I occasionally get emails from the other side of the world with a query about something environmental that is uniquely Australian.
It was not so many years ago that John Berlau emailed me about the Murray River and also bushfires. He was writing a book. It’s now published. Called ‘Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health’ the book includes chapters on DDT, Asbestos and Hurricane Katrina.
I’ve only read the first three chapters. There could be something in the following few about the Murray River and Australia or he may be saving that for another book.
Anyway, while the focus in ‘Eco-Freaks’ is on America, the issues Berlau chooses to explore are relevant to the whole world.
The second chapter on DDT, and entitled ‘Rachel Carson Kills Birds’, will have Tim Lambert in a spin. In fact Berlau references Lambert’s blog ‘Deltoid’ (footnote number 128). But it’s not complementary.
I have read a lot about DDT, Rachel Carson and environmentalism, but I still learnt a lot from that chapter.
And I was amused by the anecdotal. In particular, that Joseph Jacobs, a chemist who worked to mass-produce DDT to protect American troops during World War II, ended up with DDT poured over him when the valve at the bottom of a large vessel was accidentally opened. In his autobiography, Jacobs wrote:
“When it dried, I had DDT an inch thick all over me. In my hair, in my ears, and in my mouth and nose. I took off my clothes, showered, and scrubbed, but probably ingested more DDT during that one incident than is today considered safe to absorb over any years.”
Berlau goes on to comment about the fate of Joseph Jacobs:
“After all, in the years after Silent Spring, DDT was called ‘double death twice’. One touch could kill you. And sadly, after being exposed, Jacobs did die – more than sixty years later in 2004, at the tender young age of eighty-eight.”
‘Eco-Freaks’ is available from Amazons.com.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Here is a biography for John Berlau:
http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_Expert.cfm?Expert=259
It’s hard to get Eco-Freaks to comment on this. After all, what do you say when 50 million deaths are laid at your doorstep?
A few will tell you it was for “a good cause,” but then, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler (who didn’t get such body counts) would have told you the same.
But–and this is important–none of them will admit, or would have admitted, that it was all a mistake. Or even a rat’s nest of clever lies.
Schiller
time to learn about strawman arguments. Making up your oponent’s argument, then proceeding to attack it, is a complete waste of your time. Don’t bother.
“Anyway, while the focus in ‘Eco-Freaks’ is on America, the issues Berlau chooses to explore are relevant to the whole world”
Nice throw away line. Care to elaborate?
Let me guess, because there are some anecdotal stories of health risks being defied, playing with uranium, sucking on car fumes and dare I say it on this blog…. Global Warming…. is no big deal.
Anthony,
You should read the book. There is a bit about global warming but it’s not a focus.
My next blog post on the book (part 2) will probably be on asbestos. The issue as discussed by Berlau, has much relevance to Australia, but his focus in the book is on the twin towers and 9/11.
Fortunately the association with CEI completely rules him out as someone with integrity and credibility.
No need to engage with the arguments.
If he is going to use the same argument as TGGWS, that trees put out more CO2 than cars, then he is already on the wrong track.
“Trees cause more “air pollution” than cars? In Eco-Freaks, John Berlau shatters long-standing environmental myths with startling facts, and exposes the many ways that shortsighted environmentalism — often based on pseudo-science or outright falsehoods — has actually helped amplify the dangers of natural disasters, and destroyed the health, lives and property of millions of people.”
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7010
Cars are introducing Carbon that was previously locked up under the ground into the atmosphere. Trees are part of the carbon cycle, which just uses what is there in the atmosphere already. If he can’t get something that simple right, then I have to wonder.
Gee Jim,
I’m surprised you are still visiting this blog, given my association with the IPA.
We must be nearly as bad as the CEI? 😉
You can only really trust x-pollies like Al Gore?
