Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Friday, December 30, 2011

DDT - Lets Have Another 10,000 Studies!

By Rich Kozlovich

Every time you turn around you will see that the government is funding another study to find out if ______________(fill in the blank) happens! Funding studies and forming committees to ‘study’ issues is a great way for so-called leaders to defer decisions that could be politically uncomfortable. Then there are the studies that are actually nothing more than conclusions in search of data. Those of us who have been around for a while have now had the opportunity to observe the realities and outcomes of what was, and in many cases still is, conventional wisdom.

There have been thousands of studies regarding the effects of DDT on the environment, people and wildlife, and most of them were junk science…..conclusions in search of data. A number of years ago (although an outsider) I had the opportunity and privilege of being a part of a group formed by Dr. Rutledge Taylor that produced a film documentary about DDT called 3Billion and Counting. My contributions were mostly via phone calls and e-mail, however the Doc added me to the credits so I think that my small offerings were of some value.

At one point he had received almost 100 studies from one of the anti-DDT groups that claimed all sorts of things. He sent them to me and asked me to look them over. Since I am not formally trained, and for the most part I am an autodidact, I really didn’t feel qualified and told him so. He asked if I would at least try. Very reluctantly I agreed.

That was one of the best and most enlightening things that ever happened to me.

As I went through the first ten, very carefully outlining and taking notes on what was clearly wrong with those studies, I found out that they were filled with claptrap; speculation, weasel words, logical fallacies and weak associations. I went through the next ten just as carefully, without taking notes this time, and found the exact same pattern in all of them. I skipped to every fifth study only to find the same pattern over and over again. In short, these studies were nothing more than “academic welfare”! You know what welfare is; pay without work; work being the operative word for producing something of value. And in these cases the ‘academic welfare’ produced preconceived conclusions. Conclusions in search of data! And everyone one of these studies was produced after DDT was banned! Why?

Why has millions been spent on DDT studies after it was banned if the science was clear in the first place? What is this overwhelming need to continue demeaning a product that has been banned? Why do they keep attempting to convince everyone that DDT caused all the things the Rachel Carson claimed they did in her book? Why? Because Carson’s book was filled with lies, speculation, incorrect conclusions and little of no references to some of her health claims. And over the years there have been a great many respected scientists who have said so. The issue never goes away because those who know the truth refuse to be quiet, and they have made headway with a great many people, especially the decision makers in countries with serious malaria problems. So then….what is this all about.

It is about the worth of studies and their effect on people’s thinking. Just because it is a “study” doesn’t make it factual!

In the book Fluoride Wars by R. Allan Freeze and friend Dr. Jay Lehr, outline the value of studies. There have been THOUSANDS of studies on fluoride because of it being added to our water supplies to ward off tooth decay. At one point someone decided that they needed a standard to determine which studies really had any scientific worth. On page 194 they state:
The question of experimental design deserves further mention. You may recall that many methodological flaws identified by critics of the original fluoridation trial. Those who designed these early studies were taken to task for failing to keep track of the oral health history of their subjects, failing to control for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status of dental hygiene practices, and falling to use examiners who were blind to the exposure status of each subject. Many of the same problems crop up on many of the studies that were put under review by the various review teams listed in Table 7.5. (You will have to get the book to see Table 7.5) The Ontario and York University reviewers were the only ones who tried to establish a minimum acceptable set of standards for the inclusion of a study in their assessments. Both sets of acceptance criteria were based on establishing a hierarchy of studies, giving greater weight to those with the most careful controls. Those that took care to eliminate examiner bias received greater weight than those that didn’t. Those that tracked individual subjects longitudinally through time received greater weight than those that sampled the population statistically without tagging individual subjects. Those that recorded careful histories for their subjects and used them to control for confounding factors received greater weight than those that did not. It is instructive to note that the York University review found only 214 studies out of the thousands that have appeared in print during the period 1951-1999 that met their acceptance criteria, and of these, only 26 provided a defensible analysis of the direct impact of fluoridation on dental caries.”
Normal people would think that this was a noble effort. After all - once again - isn’t the search for “truth” the real purpose behind doing studies? No; not to the activists! The goal of the activist movements is to only have “their” truth appear, and they don’t care how many lies it takes to do it!

So, what was the reaction to this study from the anti-fluoride activists? Some went ballistic and one even wrote most demeaningly by saying:
“I guess the York study wasn’t actually a study as studies go”….."because this study didn’t study animals or people, it simply studied studies. Although this was touted to be the study to end all studies, almost immediately both the Green Party and the Fluoride Action Network published their studies of the York study. These were then studies of the study that studied studies. The studies of the study that studied the studies pointed out that this study that studied the studies had left some 3000 studies unstudied, and they called for further study of the study of the studies as this study and done.”
What should have drawn “kudos for their careful selection process…..all they got were brickbats for their ‘unstudied studies’” and a call for more studies.

So why do scientists tolerate this? Because money has turned science into politics! The “holy grail” of science is no longer truth, but grant money, and the universities and scientific communities are addicted to it. As for those scientists who refuse to bend to this corruption; they are shuttled aside by those bringing in the money to these research institutions, even those who held prestigious positions within the scientific community. As for the younger scientists with no credentials and no accomplishments; they will become part of the system or they will be out. Western science has turned into a Lysenkoian cesspool, starting with DDT and continuing with Global Warming.

Over the years I have had people demand that I produce studies to prove my views about DDT. I don’t bother to do so, or for that matter to even answer them any longer. Why? For two reasons! One, the information is now available to everyone who wants to know the truth and two, because it doesn’t matter what I say, what I do or what I produce they will cling to their fallacies no matter what…..they are nothing more than intellectually dishonest “time wasters”.

The studies that show that DDT was one of the greatest discoveries in mankind’s history isn’t from a study group or a lab. It is in ……reality. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In ‘reality’ untold millions of lives were saved because of DDT and untold hundreds of millions were prevented from being sickened because of DDT. Those who were the most heavily exposed worldwide to DDT didn’t show effects they attempt to show in so many of these “studies”. It didn't wipe out whole eco-systems, it didn't cause egg shell thinning, it didn't do any of the things they claim. The claims by Carson and her acolytes, including these modern day Lysenkoians, about the evils of DDT just aren’t true.

We really need to get this. The green movement is irrational and misanthropic. Once that is understood everything else falls into place. DDT was the green movements bridge to money and power and they will never give up on their claims because DDT is foundational to their existence. If DDT’s ban can be overturned then everything they stand for must be questioned.

If someone cannot, or refuse to get that, then they have become lost in the fever swamps of environmentalism, and I don’t care what they think.


Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Nope: Peregrines not saved by DDT ban, either

By Steve Milloy Posted on December 27, 2011

I would like to thank Steve for allowing me to republish his works. RK

Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to [peregrine falcons] as birds that “deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account” — in 1913.

In a story about the annual Audubon Society Christmas bird count, the Sacramento Bee writes,

...Even more incredible is the story of the falcon’s recovery from near-extinction, a story the Christmas Bird Count has helped document.

Decimated in the 1960s by the pesticide DDT, the peregrine was put on the endangered species list in 1973.

Harper, who has participated in the Christmas Bird Count for four decades, said one year in the 1970s created a stir when a counter thought she saw the first peregrine to return to the area. On closer inspection, it turned out to be a ceramic rendering.

