[Luis Dias]

DDT is a toxicant. It is applied as such, as an insecticide. It was it's entire purpose and it still functions well enough in that role throughout equator. What do you mean by cure? Do you speak figuratively?

Yes. DDT was wildly demonized by "Silent Spring", following its US ban ten years later (72). The book criticisms on DDT was that it caused cancer and bird issues. You are right in reminding us that the bird evidence is good. The latter however isn't, and most health issues that have been proclaimed are not tightly demonstrated, in wild contrast with the sheer efficiency of its power against malaria.

Again, potential possible problems outwheighed actual real problems that were being solved with DDT, by the environmental groups involved.

Oh I don't know, maybe something like actually lowering the amount of sulphur in emissions? Stuff like http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3663/2007/acp-7-3663-2007.pdf this that wasn't too difficult to find?[/quote]

... you do not show how these emissions were lowered globally.

have no firsthand familiarity of Chinese situation. Maybe there's a source somewhere, telling how Chinese example means that acid rain was never a problem at all.

If these emissions never really lowered that much, then your whole "defense" turns ridiculous, innit?

Here, see the actual numbers for the trends till today, and yeah "that wasn't so difficult to find" you're absolutely right! (ZING)

[IMG=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H8J8dJU6P5Q/TYANbgRU8KI/AAAAAAAAAhE/bGkTdTgCEXI/s400/GloS.gif]

http://stochastictrend.blogspot.com/2011/03/global-trends-in-carbon-and-sulfur.html

Oh yes. That. Walked into a mine. Carter's warning of peak oil came after US oil production had hit it's peak, but before the large discoveries of oil reserves in 1980s. You may take even wikileaks with a pinch of salt, but even Saudies seemed conserned about the fact just a moment ago.
The entire problem is that 1) oil consumption increases all the time in global scale, 2) oil is a globally traded commodity, and 3) potential of new discoveries dimishes. 2 and 3 wouldn't be a problem if 1 didn't mean that nothing is done.

Do you want to see an actual graph of fossil energy yet to be extracted to see how silly this reasoning is? Here:

[IMG=http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-06-at-6.20.18-PM.png]

Where and when? I mean, you need to be a bit more precise. "The UN?"

Ahhh **** you'll just have to take my word on that.... or not.

Let's see. We have a fossil record saying that yes, species are going extinct fast. We have data of large amount of species disappearing in a very short timespan after human colonization of areas. We have estimations of biodiversity centers, AND we have estimations of the loss of these biodiversity centers. We can just look at tropical rainforests, take any assumption of the amount of species living there and calculate coldly the projected loss of diversity if the unerlying assumptions are not changed. The assumption that you can just remove habitat and not have an adverse effect on species numbers is frankly very weird - and that's the underlying assumption in these extinction rates.

Read the article I linked you in the last post, a series of posts which clearly illustrates the ridiculous maths involved in the "biodiversity" calculations that imply, among other things, a series of equations that were never intended to calculate the extinction rates whatsoever. It's pure demagogery and numerology. Making **** up.

Besides, your statement of "THEM!" then becomes weird. It's not like extinction event is a ideological assumption. There are hundreds of scientific articles about it. Maybe THEY are part of THEM as well?

Yeah. Considering that these "scientific" articles are almost all of them based upon a set of equations that really don't work well in there... yeah.

YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. Who are "they"? Where do "they" state these things?

Everyone involved. It's part of the environmentalist paradigm. Name me one environmentalist who actually endorses the global trade of food and I'll be amazed.

Oh really?

As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took that as meaning what you said. An obvious mistake, in retrospect.

Not a mistake if you do it right. Try to read what I write instead of what you skim it to be. Worries are not ideologies.

Since you speak of loonies and mentalists it is obvious that your problem with conservation and enviromentalism is not based on facts. Despite you stating that something is "unscientific rubbish", these kind of lines betray you. Scientific has nothing to do with it, because if it had, you could easily provide sources and constructive criticism - something you have absolutely failed to do in this thread.

