Reality bits; If it weren't for the spotted owl fallacy I would probably still be in my original career of tree harvesting, instead of the oilfield. I still have both arms, but I did lose part of a toe one time. LOL

One should recall that the ban on DDT was the result of a bi-partisan effort, which began over a year before Rachael Carson's book was ever published. The initial concern was not birds, but the run-off into the Great Lakes and our river system, nearly destroying the fishing industry. It was not until some time later that the dangers to people were recognized when elevated levels were discovered in human tissue.

Not sure that banning DDT was a bipartisan effort; Silent Spring came out in 1962, but DDT was banned in 1972, a decade later.

For this I am indebted to the wikipedia article, which also states

It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[34] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.

The article goes on to cite studies searching for correlations between cancer and DDT, and found some correlation, but also some studies that were inconclusive. But any toxicological study shows some correlation; one toxicologist once said that the first rule of his discipline is the dosage. (And there's a horse to beat over innate carcinogens in bug-proof celery, but another day.)

And let's never forget that substituting correlation for causation has caused more mischief than any other single logical fallacy, from fake science to murderous religions to, er, fake science murderous secular religions like this one. Occam's Razor shaves very close indeed, if one has the courage to use it.

Elevated levels do not therefore necessarily mean harm to people, and one could take the stance that little was hurt in banning DDT in the US and first-world countries for mosquitoes had largely been controlled by advanced technological means. But banning DDT, far and away the most effective insecticide, in terms of use and affordability--if you can't afford it, it's of no use--in the third world was frivolous at best, and I consider it vicious.

(There is much to be said about the self indulgent sentimentality of rich spoiled people and its effects on the poor. And the price of absolutism.)

I consider myself middle of the road when it comes to political issues. I lean towards the right on some issues and to the left on others.

That being said, I've just got to give my relatively unbiased opinion in saysing this blog is poorly written and doesn't seem to be much more than incoherent rambling on in a poor attempt to demonize those with liberal views on political issues.

I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. I voted Republican in the last two Presidential Elections. But to compare Al Gore in any way shape or form to Adolf Hitler is such a pathetic stretch that it turns what I'm sure the author percieved as an educated, informed article into a comical, ridiculous, partisan rant.

When it comes to the most debated political issues, there are very few, if any, absolutes. There are good aspects as well as bad aspect of both the left and right stances on any issue. It's ok to disagree, but don't immediatly assume that the side oposite of yours is evil. There are fanatics on both sides of the ball.

Don't make yourself look foolish by saying that people who care about the future of our plannet are wanting to starve people in Mexico. Bottom line is that corn is a renewable resource that doesn't produce harmful carbons that erode our atmosphere. There are very few draw backs, if any that I'm aware of, of ethinal as a fuel.

Educated you may be, a good writer, you're not.

I'm curious "in the middle" why you voted Republican in the last two elections ?

What , exactly , inspired you to cast your vote for Bush when you can lean right or left on the issues you choose ?

Middle of the road is the same as fence sitting , and sooner or later, you've got to take a stand. Then where will you be ?

This man's opinion is , one who sits the fence to appear in the middle of the road is just trying to buy themselves some time to address the issues so they can come to some sort of conclusion they can FEEL good about...but then of course , they seldom do...address the issues , that is .

There are very few draw backs, if any that I'm aware of, of ethinal as a fuel.

In the middle, I see starving people as a drawback to using ethanol.

Let's take a non-ideological view of the various stances that I talked about above. Disregard the reasons--the liberation of the working classes, the preservation of the planet--one can say much about them. And let's not forget that Hitler, although leader of the National Socialist Workers' Party, was standing on the shoulders of right-wing reactionaries after Germany's defeat in WWI. They were the ones who destroyed the Weimar Republic, which was actually liberal, in the best possible sense.

I wrote this about DEATH. Any window-dressing about reasons or goals or salvation, either religious or secular, are by definition eschatological (end of the world) and of only personal importance if one is concerned with whether people are living right now. I have been accused of utilitarianism and it's true that I do tend to take a bottom-line view. To me the major test of all these ideologies is that they wound up killing people.

