PDA

View Full Version : Environment Climate gate scientist admits "no global warming since 1995"


Taco John
02-14-2010, 12:54 PM
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fXe6WHT1

mlyonsd
02-14-2010, 01:01 PM
Looks like we were heading for trouble until King Arthur implemented new green strategies.

orange
02-14-2010, 01:10 PM
What he REALLY said:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Much, much, MUCH more here, at the actual interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm


Just another repeat of the ongoing pattern - denier reporter gloms onto some point, lifts it out of context, conjures up a lying spin about it; denier blogs repost it en masse without question, without even the simplest fact checking like I just did in 20 seconds; there is Rumplestiltskin-dancing in the streets of denierdom; days later the realization sets in that nobody but the true-deniers gives the slightest damn about their claims UNTIL THEY CAN ACTUALLY BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE REAL DATA.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 01:16 PM
For what it is worth, "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" is a scientific term that means more than 95% likely to not have been caused by chance. In some cases it means more than 97% or 99% likely to not have been caused by chance.

Point is, the bar is set exceptionally high in science. So, hooray for science.

This is a complex issue, and there is little to gain from attempting to discredit all science, which many of those arguing against global warming seem to be trying to do.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 01:23 PM
Orange, you make a good point. I thought the reporting in this was pretty crappy. It's obviously British -- there's a sensationalist headline followed by details in the article that somewhat refute it.

SCIENTIST ADMITS NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 15 YEARS! "... Well, actually, warming is still the long-term trend."

IT WAS WARMER IN MEDIEVAL TIMES!! "Um, possibly, but there's no evidence that it was a global phenomenon. Boy, that'd be big news if it was -- although it can be explained in other ways."

headsnap
02-14-2010, 01:37 PM
and there is little to gain from attempting to discredit all science...

you must know Obama's Straw Man...

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:41 PM
What he REALLY said:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Much, much, MUCH more here, at the actual interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm


Just another repeat of the ongoing pattern - denier reporter gloms onto some point, lifts it out of context, conjures up a lying spin about it; denier blogs repost it en masse without question, without even the simplest fact checking like I just did in 20 seconds; there is Rumplestiltskin-dancing in the streets of denierdom; days later the realization sets in that nobody but the true-deniers gives the slightest damn about their claims UNTIL THEY CAN ACTUALLY BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE REAL DATA.

*sigh*

Just like the emails.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 01:47 PM
you must know Obama's Straw Man...

Hi, headsnap. I'm not sure I understand the intention of your reference. If you are suggesting that some people aren't trying to discredit the scientific process (such as peer review, etc.), then maybe you aren't listening to the same people I am.

Perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of "many people."

Hey, happy Valentines Day to you.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 01:48 PM
I love watching the spinning on this. He says that in the last 15 years there has been no statistically-significant global warming. Meanwhile, the hype on global warming in the last 15 years has been through the roof.

I only pay attention to the whole thing for the entertainment of it. There is no support for any type of sweeping legislation in America, and won't ever be unless the sky turns blood red and a giant billboard being held up by the hand of God instructs us to tax ourselves until the sky turns blue again.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:50 PM
For what it is worth, "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" is a scientific term that means more than 95% likely to not have been caused by chance. In some cases it means more than 97% or 99% likely to not have been caused by chance.

Point is, the bar is set exceptionally high in science. So, hooray for science.

This is a complex issue, and there is little to gain from attempting to discredit all science, which many of those arguing against global warming seem to be trying to do.

I agree, but I also pinpoint it a bit differently. I think it stems from the evolution entrenchment and how that affects religious people and older people. Both the religious gap and the generational gap come into play in both evolution denying and climate change denial.

Thoughts?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:51 PM
I love watching the spinning on this. He says that in the last 15 years there has been no statistically-significant global warming. Meanwhile, the hype on global warming in the last 15 years has been through the roof.

I only pay attention to the whole thing for the entertainment of it. There is no support for any type of sweeping legislation in America, and won't ever be unless the sky turns blood red and a giant billboard being held up by the hand of God instructs us to tax ourselves until the sky turns blue again.


Question: If the politics of it (bills, Gore, etc etc) was removed and it was purely science, would you still be denying climate change?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 01:51 PM
This is a complex issue, and there is little to gain from attempting to discredit all science, which many of those arguing against global warming seem to be trying to do.

Global warming isn't science. It's research.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 01:52 PM
Question: If the politics of it (bills, Gore, etc etc) was removed and it was purely science, would you still be denying climate change?

I don't deny climate change. It's climate. It changes.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 01:53 PM
I agree, but I also pinpoint it a bit differently. I think it stems from the evolution entrenchment and how that affects religious people and older people. Both the religious gap and the generational gap come into play in both evolution denying and climate change denial.

Thoughts?

Mr. Jayhawk, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:53 PM
Global warming isn't science. It's research.

If you are decrying the definition of liberal, it seems you should also be decrying the definition of science.

And, no, Garcia Bronco's retarded pillars of science shtick is nonsense. Sure, it could be boiled down to that, but science is a lot broader than he wants it to be.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:54 PM
I don't deny climate change. It's climate. It changes.

Then what exactly is your position with AGW?

KC Dan
02-14-2010, 01:55 PM
Mr. Jayhawk, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
:clap:

Bwana
02-14-2010, 01:58 PM
Oooooops! LMAO

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:00 PM
If you are decrying the definition of liberal, it seems you should also be decrying the definition of science.

And, no, Garcia Bronco's retarded pillars of science shtick is nonsense. Sure, it could be boiled down to that, but science is a lot broader than he wants it to be.

I don't have any interest in arguing over it. If mere data collection is what passes for science with you, I'll just sit with a smug, knowing smile and let you play your little game of "nobody respects science like I do."

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:00 PM
Then what exactly is your position with AGW?

That it doesn't exist.

You understand, of course, that climate change and AGW are two different things, right?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:01 PM
Here's a good resource:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:02 PM
Global warming isn't science. It's research.

Hello, Taco John. I'm a big fan of yours and have long admired your posts. I'm talking about attempts to discredit science itself. For example, I have heard people (here? I don't know) attack the peer review system or play games (such as in this article) with notions like statistically significant. People grab on to the views of scientists arguing specific points and then act like these scientists are condemning the whole ball of wax. The Rush Limbaugh crowd uses the word "professor" like it means some sort of pariah.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:05 PM
I don't have any interest in arguing over it. If mere data collection is what passes for science with you, I'll just sit with a smug, knowing smile and let you play your little game of "nobody respects science like I do."

Yeah, because that's what I'm playing. It amazes me that you call many on this board or their tactics juvenile, yet you pull that. :hmmm:


That it doesn't exist.

You understand, of course, that climate change and AGW are two different things, right?

Actually, they aren't; they're related. Climate change is the overarching, broader nomenclature. Beneath it, lies two camps: AGW and not AGW. That's where the debate is.

So, again, I'll reiterate my question and phrase it so that you can answer accordingly:

If politics were removed (Cap and trade, bills, Gore, etc) and it only rested on scientific data, would you still be anti-AGW?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:06 PM
Yeah, because that's what I'm playing. It amazes me that you call many on this board or their tactics juvenile, yet you pull that. :hmmm:


Where have I called anyone's tactics juvenile? That sounds pretty prissy to me.

RNR
02-14-2010, 02:08 PM
Mr. Jayhawk, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

:clap:

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:08 PM
If politics were removed (Cap and trade, bills, Gore, etc) and it only rested on scientific data, would you still be anti-AGW?


What would there to be in favor of or against if the politics were removed? The weather?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:08 PM
What would there to be in favor of or against if the politics were removed? The weather?

Whether or not humans are propelling GW trends.

That's not a political issue.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 02:09 PM
Hello, Taco John. I'm a big fan of yours and have long admired your posts. I'm talking about attempts to discredit science itself. For example, I have heard people (here? I don't know) attack the peer review system or play games (such as in this article) with notions like statistically significant. People grab on to the views of scientists arguing specific points and then act like these scientists are condemning the whole ball of wax. The Rush Limbaugh crowd uses the word "professor" like it means some sort of pariah.

I flipped a coin once. It was tails. This shows me that 100% of coin flips are tails. Who cares if the sample size wasn't large enough to be statistically significant?

You've got the most prominent AGW proponents in the world's e-mails talking about rigging the peer review system against deniers. Why would anyone attack the system? Seems fair to me.

You've got professors getting grants to show the effects of AGW. Certainly there is no conflict of interest there. Why would they worry about turning off the spigots?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:10 PM
Hello, Taco John. I'm a big fan of yours and have long admired your posts. I'm talking about attempts to discredit science itself. For example, I have heard people (here? I don't know) attack the peer review system or play games (such as in this article) with notions like statistically significant. People grab on to the views of scientists arguing specific points and then act like these scientists are condemning the whole ball of wax. The Rush Limbaugh crowd uses the word "professor" like it means some sort of pariah.


I've never in my 35 years of life ever seen a single individual attack the peer review system. I have seen people attacking scientists who seem to operate with an agenda. It's my opinion that the attacks on the agenda driven scientists is what is being conflated here for "attacking science."

"Science" isn't under attack.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:11 PM
I flipped a coin once. It was tails. This shows me that 100% of coin flips are tails. Who cares if the sample size wasn't large enough to be statistically significant?

You've got the most prominent AGW proponents in the world's e-mails talking about rigging the peer review system against deniers. Why would anyone attack the system? Seems fair to me.

