Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science


When Monckton claimed that Jackie Kennedy was responsible for malaria in Africa, I thought it a great stretch.

Holy cow!  Monckton gave a speech in Minnesota, and if this quote is representative, it was a one man re-enactment of the Burlington Liar’s Club quarterfinals for 2002 through 2008 (he was disqualified for lack of humor).  Monckton spoke at Bethel University in St. Paul on October 15, 2009:

Here is an excerpt from his speech:

Here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question that he asked, “what is the truth?” is the question which underlies every question and in the end it is the only question that really matters. When you ask that question what you are really asking is “what is the truth about the matter?” And we are now going to see why it matters morally, socially, and politically, as well as economically and scientifically. That the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should inform public policy on this question. Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film [Cascade Policy Institute film “Climate Chains” was shown prior –ed] what the effect of that ban was. Before the ban, the inventor of DDT got the Nobel Peace Prize because he had saved more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in the Third World had all but been eradicated. There were still 50,000 deaths per year. But when DDT was banned by exactly the same faction, that is now trying to tell us we must close down five sixths of the United States economy that figure is actually in the Waxman- Markey bill. That same faction banned DDT worldwide. The consequences are on the slide there. The number of deaths went up from 50,000 to a million a year and stayed there. For 40 years. 40 million people, nearly all of them children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever. And it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said “Normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first. But we will now take a stand on the science and the data, and he ended that ban on DDT and made it once again the front line of defense against the malaria mosquito. After pressure from me, among others.

Right there Monckton disqualified himself from ever being a Boy Scout with egregious disregard for the first point of the Scout Law. Oh, Monckton is dependable, but dependable only to tell falsehoods and stink up the place.  That excerpt provides the Recommended Annual Dose of both voodoo science and voodoo history.  Count the problems with me:

1.  DDT has never been the only effective means to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes. DDT was  a very effective pesticide, though dangerous — but never the “only effective agent against the malaria mosquito.”  The U.S., for one example beat malaria (and yellow fever, and other mosquito-borne diseases) well enough to finish the Panama Canal in 1915 without DDT, by controlling mosquito breeding areas and using screens to protect sleeping workers from mosquitoes.  Malaria, once endemic in much of the U.S., was practically eliminated by 1939.  DDT was used in limited fashion to complete the eradication in the U.S., after World War II — but most of the work had already been done.  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (founded to control malaria) relates at its website:

Control efforts conducted by the state and local health departments, supported by the federal government, resulted in the disease being eradicated by 1949. Such measures included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides.

Aircraft spraying insecticide,  1920's
Aircraft spraying insecticide, 1920s
Drainage activities, Virginia, 1920's
Drainage activities, Virginia, 1920s

We still have the non-pesticide solutions, and they still work.  But 40 years ago, there were other pesticides that worked against the malaria vector mosquitoes.

The national library of the ancient Kingdom of Ghana had volumes on how to eradicate malaria, more than 500 years ago.  Monckton can’t even be bothered to Google the topic, let alone visit one of America’s more than 15,000 free county libraries, to get the facts?

2.  No Nobel Peace Prize was ever given for DDT, and the prize given wasn’t for saving malaria victims. Paul Müller won the Nobel in Physiology or Medicine in 1948, for his discovery that DDT killed insects.  There was no Peace Prize awarded in 1948.  A chemist working in biological chemicals won the Peace Nobel later — but it was Linus Pauling, who won in 1962 for his work against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  [UPDATE:  Listening to Monckton’s speech, I note that the transcriber made a serious error.  Monckton did not specify the Nobel Peace Prize; it is still true that the Medicine Prize that Müller won was not on the basis of DDT’s saving an uncountable number of lives.  The chief medical advantage cited was the use of DDT fighting typhus; malaria gets a mention.  Monckton can’t be bothered with accuracy on such things, however, as is clearly shown.]

The bizarre claim about saving “more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet” comes from a wacko claim of the Lyndon Larouche cult, apparently based on a typographical error in a 1980 book from the National Academy of Sciences.

3.  Malaria rates have been greatly reduced in the 20th century, but malaria has never been “all but eradicated.” In the past 120 years, malaria has always killed more than 900,000 people a year; for most of the past 60 years, the death toll has been more than a million people a year, sometimes as high as 4 million people killed.  Annual malaria deaths have never been under a half million, let alone as low as 50,000.

4.  DDT has never been banned for use to control malaria. 40 years ago, in 1969, DDT was freely available world wide.  Sweden banned the stuff from agricultural use in 1970; the U.S. followed with a ban on agricultural use of DDT, especially sprayed from airplanes.  DDT for fighting malaria has always been a feature of the U.S. ban.  As a pragmatic matter, DDT manufacture on U.S. shores continued for more than a dozen years after the restrictions on agricultural use of the stuff.  In an ominous twist, manufacture in the U.S. continued through most of 1984, right up to the day the Superfund Act made it illegal to dump hazardous substances without having a plan to clean it up or money to pay for clean up — on that day the remaining manufacturing interests declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for the environmental damage they had done.  See the Pine River, Michigan Superfund site, or the Palos Verdes and Montrose Chemical Superfund sites in California,  the CIBA-Geigy plant in McIntosh, Alabama, and sites in Sand Creek, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and Aberdeen, North Carolina, for examples.