Confusing self righteous, bigoted beliefs with liberty and freedom again? You should start closer to home Schiller and justify all the deaths, injuries and deprivations of liberty caused by Christian campaigns and discriminatory US overlording international trade policies percolating down eg to poor smallscale cotton farmers. Thems real numbers a despot could be proud of. Forget piddly little DDT numbers. Don’t substantiate nothin. Keep refusing to acknowledge your own issues yet enjoy a little hypocritical finger pointing.
re: washed in DDT. There’s a physical shock effect from one-off occurences eg high radiation doses that medical researchers say can actually strengthen bodily systems, ie supporting the old waht doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger belief. I’m sure rog knows the proper name of it given his medical connections. Otherwise, what point can you draw on such a tale, can we count an isolated anecdote as solid evidence? I know a few people to survive experiences that could have and actually should have killed them, in fact a couple have died but been brought back and still alive now. So what? Proves life can be hazardous or you shouldn’t leave home or eat eggs or um, what? (trying to think illogically to see if I get it. Not working)
“As technology after technology that our grandparents put in place is being banned”.
Jennifer: I’m so looking forward to your thread on asbestos. That one is bound to get some interest given Australia’s predicament in the aftermath of our industrial record using the stuff. I luv it when mere writers get on to our industry and its chemicals etc.
This week I had to review the written record via the www on quite a few controversial substances we made here after a market acquaintance informed us our little mate had passed away. I guessed most of the survivors going to the funeral had no idea what this new Australian faced in his family’s reestablishment down under. At 85 hardly any one knew his whole story buts it’s really a small world. We once worked down wind from each other depending on the spill.
In the eulogy I realized his daughter had missed out several decades of his work and much of his survival skill from our booming post war chemical production.
In our part of the world Bolte intended to make Victoria the premier industrial estate so we got the lot then some. In the end we had three plants with various reactors making HD Polly whatever and each one fighting over BHP’s waste Benzene, C3 and C4 and so from the refineries. Like back in the States some of those places in Botany and Altona had 2 4 D, 2 4 5 T and many other things.
Products were produced here entirely for the local market by the multi nationals believe it or not with a generous tariff protection 40-60%
In re-checking facts on the www I noticed a link to community Radio 3CR. Given their city location fell into one of my STL restructures at a time when they were battling along with volunteers from institutions like RMIT I had to note this point again: It’s usually up to the public to start inquiries. 3CR was in the thick of debate over the West Gate Bridge collapse, the Coode Island chemical storage fire and the OH&S factors at the plant where our little mate had worked for so long.
His wife told me all about his mates at that place ages ago. Most of them died oddly before he retired. Most of that complex is now closed. Note too how new companies sometimes try to take over the mess from that era.
I deliberately avoided greater detail in this post, however I’m sure there are enough clues for any one wishing to dig deeper.
Pinxi: Personal hygiene on the job plays a big part in survival. The main problem is to keep all the nasty stuff out of your lungs, i.e. your blood stream. Hence chemical vapors are dangerous all the time.
Accidents I had with toxic fluids often meant flinging off all clothing before worrying about wash downs. Pure acid burns slowly enough but eyes are always a big problem.
The adult human body is quite resilient, much more so than say water borne organism. Very few blokes I knew actually had to leave an industry because of dermatitis or other skin sensitivity. Most of us though took great care with powdered stuff like organic mercury.
Fumes off this and that cocktail were the worst.
Rachael Carson also raised the issued of PCBs. Is Berlau going to chide her over her complaints about them, too?
SJT,
Sorry to hear that you consider 50 million deaths to be a “strawman argument.” Please give me your argument in favor of 50 million deaths so that I may refute it directly.
Jim,
I found your post interesting–It’s an unusual angle on the ad hom attack. Instead of merely offering “the association with CEI” as some sort of proof, you use it as showing there is “[n]o need to engage with the arguments.”
It’s unusual because it’s refreshingly honest. Few people are so forthright as to acknowledge that the ad hom attack evades the issues entirely.
Pinxi isn’t quite that honest. After calling me names, she challenges me to “justify all the deaths, injuries and deprivations of liberty caused by Christian campaigns and discriminatory US overlording international trade policies.”
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, “[i]t’s hard to get Eco-Freaks to comment on this.”
Makes you wonder how many Eco-Freaks it takes to change a topic…
Jen / Schiller – My attempt at satire has obviously failed miserably.
