March 6th. My Picks of the Day

By Rich Kozlovich

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as Frank Pentangeli’s earlier confession that he had killed on behalf of Michael Corleone. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported......The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion. IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.

For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Well, when was the science settled? When global warming would allegedly cause Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, or now that it won’t? When global warming would allegedly cause fewer heavy snow events, or now that it will allegedly cause more frequent heavy snow events?

My Take - The “science” behind all of this can be daunting, but I understood from the beginning that this scare was fraudulent. There is one area that can be universally understood. The whole concept of disastrous consequences as a result of global warming failed the test of history. We know that during the Medieval Warming Period, a thousand years ago, it was warmer than it is today. Not only was it warmer, but it was substantially warmer. The scare mongers tried to claim that the warming experienced during that time was merely localized; that also proved to be false.

We also know that there was a Roman Warming period that was also substantially warmer than it is today. Well, someone may ask; so what? Well, if modern day warming is supposed to cause massive disasters today we have to ask; did those disasters occur during those warming periods? Since there is absolutely no historical data to show that any of the things that they have predicted for today occurred then; we have to ask the next obvious question: if these things didn’t occur then, why should we believe they will occur now? The answer is that we shouldn’t!

In reality the only argument left to these grant chasing junk scientists is that man can cause global warming….oops….I mean climate change….you see it isn’t getting warmer….it’s getting colder, so they had to change it to “climate change”. And since they claim that it is CO2, specifically manmade CO2, is the cause of all the warming (CO2 isn’t really good at holding in heat, but water vapor is, however, mankind doesn’t have anything to do with determining the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere) they are in a conundrum. You see, the level of manmade CO2 is increasing worldwide, and the temperatures are dropping, they are forced to flip flop into the “newspeak” that Orwell outlined in his book 1984.

In his book he created a “fantasy” country where the Ministry of Truth was created to spread lies, Forced labor camps were called “joycamps”, and the ruling party’s slogans were War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Just as Orwell’s story showed a topsy-turvy world of irrational “logic” we live in a world where China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and until recent events, Libya have seats on the Human Rights Council. The greenies and their supporters will twist, lie and spin to maintain their climate change deception. Eventually the lies will crush them and then a host of scientific reputations will be destroyed. 

(Please read Daniel J. Flynn's book, Intellectual Morons, How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall For Stupid Ideas.)

But for those of you who are true believers, have no fear. They have a host of other scares on the horizon with more junk scientists who will happily step up and make liars of themselves. The acidification of the oceans, and sustainable development and species extinction are just three they have on the back burner. Their ability to recycle this stuff is uncanny. It never ends with these people, and for good reason. If they don’t have scares they don’t get contributions and grant money. Then the worst possible disaster that could happen would occur. They would actually have to go out and get a job!

I would have a great deal of sympathy for the poor schnooks who would hire them though.

Close the EPA
It’s time to stop funding carbon mysticism with taxpayer dollars
As Congress looks for ways to trim the budget, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represents an opportunity for up to $9 billion in savings. This outfit has become little more than an advocacy group for trendy leftist causes operating on the public’s dime. Many liberal policies being promoted are so unpopular that congressional Democrats can’t muster the votes to get them through the proper legislative process. So they go to the EPA instead…….. The House has voted to defund the EPA’s greenhouse-gas campaign. It ought to go further and ask why a federal agency is needed when all 50 states have their own departments of environmental quality, natural resources or environmental protection. If the left wants to pursue pseudo-scientific mysticism, it should do so without taxpayer money.

Dr. Jay Lehr recently agreed to do an interview with Michelle Crawley, a freelance writer working for The Standard, the Ohio Pest Management Association’s quarterly newsletter. Here is an excerpt from that interview and his views on the USEPA.

In the late 60's I got involved in the formation of the U.S. EPA, and in the ‘70s was instrumental in the establishment of a safety net of environmental regulations. I had my hand in the writing of seven different pieces of legislation: the Water Pollution Control Act (which later became the Clean Water Act), the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (which dealt with waste disposal), the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIRFA), the Superfund, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.

During this time, several of us had to teach environmental science to the Legislature and get them to pass different bills that would wake the public up to the need to maintain clean air, water, soil and groundwater, and to dispose of our waste in a more reasonable manner.

During that decade we did a terrific job. However in the ‘80s that work was complete and then the pendulum swung. Environmental advocacy groups saw the environment as a way to promote big government and liberal ideas that reduced individual freedom, and threw a monkey wrench in the path of progress and capitalism. Quite frankly, U.S. EPA has done nothing useful since 1980, and is, in my opinion, the worst agency today in the federal government and one that could be disbanded with no negative impact on the public.

Each state has their own EPA and they do a good enough job that we really don’t need the Feds anymore. I began to realize that everything was being taken to an extreme during the ‘80s and in 1991, I published a book called “Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns,” where I contacted 50 different experts on various environmental issues and asked them if the government was handling their issues correctly or in an overbearing manner. All 50 of the scientists said things had gotten out of hand and there were distortions and mythologies creeping into their areas of environmental science.

Each of them wrote a paper on this topic for the book, and it was a huge success. I focused attention in the ‘90s on the overbearing anti-progress that the environmental movement had taken on. Some years later, I began to realize that this concept wasn’t really new, and one of my colleagues and I wrote a book where we actually traced the use of green over centuries. We found threads of green in the conservation movement and in philosophical writings. The idea that the earth and nature is superior to man goes back a very long way, and I’ve been writing about it now for the better part of 25 years.

When people who were responsible for the formation of the EPA and responsible for some of its foundation laws want the EPA disbanded you cannot help but conclude there is something seriously wrong at this agency.   

House Democrat to co-sponsor bill to 'rein in' EPA
House Republicans can claim "bipartisanship" in their bid to handcuff the EPA's climate change rules. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told POLITICO on Wednesday that he will be co-sponsoring the legislation from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that puts a freeze on EPA's regulatory agenda for major industrial polluters like power plants and petroleum refiners….."The EPA needs to be reined in," said Peterson, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee and a frequent critic of the agency.


###

The Destruction of Civilization Really is Their Goal!

By Rich Kozlovich

It is so hard for me to understand how any group can be as mindlessly misanthropic as the greenies. They hate oil, natural gas and nuclear power. They first promoted ethanol, solar energy and wind energy, then turned on their own "solutions" no sooner than they started to be developed.  Can you figure out exactly it is they want?

Here is a clip that I picked up from Jon Ray's Greenie Watch blog. Why should this have to happen? There is plenty of oil, natural gas and coal all over the world. Since the “finite” aspect of these products has been shown to be claptrap they still cling their only reason. Greenhouse gases! Well, no matter what they say, CO2 doesn’t really trap heat. Water vapor is the big heat trapper and using so-called fossil fuels has nothing to do with that.   So, can you figure out exactly it is they want? 

Greenie insanity is there for all to see, and yet people will accept this nonsense, and I find that even harder to understand because this is acceptance by ordinary, seemingly sane people.   The greenies are at least understandable....they're insane.  What else can you call people who are irrational and misanthropic?  So, can you figure out exactly what it is they want? 

Let me try to answer that.  Since everything they promote will cause dystopia all over the world there can only be one conclusion; they want to see billions die!




###

The Pillars of IPM: Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

The pillars that hold up the structure of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in structural pest control are arrogance, deceit, deception, ideology, lies, ignorance, scare tactics and its foundation is the Precautionary Principle; the bulwark of junk science.

What is IPM?

What actually is Integrated Pest Management? That is a constant bone of contention in the structural pest control industry, the universities and the anti-pesticide movement.

IPM started out as an agricultural concept which was first outlined in an obscure agricultural magazine called Hilgardia in 1959. In agriculture there is no problem defining IPM. They knew they couldn’t eradicate all of the pests in fields no matter how many times the fields were treated. Therefore, instead of over spraying and only getting marginally better results; which didn’t justify the added costs; it was decided to develop threshold limits that would apply before making pesticide applications. Therefore the logical foundation for IPM is based on threshold limits. A certain about of pests do a certain amount of damage. Once the threshold for damage occurs it will become economically practical to apply pesticides. That is a simple, logical, and scientific foundation for IPM in agriculture, which I am told isn’t really practiced in agriculture because of the cost of determining what the threshold limit actually is.