You've got professors getting grants to show the effects of AGW. Certainly there is no conflict of interest there. Why would they worry about turning off the spigots?

:LOL:

He still thinks the emails were saying what the deniers think they said.

RNR
02-14-2010, 02:11 PM
Whether or not humans are propelling GW trends.
That's not a political issue.

Which you have no proof they do yet you proclaim they do as as fact~

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:12 PM
I've never in my 35 years of life ever seen a single individual attack the peer review system. I have seen people attacking scientists who seem to operate with an agenda. It's my opinion that the attacks on the agenda driven scientists is what is being conflated here for "attacking science."

"Science" isn't under attack.

And, yet, interestingly, those on the flip side aren't being labeled as agenda-ists, so to speak.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:12 PM
Which you have no proof they do yet you proclaim they do as as fact~

*sigh*

There's plenty of proof. You just choose not to see it. ~

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 02:12 PM
:LOL:

He still thinks the emails were saying what the deniers think they said.

They explicitly stated that the deniers should not be allowed to be reviewed or published. Of course I "think" they said that. I read them with my own eyes.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:13 PM
I agree, but I also pinpoint it a bit differently. I think it stems from the evolution entrenchment and how that affects religious people and older people. Both the religious gap and the generational gap come into play in both evolution denying and climate change denial.

Thoughts?

Absolutely. The Creationists have very much lead the anti-science charge.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:14 PM
I've never in my 35 years of life ever seen a single individual attack the peer review system. I have seen people attacking scientists who seem to operate with an agenda. It's my opinion that the attacks on the agenda driven scientists is what is being conflated here for "attacking science."

"Science" isn't under attack.

Oh, I'm afraid I have. I have heard both conservative radio and Fox News question peer review. It baffled me.

RNR
02-14-2010, 02:15 PM
*sigh*

There's plenty of proof. You just choose not to see it.~

*sigh* really I mean *sigh* really? LMAO
Anyway There's plenty of proof they do not. You just choose not to see it~

stevieray
02-14-2010, 02:20 PM
Earth 2100

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:20 PM
They explicitly stated that the deniers should not be allowed to be reviewed or published. Of course I "think" they said that. I read them with my own eyes.

I hadn't read this part of the emails so if you could quote it, that'd be much appreciated.

I'll once again say that the money trail issue is becoming almost worthless now a days. Because funding comes from somewhere and both sides of any "debate" must have funding, money trails are by and large superfluous.

Sure, Coke sponsoring an independent test that favors coke is going to raise eyes. Universities granting money to the scientific community's consensus isn't the equivalent.

Absolutely. The Creationists have very much lead the anti-science charge.

Well, obviously, but I wanted to know if you saw a correlation between that and the newer attack on AGW or Climate change in general. Do you think it's mostly the same people?

*sigh* really I mean *sigh* really? LMAO
Anyway There's plenty of proof they do not. You just choose not to see it~

Post that shit!

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:35 PM
Well, obviously, but I wanted to know if you saw a correlation between that and the newer attack on AGW or Climate change in general. Do you think it's mostly the same people?




No, I don't think they are the same people. But the Creationists have planted the anti-science seed. In defense of some people here on CP, the anti-warmers don't live on the same anti-science street as the Creationists. They are right to point out the flaws and errors, but some are, perhaps, being disingenuous when they suggest the few flaws and errors wipe out all of the other global warming studies. Nothing wrong with some good skepticism, though.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:36 PM
Oh, I'm afraid I have. I have heard both conservative radio and Fox News question peer review. It baffled me.

I haven't heard it. But I would say that the human element - the peer review part, is probably the weakest link in the process. I have no problems with it being held to scrutiny.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:36 PM
No, I don't think they are the same people. But the Creationists have planted the anti-science seed. In defense of some people here on CP, the anti-warmers don't live on the same anti-science street as the Creationists. They are right to point out the flaws and errors, but some are, perhaps, being disingenuous when they suggest the few flaws and errors wipe out all of the other global warming studies. Nothing wrong with some good skepticism, though.

Good point(s).

headsnap
02-14-2010, 02:36 PM
Hi, headsnap. I'm not sure I understand the intention of your reference. If you are suggesting that some people aren't trying to discredit the scientific process (such as peer review, etc.), then maybe you aren't listening to the same people I am.

Perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of "many people."

Hey, happy Valentines Day to you.

just who is it that is trying to discredit ALL science?



btw, some people is not different from many people when employing the Obama Straw Man...

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:41 PM
just who is it that is trying to discredit ALL science?



btw, some people is not different from many people when employing the Obama Straw Man...

I don't know, but when I find out they are in for a stern talking to!

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 02:43 PM
I haven't heard it. But I would say that the human element - the peer review part, is probably the weakest link in the process. I have no problems with it being held to scrutiny.

Keep up the good work!

headsnap
02-14-2010, 02:48 PM
I don't know, but when I find out they are in for a stern talking to!

got it! :thumb:

now that we know that the original premise of your argument is fabricated(many people are trying to discredit ALL science), anything that you base off that argument is just compounding the error... :clap:


that sounds just like GW... :facepalm:

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:55 PM
got it! :thumb:

now that we know that the original premise of your argument is fabricated(many people are trying to discredit ALL science), anything that you base off that argument is just compounding the error... :clap:


that sounds just like GW... :facepalm:

Actually, his main point is still evident. If you want to play semantics with all, be my guest.

It's pretty simple, many people are using one facet of scientific distrust to cast doubt on the whole. For example, pete's thread about 55% below sea level. Hardly a catastrophic error, yet people point to that and say look every other piece of data is fraudulent too.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:21 PM
I haven't heard it. But I would say that the human element - the peer review part, is probably the weakest link in the process. I have no problems with it being held to scrutiny.

Why would you question our security methods? We have an entire pack of wolves guarding the chicken coup.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:35 PM
Why would you question our security methods? We have an entire pack of wolves guarding the chicken coup.

I haven't heard it. But I would say that the human element - the peer review part, is probably the weakest link in the process. I have no problems with it being held to scrutiny.

I would agree with both parts in theory. I would be cautious as to which parts I take issue with.

For example, peer-review process is too lax (see: vaccinations and the Korean falsification) is a legit complaint. They won't let my anti-evolution / pro-ID research piece in the journal after peer-review, so let's claim the system is biased/broken, is not a legitimate complaint. The same applies for AGW.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 05:59 PM
I would agree with both parts in theory. I would be cautious as to which parts I take issue with.

For example, peer-review process is too lax (see: vaccinations and the Korean falsification) is a legit complaint. They won't let my anti-evolution / pro-ID research piece in the journal after peer-review, so let's claim the system is biased/broken, is not a legitimate complaint. The same applies for AGW.

Would you trust a publication on the origins of man if everyone who did the peer reviewing was creationists?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 06:02 PM
Would you trust a publication on the origins of man if everyone who did the peer reviewing was creationists?

I told you I agree with you in theory. But the bigger question is: what alternative do they have? Who would you rather let peer-review? The author's group? An independent commission of scientists not in the field it's commentating on? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science?

I'm highly doubting 3 peer reviews let in false data. Sure, it happens every once in a while, but the big journals really peer-review them.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:17 PM
I told you I agree with you in theory. But the bigger question is: what alternative do they have? Who would you rather let peer-review? The author's group? An independent commission of scientists not in the field it's commentating on? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science?

I'm highly doubting 3 peer reviews let in false data. Sure, it happens every once in a while, but the big journals really peer-review them.

Their own e-mails show that they conspired to keep dissenting viewpoints out of the review process. What part of that don't you get?

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 06:51 PM
Their own e-mails show that they conspired to keep dissenting viewpoints out of the review process. What part of that don't you get?

You raise a good point. I read over those emails, and I'm not sure I understand the control these scientists would have over the peer review process. They could, understandably, be asked to review papers, and that would promote their agenda. Interestingly, they said they wanted to keep out articles that were "crap."

Science is extremely conservative. Once the evidence in favor of AGW built up and became overwhelming, it became widely accepted. When enough data disproving AGW builds up, it will no longer be accepted. There is not yet enough data (and, from what I can tell, there isn't much data).

In fact, those of you arguing against AGW might be better served promoting the data opposing AGW.

(That said, I hope that you are right and that AGW is not real.)

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:55 PM
You raise a good point. I read over those emails, and I'm not sure I understand the control these scientists would have over the peer review process. They could, understandably, be asked to review papers, and that would promote their agenda. Interestingly, they said they wanted to keep out articles that were "crap."

Science is extremely conservative. Once the evidence in favor of AGW built up and became overwhelming, it became widely accepted. When enough data disproving AGW builds up, it will no longer be accepted. There is not yet enough data (and, from what I can tell, there isn't much data).

In fact, those of you arguing against AGW might be better served promoting the data opposing AGW.

(That said, I hope that you are right and that AGW is not real.)

So all that you are asking is for someone to prove a negative? That sounds simple enough.

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 07:04 PM
So all that you are asking is for someone to prove a negative? That sounds simple enough.

Ha! I enjoy your smart arse posts, Saul Good. No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking for evidence that something else is responsible for global warming. I suppose I could also be asking for evidence that the globe is, in fact, staying the same temperature or even cooling. (Something other than anecdotals like "Garsh, I've got three feet of Global Warming in my yard!")

