopheles mosquitos, but did enable the mosquitoes to Darwinian-select those which harbored insecticide resistance genes to massively reproduce, combined with UN WHO’s neglect of Africa, resulted in chloroquine and DDT resistance.
The eradication of malaria from the US and southern Europe didn’t require the UN. When the UN got involved, the effort was an ultimate “fail”, because WHO did the worst thing: creating drug and insecticide resistance by implementing politically-calculated, not science-driven misguided measures.
You’ve presented an excellent argument for science-thinking people to reject the UN IPCC’s universal governmental control of fossil-fuel usage as the “solution” to climate change. They totally screwed up malaria extinction, they clenched defeat from the jaws of victory. And now, with modern fossil fuel energy providing the potential for worldwide prosperity, “It’s no good.” Just like nuclear energy was “no good”. Poverty, starvation, reduction of human population by 80-90% is good. That’s sustainable.

sheepdog5

How many Eco-fascists would be on that list to be “punished” if we were to consider the lives lost from the lies about DDT… Hmmm i think they would all start back pedaling pretty quick

sheepdog5

Odin2 beat me to it .. I’m a slow typer

Odin2

Well, you know what they say about great minds …….. 🙂

MarkW

They say that great minds are slow typers?

Resourceguy

Ten minutes of fame times 10 thousand greenish brown shirts is a lot of noise.

highflight56433

Well, there are laws regarding making life threats. If I were threatened by the likes of Gore et al, and this lunatic, there would be a sheriff knocking on their door.

DesertYote

The law does not apply to them.

TA

Giving voice to some hack blogger on Gawker isn’t really doing anybody any good.

Jeff

>Weinstein bases his claim that man made climate change “kills a lot of people” on a WHO page, which
>estimates that 150,000 people per annum are dying because of climate related extreme weather and other
>problems, such as crop failure.
I wish them a lot of luck trying to arrest God for creating weather and climate.

Jail those who wants to jail people because of their opinions!

MarkW

Is that your opinion?

indefatigablefrog

Just what I was thinking!!!
I’ve no time for intolerant and violent people.
They should all be rounded up and shot.

John Greenfraud

How exactly does someone ‘deny’ future events that have not yet occurred? Wouldn’t that be an ‘unbeliever’ or a ‘heretic’?

Menicholas

Notice that there is no call to punish people who, by their actions, add more than their fair share of the noxious poison, CO2, to the air we all share.
In other words, they (the warmista hypocrites) can spew as much venom and CO2 as they want with no worry.
It is disagreement that is to be punished

Ludicrous.

I’m going to look on the bright side. Shortly I may face an accomodation problem. Jail may be a palatable option. (But I’ll bring my own soap 😰)

the WHO 10,000 figure has long been shown to be nonsense, as was the GHF’s 300,000 climate change deaths.. The 300,000 CC deaths was quoted by Franny Armstrong, in her Guardian interview for the 10:10 ‘No Pressure’ Video..
The GHF figures were also nonsense….
I wonder if these guys would be considered ‘deniers’ for saying so…
Betts/Mcneall:
“Nevertheless, interest in potential links between climate change and possible changes in climate variability and extremes continues to mount. Some claims have been made linking an apparent increase in the severity of weather-related disasters to climate change, with high-profile claims being made such as ‘Climatic disasters are on the increase as the world warms up’ (Oxfam, 2007) and ‘every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of $US125 billion’ (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009).
These statements appear to unsubstantiated by rigorous science.
For example, the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009). conclusion was based on a simplistic attribution methodology which compares the rate of increase in weather-related disasters to non-weather disasters (such as earthquakes), notes a steeper rate of increase in weather-related disasters and assumes that this is due to anthropogenic climate change. However, this is based on 25 years of data from 1980 to 2005, a somewhat short period when dealing with changes in return periods and magnitudes of extreme events, and also does not distinguish between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate variability, which may be significant, especially locally. Such claims, therefore, do not appear to provide robust evidence of changes in climate variability.
(Betts is Prof Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, IPCC AR4 & AR5 lead author)
‘unsubstantiated by rigorous science”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.401.6606

How many will die from the global economy being rolled back to the age of sticks and stones?

