Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Rachel Carson and Her Fantasy Environmentalism: Killing Kids Every day to the tune of about 2000.

Subheadline: "Numerous deaths" Rachel caused in her misguided evangelism = 40 MM. The Washington Post has a silly hagiographic article on Dr. Rachel Carson, whose perfervid misguided zeal may have caused the deaths of around 40 million people from malaria. [h/t: Forbes via Dr. Sanity] Not to be outdone in foolish twaddle, The New Yorker has an un-fact-checked rant about fire ants, evil oilmen, and underqualified EPA functionaries without ANY reference to the massive stupendous voc caused by her self-righteous crusade against DDT. TNY's main concern is with the Sopranos, and their Bolshie-retard helmsboy David Remnick actually DOES figure out Tony and the gang. The New Yorker is descending into frivolous nullity unless it publishes occasional brilliant pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg---a centrist Democrat.
Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring--the book that got mosquito-killer DDT banned and launched the modern environmental movement--while struggling with cancer. The disease killed Carson in 1964, two years after Silent Spring came out.

Today's Washington Post has a story on Carson--whose 100th birth anniversary occurs later this month--and her noble fight against cancer. A touching piece.

But maddening, too! Because in the story's 34 paragraphs, there are only a buried pair, the 26th and 27th, that note the ongoing controversy about DDT's ban.

[Note: the insipid drivel in The New Yorker does not even mention the controversy---that would be a fact, and have to be checked.]

A Maryland Congressman (evil Republican, of course ... wink, wink) is quoted as saying that malaria deaths might have been prevented had DDT not been banned. That happens to be true. DDT kills mosquitoes, which carry malaria, which was all but eradicated before DDT was banned.

Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year. Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that.

And all The Washington Post can say is "numerous?"

That's scandalous.

Dr. Sanity goes on with a riff on the Forbes piece above:
I would term it "outrageous"; as well as thoroughly disgusting, but typical of a certain mindset.

The unintended consequences ushered in by the do-gooders--who always know what's best for us hapless humans--are almost always devastating and destructive when policy is dictated by hysteria and a reliance on fear (or other feelings), rather than on reality. They mean well, after all. It isn't their fault that reality gets in the way of their implementation of utopian policies!

[Jimmy Carter and Iran/Afghanistan/Camp David is the prime example of these do-good's foolish hypocritical self-righteous narrow-minded focus on symbolic semaphores.]
It isn't their fault that the environment is a complex system! They only mean the best for us. For decades these pathetic illuminati have sought to escape responsibility for the consequences of their fantasies. The world is littered with the corpses and awash in the tears of the people who they have "helped". Fantasy environmentalism is only one of a series of strategies they have fallen back on as they reassert their socialist ideology and attempt to chain all of humanity to its domination.

Ask yourself how Al Gore's obsession has become required classroom reading. And how our children are being indoctrinated right this moment in the K-12 classrooms into the holy rituals of the environmental histrionics.....

We can all thank Rachel Carson for starting the trend, or "How a courageous woman took on the chemical industry and raised important questions about humankind's impact on nature. "

None of her followers today will courageously look at--let alone raise--the important questions about the human results of their political impact, will they?

Those who promulgate these environmental fantasies conveniently forget the environmental disasters that socialist and communist paradises in the world have presided over in the last 50 years or so. They ignore real data about the fact that the rise in CO2 emissions is almost exclusively the result of the backward and primitive cultures they idealize in their nature worship; and instead prefer to blame America and capitalism.

The fundamental goal of these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming; instead, it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life. The solution lies in technical advances to help humans adapt to climate change. Not to kill off the humans in order to save the planet.

If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. What they really want is power over people.

Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive), insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs--a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for). Neither represents real science.

