TCS Daily


Green Policies, Rather Than a Warming Planet, Will Cause More Death

By Roger Bate - October 30, 2007 12:00 AM

There is little more annoying for a policy analyst than when two types of wrong-headedness conspire to undermine his case. Such is the case for policies driven by the pursuit of a pesticide free -- or at least pesticide diminished -- future, which will cause an increase in insect-borne disease. When this happens, as it surely will, climate alarmists will claim it's due to your greenhouse gas emissions, not their policies, and will press for more stringent controls.

In mid-October, former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change campaigning. Two weeks later the United Nations Environment Program published its Global Environment Outlook, claiming the world was running headlong toward disaster by ignoring environmental problems, particularly climate change. Both announcements made numerous headlines, prompting myriad politicians to show off their green awareness and commitment.

Indeed, the same week the UN report was causing such hand-wringing, Members of the European Parliament were urged by environmental groups and Green MEPs to mandate lower pesticide use across Europe. The Pesticide Action Network Europe argues that children are most vulnerable to pesticide exposure and -- with laughable specificity given the paucity of data of any harm from such exposure -- claims children are 164 times more at risk from up to 13 organophosphate pesticides than adults.

Hiltrud Breyer, a German Green MEP, said that at 260,000 tonnes per year, Europe accounts for 25% of the world's consumption of pesticides. "We should show the red card to dangerous substances such as those which cause cancer", she said. "People in Europe don't want poison on their tables".

Breyer actually prepared the MEP's environment committee's official stance on the subject, in response to the European Commission's proposals to halve pesticide use. Inevitably, MEPs agreed to numerous measures that will make it harder to use pesticides in future. MEPs supported a general ban on aerial spraying of pesticides and heavy restrictions on the use of them near schools, playgrounds, parks, recreation grounds and hospitals.

In their well-meant desire to eliminate potential risks, MEPs have overlooked a stone-cold certainty. Infections carried by insects, especially malaria, are mankind's most successful killers. And unfortunately US officials preceded their European counterparts in ignoring the signals. When West Nile Virus arrived in New York around 1999, probably carried by a bird which had been bitten by a mosquito, widespread insecticide spraying of New York state, Connecticut and New Jersey would probably have controlled the disease. Instead, officials dithered, as environmental groups protested, arguing spraying was more dangerous than the disease. West Nile virus has now spread to every state in the union (except Hawaii and Alaska). Over 700 people have died from the disease. Meanwhile, the only people who die from pesticides are those who use them recklessly or deliberately drink it to commit suicide; the same as can be said for kitchen cleaner.

Meanwhile, mosquito experts remind us that mosquitoes can survive almost anywhere. Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris gave written evidence to the British House of Lords of a malaria epidemic in the Soviet Union in the 1920s which had a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. Professor Reiter insists that the principal factors involved in the alarming increase in malaria are deforestation, new agricultural practices, population increase, urbanization, poverty, civil conflict, war, AIDS, resistance to anti-malarials, and resistance to insecticides, not climate - worrying about the weather is a tragic distraction.

Donald Roberts, emeritus professor of tropical disease at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, in evidence to a Senate Committee hearing in October, tried to explain these real risks. But the chairman Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was only interested in hearing how a warmer world would bring more disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Some MEPs and US legislators are surely old enough to remember that malaria persisted in many parts of Europe and US until the advent of DDT. One of the last malarious countries in Europe was Holland: the WHO finally declared it malaria-free in 1970. Unlike West Nile virus, malaria is easily spread among humans. Outbreaks are occurring with increasing frequency (notably in Virginia) and we may be neutralizing our capacity to protect ourselves.

Green self-fulfilling prophecies are upon us. Unless we expose them today, we will suffer at the hands of more dangerous policies in the future.


Categories:

176 Comments

Here is an idea...
how about basing one's "environmentalism" on scientific fact rather than some "Gaia" nonsense?

It is too bad that today's, and yesterday's, environmental movements are so intertwined with Marxist dogma. How many people have I heard, in the liberal town I work in, make comments about humans being a "virus" or "cancer". It makes no sense considering that we are a product of nature as is all of our works.