MarkW

I find it fascinating how the same people who go on and on about their being too many people on the planet, want to make it a crime to take a position that they claim will result in people getting killed.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

+10

Menicholas

Yes, indeedy. The warmistas are getting very upset that the world is not catastrophically warming on their preferred timetable.
Death and chains, though, to anyone who professes to be glad about this lack of catastrophe, or who points out that they had I wrong to begin with by predicting it.

should be the WHO, 150,000 figure — not 10,000

What a despicable rant!!! There are many climatologists including myself that strongly believe that human kind has only contributed little towards climate change. The debate should of course continue and we will find soon that it is the Sun that is main reason for climate changes on Earth shame on you Dr. Suzuki Rod Chilton

JoAnn Chateau

I have wondered why responsible parties are not charged with crimes against humanity and the Earth. I suppose it is not easy to discern who is most responsible.
But maybe we can outlaw the fossil fuel industry! I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. They have had decades to realize their product was becoming obsolete. They have had decades to develop renewable energy systems (and make tons of money).
But the fossil fuel industry did not do that. It wasn’t easy enough.
You see, if one company had become an innovator, then the other companies would have also been forced to compete on innovations and forward-thinking. That would have required hard work, applied intelligence, and the will to compete and win.

cba

sorry but it’s not a matter of one company becoming an innovator. Anyone can do that and start a company. you’ll notice this has not happened. there are several possibilities for this. 1) the technology doesn’t exist to be able to accomplish the innovations. 2) it’s physically impossible to do so because your assumptions are wrong about fossil fuel. 3) young people have been trained to be zombies and not think for themselves and assume corporations are somehow evil.

MarkW

People such as yourself have been investing billions in other people’s money on these renewable fuel scams for decades.
The reason why we choose to remain with fossil fuels is that nothing else comes close to it in terms of cost or convenience.
It isn’t enough to just “be an innovator”, you have to invent a product that is superior to anything that is already on the market.
I find it fascinating that your first response to the fact that the oil companies haven’t done the impossible, is to consider banning them.

mkelly

Why don’t you do it, JoAnn, and make tons of money?

nigelf

Or better yet JoAnn, Why don’t you personally never use fossil fuels or anything made from them?
Put your money where your mouth is and lead by example. If they’re so bad how can you live with your daily decisions to keep them in business?
You hypocrites are priceless.

Eugene WR Gallun

Joann Chateau
It seems now that the fossil fuel industry will be the main suppliers of world wide energy for at least the next 150 years. That is not “becoming obsolete”. The hearse driving your great granddaughter to her grave will operate on gasoline.
Renewable energy has huge costs that are now hidden by government subsidies. If fossil fuel were eliminated tomorrow and immediately replaced by totally perfected renewable systems (an impossibility but lets dream) the price of everything in the world would double. The cost of a house would double. The cost of the clothes on your back would double. The cost of your food would double. Immediately half the world could no longer afford to put food on the table. Mass starvation would occur. Renewable energy is extremely costly. Fossil fuels are cheap. Cheap energy enhances lives. Costly renewable energy would kill hundreds of millions of people.
Innovation ultimately derives from the pursuit of science which is the pursuit of factual knowledge. The science is not there to implement your silly little dreams. In fact the science says that the types of renewable energies you advocate can never be a replacement for fossil fuels. That is what the science says.
Now if you want to be innovative why don’t you invent some new type of renewable energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Something no one has ever thought of before. Common put your head to it. You seem a person with a vivid imagination.
Eugene WR Gallun

Bart

No, JoAnn, that’s really not it. Fossil fuel is quite simply the most energetic, most easily transported, and most versatile energy source available. There really is no “renewable” competitor which comes close to being able to substitute for it.

george e. smith

Why not mortgage your house, and invest the money in those money making renewable energy companies. If you do that, then my fellow taxpayers and I will not have to foot the bill for that foolishness.
The reason that profit making companies have not invested in renewable energy systems, is that it costs tons of money, and doesn’t make any money.
If it made money, you wouldn’t be able to stop companies from doing it.