That would make a ton of pages. Really. It would. Take global markets of food for instance. Environmentalists really believe that this is the work of satan, that it spends a lot of oil, enslaves poor people, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you really want me to prove this? Confront me, and I will.

Not an hypocrite, but an heretic. Check Lynas or Monbiot and the trashing they got into. Bjorn Lomborg was tossed into the garbage bin a decade ago, for he dared to question environmental myths. This is nothing new.

Yet they do exist and even have some weight in political discourse. How interesting. Maybe they aren't enviromentalists at all, then?

What weight do these lone voices have? None. They are constantly ignored if their narrative deviates from the politically correct one.

But anyways. You haven't been able to even name any of these horrendous enviromentalists you so staunchly oppose, even less to point out where they as some kind of collective espouse these kind of views.

It's a mob thing, more than a person thing.

[Luis Dias]

Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:

[Janos]

Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:

Well that's all well and good, after you explain
1) just what does this have to do with your original statement "THEY lied about acid rain",
2) just how this does nullify anything I stated,
3) just what does this have to do with enviromental discussion of acid rain, and
4) just why do you think you can get away with this when it is obvious that acid rain, as an enviromental concern, was always a local and continental problem and had little to do with CHINA - an example YOU brought up and now so smugly present, thinking it proves anything.

Seriously. Your earlier post essentially stated that peer-reviewed journals are WRONG and this random blog post proves all of them wrong. I am right now looking at Nature (not Science, mind you) search results for extinction rate and trust me - they are fighting about it. This one article, you know, Fangliang and Huebbell.

Of course I could mention that you managed to regurgitate same old tired DDT bull**** without apparently even glancing at a Lancet article i reffed to earlier in this thread. You know, the one that addressed everything you said - except your outlandish claim that banning DDT caused more trouble than it solved, seeing how you didn't even say WHAT those problems are. Of course I wouldn't. Are you just making this **** up as you go and hope to switch topics once you get caught?

I could, just as well, note that you describe Silent Spring as "demonizing". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of modern ecology, toxicology, ecotoxicology and enviromental politics. Of course I won't, that would be just mean.

And let's not forget the fact that you ask me to take "The UN" as a good answer. This offends me. How dumb do you think I am? And I shouldn't even remind you that in your rant against enviromentalism you referred to "a very respected dude" but apparently forgot his name and couldn't even be bothered to google his name.

You know what? I did. Just now. It refers to Monbiot and Caldicott's exchange, where Caldicott makes all kinds of statements. Monbiot replies by asking for peer-reviewed literature. Caldicott is unable to provide. Gives a certain ironic ring to it, seeing how you, when asked for sources, have posted BLOG LINKS. Not even newspapers, BLOGS.

I could also mention that you have offered to prove your point! This is very important. I will eagerly await you to make your ton of posts to discredit enviromentalist movements. Of course, now, this would require definition of these groups, something you haven't been able to do in this very thread despite being asked to - repeatedly. It would, of course, force you to move from cherry-picked generalization to more concrete definition, so please, go ahead. I mean, your generalizations become tiresome when you cannot really say who said what and when.

Now you see this. You deny acidification as a problem. I happen to be relatively familiar with it's aspects in Northern Europe, especially when it comes to freshwaters. I could tell you about lack of buffer in naturally acidic waters. I could tell you about reproductionary problems it causes in fishes. I could tell you about acidification and heavy metal availability in acidic waters. I could tell you about problems acidification caused in Scandinavian waters in 1980s. You state that these problems are either nonexistant or that Someone Somewhere Lied.
I also happen to be relatively familiar with DDT and other organic pollutants. I can with great confidence state that I know at least something about estimating threat, animal testing procedures, the history of toxicology, risk assesment, sociological aspects of ecotoxicology, political decision-making. I can tell you about how bioremediation happens, how metabolic waste products might not be a good thing. I can tell you about problems organochlorines cause and the problems their ban has caused. You say that these things are either nonexistant or that Someone Somewhere Lied.