Some final ruminations by Dr. Sanity on the inane and practically insane self-referential certitude the anthropogenic Global Warming gurus exude:
....the world has been colder than it is now, and it has also been warmer — presumably considerably warmer at times. Regardless of the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in global climate that far exceed any changes in temperature that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

It’s too early to identify the effects that the human activity has on global temperatures; serious and reliable data have only been available for a micro-instant in climatological terms. The apocalyptic stampede by the cognoscenti to embrace Kyoto and destroy the world’s economy is one of the more foolhardy ideas to come down the pike. But the elites are certain that Global Warming is Truth; all else is Heresy.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious caliphate international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Perhaps that is why they have consciously and deliberately joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.

Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the utopian agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!


Rick said...

Well stated.
When the fog clears, Ms. Carson will be the largest mass murderer in history. They are trying to name a bridge after her here in Pittsburgh. She was a well intended (useful idiot) banker from a Pittsburgh suburb.
Gore is going to become a billionaire selling carbon offsets to other caring fools. People really want to be sheeple me thinks.

ian said...

You may both want to match your rather received 'wisdom' rants up againts some 'other' truths:

FROM BRITANNICA ONLINE: "In 1939 DDT's toxicity to a wide variety of insects was discovered (by Paul Hermann Müller, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work) and effectively used against many disease vectors. By the 1960s, many species of insects had developed populations resistant to DDT; meanwhile, this highly stable compound was accumulating along the food chain and having toxic effects on various birds and fishes. During the 1960s it and similar chemicals were found to have severely reduced the populations of certain birds, including the bald eagle."

"REGULATORY STATUS: DDT is no longer registered for use in the United States, although it is still used in other (primarily tropical) countries. It is in EPA Toxicity Class II, moderately toxic (72). DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972, and remains banned barring public health emergency (e.g., outbreak of malaria) (73)." SEE: http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm

Recommended reading: http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm, (partic. for stats on mozzie acquired tolerance to DDT) or Joshua Buhs' tightly-written 2005 book The Fire Ant Wars (which is in large part the chronicle of one US dept preserving its funding from the impact of improved science conducted at another). . .

I don't recall Spring railing against all use of all chemicals, just organochlorides, the indiscriminate use of pesticides, and willfully ignoring manifest ecological consequences in pursuit of human gain or minimal outlay. . .


One popular controversy involves claims that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control, imposed by various national governments, donor countries and international aid agencies, in response to pressure from environmentalists, has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. Claims of this kind commonly include reference to a ban on DDT (although it is still in use in malaria control) and refer specifically to the 1972 US ban, with the implication that this constituted a worldwide ban, and to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. This international ban is supposed to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths according to Nicholas Kristof.[21] In the fiction novel State of Fear:, popular author Michael Crichton states through the character John Kenner:

Since the supposed ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.[22]

However, this claim is countered by the fact that insects were becoming tolerant of DDT at the time that it was banned. One of the claims is that the ban shows a lack of compassion for sufferers in the Third World: treatments were used long enough to eliminate insect-borne diseases in the West, but now that it is only needed in poorer nations in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, it has been banned. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, argues that the epidemic of malaria in Africa not only takes the lives of 2 million people a year, but leaves those who survive malaria unable to contribute to the economy while sick and more vulnerable to subsequent diseases that might kill them. Many African resources are tied up with the sick or expended in caring for them, leaving the world's poorest countries even poorer.

However, DDT has never been banned for use against malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides.

On the other hand, environmental groups have been strongly criticized for trying to ban all use of DDT. Many environmentalist groups fought against the public health exception of DDT in the 2001 Stockholm Convention, against the objections of third world governments and many malaria researchers. "Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility and over 300 other environmental organizations advocated for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007 in some cases."[23] An article in Nature Medicine at this time strongly objected to what would have been a de facto ban and stated: "Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT for being "a current source of significant injury to...humans."[24]

Rick said...

“During the 1960s it and similar chemicals were found to have severely reduced the populations of certain birds, including the bald eagle."