5.  Nothing in Waxman-Markey anticipates closing down any part of the U.S. economy. This is a claim Monckton appears to have plucked from between his gluteals.  Here’s one summary of the bill (notice the money allocated to boost industry), here’s another, and here’s the summary from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

6.  There’s no way to blame malaria deaths on a lack of DDT. As noted, DDT has been available for use in Africa and Asia since its patent.  More importantly, malaria death rates have been influenced by the failure of effectiveness of pharmaceuticals against the malaria parasite itself in humans.  DDT fights only the mosquitoes that carry the parasite.  But the difficulty wasn’t in beating the mosquitoes; the difficulty was in curing humans (from whom the mosquitoes get the parasite to pass along).

7.  DDT was restricted on the basis of overwhelming evidence of harms. This is one of those charges that is self-refuting in the hands of DDT advocates and anti-science people.  You don’t have to go far to find claims that EPA acted contrary to an extensive hearing record that took months to compose.  But then they turn around and claim, as Monckton does here, that there is no such record?  The facts are that the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) hearings were conducted under the gun.  Two different federal courts had ordered the review, which had been started with the Department of Agriculture before the creation of EPA.  The hearing record itself fell out of favor with some officials, and even EPA’s library had difficulty finding a copy of the decision by Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney — but intrepid fact seekers like Jim Easter tracked down the documents and posted them for all to see.  Easter notes that the record is clear on harms to wildlife, bio-magnification, and other dangers of DDT.  In fact, the only place Ruckelshaus differed from Sweeney was on the issue of cotton.  Sweeney thought he couldn’t prohibit use on cotton, Ruckelshaus found authority in the law and did so.

Be clear:  EPA banned DDT use on agricultural products, especially cotton, and broadcast spraying.  EPA’s “ban” allowed continued manufacture of DDT, and it allowed use for health emergencies and other emergencies.

8.  There never was a ban on DDT by the World Health Organization (WHO). So Monckton’s bizarre fiction that “. . . it was only after every single one of the people responsible for that dismal, murderous decision had retired or died that on September the 15th 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization said normally in this field, science comes second and politics comes first,” and then Kochi ended the ban, is whole cloth.

9.  There is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention to Monckton on DDT, but Monckton took credit for the imaginary end of the imaginary ban: ” After pressure from me, among others.”  There’s a distant possibility that Monckton might have written a letter to WHO — but let Monckton produce the thing from the archives of WHO.  Until that time, we should classify Monckton as an emboldened prevaricator, perhaps a victim of Munchausen’s Syndrome (not by proxy in this case).   I’m calling Monckton’s bluff.   Let’s see his cards on this issue:  When did he say anything to WHO about DDT, to whom, and what did he say?  He’ll not be able to produce any documentation, I’ll wager — and I’ll bet he can’t even produce hearsay testimony.

Nine falsehoods in a paragraph — a rate of falsehood not equalled even by Jon Lovitz’s pathological liar character. What is wrong with the excrement detectors of the people who sit in those audiences with this guy?

How far out of bounds is Monckton?  Even the shrill discussion at Little Green Footballs puts Monckton in the not-to-be-taken-seriously category.

Monckton, the Burlington Liars Club called:  They want their good reputation back.  Check your answering machine, too — the Bethel College group should be calling any minuted, to ask you to pay for the exorcism of their building after you spoke there.

By the way, how do we know Monckton is a coward?*  He has refused to debate me.  As he notes, anyone who refuses a debate is a coward.  And yet, he refuses each of my challenges.  Now he’s refusing to debate a Tenderfoot Boy Scout using Boy Scout Law rules.  How much of a coward does that make him?

_______________

* Of course that logic is flawed.  But he uses it against Al Gore.  Monckton can’t get Gore to suffer him, and so, Monckton, a moral pipsqueak, calls Gore a coward.  The “Freemarket Institute” people ate it up.  It’s more likely that Gore simply refuses to get into a urination contest with a known skunk.  Still, Monckton refuses to debate — what is he afraid of?

No lie!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

54 Responses to Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science

  1. Gaia Girl says:

    Monckton is a complete nutter. More recent profile added to the Global Warming Superheroes website:

    http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/bad-guy-of-the-week/christopher-monckton-3rd-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley/

    Like

  2. […] she announced the establishment of "a new centre for the prediction of climate change". Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a pra… Monckton caught making things up. Yet again : Deltoid Monckton takes scientist to brink of […]

    Like

  3. […] first one featured pure crankery, often, from Christopher Monckton and Steven Milloy, two people who have made careers out of pissing in the soup of science.  The […]

    Like

  4. pough says:

    I know this is a relatively old post, but after reading the arguments between Ed and Matt on the nature of the 1948 Nobel Prize (among other things), I decided to go read the article myself. It looked to me like Matt had the upper hand, but I had the sneaking suspicion that the article was written from a modern perspective, which doesn’t give as much insight into what was relevant in 1948.

    A little more reading proved me right. I found the text of the actual presentation speech (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1948/press.html) which starts off talking about typhus, typhus, and more typhus (13 occurances in total). Eleven paragraphs down, malaria gets its first mention and is mentioned six more times, mostly in a single paragraph.

    The award of the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was primarily focused on the fight against typhus, with a nod to malaria. Ed was right.

    Like

  5. […] Monckton lies over the ocean Christopher Monckton continues his “No Tern Left Unstoned, No Lie Left Untold” tour of Australia, trotting out all the old falsehoods about DDT — did he continue to falsely blame President John Kennedy and Jackie Kenn…? […]

    Like

  6. robert s says:

    Ed said:

    Cancer danger from background radiation is probably below the danger of cancer from DDT exposure. I worry about the additional doses of radiation I got, and get. Frequent fliers get significant additional radiation, and I flew a lot for several years. Plus, I got caught in the plumes from atomic bomb tests in Nevada several times.