Natural is not equal to safe, or is it?
"Perhaps one of the most telling arguments against the 'natural equals safe, man-made equals dangerous' view of foods is the one put forward by Bruce Ames and colleagues. Fundamental to the safety assessment of any potentially toxic substance is the maxim attributed to Paracelsus, that the effects on the body of any substance, good or bad, depend on the dose. Ames pointed out that if the same precautionary criteria that are used to set pesticide safety levels — toxicological data, including tests on rodents for carcinogenicity — were applied to the natural toxins in plants that have evolved to deter predators, many foods would be deemed unsafe. For example, potatoes, grilled food and peanuts would be banned if they underwent the same kind of scrutiny as pesticide residues.

According to Ames, half of the natural toxins that have been tested (most have not) are rodent carcinogens, and each year the average American consumes about 10,000 times more of these natural pesticides than of synthetic residues. A single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal at least to a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. The organic sector has claimed that its produce is lower in synthetic residues (fewer pesticides are used) but higher in natural toxins. From Ames's line of argument, consumers of organic produce may well be trading a minute amount of synthetic residue for equally — if not more — dangerous natural pesticides. This should, of course, be kept in perspective: any potentially detrimental effect of natural pesticides or synthetic pesticide residues is far outweighed by the health benefits of consuming five portions of fruit and vegetables per day."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415117a.html

" About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant food are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators.

We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues."

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/

To Texcatlipoca
The post above was not meant as a reply to yours and I agree with you.

Too funny
This is a surprise to who?? Every person with brains enough, and motivation enough, knows about the total misinformation campaign that created the DDT ban, the CFC ban and the several other notable, rediculous, policies.

Self-fullfilling prophicies? If the changes in forest manaqgement techniques in the 70s, 80s and 90s isn't a perfect example of it, nothing is.
What where those policies? First they set up wildlands and winderness designated areas, then they stop logging (and any type of forest management) on as much of the "public lands" as they can, then they designate large areas as roadless, and push hard for "let it burn" policies in these "wild" areas (many of which are within 20 miles of private lands and towns). Finally, when conditions are right, we have massive firestorms, all of which they will blame on logging and previous fire suppression policies. Remember, the enviros claimed in the late 70s and early 80s that we would have these kinds of catestrophic fires if we didn't let some of these areas burn naturally. So we let 'em burn and bingo, just what they predicted! Aren't they ever so smart!

That's not the only one
Greenpeace has been trying to get chlorine banned just about everywhere its used. They had some success in Peru a number of years ago when they persuaded the national government to suspend or not introduce chlorinated water supplies in some rural areas. The result in less than three years was a cholera outbreak.

Well
Yersinia pestis (bubonic plaque), variola veria (smallpox) and poliomyelitis are all natural, but their safety is somewhat questionable. Incredibly a few Greens actually tried to argue a case for not exterminating the last laboratory specimens of variola about 10 years ago.

Not the first time I've heard the Greens in favor of germ warfare.

No Subject
"Such is the case for policies driven by the pursuit of a pesticide free -- or at least pesticide diminished -- future, which will cause an increase in insect-borne disease. When this happens, as it surely will, climate alarmists will claim it's due to your greenhouse gas emissions, not their policies, and will press for more stringent controls."

Our actions often have unexpected consequences. Pesticide application is designed to disrupt the endocrine systems that regulate all life. There is no good reason to expect this will somehow target only species we consider to be pests. Novel organophosphate compounds not previously encountered by any living organism mimic natural hormones, making living systems obey commands they should disregard, and do weird things.

Like die. Or make female babies instead of the normal gender ratio. Or, in the case of honeybees, become disoriented and prone to opportunistic infections, in a syndrome very much like human AIDS. We shouldn't blame the compounds-- they're only doing what we designed them to do.

Only there's a ripple effect when they spread widely in the environment. No bees means no flowering plants. Thus no pollinated fruits or vegetables. But we can still live on wind-pollinated crops-- that is, on corn, soy and canola. Spring won't look like much though.

In an effort to control West Nile virus we have inundated the suburbs with truck-sprayed poisons. As a result, we still have the virus. But many fewer bees and birds. Those species that can mount effective genetic defenses will survive. Those that won't won't be around in the world to come.

Creatures low on the food chain-- the bugs and microbes-- will have the natural advantage. Those at the top of the food chain-- birds mammals and ourselves-- won't.

As our insect infestation multiplies, the temptation will be to use pesticides in ever greater quantities to try to control the results. A major contributor to their multiplication is the replacement of diverse natural environments with engineered monocultures-- large factory farms.