For the record , refusal to engage someone’s arguments because of a professional or personal association they may or may not have is;
1. Lazy
2. Usually indicative of fear of the argument itself
3. Arrogant
4. A classic feature of a mindset mdesperate for certainty and uniformity and willing to embrace totalinarianism to achieve it!
In short , I was parodying the ” shut-up Jennifer/IPA ” sneer crowd!
As a paid-up member of the IPA myself ( not to mention The Australia Institute and Amnesty )I’m definitely not anti-free speech!
I’ll try to be more serious in the future!
I know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but… meh.
Jennifer, I don’t have to read the book to know that if protecting the environment comes at greater social, environmental and economic cost that not protecting it, well… you need to re-think the protection.
I also don’t need to read the book to know that human life depends on the health of the environment.
If I want to know whether environmental protection is flawed or if environmental health is at threat, I wouldn’t read a book by someone trained as an economist and journalist.
Please entertain us with the links between environmentalism, eco-freaks and 9/11.
apparently the book coveres big issues such as
“How thousands of deaths that occurred in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s from fires in public buildings — including schools — were largely halted due to the amazing capability of asbestos to protect against fire”
it gets better…
“Solid evidence that, had asbestos been used, the World Trade Center towers might not have collapsed or at least would have stood longer, preventing thousands of deaths”
and this corker…
“How bans on cutting down most “old-growth” (mature) trees has led to thousands of deer dying in collisions with automobiles”
Are you seriously advocating people read this stuff?
Schiller
You just don’t get it, do you? Try again. This time try to frame an argument that does not assume to know what I think. If you want to know what I think, but don’t know, please ask me. Once you have my reply, you can then argue on the basis of what I actually think. Until then, you are just wasting your time and everyone elses.
Anthony,
I watched Al Gore’s new movie three times! And didn’t even enjoy it the first time. But I wanted to try and understand what he had produced, what he was saying it, and how he was saying it.
Though I only read Tim Flannery’s ‘The Weather Makers’ once.
I am about half way through Eco-Freaks.
I will read everything and anything about the environment from what might be considered both the left and right, the doomsayers and the skeptics, the Eco-Freaks and the …list goes on.
And yes, I suggest you do the same if you want to make informed comment or even just interesting comment on environmental issues.
Jim,
I appreciated your ‘satire’. But am perhaps not much good at writing it!
Jim,
Dang, sorry I didn’t recognize the satire–though it seemed like “honest” activism. I was perhaps too anxious to see some of that. Oh well, perhaps some day we’ll see it.
I notice Anthony is changing the topic, too… so, the answer to the question, “How many Eco-Freaks does it take to change a topic?” is, “any one of them.”
SJT,
I blatantly, literally, obviously, and actually asked you for an explanation of what you think.
And I said I would reply directly to your argument(s). So what is your problem?
All you have to do is argue in favor of 50 million preventable African deaths from malaria.
Scroll up, dude. I know you can do it if you try.
Schiller,
you are a nutcase. No-one has to respond to cheap insults like that. Try again.
SJT,
Thanks for making my case. You apparently can’t stay on-topic.
Hmmm…. how many Eco-Freaks does it take to change the topic?
Any one of them.
Done my three in 24, I’m out. Best luck to the rest of you.
As suggested by the book cover, there is an historical parallel between hippies and greenies. I was attracted to both movements, initially, because they seemed good, honest and sincere.
However, the hippies of Haight Ashbury were infiltrated and taken over by some unpleasant characters, who talked the talk, walked the walk, but were there for the power and the chicks. I met one once. He was so careful to cultivate the right grimy appearance that he actually smelt bad. I found out later about his violent criminal background.
Some in the green movement are latter day hairy hippies, others are smoother, but power is still, I suspect, the pheromone.
Having said that, I still believe in peace, love, and conserving nature. I try to steer clear of the cunning, the crackpots, and the polemicists.
Schiller
I don’t want to engage in a useless attack by insult with you. Perhaps when you could try a different approach, we can have a meaningful debate.
DDT is a complex topic, from what I have read. I am not that well informed on it, as I spend most of my time on global warming, which I hope I am better informed on. The suggestion that I want 50 million dead is just plainly offensive. If you actually want to make a point, please do.