    We can’t reduce radiation risk to zero. That’s not a good excuse to kill wildlife.

    Bob says:
    Ed, you’re so right when you say you can’t reduce radiation risks to zero. The same applies to other things.
    If I were an African child facing death from malaria,
    I’d think that all the bald eagles in the world could stuff themselves silly.
    It seems to me that you don’t place much value on human life. Why is that.
    You also say that it was the introduction of netting
    in 2006 that reduced malaria cases.
    I find it hard to believe that mosquito nets never existed before that. We used nets when we were kids and the mossies still got in.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    This in itself is enough to classify his so called documentary under the heading of Political Science Fiction.

    A wag in Britain sued to stop the showing of Al Gore’s film in British public schools (they call them “private schools” — go figure). The plaintiff alleged 35 errors in the film.

    The judge ruled the film was highly accurate, and that Gore’s conclusions are scientifically correct. He ruled further that 26 of the alleged errors were political hackery from the plaintiff, and that Gore was right on the science on those points.

    The final ruling was that in 9 instances, there may be a political point opposing Gore’s that should be mentioned for fairness.

    Did you forget that Gore’s film was ruled accurate, or did you really not know?

    In any case, had Gore been found to be a lying hack instead of the upstanding Boy Scout the judge ruled him to be, that would not justify Monckton’s insults to our dead president and his dead wife, nor Monckton’s blatant, reckless disregard for the facts about DDT.

    Assuming DDT to be a public figure under the doctrine of Times v. Sullivan, Monckton could still be found liable for libel and slander, on malice alone.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    Maybe DDT is a weak carcinogen. I was exposed to a lot of it in my earlier childhood days, but the risk is well worth as malaria might have killed me long before I reached 60 and still going strong ( don’t drink alcohol, don’t smoke, never had.)

    Two greater threats from DDT: 1. It kills beneficial animals and insects, the stuff that eats disease-carrying mosquitoes. DDT, therefore, usually brings a spread of human disease. Part of this, of course, is DDT’s effects on top predators. It nearly wiped out the American bald eagle, brown pelicans, osprey, and peregrine falcons. They are worth protecting as keystone species in their ecosystems. 2. DDT acts like an endocrine hormone, affecting even humans. What does it do? It shrinks the testes in males, and gives them swollen mammaries. This is particularly scary for pre-pubescent boys. DDT causes premature menses in little girls. If exposure is in utero, it may scramble the sex organs of mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles.

    By the way, CDC says malaria was wiped out in the U.S. in 1939, seven years before DDT became available for use against insects. If you hadn’t been sprayed with DDT, you’d still have zero risk of malaria.

    If you really want something to worry about, try background radiation. We are exposed to weak radiation emitted from good old mother earth, and this goes on 24hrs a day every second of the day. There is no place you can hide unless you encase yourself in lead and then probably die of lead poisoning sooner.

    Cancer danger from background radiation is probably below the danger of cancer from DDT exposure. I worry about the additional doses of radiation I got, and get. Frequent fliers get significant additional radiation, and I flew a lot for several years. Plus, I got caught in the plumes from atomic bomb tests in Nevada several times.

    We can’t reduce radiation risk to zero. That’s not a good excuse to kill wildlife.

    Since the WHO started DDT programs in 2006, today the death rate from malaria has come down dramatically.

    Most of the death rate reduction since 2006 is due to increased deployment of bed nets, and due to the introduction of artimenisin-based drugs to fight malaria in humans. Nets cut malaria by 50% to 85%, DDT by only 25% to 50%, and bed nets are much cheaper than DDT. WHO recently announced that, since so many mosquitoes are immune to DDT, they are not buying more and will be using other insecticides for limited indoor spraying. Bed net distribution is being pushed more and more.

    More innocent children in Africa and elsewhere will grow up to become adults if they don’t succumb to the madness of the pollution caused by burning wood in their huts because they are not allowed to build coal fired power stations.

    No country in Africa bans coal for power stations. They just don’t build power stations. African burn wood and dung because they need a source of heat to cook.

    They are dying literally for the lack of electricity. And they can’t burn coal because of CO2. Now that is a crime against humanity !!

    I don’t know why you think coal is banned in Africa. That’s not accurate.

    Like

  9. robert s says:

    On the subject of DDT.
    Maybe DDT is a weak carcinogen. I was exposed to a lot of it in my earlier childhood days, but the risk is well worth as malaria might have killed me long before I reached 60 and still going strong ( don’t drink alcohol, don’t smoke, never had. )
    If you really want something to worry about, try background radiation. We are exposed to weak radiation emitted from good old mother earth, and this goes on 24hrs a day every second of the day. There is no place you can hide unless you encase yourself in lead and then probably die of lead poisoning sooner.
    Since the WHO started DDT programs in 2006, today the death rate from malaria has come down dramatically. More innocent children in Africa and elsewhere will grow up to become adults if they don’t succomb to the madness of the pollution caused by burning wood in their huts because they are not allowed to build coal fired power stations. They are dying literally for the lack of electricity. And they can’t burn coal because of CO2. Now that is a crime against humanity !!