The way it works is this. Fields are divided into grids; so you measure down so many feet and shake off all the bugs into a container and then count them. Then you repeat this process over and over again. Usually it is some poor graduate student who is doing this hot, sweaty, rotten job. To have real workers doing it is expensive throughout a growing season. That is the logical foundation for the whole concept in agriculture; threshold limits based on economics.

Let me say this unequivocally, emphatically and absolutely. There is no logical or scientific foundation for such thing as IPM in structural pest control. What is the threshold limit for brown recluse spiders in someone’s home? Is it 10, 20 or maybe it is 100? I would be willing to bet the owner thinks it is zero. In the 1960’s a minor government bureaucrat (in an attempt to categorize what we do) applied the term IPM to the structural pest control industry and it stuck. Based on the definitions by various government agencies it basically states that the applicator has the right to use his judgment as to what to use and when. If that really is the case, then who has the right to determine what constitutes IPM otherwise?

IPM as the greenies would have it is an ethereal concept that is indefinable, or if you prefer, it is unendingly definable and re-definable according to your point of view, ideology or by just whimsically saying, “I don’t buy it” therefore it isn’t IPM. They advocate such mystical concepts as “least toxic”. What constitutes “least toxic”?

If I use the most efficacious product and only have to do it one time, would that be considered least toxic, versus another product that may be considered less toxic except that it might have to be used two, three, four or even ten times?  Which would be "least toxic", and to whom or what? Who decides that?

Since they also want pesticides to be used as a last resort, I have to ask. In the meanwhile what should be done? Should I have to use less effective measures? And if I do, for how long should I continue failing my customers? Who’s going to pay for it? What about the customers needs and wants? Shouldn't they have the most effective treatment available for the health and saftey of their families or employees? If I have to make unnecessary trips to document that these pre-pesticide methods aren’t working, why should the customer have to pay extra unncessary charges in order for some activists to feel good about themselves? If I already know that a pesticide is what I am ultimately going to have to use to rid a property of vermin, why should that be my last choice?  I will address the issues about health concerns later.

In reality the problem with the definitions wanted by the greenies is similar to their “nebulous” definition of the Precautionary Principle. This makes the practical applications of it nebulous. This in turn allows for arbitrary and capricious charges of misapplication, which is exactly what they want. But because of pressure from the EPA many states have had to create their own definitions, therefore establishing that idea that IPM is real in our industry. No matter the science, if the state says it exists, it exists and must be dealt with.

I had the privilege of being a part of that activity in Ohio, but make no mistake about this; IPM does not exist in structural pest control. It exists only because the government says it exists. Why? Why do they insist on the existence of something that has no simple, clear, logical or scientific foundation? I will address that later.

For a long time I kept hearing the phrase, “We need to get ahead of this and define it ourselves! “ Baloney! Our goal should not have been to help define IPM in structural pest control; we should have worked unendingly to remove this agricultural term from the lexicon of structural pest control industry terms. To accept IPM as a valid structural pest control term is saying that there is a valid procedure that is something different, better, safer and more enlightened than traditional pest control. There is no way of getting ahead of this Trojan horse, and IPM is the Trojan horse of the pest control industry.

You will remember that it was the Trojan’s, not the Greeks who dragged that horse into Troy to their destruction. That account may be mythical, but we are facing the reality of our industry dragging IPM into the pest control community. What will the result be?

IPM is an ideology, not a methodology, but before we further explore all the aspects of IPM we need to define what pest control is. Pest control isn’t a methodology either; it is a practice, much like medicine.

In medicine the doctor (practitioner) examines the patient. In pest control the technician (practitioner) inspects the property. In medicine the practitioner makes a diagnosis. In pest control the practitioner identifies the pest. In medicine the practitioner determines the treatment the will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In pest control the practitioner determines the treatment that will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In medicine the practitioner outlines a program of preventative health care. In pest control the practitioner outlines a program of preventative applications.

Here is the rub. Does the doctor go through a list of techniques or products before he prescribes the one that will work the best? NO! Does the doctor start his treatment process by “bleeding” his patients first before moving on to more effective methods? NO! Yet those promoting IPM continue to demand that a whole host of hoops be jumped through before a pesticide application is made, insisting that pesticides are to be used only as a last resort. Even the EPA doesn't officially define IPM in that fashion. Are we to first resort to old techniques that became passé when pesticides were developed? If those techniques were so great; why did they abandon them for modern pest control?

Why should an experienced practitioner have to follow a circuitous plan from people who will do anything or say anything to eliminate pesticides? People who aren’t practitioners of pest control and aren’t responsible for the outcome? Do we really believe that the activists and their acolytes in government know how to treat a structure better than those in pest control? Do we really believe that all the theoretical health claims made by these people are true? Do we believe that everything we have been doing for over sixty years has been wrong?

What chemicals and techniques used in our industry constitute IPM? All of them! What happens when the baits stop working? The bulb dusters, the mechanical aerosols, aerosol cans, and liquid pesticides all start coming out of the truck. Those are all IPM tools . The techniques for their use are all IPM techniques also. I also find it interesting that the number one and two products sold in this country are liquid pesticides. Someone out there is spraying something! Are we getting the message? IPM is pest control and needs no other term to define it, unless there are hidden goals that are leading to something else by those with hidden agendas. 

Let’s try to keep this in mind.  Every concept, every scientific advancement, every social issue, every economic activity has to have some logical foundation to justify its existence or it fails because without a logical foundation it can't grow into something that bears fruit.   If there is no logical base for a concept, it doesn’t exist.  There is no such logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control!   Part III will soon follow!

The Pillars of IPM, Part I
The Pillars of IPM, Part III
The Pillars of IPM, Part IV
###

American Council on Science and Health, 2011: Week Eight

Posted by Rich Kozlovich

Each week there is another round of thought provoking issues presented here. Many times the reason these issues are so thought provoking is that it isn't just about science, technology and dealing with the neo-luddites. Sometimes it is an issue of societal morality.   One such issue today deals with preventative medicine and sexual practices.

I remember when Dr. Koop was the Surgeon General he had been beaten about the head and shoulders by the left because of his stand on moral issues. However, he made the distinction between making a moral stand for what he believed as to what is right, and treating patients who have are involved in risky sexual practices. The issue was about condoms and AIDS, if I remember it correctly. We have to define the problem properly. If a patient had AIDS and you were a doctor wouldn't you treat them? If so, then why wouldn't you advise someone in a high risk category as to the best way to prevent getting it?

There has always been a lot of talk about the promoting or not promoting HPV vaccinations because it would potentially encourage inappropriate sexual practices. I understand the reason for that argument, but that isn't the real argument. The real argument is still the same. Would you, if you were a doctor, treat a patient with this problem? If that answer is yes to that question; then why wouldn't you help prevent them from getting this affliction in the first place if some form of prevention is available? Although I have very strong feelings about abortion being murder, as a general rule, I feel that medicines role is to educate, warn and treat society, not to indict society. That is a role for of the rest of society.

Please enjoy this week's offerings!

Gallbladder trouble: A risk factor for premature death? A new study published in the journal Gastroenterology contains some unexpected and seemingly highly significant findings: the data indicate that those patients who have gallstones or who have had their gallbladder removed are at an increased risk of death over an 18-year period than people without the disease.

Evidence dietary potassium can help avert strokes A meta-analysis of 11 studies undertaken by Italian researchers has concluded that greater daily intake of potassium is associated with a substantially lower risk of stroke. An impressive 247,510 patients were included in the analysis.

Junk science in USA Today: Useful for bird cage linings?
Late last week USA Today's Life & Fitness section included a 1052-word attack on genetically-modified (GM) foods in the guise of an objective look at their increasing use. Tellingly, the article was headed, "Shoppers wary of GM foods find they're everywhere."

My Take - The media is so contemptable that I find it hard to discribe how I feel.  If I said this over 200 years ago it wouldn't be as true as it is today.   It would be worse!!!  In point of fact the media has always been full of lies and innuendo and in my opinion...run my liars and charlatans.... and turn of the century publishers such as William Randoph Herast and  Joseph Pulitzer were perfect examples of modern yellow journalism.

