HeyBub wrote:
Matt wrote:

I wonder whether you can understand that the book being crap does not
imply that DDT is safe.

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable.


Maybe you missed the part about DDT becoming ineffective within six or
seven years due to the evolution of strains of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.
So it seems there is little left of the potential good you mention.


Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.


Do you really believe that DDT use has been curtailed or banned in every
country through some kind of conspiracy or deception or stupidity?

By the way, I wonder whether you've heard that men's sperm counts are
not even half what they were in 1940. Check it out:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q="sperm+count"+decline+p ercent+year&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=



Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of
envirofrauds,
today.

Do you suppose that if Al Gore peddles drivel, it implies that people
should be free to go on dumping CO2 into the air indefinitely?


Absolutely.


I see, so it would make sense for those denying MMGW (eg oil producers)
to pay Algore to peddle drivel, since, when the drivel is shown to be
drivel, there would be justification to keep producing CO2. You are
saying that if Gore's reasoning is wrong, then his conclusion must be
wrong. Similarly two plus three does not equal five in case the
argument is based on Gore drivel.


The amount of CO2 in the air is roughly in the same ratio as the
chalk outline of a football referee's body after he was stabbed eleven times
by irate fans responding to three consecutive bad calls against the home
team is to the entire field, end zones included. The amount of CO2 being
added to the atmosphere is likewise equivalent to the increasing size of his
blood stain as the ******* bleeds out.


Hmmm ... I don't think you would need that idiosyncratic analogy to help
me understand your argument. If you were to simply and clearly state
your point in terms of actual numbers and ratios of amounts of CO2 and
rates of CO2 production, I think I could understand better what you are
trying to say.

But despite having a pretty good general-science education, I don't
think I am equipped to understand much about MMGW or argue very well for
or against. Obviously there is some disagreement among those actually
educated and established as climate scientists, so I don't know how I
would be able to decide about MMGW using my general knowledge of
chemistry, physics, or statistics. Unless maybe most of climate experts
are idiots or liars and I am neither.


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."


Do you believe that everything that is true is provable?


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.