"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable. Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.

Are you claiming that there is no scientific evidence that DDT is dangerous,
that it was banned simply because of hysteria resulting from one book
(written, incidentally, by a biologist)? Odd that JFK's Science Advisory
Committee confirmed the claims made in the book, and scientific review by
the EPA (under Nixon) came to the same conclusion, and that when the federal
courts reviewed what the EPA had done they ruled the agency had acted
properly, isn't it.

One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't care
what you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can PROVE." The
"good" of additional CO2 - from machines that drive industry - is provable
to a middling-quick child. The "belief" that something's amiss is pure
conjecture.

And yet the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is very
different.

The consensus opinion at the Center for Global Change Science at MIT:

http://mit.edu/cgcs/www/

The Institute of Physics:

http://www.iop.org/News/Community_Ne...file_38336.pdf

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position
that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities":

* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* British Antarctic Survey
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* Federation of American Scientists
* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Royal Meteorological Society
* Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

[ http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf ]

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to the US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate
change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates
that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary
driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of
evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective
assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The 18 organizations a

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

And so on. Your claim of "pure conjecture" is laughable. Yes, as in any
area of science there are disputes, errors, theories advanced and abandoned
or modified--that's how it is supposed to work, science is a process. But
to claim that most of the scientific world simply doesn't know what it's
talking it on this issue is a purely political stance.