If you were to look back to when America's founding fathers were running for political office against each other you find that the media of the day was infinitely worse than it is today.  Having said that, it doesn't excuse their contempteous treatment of the public.  But is it contempt?  Yes, I think it is,  but I also think it is about ideology and laziness.  I think their view is to just fill up the paper and worry about the details and the facts later.   All that other stuff takes way too much time....you know.....stuff like ......"facts". 

Do doctors warn the obese they’re more than pleasingly plump?  A story appearing in an online edition the Wall Street Journal on Monday suggests that some doctors aren't warning obese and overweight patients about the dangers of their excess size. Reporting on a study of 7,790 people between the ages of 20 and 64, the Journal's Katherine Hobson points out that 37 percent of people found to be overweight based on body mass index (BMI) and 17 percent of those judged clinically obese claimed that they hadn't known they

Recommended reading: ACSH’s Dr. Bloom in The Daily Caller  We encourage our Dispatch followers to read an op-ed by ACSH's Dr. Josh Bloom that criticizes the Obama administration's attempt to hasten the currently slow drug development process through a $1 billion plan by which the government will allocate funding to work with private industry to develop new drugs.

Epidemiologists use their heads (and necks) to assess HPV public health Canadian epidemiologists provide yet another reason to mandate more widespread use of the HPV vaccine: head and neck cancer are on the rise because of HPV.

Teens and young adults losing interest in sex?   The latest statistics from the CDC seem to indicate that teens and young adults are becoming less sexually active. The study, released Thursday, is based on interviews of about 5,300 young people, ages 15 to 24, between 2006 and 2008. It shows the proportion in that age group who reported that they had never had oral, anal or vaginal sex rose over the past decade from 22 percent to about 28 percent. Older data show that vaginal intercourse among unmarried teens and young adults has slowly

Something the FDA and ACSH agree on: Menthol doesn’t make cigarettes more harmful  The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) believes mentholated cigarettes do not pose a greater health threat than unflavored cigarettes.

Obama warns FDA is outdated  President Barack Obama acknowledged last week that the current FDA infrastructure is not capable of assessing recent advances in medicine and biotechnology.

Wal-Mart banning PDBEs, igniting flame retardant fears  Before the EPA could say precautionary principle, Wal-Mart sent word to its suppliers last week that starting June 1st it would test for and not sell consumer products containing the flame retardants polybrominated diphenyl ether (PDBE). Wal-Mart said that it made this decision following the example of some state regulatory agencies. These agencies have responded to data correlating the substances with health problems in lab animals.

Is EPA using toxic arguments to protect itself?  In testimony before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claimed that cuts to the EPA's budget would devastate both the country's land and water and the health of its people. Ms. Jackson's testimony often strained credulity. Among her claims, according to Reuters, were that better enforcement of present clean air and water laws would save $20 trillion in U.S. health care costs over the next nine years and that it would

EU OKs Avastin for breast cancer — FDA behind the times?  On Wednesday the European Commission approved the use of Avastin (bevacizumab) for treatment of advanced stage breast cancer. This decision, which follows from a recommendation of a European Union advisory panel, stands in marked contrast to the policies of the FDA. This past December the FDA announced that it planned to revoke its approval for the drug for breast cancer patients.

New England Journal of Medicine touts President’s Cancer Panel report to push anti-chemical agenda  Despite widespread scorn among experts - including the American Cancer Society - the 2010 President's Cancer Panel report was used as a platform for a New England Journal of Medicine perspective piece.

Heartless: Women kept out of heart device tests  A disquieting new study published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes shows that research into heart devices isn't properly considering the effects of these devices on women or employing comparable numbers of female test subjects.

March 4th. - Picks of the Day

Posted By Rich Kozlovich

Greenpeace Co-Founder Slams Species Extinction Scare Study - 'peer-review process has become corrupted'
Moore: 'I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999'

GOP-led House hearing brings cross-examination of EPA's regulations
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson faced pointed questioning during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing about the agency's climate rules and other regulations such as oil containment to water quality. "I believe EPA is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority it's been granted," said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky

"I believe EPA is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority it's been granted,"

Since so much of the legislative authority given to the EPA has been from the courts and not from the Congress, and the Congress has done nothing about it for 41 years, I have to ask.  Who's at fault for that?  It isn't like anyone could have missed the fact that they have been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations since they came into existence.  They are not now, nor have they ever been, an agency in love with science, or truth for that matter.  They were created by Nixon to be a political entity and that is what they are. 

First, review every regulation and every piece of legislation implemented for them and by them.  Secondly,  get rid of them because they can't be re-trained to be anything except what they are. 

You know the story about the scorpion and the fox.  The scorpion asked the fox to carry him over a river.  The scorpion stung the fox and as he was dying he said; you promised not to sting me, why would you do such a thing?  Now we will both die.  The scorpion replied; you knew what I was, why did you trust me?

A scorpion will always be a scorpion, and the EPA will always be out of control if allowed to exist.  RK 

Overstated chemical risks can lead to bans
Chemicals such as bisphenol A are unnecessarily scrutinized by regulators with "limited scientific knowledge," according to Jon Entine, a senior fellow and director of the Genetic Literacy Project at George Mason University. Restrictions on chemicals can cause much more harm than good, he argues. "Chemicals get a bad rap. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish genuine risks from chemophobia," Entine writes.

This will never end until the greenies are no longer funded by the public and they can be sued for making false claims and prosecuted for the end result of their actions if it results in the loss of life or property.  I don't see this any differently than when ELF or one of the other "really radical" environmental terrorist groups burns down millions of dollars of private property. 


###

March 3rd. - Picks of the Day

By Rich Kozlovich

Wind Power: Questionable Benefits, Concealed Impacts
By Paul Driessen

America is running out of natural gas. Prices will soar, making imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) and T Boone Pickens’ wind farm plan practical, affordable and inevitable. That was then.

Barely two years later, America (and the world) are tapping vast, previously undreamed-of energy riches – as drillers discover how to produce gas from shale, coal and tight sandstone formations, at reasonable cost. They do it by pumping a water, sand and proprietary chemical mixture into rocks under very high pressure, fracturing or “fracking” the formations, and keeping the cracks open, to yield trapped methane.

Within a year, US recoverable shale gas reserves alone rose from 340 trillion cubic feet to 823 trillion cubic feet, the Energy Department estimates. That’s 36 years’ worth, based on what the USA currently consumes from all gas sources, or the equivalent of 74 years’ of current annual US oil production. The reserves span the continent, from Barnett shale in Texas to Marcellus shale in Eastern and Mid-Atlantic states – to large deposits in western Canada, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana and other states (and around the world)……What to do? Environmentalists voiced alarm. HBO aired “Gasland,” a slick propaganda film about alleged impacts of fracking on groundwater. Its claims have been roundly debunked (for instance, methane igniting at a water faucet came from a gas deposit encountered by the homeowner’s water well – not from a fracking operation). A politically motivated Oscar was predicted, but didn’t happen.………But if a life-cycle study is warranted for hydraulic fracturing, because drilling might pass through subsurface formations containing fresh water, similar studies are certainly called for elsewhere: wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation, for instance.

Turbines require enormous quantities of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth minerals – all of which involve substantial resource extraction, refining, smelting, manufacturing and shipping. Land and habitat impacts, rock removal and pulverizing, solid waste disposal, burning fossil fuels, air and water pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions occur on large scales during every step of the process...........

The false promise of green jobs
Bjorn Lomborg

………Investment in alternative energy technologies such as solar and wind is no longer peddled on environmental grounds. Instead we are being told of the purported economic payoffs, above all the promise of so-called "green jobs". Unfortunately, that does not measure up to economic reality……

Gulen concluded job creation "cannot be defended as another benefit" of well-meaning green policies. In fact, the number of jobs these policies create is likely to be offset - or worse - by the number of jobs they destroy………..More disturbing is Gulen's finding that some claims of job creation have rested on assumptions of green energy production that go far beyond reputable estimates. Of course, if you assume vast swaths of the countryside will be covered in wind turbines and solar panels you will inevitably predict that a large number of construction jobs will be required…………Yet many studies used by advocates of green jobs have not addressed these costs at all, overlooking both the cost of investment and the price hikes to be faced by end users.