As the earth wamrs, tropical insects are now migrating to the subtropics. Subtropical insects are showing up in temperate zones. With more areas becoming frost-free or nearly so, there will BE more bugs. Count on it.

If your answer is to pour on more bug spray, fine. That means no more songbirds. They eat the bugs and the poisons accumulate, just like the mercury in the sky ends up in the tuna, at the top of the food chain.

All our actions have consequences. We have to decide which of them are the least dire at this point. And then live with our decisions.

It wasn't the Greens who were responsible
Check your history book. It wasn't the Greens who saved the last smallpox cultures from incineration. It was the Klingons.

Klingons from both the USA and the USSR argued, effectively, that if they eliminated all their samples the other side would secretly save some, and infect the world with bugs we could not culture a vaccine for.

So both sides secretly saved some.

Klingons???
Glad we cleared that one up.

No Subject
"Our actions often have unexpected consequences. Pesticide application is designed to disrupt the endocrine systems that regulate all life. There is no good reason to expect this will somehow target only species we consider to be pests. "

Oh no how about the fact that we have been able to show harm from them after all these years?

Natural hormones
I have heard there is so much estrogen from birth control medication being passed through the sewage system into the seas that aquatic life is being affected.

Better ban birth control and all the other pharmacueticals people 'p*ss' down the drain.

Small Pox
There you go again. Thinking man can control nature.

If man did not create small pox how could he destroy it?

If we think it has been destroyed, what will take its place?

Small pox and any other dangerous virus should be kept for analysis in case it's cousins mutate into something more deadly.

So well all suffer?
Rachel Carlson's book was based upon faulty science. DDT never caused the problems claimed and the primary problem was over application, not usage in a prudent manner.

Ia m always amazed how the Green Left wants to push back all the advances in science ti mitigate risk to every other species EXCEPT man. it is like we are expendable cancer as opposed to a part of the picture.

I had not heard that the bee virus was our fault to, is there anything we don't get blame for?

Well as that Clinton braniac of medical knowledge, J. Elders stated;
"We may all die of something eventually"

Illogical stuff
"Our actions often have unexpected consequences. Pesticide application is designed to disrupt the endocrine systems that regulate all life. There is no good reason to expect this will somehow target only species we consider to be pests."

DDT saved people's lives. Birds got hurt. Save people or save birds? The Greens' answer: "Birds."

"In an effort to control West Nile virus we have inundated the suburbs with truck-sprayed poisons. As a result, we still have the virus. But many fewer bees and birds."

Sans the truck sprayed poisons in the suburbs, what percentage of all the birds and bees alive in creation would be living in the suburbs? In large part, your answer will depend on geography, which dictates that the suburbs cover a marginal fraction of the habitats of birds and bees. But one can't say the same of the suburbs and people, hey?

"As our insect infestation multiplies, the temptation will be to use pesticides in ever greater quantities to try to control the results. A major contributor to their multiplication is the replacement of diverse natural environments with engineered monocultures-- large factory farms."

I see disturbing (actually enlightening) similarities between attempting to control the climate and attempting to control other "diverse natural environments". Don't you?

"As the earth wamrs, tropical insects are now migrating to the subtropics. Subtropical insects are showing up in temperate zones. With more areas becoming frost-free or nearly so, there will BE more bugs. Count on it."

You must have conveniently missed the bit about the malaria in Arkangelsk - you know, that city up by the Arctic Circle?

"If your answer is to pour on more bug spray, fine. That means no more songbirds. They eat the bugs and the poisons accumulate, just like the mercury in the sky ends up in the tuna, at the top of the food chain."

If a songbird sings in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it sing?

"All our actions have consequences. We have to decide which of them are the least dire at this point. And then live with our decisions."

DDT saved people's lives. Songbirds got hurt. Save people or save songbirds? The Greens' answer: "Songbirds." My, my, my, what a dire decision. Good thing so many people don't have to live with it.

'no good reason"
That statement of yours is nonsense, it's not scientific and you can't know that anyway. You also can't know that there will be no more songbirds or bees. It's just more boring scare mongering.

what if...
What if the greens are fully aware (as I'm convinced they are, at least the leadership) of the consequences on human health and life expectancy of their policies?