We have unprecendentedly quick (via the internet) access to an unprecendentedly large amount of information. So its easy to find a view that concurs with what you want.
And given that you can find an argument either way on many big issues without even trying, its easy to pretend like your preferred argument is true by quoting someone or publicising a book or movie.
Once you realise that it is this easy, its easy to become depressed at the seeming post-modern lack of good honest truth in today’s world.
Plenty of people get scared by this, and simply ignore stuff that disagrees with their view, even when their arguments are becoming ridiculous.
Or they take Ian’s approach, which is to shun most authorities and rely on one’s own good sense as the only source you can really trust.
But i don’t think it needs to be so hard. We just have to think hard about the process by which we look for and choose information sources.
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: in this day and age, learning how to sort through the ocean of information, pick the wheat from the chaff, prioritise, discard, etc is one of the most important skills you can have.
People who bleat about ad hom attacks whenever their favoured source is attacked as non-authoritive just don’t seem to understand this. You might have the time to listen to and engage with every nutter with an opinion or a book or movie to peddle, but most sensible and productive people don’t.
Its not hard:
If you rely on Al Gore as your main source of info on climate change, I’d suggest you need to look further afield and broaden your education. There are many reasons to doubt the understanding and motives of an ex-pollie on an issue like climate change – maybe there are better sources out there.
If you put much substance in a book with a provocative sounding title like ‘eco-freaks’, with an anachronistic caricature on the cover (this guy obviously doesn’t have a clue about what people who care about the environment are really like in today’s world), and written by a journalist working in the entrepreneur section of a renknowned anti-greenie think tank, then ditto.
And I would suggest that if you went to the trouble of watching an inconvenient truth 3 times, then you are either extremely unskilled at picking where to get your info from in a time-efficient manner, or else you are watching it carefully so that you can pick holes in it and combat its influence, rather than watching it to learn.
I watched inconvenient truth once, i haven’t read the weather makers and don’t plan to (real climate suggested it wasnt a great read, which accords with my own judgement), and i won’t be bothering with John Berlau.
You might disagree, maybe you have more time to read lower quality info than me, or your method of prioritising sources is different – that might be an interesting discussion.
In any case, i’m dismissing this book and i don’t consider myself lazy, fearful, arrogant, or whatever jims 4th point was. I’m just careful with my time, and have an active BS filter to blank out a lot of the crap that is out there begging for my attention. If you change the channel or make a cuppa when the TV ads come on, you know what I mean.
Which reminds me, I’ve broken my NY resolution to quit reading this blog! 🙂
Steve, thanks for breaking your NY resolution on this one and you probably highlight something pretty critical here
Jen says:
“I watched Al Gore’s new movie three times! And didn’t even enjoy it the first time. But I wanted to try and understand what he had produced, what he was saying it, and how he was saying it.”
Most people watched it because they wanted to find out something about this thing called climate change. Most sensible people would have walked away and gone… gee, this might be serious, I better read up on the science.
Your language betrays your bias. You see the world in relativities, with truth dependant on your ability to convince people of somethings meaning. You watched Al Gore to understand the message delivery, not content.
Thankfully, there are people in the world who go beyond the spin of politicians and journalist in an attempt to understand how stuff works.
As for Schiller… what is the topic you think we are avoiding? Is the topic “would an ‘eco-freak environmentalist’ advocate the death of 50M to protect the environment?”. Apparently you have made this the topic so I will entertain you.
I don’t consider myself and eco-freak or an environmentalist (not even sure how this is defined), but I agree with SJT, that is not something I would advocate.
Perhaps if we define an eco freak as someone who advocates the protection of the environment (and believes DDT detrimental to the env.) over human life, then yes, they would advocate for letting 50M die.
Not sure what your point is?
If you were interested in the solution to the problem you may ask something like: How else could the spread of Malaria be avoided? What alternatives exist for DDT that don’t have environmental risks? etc. Instead you establish false choices for people you don’t know, don’t understand but clearly want to discredit: “All you have to do is argue in favor of 50 million preventable African deaths from malaria.”
Is something troubling you? Why do you want someone to agree that needlessly killing 50M people is a good thing?
