Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?
gzuckier_at_snail-mail.net
Date: 03/16/05
- Next message: Ralph Nesbitt: "Re: A "Bad Geology" page is desperately needed..."
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Maybe in reply to: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Next in thread: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Reply: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Mar 2005 09:09:13 -0800
BillC wrote:
> In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a
devastating
> expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to
create
> mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about
the
> environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.
Here's one exaggerated claim from one side:
"Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from
malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million
needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler."
That's from Crichton's book, unfortunately. The unexaggerated truth is,
that DDT is NOT banned for use eradicating malaria or any other
disease-related use. Only banned from agricultural use. And not only
has that not caused 'more than 50 million needless deaths', the
agricultural ban has SAVED millions of lives by reducing the spread of
DDT resistance caused by widespread agricultural DDT use. In fact,
"Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria
transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of
insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of
malaria." (Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural
production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India",
Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, page 183).
Now, starting with no knowldege of DDT regulation other than seeing
that quote from Crichton in an editorial in the WSJ, which is immediate
grounds for suspecting it to be false, it took me a grand total of less
than 10 minutes to discover that not only is DDT not banned from
antimalarial use, but that it's increased use of DDT that causes
malaria deaths, not the ban. And I don't get paid for looking this
stuff up. Can't highly-paid-for-this-stuff Crichton spare an equal
amount of time to check the nonsense that comes in one ear before he
spews it back out?
Let me stress again, this is not just an "exaggerated claim"; this is
Crichton pretending he has a good estimate of the number of deaths
caused by environmentalism; with a number that is apparently just
totally made up, since the 'cause' of the 'effect' he is claiming to
quantize does not in fact exist. And then he has the nerve to complain
that
"we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make
exaggerated claims."?
It's Crichton who knows astonishingly little about environmental
regulations and is going way beyond 'exaggerated claims' to full blown
fantasy.
- Next message: Ralph Nesbitt: "Re: A "Bad Geology" page is desperately needed..."
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Maybe in reply to: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Next in thread: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Reply: BillC: "Re: Global warming "hockey stick" questionable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|