To them the increased deaths from disease and decreasing food production (leading to increasing death from starvation) are actually a GOOD thing, as they lead to a decline in human population.
And that's their holy grail, the eventual near extermination (excluding themselves of course, the Chosen Few) of the human race.

more damning yet
Activists are violently opposed to many "manmade" chemicals which are chemically identical to chemicals found in nature that occur naturally in the human diet (or in their "alternative medicine").

I've heard people argue violently against the use of aspirin for example, while advocating tincture of birch bark.
That tincture contains the same ingredients as does aspirin, plus a lot of highly toxic contaminants that can cause serious stomach and liver problems.

It's the same with "artificial" food colouring and flavouring, which often are factory produced versions of chemicals contained naturally in plants.
Use of the "natural" chemical (which again is chemically identical) they consider "safe", the "artificial" version is supposedly dangerous.

Kids, those chemicals carry no label. The body can't tell whether a molecule was created in a plant or a factory, and it doesn't care.

many greens would celebrate a massive die off of man
...

DDT
didn't cause problems with birds.

There was only a couple of studies that showed they did. They were badly flawed, perhaps deliberately.

why don't you try to get the science right?
"In an effort to control West Nile virus we have inundated the suburbs with truck-sprayed poisons. As a result, we still have the virus. But many fewer bees and birds. Those species that can mount effective genetic defenses will survive. Those that won't won't be around in the world to come."

As usual, roy doesn't know what he's talking about. The trucks were spraying pesticides, to kill mosquitos. If he can show that that birds were killed by it, I invite him to provide evidence.

"As the earth wamrs, tropical insects are now migrating to the subtropics. Subtropical insects are showing up in temperate zones. With more areas becoming frost-free or nearly so, there will BE more bugs. Count on it."

It's amazing how many myths roy can pack into a single paragraph.

1) It's been warmer in the recent past. Go back 10,000 years and it's been much warmer. If roy can actually demonstrate this huge migration of insects, I would be delighted to have him do so.
BTW, prior to this century, malaria was a common problem in New York state. It was the chemicals that roy wants to get rid of, that were responsible for it's eradication there.

Yes, I have read that. I say we accomodate them by moving them to the swamps.
...

To all
Thank you very much for your well intended comments. Pardon me if I respond to you collectively, as you all represent a single point of view.

The discussion would be much better served if your position wasn't so simplistic. Everyone seems to share a vehemence toward the envitronment, as though the choice was simply EITHER humans OR the world. That's not the way it is.

We live in the world. It is our home. A wise animal doesn't foul his own nest.

Our livelihood depends on the earth's continued good health. And our reckless disregard of the planet is putting it, and us, in an increasingly precarious position. A wise use policy benefits humanity.

Pesticides generally, and DDT in particular, are useful to us when applied in moderation and targeted toward specific pests. There are few in the "green" community that would disagree-- although I'm sure some of you will waste time searching for those few to shove in my face.

Intelligent opinion everywhere recommends that malaria be addressed in most regions where it is endemic (there are a couple of exceptions) by the indoor residual spraying of DDT. The WHO recommends this, as do nearly every national and international authority. It is so used today. That's a fact, and can be readily checked. No one is taking your DDT away from you.

Mr Bate knows this but will never admit as much. His career, apparently, depends on his being a stalking horse for the unrestricted use of DDT in saturation doses, in a wide range of applications. That use has been found through generations of research to be counterproductive. The target species develop immunities, to the point that the tool is no longer a useful one... while the nontarget species suffer serious disruption.

At present, Colony Collapse Disorder is sudden, widespread and dire for honeybees-- one species upon which man is quite dependent. It's not a tradeoff between them or us. We need them. Without bee pollination, the majority of fruit and vegetable crops that fill our grocery shelves become increasingly untenable for agriculture.

As has already been found in China, where unrestricted use of broad-spectrum insecticides has rendered the bees extinct. I know none of you will probably bother downloading and watching this program. But you should see it, if you are to present yourselves as knowledgable people whose opinion counts for more than two cents:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bees/impact.html

Colony Collapse Disorder may be virus or may not. They just don't know
"Scientists Thursday identified a virus as one of the probable causes of the recent wave of honeybee colony collapses across the country."

"The team of scientists who authored the paper emphasized that they have begun to unlock the puzzle but have yet to determine exactly what causes a colony's abrupt decline"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/10/virus_may_cause_bee_colonies_to_collapse/

Just another example of humans screwing up nature. If humans hadn't weakened the bees via genetic manipulation they would be able to resist the virus.