    Like

  10. robert s says:

    ON Al Gore: The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

    robert s says: This in itself is enough to classify his so called documentary under the heading of Political Science Fiction.
    Yet the media and other interested parties keep trying to push this unscientific sci-fi as some sort of bible for the AGW scam.
    The media ( except for Fox News )has never presented both sides of the debate when presenting statements re AGW.
    We all know why. Doom and disaster sell more.
    If you don’t believe me take up a marketing course and see if emotional selling does not play a big part.
    If you believe all this voodoo science you can thank the marketeers in the IPCC, they have done an excellent job selling it. It’s not about the science silly.
    But in a way that has turned out to the AGW’s detriment, because when people realise that it is all too one sided they start asking questions, and they usually look for the first opposing answer and once it settles in their mind that these people are trying to push an unscientific cause then it becomes very hard to reverse that.

    Like

  11. John says:

    Thanks for the article. I actually agree with many of Monckton’s positions on the AGW debate, but his comments on DDT are utter lunacy. I appreciate your excellent breakdown of his statements.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    The other Ed should noodle around a bit and find the facts: Gore’s film was ruled scientifically accurate on the whole by the judge in the UK, and correct in its conclusions that global warming is a serious problem, that humans have caused the problem, and that humans can fix it.

    Out of 35 claims of error, Gore was found spot on for 26 of the claims — in other words, Monckton was found to be complaining in error on 26 of his 35 claims against Gore. Monckton’s complaints were 80% wrong.

    Did you bother to read the court’s decision? Why not provide a link to your source?

    In the meantime, you should note that it was 9 errors, not 11, and the judge’s complaint is that a contrary argument was not recognized, not that Gore was really in error. In fact, the scientists have excoriated the judge for missing the science. See Deltoid’s rundown, here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err.php

    Like

  13. Ed says:

    If you are looking for inaccuracies perhaps you should read the following judgement in The uK High Court

    British High Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
    In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
    1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
    2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
    3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
    Those inaccuracies are?
    The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

    Like

  14. robert s says:

    response to Ed Darrell Nov 1 2009 by robert s:

    Your right I know nothing about you and really dont wish to. I am only critizising some of the rather silly absurdities your making.

    Already your wrong in your comment that ddt would cause cancer in my children. Because my mother obviously used it when she was pregnant with me and my other siblings and none of us todate have cancer.
    Secondly tell me this, at what stage in my life are my testes supposed to shrink. I already have two grown up children who are quite healthy, which might not have been possible if I had died from malaria when I was a child.

    You quote:
    DDT bioaccumulates. It increases in dosage, by millions of times, as it climbs up the rungs of an ecosystem (trophic levels, for the informed). So it kills the top predators in ecosystems with astounding efficiency, if not with great suddenness.

    If what you’ve read is 100% accurate can you imagine
    the extinction of almost all the animals on the surface of this planet by now.
    And all this so called well designed studies are just that, well designed with a slant towards the authors biased views.
    Even as we speak it is happening with so called man made climate climate. The bias of the ipcc in disregarding anything else that could even remotely contradict their claims.
    These are the well designed studies you refer to?
    Well let me know what day of my life my testes are going to shrink because if you cant tell me exactly to the day or even the year, you’re obviously a shonk and people reading your stuff should see it as that and nothing more.

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    None are so ill-informed as those who wish to be, and who avoid the facts at every turn.

    Which part of probable dont’ you understand.
    If after all these years the best they can do is say probable, you gotta have your head in the clouds or you must be high on something or maybe a bit of senility creeping in there somewhere.

    I understand every part of it. Scientists are very conservative. DDT appears to be a weak carcinogen in humans, though it is a known mammalian carcinogen and there is no other carcinogen for mammals which is not also a carcinogen for humans.

    Probable means a sane person won’t act as if DDT can’t cause cancer.

    Had you read the links I provided, you’d have seen that DDT and its breakdown products, its daughters, mimic estrogen in humans, swelling male breasts and shrinking male testes. Most other estrogen mimics are also carcinogenic — but the good news for you is that DDT may just shrink your testes away before it gives you cancer. Had you read the links, you’d see scientists have discovered a shocking and troubling link: It appears DDT causes cancer in the children of those exposed, not so much in those exposed. Breast cancers in women especially are significantly higher for anyone exposed in utero to DDT.

    What part of “probable” is it that you think doesn’t mean probable? What evidence have you to contradict the warnings of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society, their European and Asian counterparts? I notice you provide not a whit of evidence. Already that’s a troubling trend.

    Here are the facts again. As a child over 50 years ago I used to run thru the ddt fogs they sprayed in the neighbourhoods. We also used ddt straight from the can to spray flies and other insects and this was done quite regularly. Of course you can’t understand this because you can only see what your dogma will let you see.

    Oh, I understand that you abused DDT. Do you want a medal for being stupid, or so ill-informed that you didn’t know better? What’s your point?

    You offer one anecdote that hasn’t been studied, and you claim to contradict a dozen well-designed studies.

    You’re not much smarter about science today than you were about DDT then, it appears to me. I wouldn’t brag about that. You can get information on DDT. You can Google it yourself, or follow the links we’ve given you.

    You dont run around in a real world. You run around in a bizzare, nightmarish world, that in your mind could end at any time.

    You don’t know me from Adam’s off ox. Not only are you astoundingly ignorant about DDT, you know nothing at all about me.