Steve: How do you handle a Jo Witty armed with a Bible and charming blonde 3 y old standing at your door?
This happened while I was on the phone to a woody about the 4 corners program on bushfires this week.
Perhaps Berlau is referring to this document by Prof Edwards titled “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud”
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
*The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of deaths, while sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect-borne diseases. This means DDT.*
Anthony: To put your 50 mill in perspective for a mo; many here will live some three decades past their retirement. That puts lots close to living beyond 2050 and dealing with some 9 billion others on this planet. Although quite a few will die meantime from whatever this DDT argument, book and blog has little relevance in our dilemma.
It seems the world’s population has passed a milestone where half of us live in mega cities and their satellites. Also a handful lives in walled enclaves within those cities. That’s unsustainable because so many have lost personal access to natural resources.
Anthony: Going back to your previous posts, it’s all about most of us handling opinions from fringe dwellers when it comes to understanding principles we might get from understanding solid disciplines like say engineering. However I must say, it’s never been a perfect world and I for one won’t be waiting for fresh solutions from either economics or science. Also I expect to stay somewhat upland from the coast.
There is going to be lots of looses Jen. Winner takes all hey!
Schiller:
“All you have to do is argue in favor of 50 million preventable African deaths from malaria”
There’s always more to it than that – surely you have heard of the knock-on problems brought on by DDT encountered in borneo in the 1950s??
“Back in the fifties, people in a region of Borneo were having trouble with malaria. In an effort to save lives, the World Health Organization decided to intervene by drastically reducing the mosquito population (mosquitoes being carriers of malaria). To do so, they sprayed the insecticide DDT all over the area, killing many mosquitoes and significantly reducing the incidence of malaria.
However, the World Health Organization failed to appreciate the full scope of their actions. DDT not only successfully killed mosquitoes – it also attacked a parasitic wasp population. These wasps, it turned out, had kept in check a population of thatch-eating caterpillars. So with the accidental removal of the wasps, the caterpillars flourished, and soon building roofs started falling in all over the place.
As if that was not enough the insects, poisoned by DDT, were consumed by geckoes. The biological half-life of DDT is around 8-years, so animals like geckoes do not metabolize it very fast, and it stays in their system for a long time. Those geckoes, carrying the DDT poison, were in turn hunted and eaten by the cat population. With far less cats, rats took over and multiplied, and this in turn led to outbreaks of typhus and sylvatic plague (which are passed on by rats).
By now the cure had become worse than the initial disease, so the World Health Organization did what any self-respecting world health organization would do: they parachuted 14,000 live cats into Borneo. The event was known as Operation Cat Drop.
The WHO had failed to consider the full implications of their actions on the delicate ecology of the region. Because they lacked understanding of the basic effects of DDT (now banned in the United States), such as a long half-life that allows spreading through levels of consumption, and the relationships among the animals of the area, they ended up making things worse rather than better – and a high cost was paid for this mistake.”
that childrens song about the woman who swallowed a fly sums this up perfectly…
Steve, I am interested in your definition of ‘lower quality info’ as I have put An Inconvenient Truth into that category especially after going through the book carefully.
Schiller:
“All you have to do is argue in favor of 50 million preventable African deaths from malaria”
As in Julians example , DDT and other persistant organic pollutants (POPS) are accumulating in the Arctic environment, and especially in top predators , such as polar bears, seals and whales.
Killer whales are the Arctics most contaminated animals.
Inuits eat these contaminated animals and it has been proven that Inuit children’s health have been affected by these POPs including DDT.
The Arctic Council has been very worried about these health impacts from DDTs , but in solidarity to African children, they don’t want a complete ban on DDT,
However, long term effects of low dosages of DDTs on humans are not very well known, but reseach on this is currently ongoing.
Health effects on polar bears are reproduction problems, contaminated milk, seals without hair etc. etc. We can not exclude the same problems in humans, including damage to the central nervous system.
Gavin, are you saying that in the long run, 50M people dying is not that many in a world of 9B?
