Search This Blog
De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Still liberal after all these years, I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.
It doesn’t! In the real world any small amount of warming that was taking place officially stopped 18 years ago, in direct contrast to everything their models predicted, all the while CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have dropped.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
AWEA’s own statements from years and decades past can be used against them. To cite just one example, 31 years ago, a study coauthored by the AWEA stated
The private sector can be expected to develop improved solar and wind technologies which will begin to become competitive and self-supporting on a national level by the end of the decade if assisted by tax credits and augmented by federally sponsored R&D.
Here’s a sample letter that you can use or modify: Citizens’ Plea - DO NOT RESUSCITATE the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
“What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell
The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We're constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we're using. We're told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs.
Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely. This isn’t only from the environmental activists outside of government. It's also the constant refrain from those environmental activists within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market - are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually - yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do, whether it's pesticides or automobiles, until it is in common use. With pesticides ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.
In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured, liquids only being a part of that percentage. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. We've changed what we're using in structural pest control dramatically over the last thirty years, we did so because of efficacy. We shifted to a higher reliance to baits for cockroaches and ants because of their effectiveness. However we must understand - if a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last.
New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? If these products have been used extensively, and for some time, then the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.
So what then must we conclude from that? Logically we can only conclude they don’t care what the facts are. They've apparently made up their minds to advocate the same view as the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way. These "Sue and Settle" lawsuits, which is nothing short of illegal collusion between environmentalists and government bureaucrats, gives clear evidence of that. Between regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media, they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.
Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM! Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of neo-pagan mysticism.
If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire - why don’t they do it? It is quite simple - the facts must not support such an action.
Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control. And why IPM or green pest control? Because if there's no alternative there's no problem. IPM and Green Pest Control are their representatives of an alternative.
The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause every conceivable malady. When it is discovered they're wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted - as in the Alar case - it's passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and as in the Alar case, refusing to publicly acknowledge their misconduct.
What are the facts regarding pesticides? There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.
There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of chemicals in our waters and land, and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. It's the dose makes the poison, not it's presence, and there are toxic chemicals necessary for good health which appear in detectable trace amounts in our bodies.
Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “all-natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean! I love the claim that things are "chemical free". Let's get our heads on right about chemicals. The universe - including you - is made up of chemicals - if it's chemical free it doesn't exist.
Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, and "organic" food is pesticide free. That's blatantly false! As far as the claim they taste better - taste is subjective and in point of fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.
Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented. Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs, after all it is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. It might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.
All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers - the trade journals and trade associations - to stand up to these people and publish the truth. When we fail to stand up and be counted we're appeasers and enablers. Eventually that will turn us into traitors to our own industry.
Editor's Note: I ran this some years back but it's as noteworthy now as it was then, and as I read this I decided to run this every year at this time. Best wishes to all! RK
Monday, November 24, 2014
By Rich Kozlovich
As a history buff I'm more aware of all the warts and blemishes of American history than most - and there are a lot of them. How do I know that? Because we publish where we’ve erred in our history books for everyone to see! If a nation can't recognize and expose the history of it's errors and flaws of character - it can't fix them.
At one time you couldn’t find anything in Japan about the atrocities they committed in China in what is known as the Rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered. Or how they murdered over 250,000 civilians in China over the Doolittle Raid over Tokyo. In the town of Ihwang, “They shot any man, woman, child, cow, hog, or just about anything that moved, They raped any woman from the ages of 10 – 65, and before burning the town they thoroughly looted it.” He continued, writing in his unpublished memoir, “None of the humans shot were buried either, but were left to lay on the ground to rot, along with the hogs and cows.”
Then we have the modern Stalin apologists who claim that no one killed all those millions of people in Russia, and if millions did die; it wasn't Stalin's fault. But if millions did die, and Stalin did order those deaths; it was because he was trying to save millions more from the maniacs within his government. Accordingly, Stalin and Baria, his chief of the secret police, were in reality the heroes, not the villains, and all the evidence to the contrary constitutes a conspiracy of lies.
We’ve entered a long period of historical ignorance here in a country where there’s more information available from more sources than ever in human history – and we’re ignorant of it. For me that goes beyond frustrating. Below is an article written by the sister of a friend of mine whose family fled Castro’s Cuba. You might just find this worth a bit of your time for reflection.
Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is one of life’s great mysteries.
As this and future winters turn colder, arrive sooner and stay around longer, Americans will be affected by the reduction of coal-fired plants that generate electrical power. The nation will encounter blizzards that will leave some homeowners and apartment dwellers without heat. It is predictable that some will die.