The companies calling for political intervention to create green jobs tend to be those that stand to gain from subsidies and tariffs. But, because these policies increase the cost of fuel and electricity, they imply layoffs elsewhere, across many different economic sectors……..In addition to job creation, some researchers have blithely claimed all sorts of other economic benefits will accrue from investment in alternative energy, including increased productivity, higher disposable incomes and lower operating costs for businesses. Here, too, Gulen concludes the assertions are "not backed up by any evidence and are inconsistent with the realities of green technologies and energy markets".

The fundamental problem is that green-energy technologies are still very inefficient and expensive compared with fossil fuels. Deploying less efficient, more expensive alternative energy sources will hurt businesses and consumers, not help them.

###

March 2nd. - Picks of the Day

By Rich Kozlovich

Organic produce 'not as good for your health': Vegetables grown with pesticides contain MORE vitamins

The organic 'back to nature' approach to gardening - doing away with artificial chemicals - will not deliver healthier or more tasty produce, it is claimed. A controversial new study from Which? Gardening suggests produce grown using modern, artificial, methods may well be better for you. The claims follow a two year study growing potatoes, broccoli and tomatoes and will alarm producers and consumers who put their faith in natural food.

Truthfully, I am happy that "organic" is being exposed for the greenie mysticism that it is, but I don't put a lot of truck in the idea that non-organic is any more healthy. As Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com says....

"This claim is unlikely to be true — an orange is an orange, no matter how it’s grown. This report does underscore, however, that organic produce is not more nutritious than conventional produce."

I will say this. If "organic" was truly third world organic, there might be stroke of truth in it, because of the lack of nutrients and the competition for nutrients with weeds and the plants battle with pests. Third world production isn't as good as we have in these "terrible  pesticide using countries" that grow food in such abundance because of our advanced chemical industries. We went from over 40% of the population being involved in agriculture before WWII to about 2% today and we still far out produce what we did in 1940 because of good chemistry.

Many years ago a friend of mine went on a tour to a country emerging from communism. The bus stopped at an apple orchard because the driver raved about the apples there. My friend said they had spots, were malformed, small and didn’t taste all that great…of course variety plays a big part in taste, so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The driver could see their disappointment and said, "we don't spray as much as you do in the United States", which I hope is something they have corrected.   Does that make them less nutritional? It is after all a chemical issue. We do know and remember that nutrients are chemicals.....right!

Let's get this right once and for all. Farmers are the most frugal people in the world; meaning that they just don't waste. There is a difference between being cheap and being frugal. There is no way you could have ever gotten them to buy insecticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers if they weren't necessary and the results weren't far better....and I mean far better, otherwise there would be no way the costs could be justified.

It seems to me that better produce is nutritionally better because of the volume. More food simply means better nutrition. However, in order to be consistant....I don't put too much truck in this story except to laugh and shake my head at the mysticism of the greenies and their demands that this can't be true.

Get over it and buy frugally, stretch your dollars and buy non-organic. Let's face it; eating organic isn't going to keep us alive any longer or keep us any healthier than not eating organic. That is the study I would love to see. A study that follows the lives of those like me who eats what he likes and those who are ”organic only” eaters….and vegans at that.

In fact we could break them all down into vegans, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-vegetarians, ovo/lacto-vegetarians, fruitarians and “vegetarians” who eat fish or chicken and omnivores.  Then follow their lives and see who gets what and who lives the healthiest and longest lives. And let’s suppose that the VOOLVF’s live a just little bit longer…would it really be worth it?However, it you wish to be a "true believer"....that's ok with me. RK


###

Greens lie, Africans die

Falsehoods about insecticides and bednets continue to leave a path of destruction and death.

By Paul Driessen and Robert Novak

Fina’s little body shook for hours with teeth-chattering chills. The next day her torment worsened, as nausea and vomiting continued even after there was nothing left in her stomach. Finally, her vomiting ebbed and chills turned to fever, drenching her body in sweat. Then more chills, fevers, nausea, convulsions, and constant, unbearable pain in every muscle, bone and joint.

She cried out, and tears mixed with sweat. But no one could help her. She had no money for doctors, medicines or a hospital room. She didn’t even have a mother or father to comfort her. All the orphanage school staff could do was caress her, pray and hope she’d get better – and wait for her to die.

And in agony that never stopped from the time the malaria first struck her down, Fina Nantume did die. So did 49 of her classmates, out of 500 students in the APEA Primary School for orphans in Kampala, Uganda, in 2005. Most of the survivors were also afflicted with malaria at least once that year. Some became permanently brain damaged. Others died in subsequent years.

Fina didn’t have to die. None of these spirited, beautiful young students had to die. None of them had to get malaria. The disease is preventable, treatable and curable.

Then why did they? Why does half the world’s population remain at risk of getting malaria? Why are some 250 million people infected annually – with 90% of the agonizing chills, fevers, nausea, brain damage and death occurring in sub-Saharan Africa?

It’s said malaria is a disease of poverty, and poor countries don’t have enough funds, doctors or medicines to treat the disease – or prevent it in the first place. True enough. But malaria is also, and much more so, a disease of callous, intransigent environmental extremism and wanton disregard for human life. A disease whose prevention is hampered, and actively thwarted, by pervasive opposition to mosquito-killing insecticides, and mosquito-repelling DDT.

Anti-pesticide activists say they support other interventions: education, “capacity building,” modern drugs and bednets. Indeed, international funding for malaria prevention and treatment has risen from perhaps $40 million in 1998 to almost $2 billion in 2010. Millions of women and children now sleep under insecticide-treated nets. Millions now get diagnosed quickly and receive decent care and medicines.

These anti-malaria programs “saved nearly 750,000 lives over the past ten years.” the World Health Organization enthusiastically asserts. “That represents an 18% reduction in child mortality, compared with 2000.” That’s wonderful news. But it’s not good enough.

We would never tolerate 18% as “good enough,” if American or European kids’ lives were at stake, or if a 70-90% reduction in disease, misery and death rates were possible. And it would be possible, if we could end the lies and obstructionism that restrict access to mosquito killers and repellants that can dramatically reduce infection rates and the need to treat a quarter-billion cases of malaria every year.

But the lies and obstruction are prevalent, and effective. Here are just a few of the most egregious.

“Nets are just as good as insecticides.” Prevention should always be the first line of defense. That’s why we chlorinate drinking water and vaccinate people against measles, mumps, polio and flu. Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) certainly help and should be used. But they are a supplement to, not a substitute for, larvacides, insecticides and DDT that kill mosquitoes and keep them away from people.

Bednets help if they’re used regularly and properly. They don’t help if they’re torn, people are working, there are only enough nets for a family’s small children and pregnant women, or it’s too hot to sleep under one. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) eliminates behavior as a consideration; it protects everyone in the house, 24 hours a day.

“Bednets are more cost-effective than indoor spraying.” This assertion is backed by several studies, apparently financed by anti-pesticide groups and ITN manufacturers. However, the studies compare bednets with IRS using pyrethroids like ICON, instead of DDT. Pyrethroids are far more expensive and must be applied more often than DDT, which raises IRS costs significantly. The studies also fail to include all the costs associated with manufacturing and distributing the nets. Independent analyses found that nets are actually four times more expensive than spraying the inside walls of homes with DDT.

Much more important, spraying DDT once or twice a year keeps 80% of mosquitoes from entering the home, irritates those that do enter, so they leave without biting, and kills any that land. No other chemical, at any price, has these repellency and irritation features. DDT helps doctors treat more patients with often scarce ACT drugs and dramatically slash disease and death rates – often by 90% or more.

“Mosquitoes will become resistant to DDT.” This is highly unlikely. DDT use today is restricted to disease prevention, whereas pyrethroids are used extensively in agriculture and ITNs, greatly increasing the risk of resistance to these DDT “alternatives.” Once that happens both non-DDT indoor spraying and bednets will become far less effective, and malaria rates could skyrocket. In addition, there is no evidence that mosquitoes have ever become resistant to DDT’s repellency and irritation effects.