After DDT was banned, the peregrine began a slow recovery. It was removed from Endangered Species Act protection in 1999, and now there are more than 2,000 known nesting sites across the nation…

Except as pointed out in “100 Things You Should Know About DDT“:

78. The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. [Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre-DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

79. Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to them as birds that “deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account.” [Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

80. Oologists amassed great collections of falcon eggs. [Peterson, RT. 1948. Birds Over American, Dodd Mead & Co., NY, pp 135-151; Rice, JN. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 155-164; Berger, DD. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 165-173]

81. The decline in falcons along the Hudson River was attributed to falconers, egg collectors, pigeon fanciers and disturbance by construction workers and others. [Herbert, RA and KG Herbert. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 133- 154. (Also in Auk 82: 62-94)]

82. The 1950′s and 1960′s saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction. [Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography in

peregrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]

83. Changes in climate (higher temperatures and decreasing precipitation) were blamed for the gradual disappearance of peregrines from the Rocky Mountains. [Nelson, MW. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 61-72]

84. Falconers were blamed for decimating western populations. [Herman, S. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, University of Wisconsin Press]

85. During the 1960′s, peregrines in northern Canada were “reproducing normally,” even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals. [Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

86. There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE. [Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

87. The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young. [Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

88. Shooting, egg collecting, falconry and disruption of nesting birds along the Yukon River and Colville River were reported to be the cause of the decline in peregrine falcon population.

[Beebe, FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages; and Beebe, FL. 1975. Brit Columbia Provincial Museum Occas. Paper No. 17, pages 126-144]

89. The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded “There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.” [Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

90. During 1940-1945, the British Air Ministry shot about 600 peregrines (half the pre-1939 level) to protect carrier pigeons.

91. Peregrine falcon and sparrow hawk egg shells thinned in Britain prior to the use of DDT. [Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210; Redcliff, DH. 1970 J Applied Biology 7:67; and Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210

Read’s “100 Things You Should Know About DDT.”


Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High

Posted on July 6, 2006 by Steve Milloy July 6, 2006,

I would like to thank Steve for giving me permission to republish his works. RK

Pennsylvania officials just announced success with their program to re-establish the state’s bald eagle population. But it’s a shame that such welcome news is being tainted by oft-repeated myths about the great bird’s near extinction.

In its July 4 article reporting that the number of bald eagle pairs in Pennsylvania had increased from 3 in 1983 to 100 for the first time in over a century, the Associated Press reached into its file of bald eagle folklore and reported, “DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery.”

While the AP acknowledged the fact that bald eagle populations “were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, farmers and fishermen” – spurring a 1940 federal law protecting bald eagles – the AP underplayed the significance of hunting and human encroachment and erroneously blamed DDT for the eagles’ near demise.

As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.

A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.

In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,” according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.”

The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the U.S. between 1961-1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.

One of the most notorious DDT “factoids” is that it thinned bird egg shells. But a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn’t associated with egg shell thinning.

In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment – and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild.

So what causes thin bird egg shells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil; lead; mercury; stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; restraint and nutrient deficiencies.

Most of this evidence was available to the Environmental Protection Agency administrative judge who presided over the 1971-1972 hearings about whether DDT should be banned. No doubt it’s why he ruled that, “The use of DDT under the regulations involved here does not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”

Yet it’s the myths, not the facts that endure. Why? The answer is endless repetition. The environmentalists who wanted DDT banned have constantly repeated the myths over the last 40 years, while most of DDT’s defenders lost interest after the miracle chemical was summarily banned in 1972 by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus.

Why was banning DDT so important to environmentalists?

Charles Wurster, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund – the activist group that led the charge against DDT – told the Seattle Times (Oct. 5, 1969) that, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”

Banning DDT wasn’t about birds. It was about power. The sooner the record on DDT is set straight, the sooner the environmentalists’ ill-gotten “authority” will be seen for what it is.

Steven Milloy publishes and He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


Saturday, December 17, 2011

This Week With Alan Caruba

Alan’s work has a sense of timelessness about it, so anyone perusing these articles in the future will find them equally insightful as they were when originally written. Alan posts daily on his blog, Warning Signs. The right side of this blog is a section called Caruba's Corner: Green Myths and Other Lies where I have been posting links to Alan's articles by topic. For his past works go to The National Anxiety Center. I would also recommend reading his last book, Right Answers.

There has been an unspoken redefining of journalism from objective reporting to active participation, deliberately shaping public opinion whether the core of the content offered is true or not.-
Alan Caruba

Christmas and Old Age
The older I get, the less I like Christmas. It’s definitely an age thing. I have sweet memories of waking early on Christmas day, tip-toeing passed my parent’s and older brother’s bedrooms, and down the stairs to see what bounty awaited in front of the fireplace. There were separate stockings, jammed with candies and collectibles, but it was the boxes, clearly marked for myself and my brother that held treasure.

The Original Tea Party - December 16, 1773
The modern-day Tea Party is a loose amalgamation of people who came together in March 2009 to protest against passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare. There was a large gathering in Washington, D.C. with estimates of several hundred thousand to a million participants

Defining Journalism Downward
New technologies drive out old ones, either eliminating, altering, or reducing their use. The traditional world of print journalism has felt this rather dramatically as subscriptions have fallen off, though often replaced by either free or paid access to their content.

The Wind Power Pipe Dream
Imagine if you will America’s mountain ranges topped by row upon row of wind turbines and America’s deserts and plains covered by solar panels. How ugly is that? A recent Wall Street Journal article, “Wildlife Slows Wind Power”, took note of the slaughter of birds and bats by these Cuisinarts of the countryside. The problem has reached such proportions that “New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape.”

WAPO Slanders U.S. Military in Iraq
I rarely read The New York Times or Washington Post because the reporting is so biased it sickens me. Pick any topic, from politics to science, these and other liberal mainstream newspapers are divorced from the most basic standards of honesty and accuracy.


Christopher Hitchens!

By Rich Kozlovich

I can’t end this year without commenting on the death of Christopher Hitchens. There have been a great many articles written about him that attempt to paint a nicer picture than I believe existed.

David Horowitz, who was, along with Hitchens, at the apex of leftism in the 60’s was an old friend and wrote openly, honestly and warmly about him. (I recommend reading the whole is worth it.  If for no other reason than the article speaks so well of David Horowitz for his affectionate loyalty to their friendship.RK)

He wrote: “I did my mourning for Christopher when he was given his death sentence last July and appeared in public as a punished shell of his former self. For those of us who knew him, it was hard to watch and painful to think about. Christopher was a great entertainer and everyone will miss him for that. He was also an outspoken if inconsistent moralist, and a fearless champion of the right to think and speak one’s mind, and he will be remembered gratefully for that.”

I read one of his books (one was enough) and found that he had a quality that is usually totally lacking in leftists; consistency! He was just as virulent on anyone on the left as he would be to someone on the right who offended his sense of moral justice. Having said that, he was at best a leaky vessel when it came to moralizing against anyone. While railing against man’s inhumanity against man he actively supported a philosophy that is blatantly misanthropic. Dystopia follows leftism just as sure as Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote.

He once said, talking about Che Guevara, "His death meant a lot to me, and countless like me, at the time. He was a role model." To normal people Guevara’s life and actions shown that he was a psychopathic murderous monster and a coward. And that was his role model? And at his death all his monstrous acts of murder and his final act of cowardice came out about this godling of the left, and yet this still was his role model!

He claimed to be an atheist, but in reality he worshiped at the altar of Leftism and himself. His claims of atheism and his lifestyle suggest that atheism was as good a way as any of justifying his lack of any real moral foundation. As one person said; if you don’t believe in any ultimate moral authority then everything is morally acceptable. However, since Hitchens rejected higher moral authority and yet moralized unendingly he apparently decided that he would be the ultimate moral authority. Hitchens would now be the arbiter of right and wrong. Hitchens would now be his own god.

Horowitz also pointed out that “Christopher had a dark, mean side, which was not so likeable, and whose bile was directed at religious people and select conservatives like Ronald Reagan, and for some reason celebrities like Lady Di. But his wit and verbal bravura were irresistible and helped many to forgive him his transgressions.” So, because he was brilliant his virulence was acceptable? Please forgive me for speaking so ill of the dead, but brilliance wasted on fools is still waste.