I also happen to be at least somewhat familiar with both the political and grassroots enviromentalism in where I come from. I am also familiar with ecological concepts of extinction, habitat loss and extinction debt. I study biology and ecotoxicolgy/hydrobiology. Where I hail from the Greenish movement is in the middle of large discussion of just what to do and nuclear power is one part of it. Therefore, with relatively great certainity and knowledge that I have at least cursory skills to prove my statement correct or at least cite to useful literature, I will now make my qualified statement:

You are full of **** and a bad debater.

[Luis Dias]

Here, a graph explaining why I asked about "China" and what it really has to do with the question at hand:

Well that's all well and good, after you explain
1) just what does this have to do with your original statement "THEY lied about acid rain",
2) just how this does nullify anything I stated,
3) just what does this have to do with enviromental discussion of acid rain, and
4) just why do you think you can get away with this when it is obvious that acid rain, as an enviromental concern, was always a local and continental problem and had little to do with CHINA - an example YOU brought up and now so smugly present, thinking it proves anything.

1) We are long past 2000, and acid rains didn't turn forests into deserts.

2) It doesn't nullify. It tames. You spoke of these issues as being "solved", and that's why the forecasts weren't "crazy", when the graphs tell a different story.

3) Acid rain should be fought. The moral premise isn't at issue here. I was making a case out of environmentalism hysteria.

4) So these acids are localized in the atmosphere? I may have assumed wrongly that they were more easily globalized.

[uote]Seriously. Your earlier post essentially stated that peer-reviewed journals are WRONG and this random blog post proves all of them wrong.[/quote]

No, it doesn't "prove", but it provides sufficient pause for thought. The equations do not make sense. In a way it reminds me of economics and its origins, with thermodynamic equations being copypasted into economical contexts with a lot of non sequiturs.

I am right now looking at Nature (not Science, mind you) search results for extinction rate and trust me - they are fighting about it. This one article, you know, Fangliang and Huebbell.

That's a good article coming in 2011, making some similar points to the blog I pointed you to. Perhaps they will end up counting these things better in the future. It doesn't mean that the previous generation didn't **** up with their numbers.

Of course I could mention that you managed to regurgitate same old tired DDT bull**** without apparently even glancing at a Lancet article i reffed to earlier in this thread. You know, the one that addressed everything you said - except your outlandish claim that banning DDT caused more trouble than it solved, seeing how you didn't even say WHAT those problems are. Of course I wouldn't. Are you just making this **** up as you go and hope to switch topics once you get caught?

Banning was bad. DDT is still useful, even if you should restrict its use. Outright banning is just the typical overreaction. Nuclear has problems? Ditch it altogether. Let's build solar instead, nevermind the sheer economic crazyness, nevermind the sheer technical crazyness (how do you exactly cope with intermittency of production?), nevermind the sheer pollution that the production of solar panels entails. Nevermind all of that. Let's just overreact instead to this relatively minor issue and get moving against the status quo, because that gives meaning to the youngsters lives, I guess.

I could, just as well, note that you describe Silent Spring as "demonizing". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of modern ecology, toxicology, ecotoxicology and enviromental politics. Of course I won't, that would be just mean.

What the hell? Let's be clear, I said that the book demonizes DDT. It was a statement of fact. I didn't even judge the book, which BTW also includes the statement that DDT *should be used, but not abused*. It was probably the sanest party involved, in pragmatic terms.

And let's not forget the fact that you ask me to take "The UN" as a good answer. This offends me. How dumb do you think I am? And I shouldn't even remind you that in your rant against enviromentalism you referred to "a very respected dude" but apparently forgot his name and couldn't even be bothered to google his name.