    Hence you believe in man made climate change, that ddt causes cancer even though I have told you it has not given me cancer, and even though your favourite organization can only say “probable”. So you try to play that down by using highly emotional words like,
    Decimating the eco system. Wow I’m almost breathless, you’ve just scared me to death. But wait what happened when mt. Pinatubo blew it’s top. Didn’t it decimate the ecosystem. It finished the the Clark field base. Today things are back in balance ecologically speaking.
    How about that 2004 boxing day tsunami, wow it devastated the ecology, can you forsee any long term devastation from that. I cant.

    You make another idiot-style conclusion out of information better than you think. You see no long-term effects from Pinatubo? No long-term effects from the Indian Ocean tsunami? I’ll wager you’ve never bothered to look for any.

    DDT bioaccumulates. It increases in dosage, by millions of times, as it climbs up the rungs of an ecosystem (trophic levels, for the informed). So it kills the top predators in ecosystems with astounding efficiency, if not with great suddenness.

    The chemical devastation of a long-lived chemical like DDT cannot rationally be compared to the destruction of a tsunami, nor a volcanic eruption. However, DDT is known to make such natural disasters worse, by making the animals affected unable to produce viable young that survive to breed.

    A volcano eruption is over, and then the effects decrease. DDT, because of its staying power, is a rolling, increasing disaster, growing worse by the year — unless one can stop its use completely.

    But when it’s a case of trying to fight malaria to save children’s lives, suddenly that’s an ecological disaster?.

    No. It’s an ecological disaster when the abuse of DDT on cotton makes DDT useless to fight malaria. You’re missing some critical factual links in your story.

    Wake up to yourself.
    I’ve got no beef with Rachel Carson, she was doing what she believed in and I applaud her for that.
    But it doesnt mean she was entirely right.
    Oh by the way here is what happened to that magazine….
    Discover was left largely alone in its market space by the mid-1980s, but nevertheless decided to appeal to a wider audience, including more articles on
    psychology and psychiatry. Jaroff, who had been managing editor for four and a half years, told the editor-in-chief that these were not “solid sciences”, was sent back to Discovers parent, Time.[2] “Skeptical Eye” and other columns…..
    Notice where it says not solid sciences, unless you passionately believe in ufos, lol.

    Whatever cock and bull story you wish to tell about Discover does not in any way rebut the information they provided: More than 1,200 studies, published in peer-review journals, done on the bird issues Rachel Carson raised. None contradicted her claims. All supported her claims.

    Publishing woes of Discover do not change the fact that your claims are anti-factual, anti-science, and anti-history.

    By the way my breasts are fine and so is my prostrate, actually better than fine, it’s excellent.

    A shrinking set of testes, poisoned by DDT, would probably result in a lessening of prostate swelling and prostate cancer, since it reduces testosterone dramatically.

    Yes you show tendencies toward bigotry, specially when you attack a person who has never heard of you and if he did most probably doen’t feel you’re worth responding to with all the verbal diaorhea you spew up.

    I merely defended myself against your attack. I am a bigot indeed, against calumny, anti-science, and ignorance. If you feel threatened by my bigotry, consider it a sign from the gods that it’s time to repent.

    You do know the original meaning of “bigot,” yes?

    Like

  16. robert s says:

    Re Ed Darrell comments, by robert s:

    Where you having a bad nightmare and woke up in the middle of it to attack my comments.
    For a start you say you would trust an organizaion that says ddt is a ” propable carcinogen “.
    Which part of probable dont’ you understand.
    If after all these years the best they can do is say probable, you gotta have your head in the clouds or you must be high on something or maybe a bit of senility creeping in there somewhere.
    Here are the facts again. As a child over 50 years ago I used to run thru the ddt fogs they sprayed in the neighbourhoods. We also used ddt straight from the can to spray flies and other insects and this was done quite regularly. Of course you can’t understand this because you can only see what your dogma will let you see. You dont run around in a real world. You run around in a bizzare, nightmarish world, that in your mind could end at any time. Hence you believe in man made climate change, that ddt causes cancer even though I have told you it has not given me cancer, and even though your favourite organization can only say “probable”. So you try to play that down by using highly emotional words like,
    Decimating the eco system. Wow I’m almost breathless, you’ve just scared me to death. But wait what happened when mt. Pinatubo blew it’s top. Didn’t it decimate the ecosystem. It finished the the Clark field base. Today things are back in balance ecologically speaking.
    How about that 2004 boxing day tsunami, wow it devastated the ecology, can you forsee any long term devastation from that. I cant.
    But when it’s a case of trying to fight malaria to save children’s lives, suddenly that’s an ecological disaster?.
    Wake up to yourself.
    I’ve got no beef with Rachel Carson, she was doing what she believed in and I applaud her for that.
    But it doesnt mean she was entirely right.
    Oh by the way here is what happened to that magazine….
    Discover was left largely alone in its market space by the mid-1980s, but nevertheless decided to appeal to a wider audience, including more articles on
    psychology and psychiatry. Jaroff, who had been managing editor for four and a half years, told the editor-in-chief that these were not “solid sciences”, was sent back to Discovers parent, Time.[2] “Skeptical Eye” and other columns…..
    Notice where it says not solid sciences, unless you passionately believe in ufos, lol.

    By the way my breasts are fine and so is my prostrate, actually better than fine, it’s excellent.