I agree that deaths are inevitable and compared to 9B, 50M is not many, particularly if the alternative is for 9B to die… However I think Shillers insinuation that ‘eco-freaks’ would choose having 50M people die over the environment is a different thing altogether.
My Guess is that ‘eco-freaks (geez that is a terrible choice of words…)’ would prefer to find a solution that minimised the loss of lives and harm to the environment, without compromising the environment.
Anthony,
I’ve a BSc (double major entomology and botany) and PhD (entomology) because my main interest always has been and probably always will be science and in particular understanding the natural world and natural history.
But I came to realize some years ago that activists like Al Gore are doing the discipline enormous harm and so I now also study them.
As regards his new movie, after watching it three times I have come to the conclusion it is a brilliant piece of propaganda.
Now what is your background?
PR or perhaps banking?
Anthony; Both Ann and Julian have done a good job here since I last posted. It saves me going back over so much old ground. Also it’s been quite a while since I was up to date on any specific research, mid 90’s in fact. That leaves me thinking some commentators here weren’t even born when it all started.
One industrial chemist alerted me to some dangers in the mid 60’s however that was after my own first serious brush with such products. Universal hazchem savy came much later. Trying to dispose of various samples here was still hit and miss through the mid 80’s. My guess is much went down the sewers over decades. Somebody mentioned vigorous washing, hey that was the practice all over!
Ann could appreciate we had good science around our milk industry. I was a guest at Kraft early on then at other times got involved with ongoing Dairy Corp export and farm background developments. Wholesale food processing labs everywhere frequently looked at the potential for residues to accumulate. Recall NATA pioneered testing & certification procedures for international agreements.
Without any further fuss let’s check D for Dairy, DDT etc. in this link. However it’s all too familiar.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/index_d.html
Jennifer
how would you rate this book, or TGGWS? Both brilliant pieces of propaganda?
Julian and Ann, Schiller will not care a hoot about wasps, geckoes, cats, orcas, polar bears or anything other than humans, and even then only certain humans will fall into any sort of ‘worthy’ category for him. If you don’t believe me, read back over past threads.
>Now what is your background?
PR or perhaps banking?
Careful Jennifer. Now you are sounding obnoxious, like the usual suspects. Does it really matter what Anthony does for a living, or does it matter more what he knows?
SJT,
Eco-Freaks is written from a particular perspective. But it is neither polemic nor propaganda. John Berlau presents lots of information in an easy to read format all endnoted and referenced.
I have only watched the first 5 or so minutes of TGGWS so won’t pass judgement yet. It is my intention to watch the entire movie.
Travis,
Anthony has lots of opinions, including on my judgement. I am interested to know his background.
Many people here have ‘lots of opinions’ Jen (!) but you seem to be assuming Anthony does not have a science background, and implying that banking and PR are not backgrounds worthy of allowing him to have well-informed opinions.
Jennifer
I he does what the review claims, and states that trees are worse than cars because they put out more CO2, then it is polemic. (trees also put out oxygen). Trees are part of the carbon cycle, which does not add extra CO2 to the atmosphere, cars are putting out CO2 which was locked up underground.
“Eco-Freaks is written from a particular perspective. But it is neither polemic nor propaganda. John Berlau presents lots of information in an easy to read format all endnoted and referenced.”
Rrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiight.
* Lots of info
* Easy to read format
* Endnotes and references
= not propaganda
Everybody got that?
PS. Jennifer might have missed the title of the book and its cover artwork in her haste to read it.
The cover should be all you need to know to decide whether or not the book is going to be a polemic/propaganda or not.
Steve,
After you have read the book, and assuming you have already seen ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, I’d be happy to go through and rate both with you perhaps based on the 5 criteria here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000579.html .
Travis,
I know very little about banking and very few bankers, but I’m sure some have very well informed opinions, particularly about banking.
Jennifer
according to your rules, this book is a piece of propaganda, as is TGGWS.
1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
Rule 1, check. Rule 2, check.
SJT,
Have you read this book/Eco-Freaks?
This is my score card for ‘Eco-Freaks’ (John Berlau) and ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (Al Gore), I haven’t watched TGGWS.
Rule 1. Berlau 0, Gore 1.