If scientists are conspiring to promote their agenda, the facts will out them.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 07:15 PM
Ha! I enjoy your smart arse posts, Saul Good. No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking for evidence that something else is responsible for global warming. I suppose I could also be asking for evidence that the globe is, in fact, staying the same temperature or even cooling. (Something other than anecdotals like "Garsh, I've got three feet of Global Warming in my yard!")

If scientists are conspiring to promote their agenda, the facts will out them.

They are being outed on a daily basis. The earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years. Glaciers covered large sections of what is now the United States. They receded due to global warming leaving the Great Lakes behind. At one time, it was possible to walk from Asia to Alaska. Other planets in the solar system are experiencing similar temperature fluctuations, and these fluctuations dovetail nicely with sunspot activity.

In order for me to buy into this AGW hype, 4 things need to be proven to my satisfaction:

1. The earth is warming.
2. This is a necessarily bad thing.
3. The warming is being caused by human activity.
4. The alarmists' plans to fix it will work

I am not convinced of any of these things let alone all of them.

banyon
02-14-2010, 07:59 PM
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Well no s***.

How did people get so f*cking stupid about science? This thread is only slightly more sophisticated than one of those "It's snowing today, therefore there's no global warming" threads. Good grief.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:32 PM
They are being outed on a daily basis. The earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years. Glaciers covered large sections of what is now the United States. They receded due to global warming leaving the Great Lakes behind. At one time, it was possible to walk from Asia to Alaska. Other planets in the solar system are experiencing similar temperature fluctuations, and these fluctuations dovetail nicely with sunspot activity.

In order for me to buy into this AGW hype, 4 things need to be proven to my satisfaction:

1. The earth is warming.
2. This is a necessarily bad thing.
3. The warming is being caused by human activity.
4. The alarmists' plans to fix it will work

I am not convinced of any of these things let alone all of them.

No one is saying warming and cooling don't come in cycles. No one.

The problem here is the acceleration they've witnessed. You know, when you have a steady trend upwards on a graph. It's the acceleration that's prompting the AGW theory. It's not the fact that the globe goes through periods of cooling and warming on its own. It's the fact humans could be accelerating the cycle - the consequences of which haven't been witnessed nor are borne in history.

Well no s***.

How did people get so f*cking stupid about science? This thread is only slightly more sophisticated than one of those "It's snowing today, therefore there's no global warming" threads. Good grief.

No, it's not more sophisticated than that. And if it is, it's due to smarter denialists spinning things.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:38 PM
No one is saying warming and cooling don't come in cycles. No one.

The problem here is the acceleration they've witnessed. You know, when you have a steady trend upwards on a graph. It's the acceleration that's prompting the AGW theory. It's not the fact that the globe goes through periods of cooling and warming on its own. It's the fact humans could be accelerating the cycle - the consequences of which haven't been witnessed nor are borne in history.

Which of those 4 are you convinced are true?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:44 PM
1. The earth is warming.
2. This is a necessarily bad thing.
3. The warming is being caused by human activity.
4. The alarmists' plans to fix it will work


1) No one is debating this. At least no one with a brain.
2) Warming without acceleration isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warming with acceleration is something to be worried about. How much? I don't know. That's why you have opinions ranging from STOP DRIVING to change your lightbulbs, small things help.
3) Easily the crux of the issue even though deniers like to throw global warming as a concept out. I believe it is common sensical to think humans since the Industrial Revolution have contributed to warming.
4) This is disingenuous. Whether or not their plans to fix it will work is independent of AGW existing. I don't buy that as something you'd need to see AGW existing unless you had no intention to see it anyway. No one really knows what plans will work. But since we don't know, let's just label all plan makers as alarmists and scrap any plans. :rolleyes:

petegz28
02-14-2010, 08:58 PM
1) No one is debating this. At least no one with a brain.
2) Warming without acceleration isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warming with acceleration is something to be worried about. How much? I don't know. That's why you have opinions ranging from STOP DRIVING to change your lightbulbs, small things help.
3) Easily the crux of the issue even though deniers like to throw global warming as a concept out. I believe it is common sensical to think humans since the Industrial Revolution have contributed to warming.
4) This is disingenuous. Whether or not their plans to fix it will work is independent of AGW existing. I don't buy that as something you'd need to see AGW existing unless you had no intention to see it anyway. No one really knows what plans will work. But since we don't know, let's just label all plan makers as alarmists and scrap any plans. :rolleyes:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image162.gif

accelerated warming is nothing new

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:59 PM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image162.gif

accelerated warming is nothing new

Got a source for that?

I'm going to bed as I work early tomorrow. I'm not going to attempt to debunk a graph that's been debunked a zillion times yet Watts Up With That keeps pedaling it.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:03 PM
Got a source for that?

I'm going to bed as I work early tomorrow. I'm not going to attempt to debunk a graph that's been debunked a zillion times yet Watts Up With That keeps pedaling it.

Yea, it's bunk.....ROFL

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:04 PM
Yea, it's bunk.....ROFL

I'll just assume you aren't going to cite it.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:08 PM
I'll just assume you aren't going to cite it.

What for? You already have it made up in your mind that it is bunk.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:09 PM
What for? You already have it made up in your mind that it is bunk.

Actually, I assumed it was from Watt's site. If it's not, I'll definitely give it a go.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
Actually, I assumed it was from Watt's site. If it's not, I'll definitely give it a go.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:18 PM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Okay, I'll be back tomorrow.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:19 PM
Okay, I'll be back tomorrow.

Don't you threaten me!!! :D

AustinChief
02-15-2010, 01:51 AM
No one is saying warming and cooling don't come in cycles. No one.

The problem here is the acceleration they've witnessed.

HERE is the main problem... they have "witnessed acceleration in such a miniscule sample size that it is insignificant. Could they be right? ABSOLUTELY. ...but it is SUPREME scientific arogance to think that we now have enough of a knowledge base to project from. Anyone who studies science CORRECTLY... know that until we can make and the VERIFY accurate projections... we are just pissing in the wind. There have YET to be any accurate long term projection... because THERE CAN'T BE... we haven't been studying this and accurately observing this for 1000s of years...

My personal thoughts... climate study is valid and deserves attention and funding... massive funding... but garnering funding with alarmist tactics is not only morally wrong but it in the end will have the opposite effect... keep crying wolf and eventually people get tired of hearing it.

Those who are interested in studying the climate TO LEARN MORE without trying to pretend they already KNOW... those people should be lauded... the media and few scientists that are media whores should be vilified...

Give me ANY study that claims to be able to project future results and I can debunk it in seconds... we JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH... there are FAR too many factors that can't be quantified... BUT that being said... what is the proper response? It SHOULD BE... well then we need to INVEST and learn more... but REACTING to partial data sets is ridiculously stupid.

Anyone here study the history of the conservation movement in the US? Wanna guess if we did more harm or good by reacting off limited data? Oh but WAIT.. we are so much smarter now than we were then... right?

headsnap
02-15-2010, 05:05 AM
HERE is the main problem... they have "witnessed acceleration in such a miniscule sample size that it is insignificant. Could they be right? ABSOLUTELY. ...but it is SUPREME scientific arogance to think that we now have enough of a knowledge base to project from. Anyone who studies science CORRECTLY... know that until we can make and the VERIFY accurate projections... we are just pissing in the wind. There have YET to be any accurate long term projection... because THERE CAN'T BE... we haven't been studying this and accurately observing this for 1000s of years...

My personal thoughts... climate study is valid and deserves attention and funding... massive funding... but garnering funding with alarmist tactics is not only morally wrong but it in the end will have the opposite effect... keep crying wolf and eventually people get tired of hearing it.

Those who are interested in studying the climate TO LEARN MORE without trying to pretend they already KNOW... those people should be lauded... the media and few scientists that are media whores should be vilified...

Give me ANY study that claims to be able to project future results and I can debunk it in seconds... we JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH... there are FAR too many factors that can't be quantified... BUT that being said... what is the proper response? It SHOULD BE... well then we need to INVEST and learn more... but REACTING to partial data sets is ridiculously stupid.

Anyone here study the history of the conservation movement in the US? Wanna guess if we did more harm or good by reacting off limited data? Oh but WAIT.. we are so much smarter now than we were then... right?

:clap:

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:17 AM
Anyone here study the history of the conservation movement in the US? Wanna guess if we did more harm or good by reacting off limited data? Oh but WAIT.. we are so much smarter now than we were then... right?

Just be thankful that you're even alive. After the population bomb devastated humanity just like the alarmists said it would, we should trust them on this. After the hole in the ozone layer killed off billions, we should trust them on this. After global cooling brought glaciers back to the Great Lakes region, we should trust them on this. After acid rain, silent spring, and the Alaskan Pipeline were such killers, we should trust them on this.

banyon
02-15-2010, 09:05 AM
Just be thankful that you're even alive. After the population bomb devastated humanity just like the alarmists said it would, we should trust them on this. After the hole in the ozone layer killed off billions, we should trust them on this. After global cooling brought glaciers back to the Great Lakes region, we should trust them on this. After acid rain, silent spring, and the Alaskan Pipeline were such killers, we should trust them on this.

What was significantly harmed by being concerned about those possibilities?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 09:28 AM
What was significantly harmed by being concerned about those possibilities?

Ask the people who died of malaria as a result of banning DDT for starters. Oh wait, they are dead of malaria.

wild1
02-15-2010, 09:45 AM
Looks like we were heading for trouble until King Arthur implemented new green strategies.