Jon Ray, a man of many views and blogs wrote in Dissecting Leftism an article entitled, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum?” He writes:

“I am afraid I am going to disregard that bit of Roman wisdom. The recently deceased Christopher Hitchens has been rather eulogized in the press and elsewhere so I think the other side needs to be put.

His virulent outpouring of hate towards Christians deprives him of any right to respect in my view. If I were a Christian, I think I would see the hand of the Lord in moving him prematurely to his final destination. (For the record, I don’t agree with this last sentence. RK)

Since I am an atheist, however, I note that his death from esophageal cancer was almost certainly the result of his lifelong heavy drinking and smoking. And if he had had the comfort of religion he might not have needed such props to his mood.”

After having said all of that I feel that I cannot leave out the very touching piece his brother Peter wrote, in which he says; “Much of civilisation rests on the proper response to death, simple unalloyed kindness, the desire to show sympathy for irrecoverable loss, the understanding that a unique and irreplaceable something has been lost to us. If we ceased to care, we wouldn’t be properly human.”

Peter Hitchens is a believer who abandoned leftism at a very young age. He also abandoned the hate that is all encompassing with those who worship at the altar of Leftism.

American Council on Science and Health, 2011: Week 50

The presence of linked articles here are merely a way of showing what is going on, whether I agree or disagree with the positions presented. Rich Kozlovich


Pay attention: ADHD meds not risky for adult hearts either
Although there was some concern that taking medications, such as Ritalin, for ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) might increase cardiovascular risks for adults, the results of a new study should help to allay these fears.


Unexpected benefit for bone drug in breast cancer patients
The serendipitous result of a clinical trial shows that a drug given to breast cancer patients to maintain their bone density actually increased their survival rate.

Hodgkin's patients live longer without radiotherapy
Less may be more in the case of treating early stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Side effects impair compliance with breast cancer drugs
A surprising number of women are stopping their breast cancer treatments early, but it's not because they are fully cured. Instead, the side effects are too much for them to bear, reports a recent study presented this week at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.


Few people have an eye for nutrition labels
Even though many people claim they pay attention to food nutrition labels, few actually read the fine print.

Prevent childhood obesity with more exercise
As the fight to curb the obesity epidemic wears on, a new meta-analysis finds that child obesity prevention strategies, such as those that emphasize more physical activity, can effectively help kids lose weight, especially among children between the ages of six and 12.


Bleed no more
Medical researchers in England and the U.S. have just reported their successful treatment of six hemophilia-B patients using gene therapy - a major breakthrough in the treatment of the disease.


Aspirin helps prevent blood clot reoccurence
Aspirin may help reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) following the cessation of anticoagulant therapy, reports a new study.


Promising prevention of preterm labor
The authors of two recent studies related to stillbirth note that such devastating losses are associated with an increasingly high incidence of preterm labor and premature births. The results of another study - this one in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology - are, then, especially good news...

Some stillbirth risks and causes come to light
Globally, three to four million pregnancies end in stillbirth, which is defined as a fetus that dies during or after the 20th week of gestation. Yet despite the devastating consequences, the causes have long been unclear. Now, two separate studies have uncovered more about these causes as well as the risk factors for stillbirth - and the good news is that some of them are avoidable.


Making short work of TB
Twelve pills instead of 270. Once a week instead of once a day. Three months instead of nine. These are the promising new guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to treat tuberculosis.


A cigarette in cigar’s clothing?
The good news is that, in many states across the country, fewer teenagers are smoking cigarettes - but the bad news is that many of them have begun to smoke flavored cigars instead.

More hurdles for tobacco harm reduction
We were disappointed to learn that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has taken an unfavorable stance toward modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs), advising the FDA to set high hurdles for the manufacturers of such products before they can market them as less harmful alternatives to cigarettes.

The story that should have made headlines: Teenagers smoking less
The results of a survey on substance use among U.S. teenagers were released yesterday.

EU considers coming to its senses about snus
The executive arm of the European Union, the European Commission is, once again, considering an end to its ban on the export of Swedish snus to other EU countries.

If there is a health scare today, the American Council on Science and Health will most likely have the answer by tomorrow; and for members it will appear in your e-mail. No effort on your part, except to read the answer. All that the ACSH is interested in are the facts and they are prepared to follow them wherever they lead. Who can ask for more?  Please Donate Now!


This Week With Steve Milloy

By Rich Kozlovich

The problem with posting article links from Steve's website is that there is so much stuff there that it is impossible to link it all.  So I pick a few that really interest me.  If you really want to get a flavor of what he has accomplished please go to his!

House GOP wastes year: No significant EPA riders in budget omnibus
We’ve failed. Congrats to Lisa Jackson. The House GOP get an “F-” for effort in reining in the EPA. As Steve Milloy worried about earlier this week in his Washington Times op-ed, House Republicans have squandered an entire year.  Politico reports.....

Light bulb ban NOT repealed
There has been no repeal of the light bulb ban.  The deal agreed to in Congress merely deprives the Department oF Energy the funds to enforce the ban for 2012. The ban is still on the books — so the DOE may very well get the money next year or the year after or who knows when.  Moreover as the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy points out,

… Five manufacturers are now producing and selling efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards. With the new budget provision, the law is still in effect, but the Department of Energy cannot spend money to enforce it. Law-abiding companies will follow the law. Less scrupulous companies will take advantage of the lack of enforcement, selling products that waste energy and increase energy costs for consumers….

It is not at all clear whether light bulb manufacturers and sellers will be willing to break the law simply because there is no money to enforce it.

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov’t Help Hide Climate Data?
Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be “Yes.”  The original Climategate emails — correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 — shook up the field of climate research.

UN says Canada can’t quit Kyoto
Welcome to the UN’s Hotel Kyoto. Lorne Gunter writes in the National Post. After federal Environment Minister Peter Kent announced Monday that Canada would be withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions, the head of the UN agency that administers the protocol said she would not permit Ottawa to do so.

Who blew up the ‘bridge to the future’?
Environmentalists are not playing it straight on natural gas. Until recently, they have been amongst its most aggressive promoters, even coining the phrase “bridge to the future.”

The Real Story of Air Pollution
Indur Goklany argues that the United States’ economic gains improved not only their wealth, but also their environment, and primarily without government intervention.

Goklany: The Real Story of Air Pollution –
The real engines for progress on the urban smoke problem in the United States as well as in England were economics and technological change—forces that began in the late 19thcentury and have continued, for one reason or another, to the present day. New, cleaner energy sources such as natural gas, oil, and electricity became increasingly available as substitutes for coal and wood in homes, businesses, and industries. Urbanization, while responsible for many environmental woes, accelerated the process of substitution because higher population densities reduced access to wood and increased cost-effectiveness and economics of distribution systems for natural gas and electricity. (Cooler Heads)


Logical Fallacy of the Week, Week 20: Argument From Repetition

There are some things about logical fallacies that you should have realized by now.   Many of them are duplicates or partial duplicates.  My assumption has been that similar fallacies were recognized at different times in different locations by different people and then published. Then there are those that are so difficult to understand that they are meaningless to most people, and some of them are so incomprehensible they have little practical value.  

There are around 140 that will be discussed here, but I would be willing to bet that if you dumped those that are virtually incomprehensible, and those duplicates that could be merged, you would end up with about 50 that are worth all of the effort put into this stuff.  There will be one discussed later that is so incomprehensible that even the originator can't explain it properly himself.

Ad nauseam (Redirected from Argument from repetition)
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea".  For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam", signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it…..This term is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:

"Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion".

Friday, December 16, 2011

Observations From the Back Row

By Rich Kozlovich

We have the tendency to think that our views are the views shared by everyone else, so when we read some accounts that should normally outrage our sense of justice we have the tendency to pass these outrages off and think; “Come on; who would do such things?” I truly think that is the problem with a society that doesn’t teach history….and what we are doing in our schools isn’t history. At one time you could at least get the correct understanding in the universities ---at one time--- but that time isn’t now!