Rule 2. Berlau 1, Gore 1.
Rule 3. Berlau 0, Gore 1.
Rule 4. Berlau 0, Gore 1.
Rule 5. Berlau 0, Gore 1.
So I would suggest Al Gore scored 5 out of 5 for propaganda and Berlau scored 1 out of 5 for propaganda.
In the past, I’ve been incredulous of claims that environmentalists consider the lives of the world’s most poor and desperate are expendable in the pursuit of environmental goals.
I now believe those claims. Thanks, Travis and SJT.
Schiller, are you suggesting that from what I wrote I ‘consider the lives of the world’s most poor and desperate are expendable in the pursuit of environmental goals’? I am not alone in telling you that you have a nasty habit of accusing people of things that simply aren’t true, all to fulfil some warped idea in your own screwed up mind. The heinous crimes you so readily accuse others of are often those which you are guilty of yourself.
Really, Travis?
You obviously see something wrong in caring less about “wasps, geckoes, cats, orcas, polar bears or anything” than about humans.
And as far as “worthy” humans goes, those who count plants, insects and animals more important that human life are, in my estimation, not worthy, and only questionably human. The word “inhuman” was coined for just such a circumstance.
So yes, Travis, you have made it quite clear that when there’s a choice between human life and non-human life, the latter gets priority.
And that’s inhuman.
There was no mention in my 6:21 post about caring ‘less’, ‘more important’ or ‘a choice’. I made no such accusation you are yielding at me ‘clear’.
So yes, Schiller, you are truly delusional.
excuse me.. while I was sleeping some assumptions were being made about my backgronud and ability to comment on these things.
For the record my undergraduate was in Economics and Social Science and my masters in Engineering. I really don’t see how it matters. For the record I have never worked in PR or banking.
Jennifer, I fail to understand how you can recommend reading ‘eco-freaks’ and apparently also recommend it as a serious piece of research/writing.
Take this for example:
“How bans on cutting down most “old-growth” (mature) trees has led to thousands of deer dying in collisions with automobiles”
What is he advocating? 10m walls bordering all roadways or getting rid of forests? Or perhaps he is just trying to be obnoxous.
In the case of a deer being killed by a car, is old growth forest protection the issue or is it cars? In evaluating the value of the car, does he also look at the number of deaths and health costs due to cars, particulate emissions, head injuries, spinal injuries, family losses, emergency services etc etc. In evaluating the value of the old growth forest does he also look at its value as habitat, its value in environmental cycles etc etc.
If he does, then maybe I would be interested in reading it. Even better, I would be interested to know what his proposed solution is to the problem, but somehow I don’t think thats his angle. If you are pushing for this book so hard, you’ve got to do a better job to convince me.
I don’t doubt Al Gore is good at propoganda. I doubt what Al Gore has to do with the merit of this book.
Schiller
I already said I do not know that much about DDT. I offered no opinion, and I’m certainly not going to take your word for it. You are an obnoxious, deceptive liar. Schiller, when are you going to stop beating your wife?
Schiller is sounding like a Human Ecologist. Has he been to Damascus recently?
SJT,
If you don’t know that much about DDT, why do you comment? Surely that would be a clue that you’re out of your league. But still, somehow, you feel you know enough to call me a “liar.” Must be a Greenie privilege to sling the poo when you don’t know poo.
Next thing, you’ll be begging me to do your homework for you. Like showing sources for how many of those in impoverished nations died as a result of Greenie delusions about the dangers of DDT.
Or how many in Europe and North America survived because of the use of DDT. (DDT is only for rich nations that don’t need it any more and therefore don’t use it. Cute!)
You know, I’m becoming more and more convinced that the title of this book is too mild. It should be more like:
“Eco-Imperialism – Green Power, Black Death.”
Now in its second printing, visit http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
Three in 24, I’m out, it’s up to the humanists to carry things forward.
Schiller, I would be interested if you did a study on how many lives environmentalism has cost and how many it has saved (over say 1000 years).
Then do a study on how many lives Imperialism has cost and how many it has saved (over say 1000 years).
It may point in the direction of why African nations are poor and destitute in the first place.