The first one is a tongue-in-cheek. I remember it, but I cannot find it. And of course I'm an anonymous from the internet, so you don't have to believe in me at all. The "very respected dude" was actually a woman.... Ahh yeah you found out about her:

You know what? I did. Just now. It refers to Monbiot and Caldicott's exchange, where Caldicott makes all kinds of statements. Monbiot replies by asking for peer-reviewed literature. Caldicott is unable to provide. Gives a certain ironic ring to it, seeing how you, when asked for sources, have posted BLOG LINKS. Not even newspapers, BLOGS.

I'm not a respectable environmentalist in charge of a movement in front of a TV camera. Sorry, but to compare both our lack of preparation as if they are morally equivalent is just silly.

I could also mention that you have offered to prove your point! This is very important. I will eagerly await you to make your ton of posts to discredit enviromentalist movements. Of course, now, this would require definition of these groups, something you haven't been able to do in this very thread despite being asked to - repeatedly. It would, of course, force you to move from cherry-picked generalization to more concrete definition, so please, go ahead. I mean, your generalizations become tiresome when you cannot really say who said what and when.

I have offered to prove a very specific point. But I am a sole man in this lone planet and this is not my specialty. I cannot be trolled to do the job I am not paid to do. I can, however, see. And what I see is mostly green grandstanding above unproven myths.

I have offered to prove the point that globalized food markets are environmentally better than "localized" food markets.

But you have to be sweet to me. I won't waste brain power to the garbage can.

Now you see this. You deny acidification as a problem.

NOWHERE did I say this. All these are real problems, real worries, that are transformed by sheer irrationality to untold heights so that you get attention to your own pet theories about how a specific environmental concern will melt the world to smithereens.

You are full of **** and a bad debater.

Ok, let me go cry in the corner now.

[Mustang19]

xkcd

I dont care if its half ad homimem. They're having a multisentence political discussion, on HLP. And they're actually supporting their arguments with graphs and stuff. Have at it Luis and Janos.

[Klaustrophobia]

while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.

[General Battuta]

while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.

no, it really isn't, and if you're butthurt about a thread, you might as well make an effort to contribute instead of wasting a precious post in an inarticulate try at hiding your inability to express your thoughts (on better-for-serious-discussion forums, low content posts just get you an instant five-day ban)

peak posting is coming, we can't be wasteful

ed: it's like having a kid come running onto a debate floor to shout STOP FIGHTING; if you don't get the discussion, just stay out of it instead of ****ting up the thread

[Kosh]

while kosh's post may not be originial, the point it was making is still valid.

no, it really isn't, and if you're butthurt about a thread, you might as well make an effort to contribute instead of wasting a precious post in an inarticulate try at hiding your inability to express your thoughts (on better-for-serious-discussion forums, low content posts just get you an instant five-day ban)

peak posting is coming, we can't be wasteful

ed: it's like having a kid come running onto a debate floor to shout STOP FIGHTING; if you don't get the discussion, just stay out of it instead of ****ting up the thread

I'm not feeling anything for this thread, but I see you busting out the "I'm a troll lulz lulz I'm better than everyone lulz lulz lulz" it makes it hard to resist. I admit I should have brought out the dancing troll thing instead.

[karajorma]

Next troll poster gets himself banned.

If Luis and Janos want to go at it, so be it.

[MP-Ryan]

If Luis and Janos want to go at it, so be it.

I've been gone for a week here, but Luis seems to be displaying the same old pattern of posting unsubstantiated BS in reply (with a hefty measure of arrogance and unfounded condescension thrown in to boot) and meandering away until he gets pinned down completely.  It's getting tiresome to read, and giving some serious deja vu to Liberator's old GD participation.  Deriding debate is bad; deriding Luis' particular form of debate isn't (not defending the troll posters here, just making an observation).

[karajorma]

That's fine. I should point out that I'm not going to let anyone else get away with that sort of behaviour as long as Liberator did.

[Luis Dias]

Don't worry, if I see that people don't like what I post here, I'll stop doing it .