I started this as an anti-green blog; and I intend that it should be a “green issues only” blog. I started it because I had become 'outraged' when I realized that everything the greenies were spouting about pesticides was a lie, and I wanted to set the record straight for our industry. I wanted to make sure there was at least one place where all pest controllers could go to gather information to defend us against these scurrilous attacks against pesticides and pesticide users.

It soon became obvious that it was impossible to maintain a “green issues only” blog because green isn’t about the environment, no matter what they claim. It is about world domination and green was the tip of the spear point for that movement! That made me realize that in order to properly address the green issues I would have to take on all issues promoted by the leftists of this world. I really hate that because there is no end to it, and I have a real job that really interferes with my life. Whoda thunk it?

What really convinced me that I had to expand my coverage into “all things” was the fact that so many in the pesticide manufacturing, distribution and applications industries had started drinking the Kool-Aid. This was not the industry that I started in thirty years ago. It had become infested with pseudo-greenies from the universities that demonstrated all the symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome. They were now finding common ground with enemies whose goal was our destruction and the destruction of humanity. The last part was the defining realization for me.

At any rate I needed some sort of emotional, psychological and logical foundation to justify all of the work this was going to take. I did struggle with that for a nano-second and then I had another one of those SHAZAM moments. I do so love SHAZAM moments!

Did you ever have a SHAZAM moment? All of a sudden you get this flash of insight -- SHAZAM -- and all of a sudden we understand something that we have been working on mentally for some time, maybe even years. As I grow older I find that this happens much more often than in years gone by. How does that happen? I can tell you that age makes up a part of it, because clearly the brain’s abilities change as we grow older. I read James A. Michener’s book “The Source” when I was 19 and enjoyed it. I read it again when I was 30 and understood it.

The brain is designed to find patterns. The ability to draw correct conclusions from incomplete data is a work of the brain that is a wonderful gift, but there still has to be a foundation for it. Everyone has this ability in varying degrees, but are we capable of training our minds to do it better? I believe so! I believe that this is done by absorbing a great deal of information and thinking a great deal about a great many small things. All of this is being filed and correlated by the brain without any conscious effort on our part. Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. A bit here, a bit there and all of a sudden –SHAZAM-- you have the whole story with the informational gaps filled in automatically.

I realized that Paradigms and Demographics isn’t an anti-green blog and it isn’t an anti-leftist blog. Paradigms and Demographics is a pro-humanity blog! In order to be pro-humanity you must be against environmentalism and leftism; both being irrational and misanthropic secular religions.

Everything that I post will attempt to dig deeper into the issues than what is shown on the news or appears in the newspapers….both of which are lies of omission. Because everything is “the basics”! What is "the basics"? It is the embrace of traditional wisdom versus the latest philosophical flavor of the day; commonly known as conventional wisdom!

Traditional wisdom appeals to the intellect and conventional wisdom appeals to the emotions. Traditional wisdom has faced the test of time, and that time is called history. History leaves a trail that can be followed and used to develop factual logical foundations that will naturally create the intellectual responses to the emotional speculative ravings of the left. Conventional wisdom often leaves dystopia behind.

My hope is to clarify …………. everything!

Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists:
Will present to police the case for 'numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud' Visit Site - 'I have begun drafting a memorandum for prosecuting establish...the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official 'global warming' storyline...they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do'………In the United Kingdom, the Fraud Act 2006 has given fraud a very detailed, statutory definition, which may be summarized as the obtaining of a temporary or permanent gain (whether by keeping what one has or by getting what one does not have) or the infliction upon another of a temporary or permanent loss (whether by not getting what one might get or by parting with what one has), the gain or loss being in money or other real or personal property (including things in action or other intangible property), with the intent either of obtaining a gain for the offender or for another or of causing loss to another or of exposing another to a risk of loss, whether by dishonestly making an untrue or misleading express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading; or by dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which the offender is under a legal duty to disclose; or by dishonestly (by act or omission) abusing a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interest of another person.

In some jurisdictions, “serious fraud” is defined as a fraud that either involves offenders in a position of public trust or very substantial sums of money or both. The connected frauds revealed in the Climategate emails involve both.

My Take - The people who perpetrated this fraud; the people who supported this fraud; and the people who have profited from this fraud have a lot more to answer for than mere fraud. They are guilty of crimes against humanity! Here are two articles from earlier in the year

Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming
Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company - Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

Kenya's Samburu people 'violently evicted' after US charities buy land
Around 2,000 Samburu families have stayed squatting on edge of disputed territory, says NGO Survival International - Members of the Samburu people in Kenya have been abused, beaten and raped by police after the land they lived on for two decades was sold to two US-based…. charities, the Nature Conservancyand the African Wildlife Foundation.….. At least three people are said to have died during the row, including a child who was eaten….The groups subsequently gifted the land to Kenya for a national park, to be called Laikipia National Park….the pastoralist Samburu had reported constant harassment from police with women allegedly raped, animals seized and an elder shot as recently as last month. "There has been an ongoing, constant level of fear, intimidation and violence towards the community, which has been devastating," …."The situation has been really bad for a long time," he said. "[The Samburu] have nothing. Things like bedding and utensils were burned."…"In one incident, a Samburu elder was shot dead by paramilitaries," the group said in its letter to the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, dated 7 December….."The displaced community has nothing but their livestock, thousands of which were impounded – with no reason given – on 25 November 2011. This is an urgent and serious violation of the rights of this community, which has been left squatting beside its land with no amenities," Survival's letter said.

IPCC Scientist Responsible For Bogus Antarctica Warming Study Suppresses His Critics' Research
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.

The wind turbine syndrome has become pandemic
Yesterday, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW) served notice to the government of Denmark. They warned of the consequences of their health-threatening manipulations of measurements of sounds and infrasounds emitted by wind turbines. The government of Australia was also warned about the health hazards associated with their windfarm policy. More governments will be served notice in the coming weeks, as well as the wind industry. We reproduce below the letter that was sent to the Danish government.

Ministers won't back cross-ban Christians: Ex-archbishop condemns 'illiberal' assault on faith
The [British] Government was slammed last night for refusing to support a group of Christians fighting for their rights in the European courts. Four individuals who have been disciplined at work or lost their jobs after refusing to remove crosses or to conform to gay rights laws are attempting to overturn the decisions of British courts and tribunal.  They had hoped for support from Ministers after a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, appealed to Prime Minister David Cameron on their behalf.  But the Government told the European Court of Human Rights that it backed the British judges and does not accept that the Christians have suffered discrimination.

Muslim Cleric Allegedly Bans Women From Touching Bananas & Cucumbers…Because They’re Too Sexual
An Islamic cleric in Europe has reportedly ruled women should be forbidden from touching — or even being near — bananas and cucumbers because their oblong shapes can make women think of sex……The report comes just days after Saudi Arabian academics claimed there would be no more virgins if women in the country were allowed to drive.

Soft sentencing makes Victoria's law an ass
EVEN a convicted drug dealer thinks our justice system is too soft.....Victorian Supreme Court Justice Lex Lasry ordered the sentence be served concurrently with the 13-year sentence Johnson is already serving for armed robbery. In other words, you can subtract 13 years from 32 years, which amounts to a sort of discount for bad behaviour. It is just another perplexing anomaly from our courts......judges are out of touch and too soft on violent crime. This indicates a crisis of public confidence in our judiciary.

Take, for example, a recent case in the NSW District Court in which Justice Leonie Flannery acquitted a terror suspect who shot a police officer while being arrested. The man, who was under ASIO surveillance, was carrying two loaded guns, had acquired chemicals in preparation for a terrorist act, and had possession of jihadi extremist material and 11 mobile phones he had purchased on eBay. But Judge Flannery claimed an environment of anti-Muslim feeling, which engendered in the Muslim community a high sense of paranoia, had made the man panic when police came to arrest him near a western Sydney mosque in 2005. "He was concerned for his safety, and (in) the climate of anti-Muslim feeling in the community at the time, he believed that he might be harmed by the police."