Actually… don’t bother. Just stick to DDT and ranting
Schiller wouldnt go to Damascus there are Arabs there. He would see them as bad as greenies.
Perhaps Jennifer will allow me this and subtract one from tomorrow’s allotment.
Anthony, how many Eco-Freaks does it take to change a topic? Any one of them.
The topic is: how many human beings have died from Greenie policies. Other policies are *not* on the table. That is covered by other blogs. You can go there without changing the topic.
Or, to be more on point, how many millions have died from anti-DDT policies, and was that a fair exchange for, for instance, gack! not having to parachute cats?
It’s apparent that some would rather see human bodies on the ground than go through the difficulties involved in parachuting cats. (As if that would work, anyhow.)
Only an Eco-Freak would think of parachuting cats, and only an Eco-Freak would think it’s better that people die than to have to parachute cats.
Maybe the title of the book is good after all.
And how many have died from anti-DDT policies – what’s the evidence for that – and name two that actually died?
Ya a awn! In the end, all this fiction becomes tiresome.
Schiller
what I commented on was if the book was propaganda. I commented on the authors assertion that tree contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than cars. I commented on your obscene rudeness, clearly stating I like that idea that 50 Million people should die because it makes me feel warm and green inside.
You are an abusive nutcase. Can you even read a simple sequence of posts, and understand them?
hmmm appears Schiller can’t name anyone who died from “anti-DDT policies”. That’s strange.
Luke,
You must be making a crude jest. I live in a developed nation. There is no way I would know someone who died from this. How could I?
I live in a society so rich and well-fed that it can actually afford to donate money to wayward causes.
As that famous Russian said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Check this out.
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/statistics.htm
Although you’ll likely say it’s “paid for by a corrupt government bent on world domination.”
You’ll like this even less:
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
–where you can see ongoing statistics in real time. You will hate that, too. Some will say this is paid for by tobacco companies.
But, Big Tobacco opposes DDT.
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=201
By now you are confused, but with time, you’ll figure it out. I realize it’s hard to retain Green credentials and be realistic at the same time, but smart people have actually done it.
So Schiller you are saying that there are smart, green and realistic people out there?
Well, Travis,
There’s not many who can be all three at the same time, since it takes a bit of thought. But there’s at least one at Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs.
The notion of being smart, green and realistic all at the same time likely boggles the imagination for many, so you are not alone.
But take heart! With a will, you can do it.
Since we are all right up to speed here; some one tell Schiller most informed oz ignore links that don’t end .au
Thanks
Gavin,
This is very interesting and I will tell my friends about it. How exactly do Australians avoid links that end in .com, .org, .gov and .net?
Is it similar to internet policy in China?
Someone tell Schiller most informed Oz ignore Schiller!!!
Schiller: We can mix our own mud; thanx for your interest hey.
Well Schiller if you don’t know anyone who’s died from anti-DDT policies I have to be sceptical if any have. 🙂
John Berlau gave a press conference when he released Eco-Freaks and could not answer the most basic scientific questions. It is one thing for him to poke fun at massive government bureaucracies, something else to venture into the realm of hard science.
Is it even fair to compare Berlau to Stephen Hawking? Berlau thinks global warming is a fiction. Hawking thinks it is real and a problem. Hawking is also one of the most respected scientists of all time.
Will people still be reading Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time in ten years? Of course they will! I’ll bet Eco-Freaks goes straight to the remainder table.
Hawking does not take himself seriously. That is a very good thing.
Berlau, on the other hand, is self important beyond description. He’s got his own little slave, Andrew Langer, to blog in his defense. He’s also got some very self important friends, such as Myron Ebell, Solveig Singleton, Brooke Oberwetter, Clyde Wayne Crews, Jacob Sullum, Charles Paul Freund and Marlo Lewis. None of them would be in The Simpsons!
Africa is rich in resources, why is it poor?
Because it lacks infrastructure.
London businessman Saifee Durbar wants to change that.
He plans to link Africa’s coasts by building a railway from Cameroon to Sudan, via the Central African Republic.
Updates on the project can be found at:
http://saifdurbar.wordpress.com
http://saifeedurbar.wordpress.com