ROFL

cdcox
02-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Just be thankful that you're even alive. After the population bomb devastated humanity just like the alarmists said it would, we should trust them on this. After the hole in the ozone layer killed off billions, we should trust them on this. After global cooling brought glaciers back to the Great Lakes region, we should trust them on this. After acid rain, silent spring, and the Alaskan Pipeline were such killers, we should trust them on this.

If you don't think that 1) these were/are serious problems and that 2) in some cases real changes were made and that those changes resulted in a different today than we would have had with a continuation of current practices, I don't know what to say.

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:25 AM
Ask the people who died of malaria as a result of banning DDT for starters. Oh wait, they are dead of malaria.

You want to bring back DDT? Really?

HonestChieffan
02-15-2010, 10:38 AM
Its already been re approved in certain circumstances. The data used in the hype and hyperbole in the 70s has been for the most part disproven. Its not a major issue in US because better insecicides have been developed

Velvet_Jones
02-15-2010, 11:09 AM
You want to bring back DDT? Really?

Yes. But too bad bringing back DDT will not bring back the millions of people that died because DDT was banned. You need to do a little research Dodge City boy.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 11:56 AM
You want to bring back DDT? Really?
Yes.


http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=195
World-renowned DDT expert Dr. Gordon Edwards used to eat a spoonful of DDT when he gave lectures about it. He finally died, at age 85 – of a heart attack, while hiking in the mountains.

Radar Chief
02-15-2010, 12:10 PM
IIRC DDT is actually on its way back. Just in a bit more limited use with more studying of the effects than in the past.
Another one for you banyon, MTBE. We’ve discussed it before; it’s a fuel additive that has polluted many water wells. It was eliminated a few years ago.

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/mtbe_standard.asp

AustinChief
02-15-2010, 01:30 PM
What was significantly harmed by being concerned about those possibilities?

Concern should cause further research... NOT a Henny-Penny Sky is Falling campaign for changes that may do more harm than good.

Concern is often valid... but if I am concerned because I smell smoke at the office ...so I jump up and pull the fire alarm... setting off the sprinklers and causing millions of dollars in damage... shouldn't I have first looked around and found out it was simply a burnt pastry in the kitchen?

There are COUNTLESS real life examples of this happenning due to our arrogance that we have a "good enough" understanding of EXTREMELY complex systems... when in fact we have barely scratched the surface.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 01:41 PM
Concern should cause further research... NOT a Henny-Penny Sky is Falling campaign for changes that may do more harm than good.

Concern is often valid... but if I am concerned because I smell smoke at the office ...so I jump up and pull the fire alarm... setting off the sprinklers and causing millions of dollars in damage... shouldn't I have first looked around and found out it was simply a burnt pastry in the kitchen?

There are COUNTLESS real life examples of this happenning due to our arrogance that we have a "good enough" understanding of EXTREMELY complex systems... when in fact we have barely scratched the surface.

If you think that there are too many black and brown people in the world, it's probably best to jump into action based on these hysterical cries of "wolf".


http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68
The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

"My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

"People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any."

***************************************************

While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that "should not be banned." According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

jidar
02-15-2010, 01:41 PM
Yes.


http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=195
World-renowned DDT expert Dr. Gordon Edwards used to eat a spoonful of DDT when he gave lectures about it. He finally died, at age 85 – of a heart attack, while hiking in the mountains.

hahahha
god
This is what educated and intelligent people are up against, this kind of reasoning. How will mankind ever advance?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 01:51 PM
hahahha
god
This is what educated and intelligent people are up against, this kind of reasoning. How will mankind ever advance?

DDT is quite possibly the greatest invention/discovery in the history of mankind. It is up there with the printing press, the flushable toilet, and penicillin. It mostly saved black and brown people's lives, though, so liberals rail against it while calling conservatives bigots.

FishingRod
02-15-2010, 02:49 PM
DDT is quite possibly the greatest invention/discovery in the history of mankind. It is up there with the printing press, the flushable toilet, and penicillin. It mostly saved black and brown people's lives, though, so liberals rail against it while calling conservatives bigots.

I too was intrigued by the DDT thing, so a while back I read from about as many sources as I could find. SourcesT that I would tend to agree with and those that I would not. As best as I can surmise the banning of DDT was pretty much a caused by a bunch or reactionary tree huggers that were looking for a solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Now in the spirit of fairness the affect of this ban on humans seems to have been also been blown way out of proportion. Insects reproduce at such an astronomical rate that even something 99.9% effective eventually becomes ineffective.

banyon
02-15-2010, 02:50 PM
Yes.


http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=195
World-renowned DDT expert Dr. Gordon Edwards used to eat a spoonful of DDT when he gave lectures about it. He finally died, at age 85 – of a heart attack, while hiking in the mountains.

You realize that people can consume all manner of poisons and gradually build up immunities to them, right?

banyon
02-15-2010, 02:51 PM
Yes. But too bad bringing back DDT will not bring back the millions of people that died because DDT was banned. You need to do a little research Dodge City boy.

You're so well informed, why don't you tell me about it?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:04 PM
Now in the spirit of fairness the affect of this ban on humans seems to have been also been blown way out of proportion. Insects reproduce at such an astronomical rate that even something 99.9% effective eventually becomes ineffective.

The facts simply don't bear this out. In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:08 PM
You realize that people can consume all manner of poisons and gradually build up immunities to them, right?

That's not the case with DDT. It's been found to have an extremely low toxicity in humans. Certainly nothing that would outweigh the positives of saving millions of lives a year.

banyon
02-15-2010, 03:45 PM
That's not the case with DDT. It's been found to have an extremely low toxicity in humans. Certainly nothing that would outweigh the positives of saving millions of lives a year.

That doesn't make sense to me. How can we know its long-term health affects if we only used it for a short time and banned it afterwards?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:48 PM
That doesn't make sense to me. How can we know its long-term health affects if we only used it for a short time and banned it afterwards?

I'll answer the question in a post to follow, but I just want to address the absurdity of that question first. If you contend that we can't know the long-term health effects of something that the WHO says saved 500,000,000 lives, how can you be in favor of banning it?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:54 PM
That doesn't make sense to me. How can we know its long-term health affects if we only used it for a short time and banned it afterwards?
1. We used it for more than a short time. It was in use for decades.
2. We've had ample time to observe the side-effects, and they have been negligible compared to 1,000,000 annual deaths due to malaria. (This doesn't even include other diseases like typhus that DDT helps prevent.)


http://www.malaria.org/smithddt.html

How toxic is DDT?

Lancet 2000; 356: 267 - 268

In many regions of the world, especially Europe and the USA, people have forgotten what it is like to have endemic malaria. One of the most important reasons why these regions are no longer endemic for malaria is the use of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) after the 1939-45 war. When DDT was first used in Naples in January, 1944, 1·3 million civilians were dusted, and even in the midst of winter the incidence of typhus fell sharply.1 Subsequently, many allied troops and refugees were dusted or wore clothes impregnated with DDT to protect against vermin and typhus. Since DDT turned out to be a highly potent contact insecticide, its potential in the control of malaria was soon recognised. The spraying of houses with DDT led to striking reductions in mosquito counts indoors and, subsequently, in cases of malaria. Reports of such findings, with huge economic benefits, came from Europe, Africa, the USA, India, Sri Lanka, and South America.2 The start of the decline, by the early 1960s, of the use of DDT in Europe and the USA, was due partly to the introduction of other insecticides but was also hastened by the recognition that DDT and its metabolite DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) persisted in the environment and might harm some species of wildlife.2 Much of the environmental concern arose as a result of the general use of DDT for the control of many pests and because DDT was not distinguished from other insecticides, but there has also been concern over its direct effects on human beings.

DDT is prohibited in many industrialised countries, and the United Nations Environmental Programme is starting negotiations for a global ban. In today's Lancet D R Roberts and colleagues argue for the continued use of DDT, on grounds of its value for malaria control and its safety.

The early toxicological information on DDT was very reassuring; it seemed that acute risks to health were small. If the huge amounts of DDT used are taken into account, the safety record for human beings is extremely good. In the 1940s many people were deliberately exposed to high concentrations of DDT through dusting programmes or impregnation of clothes, without any apparent ill effect.3 There are probably few other chemicals that have been studied in as much depth as has DDT, experimentally or in human beings.3 It quickly became clear that the dermal toxicity of dry DDT was very low, but even the oral toxicity depended on the composition of the diet. By contrast dieldrin caused poisoning of sprayers in many malaria-control programmes2 and is equally toxic by oral and dermal routes, the acute toxicity to rats being more than three times that of DDT.3 Ingestion of DDT, even when repeated, by volunteers or people attempting suicide has indicated low lethality, and large acute exposures can lead to vomiting, with ejection of the chemical. The earliest symptoms are hyperaesthesia of the mouth, followed by paraesthesia of the tongue, dizziness, tremors, and vomiting. Few toxicological effects due to inhalation of DDT have been reported. Some deaths attributed to DDT have been due to mixtures with other chemicals or solvents.3 Dermatitis in workers exposed to DDT was also probably due to solvents. Thus with acute or high-level exposure, DDT is probably safer than many other chemicals.