She concluded the suspect had not intended to shoot the policeman and therefore found him not guilty.


Thursday, December 15, 2011

Observations From the Back Row

By Rich Kozlovich

Once again.....Please read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm!

Internet piracy bill: A free speech 'kill switch'
What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas.  Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Big Government Scares More Americans
Gallup just released a poll asking Americans who they fear most: big government, big business or big labor. Government terrifies more Americans than the other two combined, by a two-to-one margin.

Next are three articles and a speech. It is amazing that so many know so much about every aspect of this man’s life...whether glorious or vainglorious...depending on your views, and yet people don't really know this man. He is a greenie first and foremost. And he is everything else that is said about him in these three articles. One absolutely negative, one absolutely positive and one that attempts to outline the realities. How can one man be all of these things and all of these things be absolutely true!

At the end, you will see one thing. When he focuses on foundational historical precedence for his views he gives a remarkable speech. No one....and I mean no one could overcome that in a debate.  RK

Newt: Speak Bombastically and Carry a Tiny Stick
If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt's not your guy.

Newt Versus the Ruling Class
The media elite and the Republican ruling class are remarkably similar in their political projection for the coming year. Journalists spent the entire year savaging every fast-rising challenger to Mitt Romney. The GOPs power pundits became equally agitated at the sniff of a conservative anywhere near the top of the GOP pack. It's the odor of extremism that both the elites in the media and the GOP have detested -- always.

Newtzilla to the Rescue
"How do we stop Newt?" I've now been asked that question by a lot of conservatives. It's not that I'm the go-to guy for that sort of question. Rather, one gets the sense that many "establishment" conservatives are asking everybody that question -- in staff meetings, at the chiropodist, even at the McDonald's drive-thru. ("I'll have two happy meals, two chocolate milks and -- by the way -- do you have any idea how to stop Newt?")

 What it will take to win.  Speech by Newt Gengrich at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend.

Greenism: The Science of Smoke and Mirrors

By Rich Kozlovich

As I have said, my primary theme for this week is the idea that environmentalism has made scientific integrity an oxymoron!  The goal of the green movement is to get their 'truth' out.   No matter how many lies they have to tell.  The link would not work to the information below, but the video does.  RK

"Enviromental Scientist Caught On Video Faking Data - Dr. Ann Maest is a managing scientist at Straus Consulting, and she's the go to expert on all things groundwater. In the press release announcing her reappointment to the National Academy of Sciences, they mention that she is focused on the environmental effects of mining and petroleum extraction and production, and, more recently, on the effects of climate change on water quality.  Maest is in high demand as an expert for those looking to stop oil and mineral exploration. She's also heavily used by the federal government, even though after new details about her past work are coming to light as a result of a lawsuit.........  As part of their lawsuit, Chevron obtained through discovery, outtakes from a documentary called "Crude" that show Donziger and Maest colluding ignore their own findings and make up some new unsubstantiated claims. Watch this:"

."...Of course when you're endeavoring to pull off a multi-billion dollar legal heist in a banana republic you don't stop at just inventing damages; you stack the deck on the judicial side as well, since that just requires a little "donation."'

"What Chevron has been able to show from the out takes and records obtained is the Maest and her firm drafted substantial portions of the report of the independent expert, Richard Cabrera, who they allege Donziger was instrumental in getting appointed to do the court order study of the alleged environmental damage. Sounds like a criminal enterprise to extort, right? That's what Chevron thinks, and it's why they're suing under RICO."


Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Observations From the Back Row

By Rich Kozlovich

My primary theme for this week has been "scientific integrity is an oxymoron". There has always been a certain amount of fraud in science, and that must be expected because scientists have one thing in common with all other people....they're people, and people all have all the same wants, needs and desires that all other people have.  A priest once said; "if you can find the perfect organization join it.  But remember the minute you have joined it is now become somewhat less than perfect."

Scientists were once thought of so highly that they almost became omniscient in the eyes of the average man. That has changed because they may be smart people, but they are still people, and being people they got carried away with their own image of grandeur. What is the mechanism that caused this? The need to publish to survive and garner government grant money turned integrity on its head and science into a carnival show with all the hucksters, tricksters and disreputable characters. However, I don't think anything could have exposed this problem as well as "global warming.

There are a great many scientists out there that wouldn't trade their integrity for all the grant money in the world.  Global Warming has brought these courageous men and women to the fore also, and they have paid a penalty for their integrity.  I also think they represent the majority, albeit a ‘silent majority’.  Most scientists are not rocks in the current type people.  Having said that, I also believe that scientific fraud has become so common place that the phrase "scientific integrity is an oxymoron" is totally valid. "Life's tough... it's even tougher if you're stupid" - John Wayne

Statisticians can prove almost anything, a new study finds
Catchy headlines about the latest counter-intuitive discovery in human psychology have a special place in journalism, offering a quirky distraction from the horrors of war and crime, the tedium of politics and the drudgery of economics. But even as readers smirk over the latest gee whizzery about human nature, it is generally assumed that behind the headlines, in the peer-reviewed pages of academia, most scientists are engaged in sober analysis of rigorously gathered data, and that this leads them reliably to the truth.

Not so, says a new report in the journal Psychological Science, which claims to show “how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis.”…….. Under their proposed guidelines, though not under current accepted scientific practices, the authors would have been required to disclose that they in fact asked participants many other questions, and did not decide in advance when to stop collecting data, which can skew results. They also would have been obliged to disclose that, without controlling for father’s age, there was no significant effect, and the experiment was more or less a bust. “Our goal as scientists is not to publish as many articles as we can, but to discover and disseminate truth,” they write. “We should embrace these [proposed rules about disclosing research methods] as if the credibility of our profession depended on them. Because it does.”

EPA gives $25,000 grant to dance troupe to teach kids about air pollutionRep. Rob Bishop is a fan of the Repertory Dance Theater in downtown Salt Lake City, and the Utah Republican has attended many of the group’s performances over the years. But he can’t applaud a decision this week by U.S. EPA to give the group $25,000 to help produce an artistic program designed to teach school children about the dangers of air pollution.

My Take – The EPA ends grants to the lead agency in Ohio who has the primary responsibility to make sure pesticide applicators are properly trained, but gives all of this money to a dance school….for propaganda purposes. It is clear these idiots are incapable of handling the people’s money. Then again….Lenin and Hitler would have loved the concept. Socialists have always wanted to own the children. So when they claim something is for the children… really have to start looking closely at it because it is not usually for the children, it’s usually to the children...

WSJ: The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle
“Congress mandated purchase of 250 million gallons in 2011. Actual production: 6.6 million.”

The Wall Street Journal editorializes -‘We’ll fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”………
Junk science comment - To recap: Congress subsidized a product that didn’t exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn’t exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn’t exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We’d call this the march of folly, but that’s unfair to fools.

My Take – Please read the whole account….this is insane and obscene!

Sierra Club at the Metropolitan Club
My dirty secret is that I'm a member of the Sierra Club. I joined at the $15 rate for retired senior citizens and received a bonus shoulder bag. The Sierra Club idolizes nature and demonizes man. It glorifies economic parasitism and practices junk science. I joined because I am investigating the environmentalist movement, and I wanted to get their e-mails….. With junk science, it is easy to scare people. There are many things that are bad for us that are present at low levels in the environment -- for example, mercury, lead, radiation, or tobacco smoke. The junk science approach to trace toxins is to claim that if a high level of the bad thing would cause X people to get sick, then a level 10,000 times smaller must cause 1/10,000 as many people to get sick. Given 300 million people in the country, this math can give you thousands of people getting sick from low levels of mercury, lead, radiation, or secondhand tobacco smoke. This approach is known as the linear no threshold hypothesis…… From the bureaucratic point of view, the linear no threshold hypothesis is wonderful because it means that problems are never solved and there is always a need for more bureaucratic activity.