    Yes you show tendencies toward bigotry, specially when you attack a person who has never heard of you and if he did most probably doen’t feel you’re worth responding to with all the verbal diaorhea you spew up.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Astounding claims with no backing of evidence. Ya gotta wonder where this stuff comes from:

    To the enlightened morons that say DDT causes cancer, think again. I was born in the mid 40’s and used to run through the DDT fog that was sprayed in the neighbourhood once a week.
    I’ll tell you what causes cancer, and since you feel free to use words like moron etc. I’ll feel free to do likewise.
    Firstly it’s very easy to over look our own intake of poisons.

    DDT is listed as a “probable carcinogen” with the American Cancer Society. Frankly, I trust them over you.

    Cancer isn’t the issue, however
    — your credibility is, and so is the credibilty of others who claim DDT is “harmless” and who claim that Rachel Carson’s book has caused uncountable deaths in Africa and Asia.

    Your bizarre, unscientific claims about cancer are just indications that there appears to be nothing in science you consider too minor to fib about.

    You used to run through DDT, and you don’t have cancer? That’s one anecdote supporting a claim that DDT isn’t a strong carcinogen — but then, that’s what the “greenies” say, too. Alas, your story doesn’t support a claim that DDT doesn’t damage virtue or intelligence, or both.

    Back in the fifties and sixties the greenies were into things like group sex, marijuana, lsd, and even mushrooms.

    You’ve mistaken the greenies for Republicans and hippies — today it’s only Republicans who are into those things.

    Even so, being “into” mycology doesn’t change the fact that DDT is a very damaging thing to release into the wild.

    These are the people that went on to develope a higher than normal rate of cancers, and babies born with serious birth defects. They also where the people that the alcohol and drug companies loved.
    So now these people and their greenie descendants have continued the tradition of denial as to the reason for their own woes and will pick a topic that cause sensation, ie likethe banning of ddt and how ddt wreaks havoc on the environment. What a load of crap.
    Africa stopped using ddt because the powers that be, namely the U.N. being a neo communistic regime decided it would be so and therefore did not assist in the distribution of ddt. Strange bedfellows these
    covert commos and the greenies, you know the watermelon types, green on the out side very red on the inside.

    WHO has no power to ban the use of DDT. WHO’s policy on DDT has remained unchanged since 1960. You can read the facts if you wish – I wonder where you got that cock and bull story you’re spreading. “Watermelon brain” might be the cause — you know, looking normal and organic on the outside, but full of mushy stuff and water on the inside.

    Blood is red, too. I suppose you think life is communist because of that?

    Could there be a better representation of the complete lack of tethering to reality of your claims?

    So anybody that says DDT causes cancer is a halfwit to use your words.

    No, those aren’t my words. I would say “uninformed,” or “wrong on the science,” or “making an argument completely unsupported by the facts.”

    But if you were concerned with the facts, you’d probably have looked it up yourself.

    Let me guess: You’ve never read Silent Spring,, either, but you feel qualified to talk against it because how could a mere woman possibly catch you in any error?

    Stop drinking too much alcohol, and cut out the cigs, whether it be marijuana or tobacco, and the cancer rates will fall dramatically.
    I’m sure even an idiot like you cant disagree with that.
    Then we can look at transfatty acis in our diets.
    I am no environmentalist ( extreme that is )and I believe in live and live. If a person wants to smoke or drink good luck to them.
    But to bring in this scam of global warming, really when the world finally comes to it’s senses these people should be tried for terrorism.

    Monckton? Tried for terrorism? No, the scienter requirement is missing. I don’t think Monckton can form intent. Under U.S. law, there’d probably have to be a hearing on non compos mentis issues.

    In the meantime, you may want to have your children checked. How are your breasts?

    And since DDT wasn’t banned because it causes cancer, but rather because it decimates ecosystems, what are you going to do with a pointless rant on DDT and cancer?

    Like

  18. robert s says:

    To the enlightened morons that say DDT causes cancer,
    think again. I was born in the mid 40’s and used to run through the DDT fog that was sprayed in the neighbourhood once a week.
    I’ll tell you what causes cancer, and since you feel free to use words like moron etc. I’ll feel free to do likewise.
    Firstly it’s very easy to over look our own intake of poisons.
    Back in the fifties and sixties the greenies were into things like group sex, marijuana, lsd, and even mushrooms.
    These are the people that went on to develope a higher than normal rate of cancers, and babies born with serious birth defects. They also where the people that the alcohol and drug companies loved.
    So now these people and their greenie descendants have continued the tradition of denial as to the reason for their own woes and will pick a topic that cause sensation, ie likethe banning of ddt and how ddt wreaks havoc on the environment. What a load of crap.
    Africa stopped using ddt because the powers that be, namely the U.N. being a neo communistic regime decided it would be so and therefore did not assist in the distribution of ddt. Strange bedfellows these
    covert commos and the greenies, you know the watermelon types, green on the out side very red on the inside.
    So anybody that says DDT causes cancer is a halfwit
    to use your words. Stop drinking too much alcohol, and cut out the cigs, whether it be marijuana or tobacco, and the cancer rates will fall dramatically.
    I’m sure even an idiot like you cant disagree with that.
    Then we can look at transfatty acis in our diets.
    I am no environmentalist ( extreme that is )and I believe in live and live. If a person wants to smoke or drink good luck to them.
    But to bring in this scam of global warming, really when the world finally comes to it’s senses these people should be tried for terrorism.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    Not like Obama at all. Monckton lies about his background, misleads about his credentials (he’s not a Member of the House of Lords), lies to Congress (‘not under oath, after all’), makes up whole cloth lies (‘DDT was banned by Jackie Kennedy‘), and won’t be swayed by any fact of any kind. Plus, when his arguments are rebutted, he calls the rebutters “bedwetters,” as if this were a kindergarten discussion.