What concerns most people is chronic exposure to DDT. Evidence for any paraesthesia, headaches or dizziness, or changes in liver-function tests in workers who worked with or used DDT are very rare despite the presence of significantly raised serum concentrations of DDT or DDE.3 Many of those workers investigated have been sprayers in antimalarial programmes. As exemplified by malaria control in Natal,4-6 serum DDT has been significantly higher in sprayers and members of sprayed households than in control populations, and the chemical may be passed in the milk to infants, but associated toxicity has not been proven.

Of great concern has been the potential association between cancer incidence and exposure to DDT, especially via an environmental route. Studies of the mutagenicity of DDT and its significance in human beings have not yielded clear results.3 Although DDT acts as a hepatocarcinogen at high doses in some strains of mice, there is no convincing evidence for this effect in human beings.3 A preliminary study of deaths among Sardinian men who had worked with DDT in a malaria-eradication campaign in the 1940s showed a significantly increased risk of liver and biliary-tract cancers among those workers (PMR 2·10, 95% CI 1·17-3·47), but the effect was also found among non-exposed workers (PMR 2·28, 1·43-3·45).7 In fact, there is no strong evidence for any associated cancer risk among people exposed to DDT except perhaps among workers who may have been exposed to DDT plus other chemicals, for whom there was an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.8 There has been a debate, driven by in-vitro studies, about a possible link between environmental exposure to DDT and breast cancer in the USA, perhaps due to increased levels of oestrogen receptors, but the overall evidence is weak.9 No increased incidence of breast cancer was found among North Vietnamese women who had raised serum DDT concentrations after exposure to antimalarial sprays.10

Although there is little evidence that chronic low-level exposure to DDT produces serious deleterious effects, the current debate on potential "endocrine disruptors" has brought up the possibility of other potential toxicological effects. DDE has been found to be an antiandrogen11 and, in addition to its proposed link to breast cancer, DDT is commonly cited as having oestrogenic effects. In one study of the most heavily exposed workers in a DDT factory, there seemed to be no effect on their ability to father children.3 In interpreting possible toxic hormonal effects of DDT, it should be noted that in-vitro studies often employ the o,p-isomer of DDT, which does have weak oestrogenicity in vivo but has constituted only a tiny percentage of the total DDT used. Nevertheless there has been a proposal that exposure of mice to very low concentrations of DDT in utero or at certain perinatal stages could have subtle developmental influences.12 This idea or its applicability to human beings would be very difficult to disprove completely.

In summary, DDT can cause many toxicological effects but the effects on human beings at likely exposure levels seem to be very slight. However, the perceived rather than the calculated risks from DDT use are an important consideration in maintaining public confidence. Thus it would seem prudent that if its use was continued for antimalarial campaigns and the benefits of use outweigh the risks, tight control should continue and the effects of spraying DDT should be closely monitored. What has not been discussed here, though, is the environmental issue of any detrimental effect on wildlife.

A G Smith

MRC Toxicology Unit, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK

1 West TF, Campbell GA. DDT; the synthetic insecticide. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1946.

2 Hayes WJ. Introduction. In: Hayes WJ, Laws ER, eds. Handbook of pesticide toxicology San Diego: Academic Press, 1991: 1-37.

3 Smith AG. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. In: Hayes EJ, Laws, eds. Handbook of pesticide toxicology. San Diego: Academic Press. 1991: 731-915.

4 Bouwman H, Coopan RM, Both MJ, Becker PJ. Serum levels of DDT and liver function of malaria control personnel. S Afr Med J 1991; 79: 326-29 [PubMed].

5 Bouwman H, Coopan RM, Becker PJ, Ngxongo S. Malaria control and levels of DDT in serum of two populations in KwaZulu. J Toxicol Environ Health 1991; 33: 141-55 [PubMed].

6 Bouwman H, Becker PJ, Coopan RM, Reinecke AJ. Transfer of DDT used in malaria control to infants via breast milk. Bull WHO 1992; 70: 241-250. PubMed

7 Cocco P, Blair A, Congia P, et al. Proportional mortality of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) workers: a preliminary report. Arch Environ Health 1997; 52: 299-303 [PubMed].

8 Garabrant DH, Held J, Langholz B, Peters JM, Mack TM. DDT and related compounds and risk of pancreatic cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 764-71 [PubMed].

9 Key T, Reeves G. Organochlorines in the environment and breast cancer. The data so far produced provide reassurance rather than anxiety. BMJ 1994; 308: 1520-21 [no abstract available].

10 Schecter A, Toniolo P, Dai LC, Thuy LTB, Wolff MS. Blood levels of DDT and breast cancer risk among women living in the North of Vietnam. Arch Environ Contamin Toxicol 1997; 33: 453-456 [PubMed]. [Abstract from publisher.]

11 Kelce WR, Christy RS, Laws SC, Gray LE, Kemppaven JA, Wilson EM. Persistent DDT metabolite p,p'-DDE is a potent androgen receptor antagonist. Nature 1995; 375: 581-85 [PubMed].

12 Eriksson P, Ahlbom J, Fredriksson A. Exposure to DDT during a defined period in neonatal life induces permanent changes in brain muscarinic receptors and behaviour in adult mice. Brain Res 1992; 582: 277-281 [PubMed].

banyon
02-15-2010, 03:58 PM
I'll answer the question in a post to follow, but I just want to address the absurdity of that question first. If you contend that we can't know the long-term health effects of something that the WHO says saved 500,000,000 lives, how can you be in favor of banning it?

That's simple. If the value of using precaution for the time being significantly outweighs the benefit of continued use.

I'm not saying I know that's the case here, but it is a principle that I seek to apply regularly where it is merited.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:59 PM
Maybe this deserves its own thread. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that DDT would cause 1 person to die of cancer for every person it kept from dying of malaria (which is preposterous). I would posit that it would still be worth it. I would rather people die at age 50 of cancer than age 1 of malaria.

FishingRod
02-15-2010, 04:00 PM
The facts simply don't bear this out. In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today.

Don't have any desire to redo all my reading but stole this from another site that has a fairly reasonable retort. and lists some of the sources I looked at.



http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php





"Now when you think about it, the story that they tell just isn't credible. If DDT spraying had almost eliminated malaria, and they got a new outbreak, then no environmentalists would be able to stop them from resuming spraying. So I went to the library to find out what really happened. And it wasn't hard to find out. The definitive history of malaria is Gordon Harrison's Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man and it turns out that, yes of course they went back to spraying. Harrison writes:

Sri Lanka went back to the spray guns, reducing malaria once more to 150,000 cases in 1972; but there the attack stalled. Anopheles culicifacies, completely susceptible to DDT when the spray stopped in 1964, was now found resistant presumably because of the use of DDT for crop protection in the interim. Within a couple of years, so many culicifacies survived that despite the spraying malaria spread in 1975 to more than 400,000 people.

So in 1977 they switched to the more expensive malathion and were able to reduce the number of cases to about 50,000 by 1980. In 2004, the number was down to 3,000, without using DDT.

And the reason why they stopped spraying in 1964? It wasn't environmentalist pressure. With only 17 cases in 1963, they didn't think it was needed any more. And this wasn't an unreasonable belief. In the countries where malaria had been eradicated, once the number was this low, treating the remaining cases with drugs to kill the malaria parasite was sufficient to completely eradicate it.

Just to prove that there is no question about any of this, I have extracts from Harrison and two other supporting sources here.

The anti-environmentalist version of what happened is a hoax. That doesn't mean that all the writers above were being deliberately misleading: they might be just repeating what another anti-environmentalist wrote and be unaware of the true story. AEI scholar Roger Bate, however, coauthored an entire book on DDT and Malaria which relies very heavily on Harrison's history, citing him over twenty times. They conspicuously fail to mention that Sri Lanka resumed DDT spraying and that it failed because of resistance, instead claiming that

pressure not to use DDT may have been applied by western donors using resistance as a convenient argument. Recent evidence shows that even where resistance to DDT has emerged, the excito-repellency of DDT causes mosquitoes not to enter buildings that have been sprayed (Roberts et al., 2000). Under test conditions (see Grieco et al., 2000), for at least one type of malarial mosquito in Belize (the only country in which these tests have so far been conducted),DDT is far more successful than the most favoured vector control pesticide Deltamethrin. Hence it is unlikely that malaria rates would have increased (significantly) even if resistance were found.

But malaria rates did increase even though DDT was extensively used. Harrison has an entire chapter on this. How could Bate possibly not have noticed this? (And tests on a different continent on a different species of mosquito aren't even close to relevant). "





The science used for the DDT ban was crap but putting a number on lives that might have been saved is somewhat like saying we saved 5 million jobs this year. It is very hard to prove the cause and affect and to see what would have happened in the past had we done something different than we did.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 04:01 PM
That's simple. If the value of using precaution for the time being significantly outweighs the benefit of continued use.

I'm not saying I know that's the case here, but it is a principle that I seek to apply regularly where it is merited.

I acknowledge your point, but when you're talking about 500,000,000 lives saved during a span of time in which the planet's population was 3,000,000,000, I'm not sure how this could possibly apply to this situation.

orange
02-15-2010, 04:06 PM
DDT was banned in 1972 - IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm

When exactly was it banned in Africa?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 04:07 PM
Don't have any desire to redo all my reading but stole this from another site that has a fairly reasonable retort. and lists some of the sources I looked at.



http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php





"Now when you think about it, the story that they tell just isn't credible. If DDT spraying had almost eliminated malaria, and they got a new outbreak, then no environmentalists would be able to stop them from resuming spraying. So I went to the library to find out what really happened. And it wasn't hard to find out. The definitive history of malaria is Gordon Harrison's Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man and it turns out that, yes of course they went back to spraying. Harrison writes:

Sri Lanka went back to the spray guns, reducing malaria once more to 150,000 cases in 1972; but there the attack stalled. Anopheles culicifacies, completely susceptible to DDT when the spray stopped in 1964, was now found resistant presumably because of the use of DDT for crop protection in the interim. Within a couple of years, so many culicifacies survived that despite the spraying malaria spread in 1975 to more than 400,000 people.