Scandal and Insanity at Penn State

By Paul Driessen

I would like to thank Paul for allowing me to publish his works.  RK

In a repeat of Copenhagen, on the eve of the Durban climate change gabfest, someone released another horde of emails from alarmist climate researchers, including Dr. Michael Mann, whose infamous “hockey stick” was headlined in the 2001 IPCC report to justify the Kyoto agreement and demands that nations slash fossil fuel use and economic growth.

Meanwhile, back on Dr. Mann’s campus, Pennsylvania State University was confronting the sordid Jerry Sandusky affair. Sports Illustrated summarized the Augean Stables task in an article titled “Missteps at every turn: Efforts to clean up Penn State reveal how deep the institutional problems lie.”

As SI noted, a key judge in the case, Pennsylvania’s governor, Penn State’s new athletic director and even the attorney appointed to head up a “full and complete” internal investigation all have deep and longstanding ties to the university and/or its big-money football team. Noting these and other “blatant conflicts of interest,” the magazine quoted new PSU president Rodney Erickson as saying, “Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible” [emphasis added] – in view of relevant financial, personal and other considerations, and special exemptions that Penn State enjoys from disclosure laws.

SI ended the article by asking, “Is Penn State cleaning house? Or simply rearranging the furniture?”

The same question applies to Dr. Mann. In the wake of Climategate 2009, Penn State hurriedly exonerated him and his department of any wrongdoing, as did NOAA and the National Science Foundation. The blatant whitewashes reflect the desperation of organizations intent on preserving their money train and perpetuating the Hollywood façade of manmade catastrophic climate change.

All three organizations are at the forefront of climate alarmism and its agenda of “radically transforming” the energy and economic foundations of modern nations. As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has said, climate change is “just a part of” the effort “to bring about major structural changes” in “unsustainable” economic growth, development and lifestyles.

The agenda involves slashing carbon dioxide levels to 80% below 1990 levels. That would carry the United States back to emission levels last seen during the American Civil War – devastating the economy.

Together these institutions receive billions of dollars in annual government grants that foster one line of thinking on “global climate disruption” – another term concocted to spin weather and climate events as unprecedented disasters resulting from hydrocarbon energy use. Delegates from all three institutions get to attend annual climate confabs at exotic 5-star resorts, to promote “the cause” of ending mankind’s “addiction” to fossil fuels and establishing “global governance” under UN auspices.

For all these institutions, full-blown independent investigations – with adverse witnesses, cross-examination, and access to data and records denied to previous investigators – could result in lost income, prestige, and power over public policy decisions. Honest, replicable, truly peer-reviewed, robustly debated science into the causes, effects and extent of climate change would do likewise.

For Penn State, the global warming treasure chest may well exceed the Nittany Lions football cash cow. As meteorologist Art Horn has noted, the university received a whopping $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. Neither Mann nor Penn State is saying how much went to climate research. But since the US government spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010, PSU undoubtedly received a hefty portion for promoting the official alarmist viewpoint.

No wonder they refused to turn over raw data and computer codes to other scientists, IPCC reviewers and even investigators – claiming these were private property, even though taxpayers paid for them and the results generated are being used to justify endless energy, job and economy-killing public policies.

At the tip of the policy iceberg are EPA’s (postponed) CO2 “endangerment” regulations, its boiler and refinery rules, its reams of restrictions on coal-fired power plants, the agency’s opposition to hydraulic shale fracturing and the Keystone XL pipeline, and its new automobile mileage rules, which will raise the cost of cars, reduce crash-worthiness and result in thousands of additional deaths in accidents. Mann’s deceptive models and hockey sticks are also being used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations, to be financed directly by FRCs (formerly rich countries) or via “climate taxes” imposed on international air travel and imported and exported products.

Also benefitting from the corrupt Climate Armageddon research machine are crony capitalists and climate profiteers too numerous to count: the renewable energy and carbon trading firms that depend on climate scares to maintain renewable energy, “green job,” carbon trading, and similar mandates and schemes.

As Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Bill Frezza has observed, the US Department of Energy invested $529 million in taxpayer-subsidized loan guarantees to build North America’s largest lithium ion automotive battery plant … to supply a Finnish electric car manufacturer backed by Al Gore’s venture capital fund … to ship 40 (!) cars to the USA to date … so that they can be purchased by “environment-motivated” millionaires like Leonardo DeCaprio, who receive $7,500 tax credits for buying the cars.

Add in billions for wind turbines and solar panels … billions to persuade the poorest nations on Planet Earth to endure “sustainable” lifestyles, rather than modernize through reliable, affordable and, yes, hydrocarbon energy … and billions for IPCC and other UN bureaucrats, who insist that drought and flood, cold and heat, storm and sea level events are no longer due to natural forces, but to mankind’s use of fossil fuels – and we’re talking serious money.

Global warming alarmism could ultimately cause the global economy trillions of dollars.

Meanwhile, what about average workers and families? They get none of these perks, sinecures, subsidies and handouts. Instead, they get to pay taxes to support the bureaucrats, pseudo scientists and activists. They get to pay soaring energy bills that subsidize wind, solar and climate schemes, while driving families into fuel poverty. They get to lose their jobs, as companies faced with skyrocketing energy bills lay people off, close their doors or ship jobs off to overseas factories that have cheap energy and cheap labor, because China, India, et cetera do not and will not operate under Kyoto-style restrictions.

What about families in destitute African countries, where 90% of the people still don’t have electricity – because radical environmentalists, World Bank operatives and Obama Administration bureaucrats collude to delay or prevent the construction of coal and even gas-fired power plants?

It’s maybe possible that we face a genuine manmade climate crisis. It’s highly likely that mankind will continue to confront natural climate changes that compel adaptation through ingenuity and technology.

However, Climategate 1 and 2, The Delinquent Teenager and other exposés make it clear that the climate crisis cabal deliberately altered data, misrepresented and withheld crucial information, squelched inquiry and debate, and presented a one-sided narrative, so as to protect their revenues and reputations, and drive an anti-hydrocarbon agenda. Until truly convincing evidence is presented, vetted and fully debated – that fossil fuels are causing significant warming and climate disruption – Kyoto and its proposed successors should be terminated, and the frenzied rush to renewable energy should be ended.

Penn State needs to conduct a real investigation, by honest independent analysts who have no ties to the university or the climate crisis consortium. Its trustees took bold, decisive action on the Sandusky scandal. They need to do the same thing with Professor Mann, his department and colleagues.

Far too much is at stake – for the university, United States and world at large – to permit Penn State (or the IPCC or White House) to merely rearrange the furniture.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death. Be the first to read Paul Driessen's column. Sign up today and receive delivered each morning to your inbox.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Green charities: way more evil and dangerous than Exxon or the Koch Brothers

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is I would like to thank James for allowing me to publish his works. RK

Your glorious green future!

Sorry, I find Europe so paralysingly depressing I can't possibly blog about it. Instead, here's a piece of investigative journalism to gladden the heart from Norman Rogers – a physicist and senior advisor at the Heartland Institute.

It describes how he cunningly infiltrated his way into the belly of the Green Beast – aka the America's oldest environmental organisation, the Sierra Club – using the brilliantly clever device of paying for membership. Like Greenpeace, like the WWF, the Sierra Club would love you to imagine that it is a plucky little David battling the Goliaths of Big Carbon, Big Industry, Big Pollution, Big Corporate Greed, Big Koch, and so on. In fact – again like Greenpeace, like the WWF – it is enormously well-funded with an $84 million annual budget and 1.4 million members. This would be nice if it didn't use all that money and influence promoting such terrible causes.