Then again, only the weak bees are being killed by the virus and the strong will survive.

How do you innoculate bees from a virus?

It's not just the virus
I applaud your actually going to the well and trying to learn something about the subject. However humans have not "weakened the bees via genetic manipulation". Domestic bee colonies suffer stress from being moved around by truck throughout the pollination season. But otherwise they're similar to wild bees-- both are genetically similar and both are subject to the disorder, in varying degrees.

Further, there is yet no basis in believing that "the strong will survive". The disorder is still spreading. We don't know when or whether it will stop. But we do know that it has wiped out ALL bees in at least one area that has seen widespread overuse of chemical sprays. So at this point in time there is genuine cause for alarm.

A compilation of all studies reveals that the virus is not "the cause", but more probably a consequence of the disorder, which has an etiology similar to human AIDS.

That is, the sydrome weakens the honeybees' immune system. As a result, two things happen. First they become prey to all sorts of opportunistic infections-- such as the virus. Second, they leave the hive. They are programmed to do so when ill, so as not to infect the rest of the hive.

Only all are infected, and all leave. Significantly, the honey left behind is generally shunned by opportunists who normally would pounce on this nutritious food. There's something wrong with it.

The reason the virus is not considered to be "the cause" is that the virus is present in many, but not all, of the collapsed colonies. At best it is a cofactor.

Watch the program, will you?

To you
>"The discussion would be much better served if your position wasn't so simplistic. Everyone seems to share a vehemence toward the envitronment, as though the choice was simply EITHER humans OR the world. That's not the way it is."

If this is your interpretation then you are on par with LeMule for reading comprehension.

I stated that environmentalism should be science based and not based on the religious context of "Gaia". Environmental policy as it stands today is motivated more by feel good propaganda rather than hard science.

To state that "everyone seems to share a vehemence towards the environment" shows your own zealotry in this matter.

While you believe yourself to be the voice above it all you are really just the guy on the street corner yelling "the end is nigh!"

It's all the fault of N A Z I S and their deliberately-created AGW.
*

"If you die,
you're missing out on a big part of your life."

~ Brooke Shields

Those at "Earth First"
mean it.

Outcomes
The outcomes mendacity generates, as well as the inclination to embrace it over all other truths, are of interest here.

Choices
"I stated that environmentalism should be science based and not based on the religious context of "Gaia". Environmental policy as it stands today is motivated more by feel good propaganda rather than hard science."

If that's your definition of "environmentalism", fine. It's a private definition, not shared by the general public. But I can agree with you that propagandists and zealots on all sidxes of the question should simply be disregarded.

Now that the word is taken, what word would you propose that we use for realists who think choices must be made when products of our technology do damage to the natural world? Or do you think such a thing ever happens?

Would you think there were ever situations where compromise might be in order? For example, that if we find our best, unbiased science is telling us fish stocks are being depleted beyond sustainable levels that we ought to agree on a set of rules that limits everyone's catch?

Or if we come to find that pesticide use, under the existing rules, is linked with the end of honeybees, or with a sharp loss in species diversity (as in the Colombian backlands) should we then think about imposing more severe limits on use?

We have conquered the world. Now it's up to us to manage it responsibly, for the sake of future generations. Agree? Or disagree.

Who made you an expert on this??
>Environmental policy as it stands today is motivated more by feel good propaganda rather than hard science.

Whereas your position is based on deep knowledge of the details of current research? This from the guy who doesn't know high-school chemistry? And anyone who disagrees is a fuzzy-headed Gaia worshipper? Give us all a break.

"manage it responsibly,"
Free markets have proven to be the best method to manage anything responsibly.

Guaranteed private property rights have been proven to manage any resource.

Free market in ozone??
Please say how this will work in the case of air pollution

>Guaranteed private property rights have been proven to manage any resource.

Return ownership of the air to individuals.
You own the air above your land and have the right to sue anyone who pollutes your air.

It's pretty obvious governments are doing a poor job of controlling pollution.

Eliminate O3 sources.
Electric cars, theaircar.com, hydrogen fueled cars don't create O3.

Why does the government restrict competition in autos?

So everyone sues everyone else???
Why didn't I think of that? This is so clever. Except:

So how to you know that it was my car and not Charlie T. from up the street that polluted your air? How much did I contribute cmpared to Charlie. Compared to Leo T. I had a different car three years ago - you're going to figure that in? How? And how does that create technology that cleans it up.