So in 1977 they switched to the more expensive malathion and were able to reduce the number of cases to about 50,000 by 1980. In 2004, the number was down to 3,000, without using DDT.

And the reason why they stopped spraying in 1964? It wasn't environmentalist pressure. With only 17 cases in 1963, they didn't think it was needed any more. And this wasn't an unreasonable belief. In the countries where malaria had been eradicated, once the number was this low, treating the remaining cases with drugs to kill the malaria parasite was sufficient to completely eradicate it.

Just to prove that there is no question about any of this, I have extracts from Harrison and two other supporting sources here.

The anti-environmentalist version of what happened is a hoax. That doesn't mean that all the writers above were being deliberately misleading: they might be just repeating what another anti-environmentalist wrote and be unaware of the true story. AEI scholar Roger Bate, however, coauthored an entire book on DDT and Malaria which relies very heavily on Harrison's history, citing him over twenty times. They conspicuously fail to mention that Sri Lanka resumed DDT spraying and that it failed because of resistance, instead claiming that

pressure not to use DDT may have been applied by western donors using resistance as a convenient argument. Recent evidence shows that even where resistance to DDT has emerged, the excito-repellency of DDT causes mosquitoes not to enter buildings that have been sprayed (Roberts et al., 2000). Under test conditions (see Grieco et al., 2000), for at least one type of malarial mosquito in Belize (the only country in which these tests have so far been conducted),DDT is far more successful than the most favoured vector control pesticide Deltamethrin. Hence it is unlikely that malaria rates would have increased (significantly) even if resistance were found.

But malaria rates did increase even though DDT was extensively used. Harrison has an entire chapter on this. How could Bate possibly not have noticed this? (And tests on a different continent on a different species of mosquito aren't even close to relevant). "





The science used for the DDT ban was crap but putting a number on lives that might have been saved is somewhat like saying we saved 5 million jobs this year. It is very hard to prove the cause and affect and to see what would have happened in the past had we done something different than we did.

Even if this is accurate, and I don't believe that it is (at least not entirely), there is still no rationale for banning DDT. You don't ban something because it doesn't work. You ban it if it's dangerous. Where are the DDT deaths? It also doesn't make sense to stop using something because it worked too well as your article asserts happened with the use of DDT to combat malaria. Seriously, doesn't it seem just a little coincidental that malaria didn't come back until after DDT was no longer used?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 04:10 PM
DDT was banned in 1972 - IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm

When exactly was it banned in Africa?

1972

banyon
02-15-2010, 04:11 PM
Don't have any desire to redo all my reading but stole this from another site that has a fairly reasonable retort. and lists some of the sources I looked at.



http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php





"Now when you think about it, the story that they tell just isn't credible. If DDT spraying had almost eliminated malaria, and they got a new outbreak, then no environmentalists would be able to stop them from resuming spraying. So I went to the library to find out what really happened. And it wasn't hard to find out. The definitive history of malaria is Gordon Harrison's Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man and it turns out that, yes of course they went back to spraying. Harrison writes:

Sri Lanka went back to the spray guns, reducing malaria once more to 150,000 cases in 1972; but there the attack stalled. Anopheles culicifacies, completely susceptible to DDT when the spray stopped in 1964, was now found resistant presumably because of the use of DDT for crop protection in the interim. Within a couple of years, so many culicifacies survived that despite the spraying malaria spread in 1975 to more than 400,000 people.

So in 1977 they switched to the more expensive malathion and were able to reduce the number of cases to about 50,000 by 1980. In 2004, the number was down to 3,000, without using DDT.

And the reason why they stopped spraying in 1964? It wasn't environmentalist pressure. With only 17 cases in 1963, they didn't think it was needed any more. And this wasn't an unreasonable belief. In the countries where malaria had been eradicated, once the number was this low, treating the remaining cases with drugs to kill the malaria parasite was sufficient to completely eradicate it.

Just to prove that there is no question about any of this, I have extracts from Harrison and two other supporting sources here.

The anti-environmentalist version of what happened is a hoax. That doesn't mean that all the writers above were being deliberately misleading: they might be just repeating what another anti-environmentalist wrote and be unaware of the true story. AEI scholar Roger Bate, however, coauthored an entire book on DDT and Malaria which relies very heavily on Harrison's history, citing him over twenty times. They conspicuously fail to mention that Sri Lanka resumed DDT spraying and that it failed because of resistance, instead claiming that

pressure not to use DDT may have been applied by western donors using resistance as a convenient argument. Recent evidence shows that even where resistance to DDT has emerged, the excito-repellency of DDT causes mosquitoes not to enter buildings that have been sprayed (Roberts et al., 2000). Under test conditions (see Grieco et al., 2000), for at least one type of malarial mosquito in Belize (the only country in which these tests have so far been conducted),DDT is far more successful than the most favoured vector control pesticide Deltamethrin. Hence it is unlikely that malaria rates would have increased (significantly) even if resistance were found.

But malaria rates did increase even though DDT was extensively used. Harrison has an entire chapter on this. How could Bate possibly not have noticed this? (And tests on a different continent on a different species of mosquito aren't even close to relevant). "





The science used for the DDT ban was crap but putting a number on lives that might have been saved is somewhat like saying we saved 5 million jobs this year. It is very hard to prove the cause and affect and to see what would have happened in the past had we done something different than we did.

This sounds pretty credible, but I want to look at Saul's data again before I make up my mind about it.

banyon
02-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Maybe this deserves its own thread. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that DDT would cause 1 person to die of cancer for every person it kept from dying of malaria (which is preposterous). I would posit that it would still be worth it. I would rather people die at age 50 of cancer than age 1 of malaria.

I would concur with that analysis, should the numbers bear it out.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Keep in mind that, around the time that DDT was demonized, "The Population Bomb" was sweeping across the world. There was enough concern about overpopulation to make people fear starvation in the developed world more than they cared about malaria in Asia, Africa, and South America.

orange
02-15-2010, 04:48 PM
1972

Name the law. A pointer. A link. anything

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 04:57 PM
Name the law. A pointer. A link. anything

Stockholm Convention

Technically, it only banned DDT for agriculture use. In reality, it effectively ended its use altogether.

orange
02-15-2010, 05:05 PM
Stockholm Convention

Technically, it only banned DDT for agriculture use.

Stockholm Convention - negotiated in 2001, entered into force in 2004.


NOPE. This COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the BAN you claimed was in effect in 1972 - notwithstanding that it's not a BAN in any case - Co-signatories agree to outlaw nine of the dirty dozen chemicals, limit the use of DDT to malaria control, and curtail inadvertent production of dioxins and furans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants

Are you saying your original post was a LIE?

DDT was banned in 1972 - IN THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm

When exactly was it banned in Africa?

1972


Just like THIS is a lie:

In reality, it effectively ended its use altogether.


Stockholm Convention: B. Restriction DDT 50-29-3 Disease vector control in accordance with Part II of Annex B
Production and use as an intermediate in the production of dicofol and other compounds

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:10 PM
Are you saying your original post was a LIE?

No, but it was a reading comprehension error on my part. It was banned in the US in 1972 which effectively prevented from being distributed internationally. By that time, the PR war against DDT had long since reached a fever pitch.

orange
02-15-2010, 05:11 PM
Maybe this has something to do with why DDT use isn't as widespread as you want it:

Thankless task

The Health Ministry official who has the thankless job of leading Mozambique's day-to-day struggle against malaria is Dr Samuel Mabunda, and he admits that it seems an impossible mission.

"We do not have the money, the manpower or the health facilities to protect people as we would like to do," he says.


Perhaps surprisingly then, DDT is not used in Mozambique and the authorities say they do not want to use it.

Dr Avertino Barreto is Chief of Infectious Disease Control, and he points out that circumstances in a developing country like his would make DDT a big risk. Take the recent disastrous floods for a start, he says.

"You might only use DDT for house spraying, but flood waters could wash it everywhere," he says.

Mosquitoes are no respecters of borders though and because of this, Dr Barreto says, South Africa has been pushing its neighbour hard to change its policy.

"But our two countries are very different. If you use something potentially hazardous like DDT, you have to control this carefully. Mozambique does not have the infrastructure or the organisation to do this."

Mozambique's health ministry resents what it calls South Africa's interference and maintains it should be allowed to find its own ways to deal with malaria prevention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1677073.stm

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:11 PM
The Stockholm Convention banned it worldwide for agricultural use.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:14 PM
Maybe this has something to do with why DDT use isn't as widespread as you want it:

Thankless task

The Health Ministry official who has the thankless job of leading Mozambique's day-to-day struggle against malaria is Dr Samuel Mabunda, and he admits that it seems an impossible mission.

"We do not have the money, the manpower or the health facilities to protect people as we would like to do," he says.


Perhaps surprisingly then, DDT is not used in Mozambique and the authorities say they do not want to use it.