As Rogers notes in American Thinker:

The Sierra Club idolizes nature and demonizes man. It glorifies economic parasitism and practices junk science.

The article's fascinating and well worth reading in full, especially for the bit where the Sierra Club's green panelists start squirming over the issue of all the birds that are killed by wind farms. The Sierra Club, of course, is a huge advocate of wind farms.

But the bit that interested me most was Rogers's description of the "linear no threshold hypothesis." It sounds to me rather similar to the "Precautionary Principle" – another of those flimsy, superficially plausible excuses trotted out by the green movement to justify banning pretty much anything that smacks of capitalism, commonsense or scientific progress.

The Sierra Club campaign against coal is motivated by a desire to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent global warming. But since global warming skepticism and global warming fatigue are widespread, the club has opted for a junk science approach to reach its goals. The club tells people that their babies will die, or at least get asthma, if coal plants continue to operate. Although the cause of asthma is not known, it is suspected that it is related to the high levels of cleanliness in advanced countries that denies children and their immune systems exposure to the dirt and filth found in primitive places. This is known as the hygiene hypothesis. The incidence of asthma is about 50 times higher in developed countries compared to rural Africa. For all the Sierra Club knows, coal plants may prevent asthma. Given the hygiene hypothesis, that seems plausible.

With junk science, it is easy to scare people. There are many things that are bad for us that are present at low levels in the environment — for example, mercury, lead, radiation, or tobacco smoke. The junk science approach to trace toxins is to claim that if a high level of the bad thing would cause X people to get sick, then a level 10,000 times smaller must cause 1/10,000 as many people to get sick. Given 300 million people in the country, this math can give you thousands of people getting sick from low levels of mercury, lead, radiation, or secondhand tobacco smoke. This approach is known as the linear no threshold hypothesis.

The Sierra Club and its ally, the Environmental Protection Agency, lean on the small emissions of mercury from burning coal to work up a calculation of deaths from coal. They minimize the fact that much of the mercury falling on the U.S. comes from China, volcanoes, or even from burning dead bodies with mercury-based fillings in their teeth. Mercury pollution becomes an excuse to get rid of coal. Arguing the science behind such claims often degenerates into a paper chase about statistics and what studies are good or bad. From the bureaucratic point of view, the linear no threshold hypothesis is wonderful because it means that problems are never solved and there is always a need for more bureaucratic activity.

I think that of all the things I discovered while researching my book Watermelons, this was the one that shocked me most: the outrageous power wielded by democratically unaccountable environmental NGOs, with the budgets of big corporations and the political philosophy of Marxists. As Donna Laframboise describes in her brilliant book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert they've heavily infiltrated the IPCC. And as this terrifying video featuring Friends of the Earth green activist turned Labour peer Bryony Worthington shows, they've also had a grotesquely disproportionate influence on British government policy. Meanwhile we learn from FOIAs by Chris Horner that NASA's chief activist-scientist James Hansen was paid (on top of his federal salary) $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm to testify in a campaign against an Alberta oil sand company.

Worth thinking about, next time you hear a green charity bleating about the evils of all those climate deniers out there lavishly funded by Big Oil. God, I so picked the wrong side to be on: if I'd chosen to join the junk science, eco-fascist climate scam, I wouldn't be so worried about what's happening to the global economy. A) because I'd be so rich it wouldn't matter. And B) because I'd probably be quite pleased it was going down the toilet. After all isn't deindustrialisation, the preservation of "scarce resources" and a return to the bracing, back-breaking misery of the Agrarian age what the Watermelons of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF, NASA and Friends of the Earth been campaigning for all along?


Resistance is the Symptom, Not the Problem!

By Rich Kozlovich

Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues, posted a comment to my article, Research is Dandy but Silver Bullets are Handy. I think his comments are worth exploring. He asked;
“why do we care about the concerns over “herbicide resistance" from folks who never want us to use herbicides to begin with (Greenpeace, etc.)?
For those, like Avery, who have been researching and writing about these issues for years, the logical fallacies from the green movement are obvious. The very people who use this argument about resistance are in the forefront of those attempting to ban pesticides. So any argument that is used saying that we shouldn't use certain products because it will hasten resistance is simply a red herring fallacy. What are we saving these products for? The assumption must be that we are saving them for some time when they are necessary. Well then, why isn't this the necessary time? Herbicides are considered a pesticide for those who aren’t aware, as weeds are considered a pest in agricultural or landscaping professions. He went on to ask;
“don't we have enough different active ingredients in pesticides to manage the resistance problem, and if not, don't we need MORE different modes of action, rather than less? Why are we banning pesticides if resistance is a main problem?”
Again he points out what should have been obvious to the most casual observer; resistance is only a problem when we stop producing new chemistry or ban chemistry that works. The resistance argument has been the red herring fallacy from the greenies for years, justifying claims that DDT should not be returned in any way because of resistance. That is an illogical argument, especially since they work so hard at banning products that have little or no resistant problems. These people wish to ban pestiicdes and they are willing to use any argument, no matter now illogical, that will work to that end. So then, what is their solution? They propound a whole bunch of public relations stunts and Integrated Pest Mangement, along with larger, more intrusive and expensive layers of bureaucracy that will not kill bed bugs. In short, they have none, and this plague of bed bugs is evidence of that. We are just fortunate that bed bugs aren't believed to be vectors of disease.

When DDT was first developed we thought we had the final solution to pest problems. What we didn’t know was we had fallen into nature’s pattern of resistance. Trees and plants are chemical factories. The only way they can protect themselves from disease or insect attack is through chemistry that kills, sickens or repels their attackers. As soon as they develop resistance to one chemical; plants will develop another. The only plants that are lost are those that cannot produce new chemistry that will work against what is attacking it. The Dutch elm disease is one example.

This brings us to the primary point. Why are we banning pesticides when it is clear that we need more chemistry with different modes of action; not less? If resistance to a product becomes so great that it won’t work, then no one, including me, will use the product. If products cease to work they disappear from the market place due to lack of efficacy, not by forced removal through junk science claims that promote inappropriate regulations.

We want these products back because they work in ways that other products don’t. They are inexpensive, they are easy to use, and they save lives by preventing diseases, or seriously aid in the production of food necessary to feed the world’s hungry billions.

Who cares about hastening resistance if we are never to use them now when we need them? What are we saving them for? Especially since those who make this argument want them banned anyway? And who cares about resistance if we refuse to allow the development of new products with regulations that are so onerous and expensive that we aren’t successfully developing the new chemistry we need?

Bacteria have developed resistance to many of the antibiotics that we are currently using, and there are some staph infections that are almost uncontrollable. Does that mean we shouldn't use those that still work because it will hasten the level of resistance? If that happened people would die. That would be considered insane! Why then would we use any logic that would be considered insane in another arena as rational in pest control?

Resistance is part of nature, whether it is in plants or bacteria. Elm trees died because they couldn’t defeat the disease attacking it with new chemistry. The difference between humanity and elm trees is that we have the chemistry; we just keep refusing to use it. Elm trees became biologically incompetent. We have chosen incompetence.


MILLOY: Time to leash Obama’s EPA

Budget cutting isn’t enough — GOP must stop outlaw agency now.

By Steve Milloy

December 13, 2011, Washington Times

Will House Republicans squander an entire year of effort to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency?

Since the 112th Congress began, House Republicans have talked tough about EPA overregulation. They’ve held a multitude of hearings. They’ve passed a number of bills to rein in EPA regulatory excesses, from the TRAIN Act imposing cost-benefit analysis on the agency to the REINS Act requiring congressional approval of regulatory actions costing more than $100 million to votes blocking the EPA from over-regulating coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers and farm dust.