Moreover, reliance on nets and pyrethroid sprays significantly reduces prevention and increases the need for treatment. This can stretch scarce hospital, medical staff and drug resources to the breaking point. It increases the likelihood that malaria parasites will become resistant to Artemisia-based drugs, especially monotherapies. And it magnifies the pervasive and growing problem of substandard and counterfeit drugs replacing scarce supplies of reputable ACT combination therapies.

“DDT has dangerous side effects.” Greenpeace, Pesticide Action Network, Environmental Defense, International POPs Elimination Network and affiliated radical groups love to say “some researchers think” DDT and its break-down byproduct DDE “could” inhibit lactation, “may” weaken immune systems and are “associated with” low birth weights in babies. Not only is this rank speculation, but malaria definitely has all these side effects; it also causes severe brain damage, an inability to work for weeks on end, and agonizing death. Opposing DDT use on the basis of bogus side effects is infinitely worse than opposing cancer-curing chemotherapy because of the nasty and very real side effects of vincristine, asperaginase, methotrexate and other chemo drugs.

“DDT will poison the global biosphere.” Anti-pesticide zealots claim even indoor spraying with DDT will “contaminate” soils and waters for decades and “damage entire regional environmental systems.” Baloney. IRS involves small amounts of DDT on walls. The chemical and its derivatives break down. Detection does not equal destruction. Our ability to detect chemicals at the equivalent of one second in 32 years does not equate with damage to any organism, and certainly not to entire ecosystems.

There is no magic bullet. We need every weapon in our arsenal to control and eradicate this vicious disease. DDT and insecticides aren’t necessary or appropriate in every case – but when needed health officials must be able to employ them, without recrimination or retribution.

The “net” effect of these bald-faced lies is that anti-pesticide zealots are perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and death in malaria-endemic regions all over the world. Safe in offices made malaria-free by the very chemicals, technologies and prosperity they deny to others, these baby killers and their financial benefactors are violating the most basic human rights of people in poor nations: the right of access to technologies that enhance and safeguard life.
Their reign of terror must end, before they usher in a disaster of truly epidemic proportions.

___________________________________________________________

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.


Robert Novak is professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and has devoted much of his life to combating malaria.

Environmentalist fraud and manslaughter

In the name of banning DDT, GEF bureaucrats are consigning millions to death from malaria

Paul Driessen is a senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, nonprofit public policy institutes that focus on energy, the environment, economic development and international affairs. Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black death

By Paul Driessen

Many chemotherapy drugs for treating cancer have highly unpleasant side effects—hair loss, vomiting, intense joint pain, liver damage and fetal defects, to name just a few. But anyone trying to ban the drugs would be tarred, feathered and run out of town. And rightly so.

The drugs’ benefits vastly outweigh their risks. They save lives. We need to use chemo drugs carefully, but we need to use them.

The same commonsense reasoning

The same commonsense reasoning should apply to the Third World equivalent of chemotherapy drugs: DDT and other insecticides to combat malaria. Up to half a billion people are infected annually by this vicious disease, nearly a million die, countless survivors are left with permanent brain damage, and 90% of this carnage is in sub-Saharan Africa, the most impoverished region on Earth.

These chemicals don’t cure malaria—they prevent it. Used properly, they are effective, and safe. DDT is particularly important. Sprayed once or twice a year on the inside walls of homes, DDT keeps 80% of mosquitoes from entering, irritates those that do enter, so they leave without biting, and kills any that land. No other chemical, at any price, can do this.

Even better, DDT has few adverse side effects—except minor, speculative and imaginary “risks” that are trumpeted on anti-pesticide websites. In the interest of saving lives, one would think eco activists would tone down their “ban DDT” disinformation. However, that is unlikely.

Anti-DDT fanaticism built the environmental movement, and gave it funding, power and stature it never had before. No matter how many people get sick and die because health agencies are pressured not to use DDT, or it is totally banned, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Pesticide Action Network, and allied activist groups will never reform or recant.

Government agencies—including the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry—will likewise continue pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into anti-DDT research, in futile attempts to prove DDT causes some sort of meaningful harm. And the malaria death toll will continue to mount.

Worse, they have now been joined by the United Nations Environment Program, Global Environment Facility and even World Health Organization Environmental Division—all of whom share the avowed goal of ending all DDT production by 2017, and banning all use of DDT in disease control by 2020.

A recent GEF “study” demonstrates how far they are willing to go, to achieve this goal, no matter how deadly it might be. The study purported to prove DDT is no longer needed and can be replaced by “integrated and environment-friendly” alternatives: for example, mosquito-repelling trees, and non-chemical control of breeding sites and areas around homes that shelter insects.

The $14-million study claimed that these interventions resulted in an unprecedented “63% reduction in the number of people with [malaria], without using DDT or any other type of pesticide.” However, as analyses by malaria and insecticide experts Richard Tren and Dr. Donald Roberts clearly demonstrate  (see Research and Reports  in Tropical Medicine and AEI Outlooks), the study, conclusions and policy recommendations are not merely wrong. They are deliberately misleading and fraudulent.

GEF did its 2003-2008 study in Mexico and seven Central American countries—all of which had largely ceased using DDT and other pesticides years before the GEF project. Instead of chemical sprays, these countries now employ huge numbers of chloroquine and primaquine (CQ and PQ) pills to prevent and treat malaria: 2,566 pills per diagnosed case in Mexico; 22,802 pills (!) in El Salvador; 50 to 1,319 pills per case in the other countries, according to 2004 health records.

It was these powerful drugs, not the “environment-friendly” GEF interventions, that slashed malaria rates. Indeed, they had begun to do so before GEF even arrived. This terribly inconvenient reality was further underscored by the fact that malaria rates were the same in “study” areas and “control” areas, where GEF did nothing—and that the number of malaria cases increased when the number of pills per case decreased. In other words, GEF could have gotten its same results using one bed net or one larvae-eating fish.

GEF’s fraudulent claims were then compounded by its insistence that the results and conclusions are relevant to other malaria-endemic regions. They are not. Malaria parasites in Latin American countries are Plasmodium vivax; in Africa and Southeast Asia, they are the far more virulent P. falciparum.

CQ and PQ are effective in preventing and treating vivax; they rarely prevent or cure falciparum malaria. Moreover, the eight Latin American countries have 140 million people. Sub-Saharan Africa has 800 million and a woeful medical and transportation infrastructure; Southeast Asia has 600 million people. Both have infinitely more malaria. Getting adequate medicines that work (far more expensive Artemisia-based ACT drugs) to 1.4 billion people would be a budgetary, logistical and medical impossibility.

But apparently none of these facts occurred to the bureaucrats who did this study. That’s hardly surprising, since the project was designed and directed, not by disease control experts, but by the UNEP and radical environmental groups—which also spent millions distributing and promoting the study and other anti-DDT propaganda all over the world, ensuring that they received substantial media attention.

Anti-pesticide fanatics know this “study” is fraudulent. They just have a very high tolerance for how many malaria cases, brain-damaged people and dead babies are “acceptable” or “sustainable.” They just don’t care enough to bother learning basic facts about malaria, CQ versus ACT, vivax versus falciparum. They need to get out of the malaria control policy business and let medical professionals do their jobs.

(To learn more about stopping malaria, see Tren and Roberts’ book The Excellent Powder, Dr. Rutledge Taylor’s documentary film “3 Billion and Counting,” and the website for Africa Fighting Malaria.)

The final report claims its authors submitted manuscripts to prominent peer-reviewed medical journals. However, nothing was ever published. That suggests that they lied, and never submitted any manuscripts; or they did submit papers, but the manuscripts were rejected as being shoddy, unprofessional, unscientific, or even on par with Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent vaccine-and-autism work.

To cap it all off, the bogus GEF project appears to have been conducted using funds diverted from already insufficient malaria control budgets. The GEF, UNEP, Stockholm Convention Secretariat and radical environmental groups are using money intended for malaria control to launch anti-pesticide programs in countries plagued by malaria, and gain control over public health policies, insecticides and programs.