Dr Avertino Barreto is Chief of Infectious Disease Control, and he points out that circumstances in a developing country like his would make DDT a big risk. Take the recent disastrous floods for a start, he says.

"You might only use DDT for house spraying, but flood waters could wash it everywhere," he says.

Mosquitoes are no respecters of borders though and because of this, Dr Barreto says, South Africa has been pushing its neighbour hard to change its policy.

"But our two countries are very different. If you use something potentially hazardous like DDT, you have to control this carefully. Mozambique does not have the infrastructure or the organisation to do this."

Mozambique's health ministry resents what it calls South Africa's interference and maintains it should be allowed to find its own ways to deal with malaria prevention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1677073.stm

So a developed nation isn't enthused about a population boom in it's undeveloped neighbor? How weird. Again, how is it hazardous?

orange
02-15-2010, 05:23 PM
So a developed nation isn't enthused about a population boom in it's undeveloped neighbor? How weird. Again, how is it hazardous?

From the 90s:

The insecticide most widely used for house spraying has been DDT, which has continued to be recommended for this purpose long after it was banned for agricultural use in the USA and many other countries. It has been recommended because of its cheapness per unit weight and its durability, which allows programs to be based on spraying twice a year, or only once in areas with a short annual malaria mosquito season. Arguments about DDT applied to field crops accumulating in food chains are considered inapplicable to DDT sprayed inside houses. However, unfortunately in low income countries it is almost impossible to prevent illicit diversion of insecticides intended for anti-malaria use to farmers. The consequent insecticidal residues in crops at levels unacceptable for the export trade have been an important factor in recent bans of DDT for malaria control in several tropical countries (Curtis, 1994). Some of the claims in the 1960s and 70s about supposed effects of DDT on human health were almost certainly ill-founded. DDT residues in human breast milk have been repeatedly observed, but usually attributed to earlier intake with contaminated food. However, there is recent evidence from South Africa (cited by Curtis, 1994) that, in areas of anti-malaria use of DDT, breast milk contains much higher residues than other areas and in the former areas the intake by a breast-fed baby would greatly exceed the Allowable Daily Intake (which is defined by the WHO and FAO on a lifetime intake basis and so is not readily related to a baby's intake of milk). There is also some evidence (cited by Curtis, 1994) for neurological abnormalities in babies taking in relatively high DDT residues with their milk.

http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm


And just recently (01/10/10):

In South Africa, DDT has been sprayed annually since 1945 in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province, where the researchers focused their study. The province has the country’s highest incidence of malaria, and the district the highest prevalence. The team, led by andrologist Riana Bornman of the University of South Africa, Pretoria, used government records from 1995 to 2003 that document the villages (though not the individual homes) where DDT was sprayed indoors. Province records were lacking for the years 1980 and 1994. Team members examined more than 7,000 male and female babies born between 2004 to 2006 to local women who agreed to answer questionnaires in hospital.

The researchers found that 11% of 3,310 baby boys born in their study cohort had at least one of several urogenital malformations including hypospadias (in which the urethral opening occurs on the underside rather than the tip of the penis) or cryptorchordism (in which one or both testes remain undescended). According to the team’s analyses, mothers exposed to household DDT spraying in the five to nine years before the study began had a 33% greater chance than unexposed mothers of having a son with such defects. The researchers also saw greater risk in women who were homemakers than in mothers employed outside the home.

The rate of urogenital malformations in local baby boys is incredibly high, says Jordi Sunyer, co-director of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona—the global average is estimated at about 2%. This finding alone is important, Sunyer says. But mothers from unsprayed villages also gave birth to boys with nearly the same rate of urogenital malformations, at about 10%, points out Frank Sullivan, an independent consultant in toxicology at London consultancy Harrington House.

http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a18

orange
02-15-2010, 05:24 PM
Oh, and of course there's this easily accessible summary:

[edit] Effects on human health
Potential mechanisms of DDT on humans are genotoxicity and endocrine disruption. DDT may have direct genotoxicity,[42] but may also induce enzymes that produce other genotoxic intermediates and DNA adducts.[42] It is an endocrine disruptor; The DDT metabolite DDE acts as an antiandrogen (but not as an estrogen). o,p'-DDT, a minor component in commercial DDT has weak estrogenic activity. However, p,p'-DDT, the main component of DDT, has little or no androgenic or estrogenic activity.[42]

[edit] Acute toxicity
DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[43] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[44] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[45]

[edit] Chronic toxicity
[edit] Diabetes
Organochlorine compounds, generally, and DDT and DDE, specifically, have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[46][47][48][49][50][51]

[edit] Developmental and reproductive toxicity
DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed toxicological studies involving mice and rats, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. There is therefore concern that DDT may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity.

A review article in The Lancet concludes that, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[21]
Human epidemiological studies suggest that DDT exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[52] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may cause increases in infant deaths in areas where DDT is used for malaria control, and thus offset any benefit derived from its anti-malarial effects.[53][54][55] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[56]
Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance of experiencing development problems,[57] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[58] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[59] Similarly, Mexican researchers have demonstrated a link between DDE exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy and retarded psychomotor development.[60]
A number studies have documented decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures to DDT or DDE (generally from IRS).[61][62][63]
Several studies have examined the association between time to pregnancy (TTP) and levels of DDT or DDE in the blood of pregnant women. These studies have generally found that high exposure levels do not increase TTP.[64] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[65]
DDT exposure is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[66] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT, suggesting that these findings are relevant to the debate about DDT and malaria control.[67]
A case-control study of congenital hypothyroidism in Japan concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[68] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[69][70]
[edit] Other
Occupational exposure to DDT (either as a farmer or a malaria control worker) has been linked to:

Neurological problems[71]
Asthma[72]
[edit] Carcinogenicity
DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen", and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as a class B2 "probable" human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it is as a "possible" human carcinogen. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][21]

There is epidemiological evidence (i.e. studies in humans) that DDT causes cancer of the:

Liver[21][32]
Pancreas[21][32]
Breast[32] (see below)
There is mixed evidence that it contributes cancer of the:

Blood (i.e. Leukemia)[32]
Testis[21][32][73]
Lymphatic system (i.e. non-Hodgkin Lymphoma)[32][74]
In contrast, epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause cancers of the:

Plasma, (i.e. multiple myeloma)[21]
Prostate[21]
Endometrium[21][32]
Rectum[21][32]
Lung[32]
Bladder[32]
Stomach[32]
[edit] Breast cancer
The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been the subject of numerous investigations. While individual studies have come to conflicting conclusions, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that exposure to DDT before puberty increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.[32][75] Until recently, almost all studies measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. This study design has been criticized, since the levels of DDT or DDE at diagnosis do not necessarily correspond to the levels present in a woman's body at the time when her cancer first started.[76] Such studies have thus yielded conflicting results and taken as a whole "do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer."[42] The studies of this design have been extensively reviewed.[21][77][78]

In contrast to these studies, a study published in 2007 found a strong association between exposure to specifically the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life. Unlike previous studies, this was prospective cohort study in which blood samples were collected from young mothers in the 1960s while DDT was still in use, and their breast cancer status was then monitored. In addition to suggesting that exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT is the more significant risk factor of breast cancer, the study also suggests that the timing of exposure is critical. For the subset of women born more than 14 years prior to the introduction of DDT into US agriculture, there was no association between DDT levels and breast cancer. However, for women born more recently—and thus exposed earlier in life—the third who were exposed most to p, p-DDT had a fivefold increase in breast cancer incidence over the least exposed third, after correcting for the protective effect of o,p-DDT.[42][79] These results are supported by animal studies.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:31 PM
So now we're talking about 33% higher liklehood of urethral abnormalities and propensity towards diabetes? Okay. The WHO estimates that 500,000,000 lives were saved by the use of DDT. I've already said that I'll take cancer in adults over malaria in infants, so the whole breast cancer rate really doesn't phase me. Most African nations should be so lucky as to have to worry about cancer.

Forgive me if I'm not swayed. Should African nations not be allowed to use any pesticides?

AustinChief
02-15-2010, 06:15 PM
But mothers from unsprayed villages also gave birth to boys with nearly the same rate of urogenital malformations, at about 10%, points out Frank Sullivan, an independent consultant in toxicology at London consultancy Harrington House.

http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a18


You skipped the part that showed that the study didn't correlate this to DDT effectively. Yes it's possible that DDT exposure was carried to those villages as well... OR it's more possible that there is another factor that caused the deformities.

orange
02-15-2010, 06:33 PM
Should African nations not be allowed to use any pesticides?


Again, WHO'S STOPPING THEM?


Perhaps surprisingly then, DDT is not used in Mozambique and the authorities say they do not want to use it.

Oh, that's right - NO ONE IS.

In South Africa, DDT has been sprayed annually since 1945 in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province, where the researchers focused their study.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 06:37 PM
Again, WHO'S STOPPING THEM?

It's pure conjecture, because I don't feel like digging that deep into Mozambique's inter-workings, but I would postulate that South Africa probably has a lot of pull in the region.

banyon
02-15-2010, 08:04 PM
The Stockholm Convention banned it worldwide for agricultural use.

Not even the US has ratified that recent treaty.

http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:16 PM
Not even the US has ratified that recent treaty.

http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx

It was banned in the US in 1972.

banyon
02-15-2010, 08:24 PM
It was banned in the US in 1972.