I don't care what the governmental system is, if it starves people or kills people, it's a death cult. And the death cults of the last hundred years have all been, ultimately, leftist ones.

Let's also think about "people who care about the future of our plannet." This is begging the question. It assumes that the planet is warming (when it is not as the last year's results have shown), that mankind can do something significant about it, and that we ought to. Let's also ignore that rather, er, nasty messianic and self-congratulatory sense. Also I did not say that people who care about the planet, their stated reason for their activism, wanted to starve people. I said that they are starving people. Marxism was a valid theory until it was disproved, and when it was, it did not go away but was changed, making it a murderous ideology. If the greenies had, on learning that there was in fact very little if any global warming, sighed with relief and gone away, I'd have some respect for them. Instead they rebranded their interference as climate change, as nebulous as a sponge, and are refusing to see that they are killing people for it. This is evil.

It is the simplest of syllogisms to show that a farmer, seeking the highest price for his corn, is selling it to make greenies happy instead of feeding hungry people.

I am, quite sincerely, glad that you argued with me. But please refute my points instead of stating a green platitude. As I have said to Pandora, and Jill and others, I can be wrong.

The problem with being a conservative is that it is dour, small-minded, pessimistic, and mean.

It is also, unfortunately, realistic and mature. I quit believing in Santa Clause decades ago.

"It assumes that the planet is warming (when it is not as the last year's results have shown)"

This comment by you sums it up for me. Do you honestly believe this???? When virtually every scientist in the world, not on the payroll of a special interest group, has agreed that global warming is very real.
Sooner or later you're going to have to address the 2 ton elephant sitting in the living room. (a stinky, sweating elephant because of global warming)
And to clarify my political stance, I lean left on some issues and right on others. I take the stance I agree with. As I stated, you don't have to lean to the absolute left or right on all the issues. If there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans have in common it's the arrogant belief that they are the only two groups in the world and that you either fall under one or the other.
New's flash, approx 48% of Americans consider themselves, undecided, in the middle, or independent. It's not that we're afraid to choose a stance on an issue. It's that we know that to truely be responsible to our country as voters, we can't let a political party make our decisions for us. In my opinion, straight party voting options should be removed from all ballots in the U.S. One should have to vote specifically for each individual candidate.

This comment by you sums it up for me. Do you honestly believe this???? When virtually every scientist in the world, not on the payroll of a special interest group, has agreed that global warming is very real.

Ah. The old accusation that people who do not buy into your ideology are in the pay of someone else without offering evidence or reason of said interest.

There is a man named Bjorn Lomborg, an environmentalist who decided that the current hysteria was wrong, and who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist. He is respectable. But your claim that every scientist buys into it may be helped along by the MSM

If you have read any of my other posts, you'll find that I am in general a conservative, but I have thrown many brickbats at the Republicans. I have nothing but a visceral disgust for the Democrats as now constituted (excepting Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman) but have voted Republican only faute de mieux.

And back to the global-warming flap. Just what "special-interest groups" are paying scientists to be global-warming deniers? The major corporations, such as GE, are in it up to their elbows. Hear and believe: Big corporations have the wherewithal to buy the government that they want. And they do, they do, they do. And that's hardly a Republican stance by the way. But trading in carbon-credits is a nice little earner for a technologically advanced corporation, which is in much better position than say the dictator of a third-world country. And think of all the advertising brownie points to be made: witness that witless Suburu commercial saying nothing about the cars but entirely too much about the plant that makes them. This is praising the box.

There are people who once were scientists who are clamoring for global warming because there is money to be had in grants to prove the same--sensationalist work indistinguishable in its dishonesty from any of Michael Moore's work.

But let's forget polling scientists. Thermometers don't lie. The last year's data has undone nearly every single bit of global warming since records began, and that doesn't take into account that the thermometers are now in hotter conurbations.

Face the facts, In the Middle. It's lemming bait.