    Obama’s written two best-selling books spilling his guts about his background, was an elected member of the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate, and now is President of the U.S. When Obama went to Capitol Hill to talk turkey with the Republicans, they refused to entertain any notion of bipartisan legislation. Obama called them worthy elected officials, and pledged to keep trying to work with them.

    The two men share almost nothing, except they are both human beings, and their chief language is English.

    See the post, above. I detail nine lies Monckton told there. It’s enough to impeach anything he has ever said.

    Like

  20. Sean says:

    So he is like Obama and distorts facts to prove a point, but unlike Obama doesn’t just flat out lie?

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    Monckton is a serial liar. He lied to the U.S. Congress about his membership in Parliament. He lies about science. And obviously you’ve never listened to the man. Any clown whose best argument is to call his opponents “bedwetters” deserves a lot more vitriol than I’ve sent his way.

    Got anything of substance to say? I don’t like men who make false claims against good science, good scientists, honest people who work to make our lives better, and dead women who can’t respond.

    Do you seriously defend his completely false attack on Jackie Kennedy Onassis? Do you fail to see why his attacks on Rachel Carson are misdirected?

    Get a backbone, get some ethical remedial work, and get the facts. Don’t ever defend scummy attacks like Monckton’s here by saying I’m too tough on him. He’s no wimp. He’s not an honorable man, either. Your defense of his tactics is not pleasant, if just short of despicable.

    Tell it to Monckton before you complain here.

    Damn straight I’m a bigot. I’m a bigot against liars and pettifoggers and crude men who attack innocent people to do harm to other innocent people. (Did you look up the meaning of “bigot,” or did you mean to compliment me?)

    That’s the ethical path to tread. It’s required by the Scout Law.

    Like

  22. robert s says:

    reading your comments on Monckton, I find these remarks very pityful. It seems to me you’re full of hate for anyone that expresses an alternate view to yours.
    It’s one thing to claim that he is inaccurate in what he says but why must you attack the person in a most disgusting and villifying way. To me this shows what type of person you really are, a bigot.
    What this man is saying is very important to the free world and if you think that he is misleading us you could have said so in a matter of fact way.
    But the way you carry on tells me that there must be a hidden agenda here in your vitriole.

    Like

  23. […] references thoroughly, to discover for yourself that her history and science are both solid — Lord Monckton is a hoaxster.  Notice especially the references after the 54 minute mark to the tactic of claiming that […]

    Like

  24. […] reader submitted this response to Lord Monckton’s speech in Minnesota that I posted yesterday. Sign up to receive all new […]

    Like

  25. Ellie says:

    Monckton is not only a liar, he does not know his Christian Scripture. Pontius Pilate is not quoted as saying, “What is THE truth?” in any translation I own, and I have 7. He asks, “What is truth,” which in Monckton’s case would probably be more applicable since Pilate was being sarcastic and pointing out, IMHO, that “truth” changes depending on whose ox was being gored. I know, it’s a quibble, but for me, an important one.

    Like

  26. Matt says:

    The nets are not effective enough as a physical barrier, that’s why they impregnate them with insecticides. Even an irrationally biased guy running a snarky web site should know that. But, I guess these nets have magical insecticides – never any resistance; never any travel. Libs just love these insecticides because they are kind and gentle. Why, you can probably bathe in them!

    But, later, when reality bites and we see these nets were merely wonderful and not perfect, then ditzy libs will 1) turn on them and 2) pretend they were never for them.

    As my link showed, that non-controversey of yours was still raging as recently as 2006 when the WHO guy begged bed wetting, baby killing western liberals to back off about DDT
    Now why would he go before the Natl Press Club and make a major official pronouncement pleading for the use of DDT, if no one was trying to stop it?? There is a fine line between irrational bias and stupidity; you should back away from it as soon as possible.

    Of course, all the WHO officials MUST be wrong; the irrationally biased guy with the snarky web site says so. Libs have never, would never, try to banish DDT! Even if you hear from people on the front lines claim it, even if you see on their own web sites public calls for it, DO NOT BELIEVE your lying ears or eyes. Listen to Ed. Ed knows. Everyone else is wrong. Listen to Ed. Drink the kool aid and listen to Ed.

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    These new nets must be magic nets; the mosquitoes will never gain any resistance to something they will be in constant contact with for 5 years or more. So let’s ban (no, no, not ‘ban’; ‘eliminate’, there that’s better) the most proven weapon against malaria and double down on the magic nets!

    Evolving resistance to a physical barrier like these nets would take a few centuries. I suspect you didn’t realize the difference between a chemical killer and a physical barrier. Lack of knowledge about mosquitoes and about how DDT is used and what it does has made this entire controversy occur — but it’s not lack of knowledge on the environmentalist side.

    Now that you know DDT is used, with the approval of environmental groups, don’t you think you might want to pause a moment and reconsider what it is you’re advocating? If you’re urging more DDT use, in more places, or outdoors, then you’ve gone way beyond what any mosquito fighter asks. If you’re not, you’ve come around to Carson’s view.

    Like

  28. Matt says:

    I should’ve used ‘chemical’ each time I used ‘drug': DDT is still the all time champion anti-malarial chemical because of its proven usefulness against malaria’s vector AND because it is a powerful repellent.