Jim Reedy

Like the people who decided growing food to convert into fuel, thereby doubling the price of staples, leading directly to the death by starvation of how many? And the increased poverty of how many? (all perfectly foreseeable) Every solution turns out to be a non solution is what I see…

DirkH

JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 at 9:47 am
“I have wondered why responsible parties are not charged with crimes against humanity and the Earth. I suppose it is not easy to discern who is most responsible.”
Molon Labe, Frau Chateau, Molon Labe.

Owen in GA

I do hope you forgot your /sarc tag, because that was one of the least informed comments I have read on any blog in a long time.
1. The energy companies are always researching new technologies. None have panned out so far.
2. All the companies innovate all the time. They squeeze out higher efficiencies and new products daily.
3. If you think they are not working hard or aren’t continuously competing with each other, you have never been around anyone in the industry.

They’d have us all become cogs in the State Machine.

MarkW

Now that the leftists are getting a taste of power, their true nature is coming to the fore.

Paul Westhaver

The night of the long knives cometh. .

Duster

Say “Krystallnacht” instead.

To be honest, all I had to see was ‘…of the Gawker’ and I knew there wasn’t any credibility to the rant…

It’s time again to bring out Dr Baliunas and her talk on weather cooking:

Maybe Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker should be made to listen to this talk….

MarkW

As everyone knows, prior to 1950, there was never any extreme weather and crops never failed.
Therefore everything bad that happens today is the result of too much CO2.
(Do I really need the /sarc tag?)

Andre

Only 73 years ago,in 1942, there was an “endlosung” for the outgroup. those who were vilified as the evil enemy.
Mankind will probably never get rid of these basic instincts, creating enemies to slaughter and hence becoming a hero.

kim

Ever again.
=======

Vince Causey

More and more sounding like West Ukrainian nationalists – Death to deniers!

Gregory

Bring it Adam.

Just remember… these are they same people who want to take your guns, so when they ‘cleansing’ starts you will be defenseless.

According to Weinstein;
Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.
———————-
One of the reasons for this is that WE did not enforce those laws when greenie corn ethanol raised the price of food so much as to cause the “Arab Spring” food riots, which killed tens of thousands of people.
I doubt the statute of limitations has run out.

Met Tech

What you need to know about the extremist rhetoric comes from ancient Greek myths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic Check out the goddess of Chaos, Eris, and in particular the short little stories about her “children.” You guys need to understand the history of “always winning an argument” by any means – sophistry- before you can start defending yourselves.

Gary Pearse

It is not a debate in which the best arguer wins. There is actually a need for scientific data to win this type of argument if truth is considered an important part of it. This is where the zealots are failing (nature isn’t cooperating). But, an alternative to debate and empirical science is the Pinochet proof of what is right or wrong. This is what this thread is dealing with. Convincing them is out of the question.

Met Tech

Please don’t take any of this personally. Sorry, you must have facts on your side, you must have the scientific method on your side; yes, of course you do, however you must know when, what, or how to argue, or not, against demagoguery and the ancient mob. The same characters are named by the Greek myths, and they are relevant still, because they are from the birth of democracy. Their tactics are well recorded. Purists are not going to win this argument, you will have to leave it up to the warriors to make your point in bloody terms if necessary.
You are too far above the frey, too good to know what rhetorical methods are being used against your arguments. I have spent much of my time with scientists, I know damn well your desire for purity. Tut tutting is not enough.
However, as Kuhn mentioned, or Popper even, there are many in science who will fight against having ANY dominant paradigm challenged. They will cover up that one dissenter’s counter evidence because losing the argument otherwise has no financial rewards. Some of you believe you must be Marxist simply because some fool labeled him a scientist.
Sorry, not only do you need the advanced calculus, you need to pay attention in all your classes. It is ironic that those who attended rhetoric classes instead, are now the ones who dominate the discussion in order to maintain that dominant paradigm.
Sorry if this seems harsh fellahs, but I was raised by a nuclear physicist myself and therefore can appreciate how wrong your attitude toward “philosophy” really is. In public affairs, there are not a few rules or principles to work with, as there are in physical science. If you are not careful, you’ll be over your heads for the rest of your careers. Kuhn, is better known that Popper, you better read both in particular Popper’s “Enemies of the Open Society.”
Wouldn’t you like to know the names and history of these enemies of freedom? So you think today’s leftists came out of no where too? Yes….in fact “rhetoric” does matter because right now, ignorance of the method dooms purists to failure. Your facts, well they don’t count, but your presentation does instead. So, if it might not be your job to stand up and fight against this menace either, if so, then pipe down and stand back, because you have obviously NOT read enough to see the wider public arena in which the sophists will otherwise continue to dominate.

