By Rich Kozlovich
The list below originated in the article Negative and Positive Results in Climate Research, to which I've posted a link in this blog. However, I really think these four questions are important enough they should be asked in any endeavor where science and research is a component, including pest control.
Actually, I think these four question could be adapted to almost any endeavor we undertake. In this case I'm applying these four questions specifically on the banning of DDT and peripheral claims about pesticides and chemicals in general.
- Was the failure to find material because you were asking the wrong questions?
- Was it because there was little or no material on the subject?
- Was there no material because it was being avoided?
- Was there no material because there was no issue or concern?
Question 1. Was the failure to find material because you were asking the wrong questions?
Answer: Yes, it appears the vast majority of us were not only asking the wrong questions we didn't question the validity of banning DDT at all.Question 2. Was it because there was little or no material on the subject?
Answer: No! There was abundant material to show the ban on DDT was not based on science but politics.Question 3. Was there no material because it was being avoided?
Answer: Yes and no. That material was addressed, but it was being avoided by the press and many in industry and research. The Litany of environmentalism demands we believe DDT was evil, and denial was heresy.Question 4. Was there no material because there was no issue or concern?
Answer: Yes and no again. DDT wasn't - as one of the editors of one of our trade journals once said to me - a dead issue. And it certainly was of concern to those who knew the truth because the ban on DDT was then, and is now, foundational to the credibility and wealth of the environmental movement.There was no material easily available - although it existed - because it was stifled by the activists though their allies and acolytes in the media, government, and researchers benefiting from government grant money. But the group that takes the cake is industry. Why industry? Because chemical companies want to sell more expensive products. DDT isn't in the mix for them, but neither are any of the products they produce when they go out of patent. Chemical companies are at best leaky vessels as allies.
Viv Forbes said it best: The public has been misled by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.That's all changed because of one thing and one thing only. The world now had access to all that information via the Internet. Those who stood against Carson's science fiction claims about DDT and chemicals in general now had a platform. They didn't have to go begging to ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post or any of the major media outlets. The "mainstream" media were no longer the "guardians" of the world's information. Those who knew the truth could go directly to the public and it started to hit the fan.
Before this the environmental movement was sacrosanct, just as is any religious movement is to it's adherents. No challenge to their integrity, their scientific acumen, their policies or their real motives would be tolerated. That's over with!
But it doesn't end there. My personal motto is what's supposed to be the motto of science - De Omnibus Dubitandum - question everything. I've added this - Lux et Veritas! Light and Truth. By questioning everything we have light. Light leads to truth. But we still have a personal responsibility to look for it.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” GalileoIt all starts with - personal responsibility - the courage to be the rock in the current - the willingness to be unliked! Best wishes to all who take that road!