They’ve even sliced a modest amount off the EPA’s operating budget.
But none of these measures have stopped or slowed down the eco-fundamentalist EPA from its campaign to destroy the fossil fuel industry and gain control over the entire American economy.

Sure, President Obama delayed the EPA from further tightening the ground-level ozone standard, but that was a result of pressure from a broad coalition of businesses, political advisers and the looming 2012 elections, not necessarily because of the House GOP.

So here we are in the last throes of the first session of the 112th Congress, and House Republicans have little to show except effort. As Winston Churchill said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required.”

Fortunately, there is still time.

Among other legislation, Congress is looking to pass an appropriations bill this week, and then go home for the Christmas recess. A bill must pass, which means that Democrats must vote up or down on the bill, and President Obama must sign or veto it. No passes allowed – unless House Republicans allow it.

The House GOP has three options: First, they could allow Democrats to get off scot-free by passing an appropriations bill that does nothing but reduce EPA’s funding. As the Obama EPA has shrugged off earlier budget cuts, there is no reason to give congressional Democrats a free pass.

Next, the House GOP could skirt the issue by doing what it has in the past to avoid a showdown with Democrats – pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for another month or so, thereby putting off the battle until the 2012 election year. Sometimes procrastination is good political strategy, but not when the American economy is withering on the vine.

Finally, the House could accomplish what it has worked hard to do all year: Take a firm stand to rein in the job-killing EPA.

Beyond hampering economic recovery and growth, the EPA is actually for the first time in history threatening electricity reliability – so much so that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for electricity transmission and reliability – is concerned about this.

What this means is next summer, when there’s a heat wave that requires the electric-utility industry to operate at peak capacity, there is a likelihood that Obama EPA actions to put coal-fired power plants out of business will reduce the availability of air conditioning.

Even the EPA recognizes on its website and in its literature that the No. 1 way to avoid death and sickness during a heat wave is air conditioning. That point was driven home during the 2003 heat wave in Europe, which killed more than 50,000 persons.

The point here is the House GOP has some pretty compelling political arguments for drawing a line in the sand on the EPA.

Aside from jobs and the economy, Senate Democrats like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia – all of whom are up for re-election in 2012 – might not want to roll the dice on whether there will be a killer heat wave next summer.

The fight to rein in the EPA now will be ugly. It may run into Christmas. The left-wing media, green groups, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Mr. Obama will falsely attack Republicans as picking polluters over asthmatic children. Their New York Times poll ratings will fall.

Nevertheless, House GOP members were elected to a huge majority in 2010 in order to take such difficult stands.

Steve Milloy publishes and is author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009).

I would like to thank Steve for allowing me to republish his work. RK


Observations From the Back Row

By Rich Kozlovich

It isn't always possible, but I try to have a theme for my "Observations" posts. Today it was easy!  My theme is "Welcome to Oceania"!

It has been years since I read George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, and I have repeatedly asked if everyone else has.  Oceania is where "newspeak" was the official language and non-consensus thinking is considered a thought crime, where the ruling doctrine is Ingsoc, the newspeak term for English Socialism, "I don't think the vast majority of people have read either one of these books, in spite of the fact that what he wrote about is being played out right now. More subtly perhaps --but nonetheless --it is happening.

The Orwellian American Left
As I heard Barack Obama and his propaganda minister, Jay Carney, endorsing tax cuts as a vehicle for economic growth, I was reminded, again, of George Orwell's "1984" and the striking similarities between his Oceania and the American left's vision for America.
Oceania's Big Brother regime had "four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided," the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Plenty. Each department was dedicated to the opposite principle suggested by its title. "Truth" disseminated lies. "Peace" promoted war. "Love" enforced uniformity of thought. And "Plenty" manipulated the economy to impoverish the people while enriching the ruling class. God was expelled and absolute truth abolished, while "doublespeak" was promoted...

Some things Obama left out of his speech
In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama insisted that the coming presidential primary and general election campaigns "shouldn't be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours. That's our mission." "And in this mission," he continued, "our rivals won't be one another, and I would assert it won't even be the other party. It's going to be cynicism that we're fighting against." I guess I missed the moment when Obama hung his "Mission Accomplished" banner. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks more like the president not only lost his battle against cynicism, he defected to the other side.

USPS' Cost-Cutting Plan Shows Need for Privatization
The Postal Service has announced how it plans to fight increased competition for First Class mail — by providing worse service. If the USPS doesn't want to deliver the mail, Congress should let others give it a try…….On the one hand, it's weighed down by unions that control 85% of its workforce, impeding reasonable efficiency improvements. Example: In just the first six months of this year, the Postal Service spent $4.3 million paying postal workers to do literally nothing, thanks to labor agreements that require the service to keep workers on the payroll even when mail volume is low or machinery breaks down.......A Cato Institute report finds the consistent result abroad has been improved productivity and lower costs, without a decline in quality. Selling anything less than privatization as the solution to the Postal Service's problems would constitute mail fraud.

Top 10 Inconvenient Truths about Global Warming
Global warming alarmists are getting a chilly reception these days as the public is starting to catch on to something that we have been yelling about for years: The whole thing is a scam. And here are the reasons why: The Top 10 Inconvenient Truths about Global Warming.

1. Climategate, Part 2:
2. Evidence of natural causes:
3. Skeptical scientists:
4. Flat temperatures:
5. False predictions:
6. Ground station scandal: .
7. Economic impact:
8. Benefits of warmth:
9. Public support drops:
10. Hypocrisy:

Crusade for Fewer People on the Earth Seeks Volunteers
On Oct. 31, the United Nations announced the birth of Planet Earth’s 7 billionth human. Later that day, the United Nations admitted that “no one can know the exact number of people on the globe,” noting that perhaps the 7 billionth human might be born sometime during the next four months. …... 73 members of the U.S. Congress…..signed a letter on Dec. 10, 2009, urging the White House to spend $1 billion on “slowing the [human] population’s rapid growth”…..“one in four Britons…..would like to see the [human] population reduced by up to a third.” ……. If you are a human who believes that there should be fewer human beings on Planet Earth: Fine, you go first.

Pearl Harbor Was FDR’s Back Door to War
Given that today is the anniversary date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we’ll no doubt be treated to standard interventionist articles stating what a great thing World War II was…… What a sick and deadly joke that turned out to be. Only 15 years later, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis had assumed power in Germany, and within only a few more years, World War II had broken out. And guess what the major factor was in the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. You guessed it: U.S. intervention in World War I, which led to the total defeat of Germany, rather than a negotiated peace, followed by the vindictive Treaty of Versailles……The American people were overwhelmingly opposed to entry into World War II. That’s not surprising given the consequences of World War I. There was absolutely no reason for the United States to intervene in that war. …… There was one big problem, however: Roosevelt was lying — knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally lying. In actuality, he had every intention of sending America’s boys into foreign wars. He just had to figure out a way to do so.

Hillary to U.N.: No religion trumps 'gay' rights
Says biblical objections to homosexuality like 'justification for honor killings' - In a speech designed to convince the world that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said religious objections to homosexuality should not stand in the way of vigorous United Nations action to promote the homosexual rights agenda......Wilson cited her comments as one of several examples that has convinced some observers the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion.”

4th-graders brainwashed with Occupy 'propaganda'
Student's dad complains to Scholastic News publisher - A Connecticut dad has accused an industry giant in education, Scholastic, of delivering Occupy Wall Street propaganda to his 4th grade daughter in her school classroom. The company's response? "We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with us and I made sure that staff in our corporate headquarters will see your comments. Again, thank you. We truly appreciate your support of Scholastic Book Clubs." The father, Edward, whose last name is being withheld so his daughter is not identified, told WND it was the standard, "We don't care about your opinion" response that he expected…… But he said he grew up in the old Soviet Union, and recalls when an official media there would print the "news," from only one perspective. "When I see something like this it just boggles my mind," he said.