The anti-gmo crowd and greens that keep Golden Rice off the market should be the first arrested, prosecuted and made to serve time or the people that they condemn to blindness or death. For years these people have kept this gmo rice off the market and consigned millions of poor people to blindness or death all to keep their smug view that gmo’s are evil. Their actions should be viewed more harshly than any climate denier as the harm the anti-gmo crowd causes is quantifiable and proven while their claims of deaths due due to climate change are much more nebulous and unproven.

Once upon a time, the alarmists dominated the argument and it was enough to belittle the skeptics. As the facts go against them and they lose control of the argument, their support among the public erodes. As their dominant position declines, expect them to get ever more shrill in their desperation to stop the debate before they lose it entirely.

If you think they’d restrict themselves to merely arresting climate contrarians, you’d be wrong.

Why climate hawks need to prepare their arsenals
Last updated on 1 April 2015, 5:13 pm
Is it time to think about using force to prevent nations and groups from contributing to climate change?
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/31/why-climate-hawks-need-to-prepare-their-arsenals/

I was hoping, given the date, that this was an “Onion” style joke. But I don’t think it is.

Met Tech

I’ve had almost thirty five years experience as a policy analyst which is nothing more than applied ethics. Here’s a link to a professional philosopher’s assessment of the sophistry movement. http://www.knavickas.com/?p=22
Unless you can spoil the leftist arguments, by turning the rules of rhetoric against them, you’ll be doomed no matter how rigorous your counter evidence might be.
Unfortunately, this all goes back to public school English classes and then goes all the way up into the journalism schools. Fortunately there are lots of professional critics from whom you can learn to crush the so called consensus.

Jeff L

Under this frame of logic, anyone who emits CO2 is a co-conspirator to murder and should be jailed. Wait…. That would be everyone !
What a bunch of idiots

MarkW

The rules put forth by leftists, were never intended to be applied to the leftists.

Resourceguy

Has anyone called the FBI……to check that agency’s global warming statement.

Paul Nottingham

I can name people who have died because of the cold. Can he name people who have died because of global warming?

Tom J

This is a tweet from Lawrence Torcello. A quick Google search unearthed it, perhaps from a steaming cesspool but more likely from a maggot encrusted turd. Anyway, here is the copied and pasted tweet:
“The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change.”
Got that? Let us try to use our imaginations to conjure up precisely how the whole world – the whole world – can be in violation of the law.
Hi, my name’s TomJ and I wish to turn myself in for violating a world law. And, I’m willing to accept my punishment for violating this world law. Um, but you’ve violated it too. So, do I guard you during your prison sentence? Or, do you guard me? Is it a capital offense? It is? Ok, who executes who? Do I execute you first? It’s simultaneous execution? Um, I really think the best way to do this is for me to execute you first, but honest, you can execute me afterwards.
And, thus we encounter a world law in practice.

eyesonu

I think I have figured out a way for simultaneous execution. The 2 guilty subjects stand on opposing ends of an elevated see-saw with ropes around their neck. The one who wants to execute the other first just jumps off. LOL

Another suggestion: Cut off all government funding to any school or organization which permits an employee or representative to call for punishment of different opinions without terminating his/her employment. ie, no more funds.