Ian, this is simply a regurgitation of Carson’s ‘shoddy work and false conclusions’. You would make a point quoting the research in question? How odd! Raptor populations (as is the case with all wildlife populations) are dynamic in nature. We now know, looking backward, that raptor populations had declined to their lowest point at the very early part of the 20th century and were already robustly recovering by the time Carson was conducting her research. As an aside, it is an enormous gift to refer to that which she did as research. So, she was already working under a false premise. She concluded that DDT was causing a thinning of shells and that a low hatch rate, because of this, was causing the decline that was not happening at all. All of it was wrong. Period!! Would there not be a study out there now that demonstrates how much thicker egg shells are now that DDT has been banned? She was a researcher like Al gore is a researcher. Hysteria is not science. No?

You have either put a lot if effort into your comment or have done a lot of cutting and pasting. But, if your other “truths” are as factual as your lead example, you have wasted much effort indeed. However, it is after all, your effort to squander as you wish.

By the way, you cannot attempt to argue an intellectual position and use the word ‘Greenpeace’ in the same post. It doesn’t work. You know, like oil and water.

dave in boca said...

Rick, at least ian put some elbow grease and cut-and-paste into his reply. Cannot agree more about Greenpeace and science==oil/water, totally immissible.

A juvenile from LA tried to post a name-calling exercise which demonstrated the level Al Gore brings to any enviro-commentary---although it wasn't obscene, it did resemble a Kossack/DU refugee coming up for air. Clean air compared to the sub-basements they dwell in.

Rick said...

Laurie David claims in the bio on her site that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is based on "Al Gore's 30 years of research on global warming". When one contacts her from the site an automatic response is generated promising that they answer every e-mail but the staff is small, but will eventually get to answering yours etc. I have asked her twice to point me in the direction of Gore's 30 years of research. I am still waiting. This stuff is so hollow. It would be laughable if not for the enormous economic impact.
Dennis Miller was lamenting the fact that political correctness has made the country unrecognizable. He says he feels like Heston waking up in the middle of the field and chimps are riding all the ponies.

You have a nice site and an interesting style. I will drop by from time to time if you do not object.

dave in boca said...

Political correctness and the socialization fetish of American public schools run by AFTA and NEA have managed to produce a generation of illiterate illuminati incapable of "critical analysis," because conclusions arrived at might be "hurtful" to some minority or interest group.

The Sheryl Crow/Laurie David duo is just one example. Gore is a puddle of slush above the neck and an emo child alternately braying and bleating his received opinions.

Thirty years ago, "Global Cooling" was all the rage. AG's giant mental faculties squared that climate circle while inventing the "information superhighway" and the "lockbox."

Thanks for the compliment. Many of my rants are generated late at night or early in the morning and occasionally emit more heat than light.

I thought you might be my cousin Rick from Wisconsin, but I guess you're from elsewhere.

Rick said...

I am Rick from Pennsylvania. Note my reference to Pittsburgh and Ms. Carson.
I am one of Kerry's baby killers. I cut off ears; taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power; cut off limbs; razed villages in the fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan; shot cattle and dogs for fun and generally ravaged the country side of south Vietnam. You know, just your average conservative.

dave in boca said...

I was the New Life Development Chief in Vinh Long Province in the Delta after living nine months in Minh Duc village District capital. The two NLD Advisors before me were medevaced---one stepped on a mine set for 170 lbs and over on a paddy dike.

Crazy part of the whole deal was that I was on Gene McCarthy's nat'l staff at the Chicago Convention against the war, then got involved in shady politics and attendant crime, then got invited by State to become an FSO---so I studied Vietnamese for a year at the VTC & joined the Southeast Asian War Games [still have the back patch].

Kerry was a three-month three-wound wonder---that stooge still hasn't made his naval records available. What a crock of phony BS that guy concocts, along with B. Hussein Obama and fat Teddy. Now GWB has decided to play Abe Lincoln with immigration and lie down with these flea-bitten mutts.

rick said...

Actually, the only occasions we had to set foot in South Vietnam were to pick up orders in Da Nang. I just enjoy chanting the Kerry chant. What human flotsam he is. Twas a broad brush he used on all of us. We patrolled 15 miles southwest of Haiphong on a station called north S A R, (search and rescue) where our single roll was to pick up downed pilots. We lost an awful lot of air crews in 67 and 68 on raids over Hanoi. It was a very rewarding assignment personally.