Overall, the GEF has spent over $800 million on efforts to eliminate DDT and other “persistent organic pollutants” (POPs). It budgeted nearly $150 million in 2007 alone on its campaign to ban DDT production and use—but spent a lousy $22 million researching alternatives to DDT for vector control.

Until an equally effective and long-lasting substitute for DDT is developed—one that repels, irritates and kills mosquitoes—this vital weapon needs to remain in the disease control arsenal.

The GEF, UNEP, POPs Secretariat and WHO need to withdraw the study; discipline the people who perpetrated this fraud; retract World Health Assembly Resolution 50.13, calling for malaria-infested countries to slash their use of public health insecticides; and issue a statement making it absolutely clear that this “study” was erroneous and deceptive, and should not be considered in setting malaria policies.

Donors to the GEF and radical groups must be exposed. For activists and agencies to continue promoting this study or demand that malaria-endemic countries stop using DDT and insecticides, and adopt bogus “eco-friendly” GEF “solutions,” is gross medical malpractice—and deliberate manslaughter.

Malaria can be controlled, and even eradicated in many areas. We simply need to use every available weapon—including DDT, pesticides, nets, window screens, drugs and other interventions—in an orderly, coordinated and systematic manner; and ensure that mosquito infestations, disease outbreaks, malaria control successes and problems are monitored and evaluated accurately and honestly.

If we do that—and end the anti-pesticide hysteria—we can get the job done.


Paul Driessen's
Most recent columns
Older columns


###

March 1st. - Picks of The Day!

By Rich Kozlovich

Initially I intended this to be "My Picks of the Week!", that is why this one is as large as it is, but I it gets to be too much work organizing it because I have a job that interferes with my life.  So I will be posting those articles that have interested me daily...or at least on most days.  I hope you all enjoy my picks. 

____________________________________________________________

....

“The public has been misled on this issue by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.”

Viv Forbes

....
_______________________________________

If you read anything this week, please take the time to read this commentary.  RK

An introduction to environmental issues

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD Physics

The story of environmentalism is generally portrayed as one of citizens triumphing over evil corporate polluters, of public awareness, science, and affluence working together to solve pressing problems. There is no problem so huge or so abstract that we cannot solve it if we put our minds to it. And solving these problems yields all sorts of positive side-effects and no drawbacks.

While that may be the perception, it is far from the fact. Public awareness is easily swayed by media campaigns that are little more than propaganda and supported by a press that would rather take sides than present balanced reports. Science is largely bought and paid for by politicians who control the agenda and the outcome.

And our affluence, or what is left of it, is viewed as an inexhaustible source of revenue for whatever fantastic ideas the political class can dream up. Negative consequences of such folly are viewed as so impossible as to be unworthy of discussion.

Consider the plight of the Orangutan, a creature in such dire peril that biologists place its chance of survival beyond a few years to be near zero in the wild. Do we hear much about Orangutans? No, we are constantly treated to pictures of a lone polar bear floating away on a shrinking piece of sea ice. To read more follow the headline link.

Cuccinelli’s right to subpoena upheld Assembly Upholds right to subpoena, The Cavalier Daily
While some academics and AGW advocates huff about a “Mannhunt” the Virginia House of Delegates has blocked an attempt to remove the attorney general’s power to issue subpoenas for academic research at state universities.

My Take - The issue is fraud! No matter how many academic head nodders sitting around in an echo chamber of self praise say otherwise. This is not about academic freedom, it is about taking public money and knowingly producing fraudulent results.  These ivory tower intellectuals act as if scientific fraud is so rare that the very thought of challanging their integrity is a direct asssult on academic freedom.  That really is a logical fallacy!  For that matter, every exposure of fraudulent science was preceded by the same rhetoric we are hearing now about Mann's work.  Is there some reason why should we think this is any different?

If it was about academic freedom they would have followed Einstein’s example and released all the information they had available, and then asked their fellow scientists to find what flaws they could in their work.  That is known as peer review, and while flawed, it is still the basis for what constitutes "real science".  Mann only released the details of his Hockey Stick Graph because Congress forced him to do so, and the subsequent findings weren't attractive.   That isn't science.   If it really isn't fraud as they claim, then this is their opportunity to prove it.  At this point in time it appears that global warming has made scientific integrity an oxymoron.  An oxymoron created by government grant money that produced studies that were nothing more than conclusions in search of data.  Not an uncommon occurrence, and it goes way beyond Anthropogenic Climate Change.  RK

·     Many of you know that the Climategate e-mails revealed the existence of a climate cartel intent on dominating the scientific process so that challenges to the dominant dialectic involving carbon dioxide could not be effectively mounted. Conspirators maintained a tight grip on the scientific societies and their publication processes. Scientists at the very top of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had become racketeers. - Gordon J. Fulks, PhD Physics

Court case warns EPA could 'own' your land!  Petition to Supremes cites danger of 'ruinous' compliance order fines
A legal team asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in an Idaho controversy is warning landowners that under the compliance order procedures being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency virtually anyone could be told to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in permit fees – or face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties – over ordinary home construction work…..However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in the land, said before a court could issue a ruling on the EPA's order, the family would have to go through a years-long, $200,000-plus process of formally applying for a federal wetlands permit.

According to officials with Pacific Legal, the Sacketts' land has no standing water or any continuously flowing water, and they would like an opportunity to challenge the EPA's "wetlands" determination in court.

According to the petition, "Ignoring the compliance order is no option, for several reasons. First, the CWA imposes significant civil penalties for violating compliance orders. … Just one month of noncompliance puts the landowner at risk of civil liability of $750,000. A year's worth of noncompliance puts the liability at $9,000,000." ……."The issue in this case is simple, but critically important to all property owners, and everyone who values fair play and due process," Schiff said. "When bureaucrats try to impose their will on private property, shouldn't the owners be permitted their day in court, to challenge the government's claim of control?" To read more follow the headline link.

EPA solution? Gingrich says replace it
'Science, technology, markets, and incentives' better than lawyers, litigation.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says there actually is a solution to the morass of rules, regulations and litigation that makes up the Environmental Protection Agency – just replace it. His comments came at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He says a new "Environmental Solutions Agency" should be installed not to supplement the EPA, or work with it, but to replace it. "I want to replace, not reform EPA, because the EPA is made up of self-selected bureaucrats, who are anti-American jobs, anti-American business, anti-state government, anti-local control, and I don't think you can reeducate them," Gingrich said. To read more follow the headline link.

My Take - Funny thing that…. I was part of a panel discussion years ago and I said the very same thing, only I wanted to shift their legislative authority to agencies that already existed under the Department of Agriculture, and I also wanted to fire all the EPA employees.   The difference was that all that I got was a snort, rolled eyes, shook heads and a smugness that showed they believed that it couldn’t happen because EPA was necessary.  Really? EPA came into existence on December 2, 1970. How did everyone survive before that? What exactly do they do that can’t be controlled under Common Law? Now Gingrich says it and it makes headlines, and heads start nodding. Well, that’s ok with me…it is the end result I am concerned with.

However….there is something that I would really like to point out. I was years ahead of Newt Gingrich!  How could that have possibly happened?  He has been at the center of information for a huge percentage of his life so I have to ask; what crucial piece of information did he come across that he didn't have before which  prevented him from coming to this conclusion years ago?  Opportunism and being integrity challenged surely couldn't be the issue here....could it?    RK

Deep freeze puts Baltic on track for record
Following another extended stretch of sub-zero temperatures, ice coverage on the Baltic Sea is greater than it's been in nearly a quarter century, Sweden's meteorological agency reports.  To read more follow the headline link.

The EPA's Latest Unscientific Power Grab

Why would the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overturn its own scientists and decide to regulate trace levels of perchlorate in drinking water after it recently decided it didn't need to be regulated? Earlier this month, the EPA announced it will develop a standard for how much perchlorate would be allowed in tap water…….It is impossible to accurately calculate the cost of each unnecessary regulation, but the cost to all of us is staggering. Perhaps these costs would be worth it if they saved lives, but because the charges against perchlorate in drinking water are so unfounded it makes this particular regulatory plan particularly hard to swallow.