TonyG

For those who think this is a fringe blog, or a fringe idea with little chance of occurring – you are wrong. This is a growing sentiment. It is already being acted on in colleges, where students are thrown out for ‘crimes’ no worse than disagreeing with the professor. People are being jailed worldwide for nothing more than stating an opinion.
Read the comments if you want to see what people think. Although there are some opposing the proposal, the sheer hatred expressed there is overwhelming.
It’s going to get a lot worse.

commieBob

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

The CAGW alarmists are in the position of someone falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. It’s pretty clear that they intend to cause panic. Let’s jail the alarmists. “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”

indefatigablefrog

The WHO estimates are critically discussed here.
An article which is worth reading in full, but in summary it explains that people are not potted plants. Who knew? Not the WHO, apparently…
“Firstly, it uses climate model results that have been shown to run at least
three times hotter than empirical reality (0.15◦C vs 0.04◦C per decade, respectively), despite using 27% lower greenhouse gas forcing.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that people and societies are not potted plants;
that they will actually take steps to reduce, if not nullify, real or perceived
threats to their life, limb and well-being.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/11/WHO-2.pdf

Harry Passfield

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

George Santayana
I’m stuck for a noun…N@zis?

cba

try retrogressives – for over a century, these evil know it alls have called themselves progressives – but they are the opposite of that, regardless of what ‘ism they claim to adhere to.

…. and for “liberal” you can substitute “totalitarian” or more accurately, since it ain’t gonna happen “totalitarian wannabe”.

Yes. And just as in every modern totalitarian revolution, the ‘fellow travelers’ and ‘useful fools’ will be either permanently detained in camps, or exterminated. Because, you see, some of them still have a trace of conscience. That gets in the way of the truly ambitious ones.
So the totally immoral ones will be the most ruthless, as always. They will take power by force, and they will dispense with all the useful idiots who stupidly believed they were making the world a better place — by hook or by crook. All they’re doing by disregarding free speech now is paving the way ti their own demise. Unfortunately, they will take plenty of good people down with them.
Khruzchev bragged that during a Politburo meeting he pulled out his pistol and shot to death someone who was criticizing him. Which of the eco-greens are willing to do anything like that? The ones who won’t will be liquidated, leaving the worst of the worst. As Niccollo Machiavelli wrote:
Men ar bad unless compelled to be good.
Who in the New World Order will ‘compel’ the most evil people in society to obey the law? This isn’t the French Revolution, where Robespierre gets his comeuppance by the mob. Now, like in Cambodia, Red China, the Soviet Union, and other modern revolutions, computers, the secret police, and the military will crush all dissent. Easily.
The middle of the road folks will be swept aside in any putsch, and climate alarmists will be treated no differently than honest skeptics. Something to think about for useful fools like Michael Mann, Adam Weinstein, and David Suzuki.

Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make MAD!
This guy is MAD as a Hatter.
Religious fanatics always preach hate and death toward those that question their position of faith. pg

Mike Maguire

Fascinating that people can be so completely brainwashed to believe the complete opposite of the reality and interpret all new information in a way that reinforces the brainwash, while completely disregarding/rejecting authentic science that irrefutably shows their belief is wrong.
The increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm, has rescued life on this planet from dangerously low levels of that beneficial gas, yet, the propaganda has convinced people that this is pollution.
The modest global warming thus far has been mostly beneficial to life on this planet.
Only on global climate models based on a busted theory does the warming become a problem.
Despite 18 years of the warming having stalled out, the earth greening up(more food for most creatures) and extreme weather from many measures being less, a large faction of humans are unable to see it in front of them.

Gentle Tramp

I couldn’t agree more!
And: Is it not strange that left leaning eco-zealots, which still hate the Catholic Church for burning Giordano Bruno because he proclaimed a different opinion than the accepted religious consensus of his time, would like to persecute and oppress modern “Giordano Brunos” who don’t share the “infallible” beliefs of the current and more and more totalitarian eco-religion?
Why don’t they see their ridiculous inconsistency ???

Menicholas

Total Cognitive Dissonance !