In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I think what he meant was (possibly, Mark?) how it turned out that DDT wasn't really harmful after all. And the negatives from banning it were worse (less disease control) than the negatives it caused, environmentally speaking.

Which is highly controversial though.

It is highly controversial to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Jacko

It is highly controversial to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at.

Uh, yeah, that is what I am saying...that the whole school of thought is controversial.
Like this article:

Junkscience.com -- DDT ban is genocidal


I actually do think it's a bit of a stetch to say that DDT was benign or desirable, or that it should be made legal again.

It may have resulted in fewer deaths from malaria in some countries, but there are other, better, SAFER options to do that- for instance, the increased amount of skeeter netting around babies' and childrens' beds has accomplished a huge decrease in deaths in the past few years.

You're a bit rabid about this topic, Jacko.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Uh, yeah, that is what I am saying...that the whole school of thought is controversial.
Like this article:

Junkscience.com -- DDT ban is genocidal


I actually do think it's a bit of a stetch to say that DDT was benign or desirable, or that it should be made legal again.

It may have resulted in fewer deaths from malaria in some countries, but there are other, better, SAFER options to do that- for instance, the increased amount of skeeter netting around babies' and childrens' beds has accomplished a huge decrease in deaths in the past few years.

You're a bit rabid about this topic, Jacko.

Rabid?

[PlayadelSoul]

NPR : WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria

In the early 1960s, several developing countries had nearly wiped out malaria. After they stopped using DDT, malaria came raging back and other control methods have had only modest success.

[NiceTom]

I'd thought DDT was outlawed because it was driving bird species towards extinction? When I was a boy, 30 years ago, hardly any raptors-can't ever recall seeing a hawks or eagles. Now they're quite abundant.

Of course though, weighing some bird populations against millions of people with malaria-I think I'd be for selectively using DDT again-but uneasy about decimating the wildlife.

[Rissask]

I think I'd be for selectively using DDT again

I think that the bolded word is the key...they went way overboard using it and it caused all sorts of problems.

Is there an echo in here? Yes, rabid!
Very single-minded and dogged....not necessarily a negative thing....you just are.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by NiceTom

I'd thought DDT was outlawed because it was driving bird species towards extinction? When I was a boy, 30 years ago, hardly any raptors-can't ever recall seeing a hawks or eagles. Now they're quite abundant.

Of course though, weighing some bird populations against millions of people with malaria-I think I'd be for selectively using DDT again-but uneasy about decimating the wildlife.

It was done away with after malaria had already been eliminated in the US. Alarmists decided the rest of the world shouldn't get its chance to do the same, and forced it off the market.

Like global warming, where the US has benefited the most from fossil fuels, it now leads the charge (through its environmentalists) to limit or eliminate the use of fossil fuels in other countries. Countries which have not been able to receive the benefits of burning fossil fuels in order to produce goods.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I think that the bolded word is the key...they went way overboard using it and it caused all sorts of problems.

Is there an echo in here? Yes, rabid!
Very single-minded and dogged....not necessarily a negative thing....you just are.

True. And, they went overboard regarding the solution to the problems caused by DDT. By eliminating its use, they essentially sentenced thousands to their deaths.

Which takes us back to the original premise of this thread, overreacting to a problem we are not sure even is a problem.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

True. And, they went overboard regarding the solution to the problems caused by DDT. By eliminating its use, they essentially sentenced thousands to their deaths.

Which takes us back to the original premise of this thread, overreacting to a problem we are not sure even is a problem.

Ahem.....meaning "you" are not even sure it is a problem worth reacting to....most of the rest of us are pretty sure and are taking steps to address it...of course, we are not planning on killing thousands of people in order to accomplish it......

Rabid Sparky

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Ahem.....meaning "you" are not even sure it is a problem worth reacting to....most of the rest of us are pretty sure and are taking steps to address it...of course, we are not planning on killing thousands of people in order to accomplish it......

Rabid Sparky

You don't even know what the optimal mean temperature of the world is? So, are you going to try to cool the planet or let her hear up a bit?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You don't even know what the optimal mean temperature of the world is? So, are you going to try to cool the planet or let her hear up a bit?

Nope, all I want to do is to try to cautiously avoid and minimize any impact human's have that might tend to increase the rate of change..either hotter or colder. Its those potentially avoidable "quick changes" that cost us so dearly in so many ways.

I am also on the lookout for any corresponding benefits that might tend to clean up the air and the water (green energy), reduce our costs on energy while improving its availability (improved technology and conservation), reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move us to more sustainable methods of living all around....you know...little stuff...

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Nope, all I want to do is to try to minimize any impact human's have that might tend to increase the rate of change..either hotter or colder. I am also on the lookout for any corresponding benefits that might tend to clean up the air and the water, reduce our costs on energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move us to more sustainable methods of living all around....you know...little stuff...

So, we just went through 5 threads, 3045 posts, and countless hours, for you to agree with me? One need not believe in manmade global warming to want those things, as well. .

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

So, we just went through 5 threads, 3045 posts, and countless hours, for you to agree with me? One need not believe in manmade global warming to want those things, as well. .

We don't base our science on whether we need to believe or not silly man...it either is worth reacting to, or it isn't.....

[Pok-a-tok]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

So, we just went through 5 threads, 3045 posts, and countless hours, for you to agree with me? One need not believe in manmade global warming to want those things, as well. .

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

We don't base our science on whether we need to believe or not silly man...it either is worth reacting to, or it isn't.....

You don't have to react to manmade global warming in order to reduce dependency on foreign oil, reduce air pollution, reduce enery costs, or move to more sustainable energy options. There are a whole boatload of reasons for wanting to do that, starting with $$,