Shocker: EPA air chief ignorant of atmospheric CO2 level March 1, 2011
At today’s House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s job killing greenhouse gas regulations, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked panel witness Gina McCarthy — chief of EPA’s air programs, including the agency’s greenhouse gas regulations — whether she had any idea of what the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE DID NOT!

Arnold L. Goldman Says: Here you go Ms. McCarthy:

Nitrogen – 78.084%
Oxygen – 20.95%
Argon – 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide – 0.036%
Neon – 0.0018%
Helium – 0.0005%
Methane – 0.00017%
Hydrogen – 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide – 0.00003%
Ozone – 0.000004%

Water vapor is variable but typically makes up about 1-4% of the atmosphere.

Owen Nelson Says: Knowing… the number... is one thing. Knowing what it means is another. NASA’s ever-present propagandist, James Hanson, tells us that 350 ppm is the upper end of the safe limit, so we’re already in deep doo-doo because we’re around 389 ppm. The Robinsons at OISM.org stated years ago in their famous Petition Project, agreed to by some 32000 signers, that there are benefits to us from both higher temps and higher CO2 levels. Any number of controlled experiments have shown increased plant growth when CO2 concentrations are raised. Plants carry on photosynthesis by removing CO2 from the air, so nature has a way of dealing with “excess” CO2, but all of that is contrary to the mantra of the Climate Change crowd/ industry, so it seldom makes the news.

EPA: Saving millions and making trillions? March 1, 2011

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed today that it is saving millions of lives and making the U.S. trillions of dollars through the Clean Air Act.  JunkScience.com has prepared a response to the agency’s fanciful claims. Though it is still in draft form, we are posting “EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is” early in response to the EPA’s wild assertions.

iheartagw Says: Thank-you, Mr. Milloy, for making this point that no other person seems to be making. EPA is required to provide a cost/benefit analysis with every rule they promulgate. NO ONE ever goes back into the record to see if EPA’s claims ever came close to reality.

Case in point: EPA recently claimed they saved millions of skin cancer incidences/year per capita because of Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rules. I pointed out to the EPA press person that incidences of melanomas and carcinomas per capita continue at unchanged rates according to U.S. cancer statistics. Her response was that their modeling showed that it would have been worse. It is a tautology: if the EPA had not stopped all the spuing of CFCs there would have been more skin cancers. Thus, the fact that there is no increase in skin cancer rates proves that the SOP rules worked.

When will Congress EVER haul Lisa Jackson in front of a committee and force her to prove past health and cost benefits? She should be required to do this before she is permitted to promulgate the next rule. And if she cannot prove it, then neither should one more new rule be allowed to go on the books.

_________________________________________________________________

Listening to the greenies tell their tale is like reading a Lewis Carroll novel.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -

Of cabbages and kings,

And why the sea is boiling hot,

And whether pigs have wings."

Interview with Dr. Jay Lehr, Defender of Our Industry

This originally appeared in the February issue of The Standard, the newsletter of the Ohio Pest Management Association.

By Michelle Crawley

Editor’s Note: Over the years, there have only been a handful of courageous people in science that have stood against the government, the green movement and the media. Dr. Jay Lehr is one of those people, placing scientific integrity over advancement. Here is his story.

Background

Jay H. Lehr., Ph.D., earned one of the nation’s first Ph.D.’s in Environmental Science from the University of Arizona. He also holds a degree in Geological Engineering from Princeton. He began his career with the U.S. Geological Survey after serving in the U.S. Navy’s Civil Engineering Corps in the Far East, rising to the rank of Lt. Commander. He founded and sold two education companies to Fortune 500 Corporations, and has written 19 books and over 900 journal articles in his fields of expertise. On 36 occasions he has testified in Congress to explain the realities of environmental issues as they relate to pending legislation, including having a hand in forming all the environmental legislation of the 1970s.

Dr. Lehr is currently the science director with the Heartland Institute, a Libertarian think tank, where he has worked for the past 14 years. He is also president of Environmental Education Enterprises, which teaches advanced technology short courses for environmental professionals. Dr. Lehr is an avid cyclist, ice hockey defenseman, lacrosse goalie and nine-time Hawaiian Ironman finisher. He is also a serious skydiver, having completed over 1,200 jumps and has not missed a month of diving in 25 years.

I recently got to speak with Dr. Lehr to discuss how the environmental movement has changed over the years and where it is going. Following is that discussion.

Michelle Crawley (MC): Tell me about your past and your contribution to the building of the environmental movement.

Jay Lehr (JL): My Ph.D. is essentially in environmental science, going back to 1962. It was a mix of water resources, agricultural economics, civil engineering, meteorology and other sciences. I created this degree at the University of Arizona, studying in seven different departments – all of which touched on environmental issues. In the late 1960s, I got involved in the formation of the U.S. EPA, and in the ‘70s was instrumental in the establishment of a safety net of environmental regulations. I had my hand in the writing of seven different pieces of legislation: the Water Pollution Control Act (which later became the Clean Water Act), the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (which dealt with waste disposal), the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIRFA), the Superfund, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. During this time, several of us had to teach environmental science to the Legislature and get them to pass different bills that would wake the public up to the need to maintain clean air, water, soil and groundwater, and to dispose of our waste in a more reasonable manner. During that decade we did a terrific job. However in the ‘80s that work was complete and then the pendulum swung. Environmental advocacy groups saw the environment as a way to promote big government and liberal ideas that reduced individual freedom, and threw a monkey wrench in the path of progress and capitalism. Quite frankly, U.S. EPA has done nothing useful since 1980, and is, in my opinion, the worst agency today in the federal government and one that could be disbanded with no negative impact on the public. Each state has their own EPA and they do a good enough job that we really don’t need the Feds anymore. I began to realize that everything was being taken to an extreme during the ‘80s and in 1991, I published a book called “Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns,” where I contacted 50 different experts on various environmental issues and asked them if the government was handling their issues correctly or in an overbearing manner. All 50 of the scientists said things had gotten out of hand and there were distortions and mythologies creeping into their areas of environmental science. Each of them wrote a paper on this topic for the book, and it was a huge success. I focused attention in the ‘90s on the overbearing anti-progress that the environmental movement had taken on. Some years later, I began to realize that this concept wasn’t really new, and one of my colleagues and I wrote a book where we actually traced the use of green over centuries. We found threads of green in the conservation movement and in philosophical writings. The idea that the earth and nature is superior to man goes back a very long way, and I’ve been writing about it now for the better part of 25 years.

MC: It takes courage to stand up to the government, green movement and media. Do you ever receive backlash for your views?

JL: Yes, I have in the past, but I keep a low profile working mostly through the Heartland Institute. I was very unpopular decades ago in the halls of government, but am off their radar screen now. The Heartland Institute gets the brunt of any backlash. The Heartland Institute was started 26 years ago by Joseph Bast, who today remains its president. It’s a free market think tank – a Libertarian organization. Essentially, it tries to increase individual freedom and decrease the government’s role in people’s lives. It began by being heavily involved in the environmental area, but now is equally strong in school reform, health care, acts and budget issues, insurance issues and information technology. The organization puts out seven different monthly publications free to all state-elected officials—including 8,000 state representatives and senators, and the mayors and city councils of the 342 largest cities in America. Our objective is to give them objective info to assist them in making good decisions in their votes. We do no lobbying, and we don’t get involved politically; we just present factual info in a newspaper format. We don’t editorialize, but just present the info that will help plain folks make the decisions that govern much of our lives. Everything also gets sent to the federal government (the House and Senate), but has less impact there than at the state level, which is looking for help. We do a survey each year and find that 76 percent of our recipients read one or more of our publications, and that nearly half of them make decisions or votes based on them. We are not as big as The CATO Institute or The Heritage Foundation, but think we are just as effective.

MC: You helped to draft the environmental legislation in the 1970s – how does it make you feel now that, as you say, things have been taken to the extreme?