YOu're kidding, right???

>It's pretty obvious governments are doing a poor job of controlling pollution.
compared to who? to what? Where?

So help us out here
We'd have lots and lots of electric cars and much cleaner air if it weren't for the government? HOw???

Think outside the box.
Try a little imagination.

Government regs weigh on electric cars
"T'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT a consumer-acceptable electric vehicle could be built - and sold for a reasonable price, too. (Another of the EV-1's problems, also related to federal ukases, was its $32k price tag -- an amount equivalent to the cost of an entry-luxury sport sedan such as a new BMW 3-Series.) However, it would first be necessary for Washington to call off the DOT/NHTSA dogs, or at least grant an exemption of some kind for electric vehicles. Maybe let people considering an electric choose whether to equip their vehicle with air bags, for example in order to eke another 20 miles of range out of the thing. This would also help lower the price of the cars, too -- a further inducement to buy.

They might be less safe. But they would probably sell.

Which matters more: A theoretical higher risk of injury in a crash that may never happen? Or consumer-acceptable electric cars?

Don't look for that to happen, though. Washington values its power and prerogatives more than it cares about "promoting alternative technologies" -- including the electric car. GM and other automakers working to develop electric vehicles did all they could. But there's only so much they could do with one arm tied behind their back -- and 500 or so extra pounds of deadweight per vehicle wrapped around their necks."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11738

expert like you?
Remember, many people have already pointed out to you that you also comment on many topics that you're not an expert one. But even that's OK, a person doesn't have to be expert to have an opinion. And we have also determined that expert people are also biased one way or the other. So this expert thing is a phony argument. Indeed, also, when a person is an expert, and you don't agree with him, then you resort to other phony put-downs like your favorite, the ad hominem argument. For example, I myself am a military expert but you discount my insights because you happen to have been on the side of my enemies.

Good News!! It is now lucky to be captured by the Americans!
Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq!!!

From Michael Yon, reporter:
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,” according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.

I don't claim to be an expert. I listen to them.
And the National Academy of Sciences are not a collection of Gaia worshipping socialists intent on creating world government, as certain paranoid loons here keep saying or hinting.

>And we have also determined that expert people are also biased one way or the other.
Which experts? The ones on the NAS are biased in favor of good science, rather than politically determined public relations. Is there some reason y ou have a bias against science.

>I myself am a military expert but you discount my insights because you happen to have been on the side of my enemies.
I don't discount your military expertise at all. I do reject it when a former Quisling soldier who killed his own countrymen for HItler makes moral judgments, particularaly racially tinged moral judgments, as you seem prone to do.

You really have no idea at all, do you.
I mean, the problem is obvious. "try a little imagination" is not a solution.

Goverenment regs weigh on power production too
End pollution requirements and you'd fet more juice. Who needs to breath?

I gave you the solution.
You just can't imagine how it could be done.

It requires a paradigm shift from government control to something you just can't comprehend, liberty.

You gave a libertarian formula; I pointed out the practical difficulties
And you simply dismissed them out of hand. "Just need a little imagination." OK, get your imagination revved up & tell us how it could be done, in more detail that "people own air rights."

racist expert?
You must be talking about some other Dietmar who fought for hitler for racist ideas; I'm the one who was fighting commies who were trying to take over my country. The germans just gave us free ammo, and said, oh by they way, we'll kill you if you don't.
So re experts, that's what I mean, you don't appear to be an expert of anything but simply use the crappy technic of refering to those who you happen to agree with, but you bad mouth ALL those real experts you don't.

I'm talking about you
...the guy who keeps blaming dark people for being poor, miserable, violent, etc. As for fighting the commies who were trying to take over your country, the commies are gone so why can't you go home to 'your country?

> you don't appear to be an expert of anything but simply use the crappy technic of refering to those who you happen to agree with, but you bad mouth ALL those real experts you don't.

ALL what "real experts?" PR agents hired by people with political agendas?? In climate change, you have the National Academy of Sciences and the AGU on one side, but you're sure that they're not really experts. Sure they aren't. Just like you really weren't fighting for Hitler.

How do you protect your property rights now?
Oh, that's right, you don't believe in individual property rights, only collective ones.

It is interesting how the music industry can enforce their property rights.

And it is interesting how Elvis is still making money on his music.

TCS Daily Archives