Yes, but the point was the treaty does not have the widespread effect you claimed.

bowener
02-15-2010, 08:27 PM
No, I don't think they are the same people. But the Creationists have planted the anti-science seed. In defense of some people here on CP, the anti-warmers don't live on the same anti-science street as the Creationists. They are right to point out the flaws and errors, but some are, perhaps, being disingenuous when they suggest the few flaws and errors wipe out all of the other global warming studies. Nothing wrong with some good skepticism, though.

I can't be certain, for obvious reasons (they are dead), but from everything they said or wrote I am pretty much sure that the majority of the founding fathers of the US would be absolutely appalled and grief stricken at the overall anti-Intellectual ideals in the US today. This statement is aimed at creationist ilk that mull around the US thinking God placed fake dinosaur bones under ground to test humans... yeah that is the simplest possible answer to what happened.

That is it, not adding anything else so far.

bowener
02-15-2010, 08:28 PM
got it! :thumb:

now that we know that the original premise of your argument is fabricated(many people are trying to discredit ALL science), anything that you base off that argument is just compounding the error... :clap:


that sounds just like INTELLIGENT DESIGN... :facepalm:

FYP

Couldn't resist the chance.

banyon
02-15-2010, 08:29 PM
You skipped the part that showed that the study didn't correlate this to DDT effectively. Yes it's possible that DDT exposure was carried to those villages as well... OR it's more possible that there is another factor that caused the deformities.

How is it "more possible" absent a corresponding alternate correlation?

banyon
02-15-2010, 08:30 PM
Stockholm Convention - negotiated in 2001, entered into force in 2004.


NOPE. This COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the BAN you claimed was in effect in 1972 - notwithstanding that it's not a BAN in any case - Co-signatories agree to outlaw nine of the dirty dozen chemicals, limit the use of DDT to malaria control, and curtail inadvertent production of dioxins and furans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants

Are you saying your original post was a LIE?






Just like THIS is a lie:




Stockholm Convention: B. Restriction DDT 50-29-3 Disease vector control in accordance with Part II of Annex B
Production and use as an intermediate in the production of dicofol and other compounds

It's not a lie, it's a mistake, don't pull a SHTSPRAYER on Saulie here.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:36 PM
Yes, but the point was the treaty does not have the widespread effect you claimed.

I don't follow you here. Mozambique signed on, and so did the dominant country in the region, South Africa. It's been banned in the US for almost 30 years.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:39 PM
How is it "more possible" absent a corresponding alternate correlation?

The article shows that the issue occurred both in places with and without the use of DDT. Where is the correlation?

PornChief
02-15-2010, 10:04 PM
they actually can prove AGW is real, but the dog ate the data.

AustinChief
02-16-2010, 02:12 AM
How is it "more possible" absent a corresponding alternate correlation?
dude, I respect you so I don't want to be an ass.. but seriously?

No offense but I am guessing science was never a strong point in your life?

Very simply, it is MORE possible because you have A) 1 extraneous possible reason and B) an INFINITE number of alternate possible reasons... (given the defines)

infinite > 1

the study = BAD SCIENCE.


I have no problem with saying that DDT may be awful... I also don't think the massive decline in DDT usage was soley due to alarmist tactics.

BUT DO NOT for a second try to defend specious scientific conclusions with poor logic and think it will fly.

Last thing on this topic.... and I hope we won't have to argue it... "burden of proof"... last time I checked.. it wasn't on my camp...

...as I said before I ABSOLUTELY believe that"concerns" should be valued and looked into... but NOT reacted to it... the DDT argument is not mine... mine is the conservationist movement... I challenge anyone to argue how that wasn't a massive fuck up based on incomplete knowledge.

banyon
02-16-2010, 08:43 AM
dude, I respect you so I don't want to be an ass.. but seriously?

No offense but I am guessing science was never a strong point in your life?

Very simply, it is MORE possible because you have A) 1 extraneous possible reason and B) an INFINITE number of alternate possible reasons... (given the defines)

infinite > 1

the study = BAD SCIENCE.


I have no problem with saying that DDT may be awful... I also don't think the massive decline in DDT usage was soley due to alarmist tactics.

BUT DO NOT for a second try to defend specious scientific conclusions with poor logic and think it will fly.

Last thing on this topic.... and I hope we won't have to argue it... "burden of proof"... last time I checked.. it wasn't on my camp...

...as I said before I ABSOLUTELY believe that"concerns" should be valued and looked into... but NOT reacted to it... the DDT argument is not mine... mine is the conservationist movement... I challenge anyone to argue how that wasn't a massive **** up based on incomplete knowledge.

I haven't decided yet how I feel about the DDT argument, but I don't agree with you on the nature of inductive reasoning.

Anytime we have a correlation and are seeking to establish causation, the presence of a correlation tells us more about potential knowledge than simply throwing up our hands and saying that there is an infinity of other possible explanations, UNLESS we have knowledge of a specific alternate correlation (or set of them) that is equally or more likely. I don't know that we are disagreeing, but I was asking for that specific alternate correlation (or set) that would dispel the concerns.

I am not a scientist, but I have studied inductive and deductive reasoning in some detail. The "infinite is greater than 1" principle you set forth here, doesn't comport with any workable inductive principle I am familiar with, as it's application would seem to render any observation meaningless. (e.g., "the apple fell from the tree due to gravity: 'no, there is an infinity of other possible reasons and infinity is greater than 1").

banyon
02-16-2010, 08:55 AM
The article shows that the issue occurred both in places with and without the use of DDT. Where is the correlation?

An increase in the incidence of the birth defect isn't a correlation to you?

What if the birth defect results from more than 1 possible factor, but some of the factors are more likely to spawn it than others, or it results from an accumulation of carcinogenic risks?

Saul Good
02-16-2010, 04:34 PM
An increase in the incidence of the birth defect isn't a correlation to you?

What if the birth defect results from more than 1 possible factor, but some of the factors are more likely to spawn it than others, or it results from an accumulation of carcinogenic risks?

I get what you are saying, and it's a possibility. I don't really care to delve into it much further for the simple fact that, even if the worst case scenario is true, it's still a microscopic price to pay for something that the WHO credits with saving the lives of 1 out of every 6 people on the planet over the course of a few decades.

AustinChief
02-16-2010, 05:19 PM
I haven't decided yet how I feel about the DDT argument, but I don't agree with you on the nature of inductive reasoning.

Anytime we have a correlation and are seeking to establish causation, the presence of a correlation tells us more about potential knowledge than simply throwing up our hands and saying that there is an infinity of other possible explanations, UNLESS we have knowledge of a specific alternate correlation (or set of them) that is equally or more likely. I don't know that we are disagreeing, but I was asking for that specific alternate correlation (or set) that would dispel the concerns.

I am not a scientist, but I have studied inductive and deductive reasoning in some detail. The "infinite is greater than 1" principle you set forth here, doesn't comport with any workable inductive principle I am familiar with, as it's application would seem to render any observation meaningless. (e.g., "the apple fell from the tree due to gravity: 'no, there is an infinity of other possible reasons and infinity is greater than 1").

I totally agree with you on the nature of inductive reasoning... Problem is... the scientific method is DEDUCTIVE (or should be when properly applied).

The problem in the case you mentioned is that they have two distinct data sets that share a birth defect and MANY MANY other common factors (so many to be almost infinite... tons of genetic and environmental factors to start with...)... but only one data set was exposed to DDT... how in God's name does one come to a conclusion that there is a correlation with the DDT exposure when a group sharing thousands if not millions of other factors did NOT have similar DDT exposure yet shared the defect? That is the exact OPPOSITE of a correlation... it effectively rules DDT OUT as the cause.

I could care less about DDT, but I hate agenda driven sloppy science. In this case I don't even think it was agenda driven... I think it was just lazy.

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 04:47 AM
I totally agree with you on the nature of inductive reasoning... Problem is... the scientific method is DEDUCTIVE (or should be when properly applied).

The problem in the case you mentioned is that they have two distinct data sets that share a birth defect and MANY MANY other common factors (so many to be almost infinite... tons of genetic and environmental factors to start with...)... but only one data set was exposed to DDT... how in God's name does one come to a conclusion that there is a correlation with the DDT exposure when a group sharing thousands if not millions of other factors did NOT have similar DDT exposure yet shared the defect? That is the exact OPPOSITE of a correlation... it effectively rules DDT OUT as the cause.

I could care less about DDT, but I hate agenda driven sloppy science. In this case I don't even think it was agenda driven... I think it was just lazy.

How does one differentiate between mistaken science and agenda driven science?

AustinChief
02-17-2010, 03:05 PM
How does one differentiate between mistaken science and agenda driven science?From the outside looking in .. it's almost impossible to do... I was just guessing in this case. PLUS, I really don't see DDT banning as an agenda driven thing anymore... I could be wrong ... just my opinion on why the science was bad.

Actually, I am basing this on very limited data myself, if I cared enough I would actually try to find the study and read it in its entirety... my comments are soley based on what was posted.

irishjayhawk
02-18-2010, 04:49 AM
From the outside looking in .. it's almost impossible to do... I was just guessing in this case. PLUS, I really don't see DDT banning as an agenda driven thing anymore... I could be wrong ... just my opinion on why the science was bad.

Actually, I am basing this on very limited data myself, if I cared enough I would actually try to find the study and read it in its entirety... my comments are soley based on what was posted.

Then why do you think, in the global warming "debate", so many people jump to agenda driven science?