JL: I spend half my time on the road speaking to groups and open my speeches saying “I’m here doing penance for the things I did back in the ‘70s.” What I did in the ‘70s really was necessary, because people didn’t realize that what they were doing was fouling the environment. It was an education process. I did write a piece shortly after that time, recognizing that the debate over the legislation is generally more useful than the legislation itself. I explained that once the debate is over, we almost don’t need the bill itself because we’ve already awakened the public to the need for voluntary action. But I wasn’t aware of that as I was working on all this legislation in the ‘70s. I joke about doing penance, but I was openly part of the problem – I strengthened the environmental movement. As soon as I realized what was happening, I changed sides. I suppose to a certain extent I do regret helping to form U.S. EPA, but it would’ve likely happened without me. At the time, I was probably one of the six strongest voices in Washington promoting it. Now I spend most of my time trying to thwart it, or at the very least educate the public to what a negative impact it had.

MC: You have said in your speeches that science follows the government money. How does science following government money have an impact?

JL: Yes, science is following the government money, and it’s a problem in all industries. We’ve totally distorted science, not all of it, but certainly at the university level. They know they have to say what the government wants to hear in the grant proposal process in order to get their money. U.S. EPA rules the roost, and if they’re not out to prove or say bad things about chemicals of all kinds, they won’t likely get the money. This is all driven by the environmental advocacy groups that control U.S. EPA today. It’s a horrible thing, and what it has done to science mostly at the academic level is bad. But U.S. EPA’s goal is to remove every useful chemical from the environment. They are driven by environmental advocacy groups, who are basically Socialists wanting to destroy capitalism and progress and make us a weaker nation. It’s hard to understand their motivation but they are an unhappy bunch. Over time, I’m somewhat confident and hope that the new Congressional administration coming in will right the ship somewhat.

MC: Do you see this getting any better in the future, or do you see the green movement getting more out of control. And will the younger generation take action?

JL: I’m a total optimist. I think people are waking up. We’ve tilted the tide on global warming over the past few years, which is a total fraud, and most people on the street are now skeptical of the global warming delusion. The “green fatigue” (as your colleague Rich Kozlovich calls it) is also evidence of that. But we need to be more of an activist, and by being an activist I don’t mean standing on the street corner yelling, but talking to our friends about these things whenever we can. We need to spread the word to people that trust us that they are being hoodwinked by all the fear mongering. I am seeing improvement, and am optimistic that it will get better and not worse. Until I learn differently, I think that the shifting of the Congress will slow U.S. EPA down. Equally important is that we get rid of this President in two years and find someone that is more an advocate for our side. I’m an optimist – I couldn’t get up everyday and fight the battle if I weren’t. And I preach optimism because it pays – both negativism and optimism are self-fulfilling prophecies.

MC: You knew Norman Bourlaug, the Father of the Green Revolution. Could he have done his work today, winning the Nobel Prize for his work developing a strain of disease ridden dwarf wheat and defending the use of DDT to control malaria, with all of the current restrictions from U.S. EPA and FDA?

JL: Yes, he won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for increasing world peace through his work increasing the food supply. We shared many stages together and were involved in many projects together, and he was an outstanding human being. He defended the use of DDT to control malaria. It’s sad – Rachel Carson did more harm that Stalin or Hitler – and it was unintended – she meant well – but her book “Silent Spring” was a horrible piece of journalism, and was a spring board for the environmental activists to spread their lies. I think that today Borlaug could have still done his work, but it would have been slowed down. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. EPA are starting to impede more genetically modified crops today than they did a couple years ago. The new head of U.S. Agriculture is the worst we’ve ever had, and we have the worst head of the EPA we’ve ever had. I think both are doing horrible damage. I’m hoping a new administration in two years will change that.

MC: How do we compare to other countries – are we being limited in our producing innovations?

JL: Other countries are as green or greener than us. It’s the worst in the Socialist countries of Europe. “Green” is also smartly used as trade barriers—keeping our grains out of their countries because they are genetically modified. But we’re better than many countries at the energy level. In my opinion, supporting solar and wind energy is stupid. The lack of density means it can never be of any value in supplying the world with a significant percentage of their electric power, but our government is promoting it and giving it subsidies. But this is even worse in other countries. But again, I think we’ll see a slowing there. Biofuel makes more sense than wind and solar, but not a lot of sense. I think the government will one day – maybe in 10 years – stop subsidizing them. You have to realize that these industries would not even exist without the subsidies. A lot of people will get rich at the expense of the public.

MC: What do you think is the best way to fuel our country?

JL: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas. We probably have 200 more years of oil left. So there is no energy problem at all – there is a political problem and an imagined environmental problem. We’ll be using fossil fuels for our lifetime, and then I think the world will convert to nuclear energy within 100 years. But there is no energy problem - it is a myth. We’ll wake up to that, too.

MC: Any thoughts for our industry?

JL: I follow your industry and I lecture to many pesticide groups that they must explain that they are in the healthcare business. Because you’re all about healthcare. You’re vilified as the bad guys when, in fact, you are the good guys. I know that the average pesticide applicator won’t tell people at a party what they do for a living; they keep a low profile. I think that the pesticide applicator is one of the most important parts of American healthcare. You need to better explain the hazards of vermin and the importance of eliminating them, and you must explain that you’d never over-use these expensive chemicals. You already have every incentive to use only what is needed to protect public health and destroy the vermin that invade and destroy homes and create health hazards. In the pesticide business the government is taking away your tools and foisting on you this integrated pest management program that basically says you’ll do everything you can before using a chemical. But isn’t there already the incentive to do this? Everything else is cheaper than the chemicals. That’s common sense. But the program of IPM has two sides to it – it is pushed by environmental advocacy groups to eliminate the use of chemicals. And in so doing, has a negative impact on human health. But it’s also promoted by other groups to put the industry on the defensive. So we need to look at IPM as something that is common sense and obvious, but it can never replace the use of chemicals. The industry has to be more proactive, less shy and convince the public that they’re in the healthcare business.

MC: Is there any advice you’d give our readers about pursuing what’s right in this green movement?

JL: I think people have to be more vocal, and need to realize they don’t have to be scientist and don’t have to explain technical things. Just talk plainly to people you trust and tell them not to buy into the fear mongering. When dealing with friends, neighbors and colleagues that trust your judgment, you just have to plant seeds of doubt. Fear mongering sells the news – it’s all people read, hear and see in conventional media – “if it bleeds, it leads.” So if you’re in communication with people you have respect for and if they respect you, tell them not to buy into this fear mongering. Recognize that over the last decades our life expectancy has increased, our general health has improved, and our environment has improved – so we’re obviously doing a lot of things right. Say that you don’t believe in this negative stuff. Doing that has an impact on people.

MC: What are your plans in the future?

JL: I plan to work every day of my life. I love what I do, and have the opportunity to travel North America almost every week and speak to large audiences, and, while I am preaching to choirs, I try to make everyone in the audience a choir master. My goal is to create activists and make everyone in every industry I talk to recognize that part of the rent they pay for being in their own industry is to spend a few minutes every week setting the record straight. Because if they don’t do it, who is going to do it for them? So I plan to continue writing articles and books and giving lectures forever. I love what I do. It’s a very rewarding job and it’s a never-ending battle. And I try to explain to people that this is the way the world has always been. It’s very frustrating when you are in a business like pest management that you can’t apply 100 percent of your time solving real problems – that you have to fight negative, false information. But that is how it has always been – it’s the classic battle of good versus evil. At every level this exists, no matter what the industry – you always have to fight a rear battle to keep moving forward. I like to tell people to be less frustrated about it – do the best you can every day, and go home to an environment where you have more control, and can recharge your batteries and go back and fight the next day. That’s what I do, and find it incredibly rewarding if I can have an impact on people on a weekly basis. I feel I’m doing the best I can, and love what I do.

Michelle Crawley has been working on The Standard for about two years and has done a magnificent job editing the newsletter, providing extremely well done interviews (she has a gift for it) and keeping after us when we get behind. We wouldn’t have done nearly as well without her. Michelle is also a freelance writer who is available for projects. If you would like to discuss a writing project with Michelle please feel free to contact her at mcrawley@fuse.net

###