    We have now learned not to mass spray it everywhere and anywhere. No one is calling for a return to the mass spraying. But if everyone is in favor of limited spraying, as you claim, then why the controversey?

    The WWF clearly states on its web site that they want to eventually “eliminate” the use of DDT. To those of us fully in this realm of reality that equates to a BAN. Now that might be the root of the controversey – idiot western environmentalists resisting the usage of a life saving chemical.

    The Nobel Prize committee mentions malaria more than typhus, and you see them trumpeting typhus with only a passing mention of malaria. You are misreading and mischaracterizing their comments – a tantalizing clue of irrational bias.

    DDT is proven to REPEL mosquitoes but y’all keep mentioning resistance as though killing the bugs was the only thing DDT did. Another tantalizing clue of irrational bias.

    These new nets must be magic nets; the mosquitoes will never gain any resistance to something they will be in constant contact with for 5 years or more. So let’s ban (no, no, not ‘ban'; ‘eliminate’, there that’s better) the most proven weapon against malaria and double down on the magic nets!

    I’m sure the nets are wonderful. But I’m also sure the bugs will start to adapt. And the long lasting pesticide in the nets will eventually show up in distant places. I’m also sure that when those two things happen, bed wetting liberals will call for their elimination. And the purest Liberals, the Apple Liberals, will say the evil Gates purposely poisoned Mother.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    So, you mention a single environmental group that gives grudging acceptance to the patently obvious – and that supposed to free all the other green idiots from blame?!? Nice try.

    So, you can’t find any evidence that any environmental groups oppose limited use of DDT in Africa, eh? No one else can, either. It’s a false charge designed to make people hate environmentalists. It would be funny, coming from people who promoted smoking — except little kids’ lives are at stake.

    It’s a false claim. Environmentalists have been in the front line of malaria control. The methods now used in Africa that work are the methods Rachel Carson spelled out in 1962. Had we listened then, could we have saved a few million kids? Helluva price to pay just to get a dig in at a dead scientist.

    The NYT article talks about an overwhelming general push by [sanctimonious liberal idiots in] the West to suppress the use of a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti-malaria drug.

    No it doesn’t. DDT is not a drug. It’s a pesticide. And though the NY Times article mentioned such stuff, they can’t put names to it either.

    Look, if you can’t find out who these evil greenies are, you shouldn’t keep spreading the tale. It’s not often the NYT gets something so completely bass-ackwards — but they do it from time to time, and that was one of those times.

    You say you read the article several times, yet you obviously missed this quote from a WHO official: “bed nets are an auxiliary. In tropical Africa, if you don’t use DDT, forget it.”

    I saw it. He’s wrong. He’s spouting part of the Bush administration line, which was that ‘bed nets don’t work (oh woe! oh woe!) and people won’t treat the nets well enough to last if the nets are free, so they have to be made to pay a couple days’ wages at least (free marketry is superior to common sense, you know), but we can’t use DDT because Environmental Defense will sue us (hope you didn’t read the truth in that letter — most people are gullible and won’t bother), and so African kids will just have to die — besides, we can make some political points blaming greenies!’

    Now we know that’s all huff and puff. In late 2005 the careful and widespread tests of the nets started out, and they proved to work better than DDT.

    By the way, DEET is even more effective than DDT at repelling mosquitoes. DDT only works to kill mosquitoes that land on it, and it only takes a couple of generations to evolve that behavior away. DDT has never worked to eradicate malaria anywhere by itself. It has only worked where medical care was improved greatly, plus buildings were screened, plus people were educated to keep mosquitoes away from homes. On the other hand, those methods work just as well without DDT, using other less harmful and more effective pesticides, or using no pesticides at all.

    Yeah, I read that guy’s line — but I’ve also read the research reports. I’ve got more than a dozen posts on DDT and how it works on this blog. Take some time and read them. Spend some time at Deltoid, too, and at Bug Girl’s Blog. And get some facts at Crooked Timber. The truth is out there, and it doesn’t take the FBI X-files team to find it.

    That guy was wrong. You’d think he would have figured it out, since it says he was inc charge of WHO’s American initiative. Mexico is a famous case — DDT use never waned there. It was full-bore DDT spraying from 1946 onward. But Mexico’s malaria rates rose just the same as everyone else’s. Turns out that you can’t poison away malaria — you have to treat the humans who have the disease — and it turns out the mosquitoes really do grow immune.

    Sadly, when someone has an irrational bias against something, they become narrow minded and blind to the truth even when it is right in front of them. They can completely miss clear quotes right in front of their eyes when those quotes run counter to their irrational biases – even if they read those quotes several times.

    Or they can refuse to read the actual reports, and they can rely on quotes that are out of date by newer research, and they hew to a political line that they adopted before they heard the facts.

    You seem to imply the Gates Foundation distributes nets instead of funding DDT. But a quick search of the web shows the Gates Foundation supports DDT spraying. Of course it does; DDT is a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti-malarial drug.

    Gates foundation supports extremely limited DDT use, and bed nets as I’ve described. DDT is not an anti-malarial drug. It is completely ineffective against malaria. It’s useful only for killing mosquitoes and other creatures — spiders, rodents, bats, birds, fish, snakes, etc.

    Seriously, if you don’t know the difference between a drug and a poison, you’ve got trouble in liver city.

    You can catch up on the Gates Foundation work on this blog — start here. Be sure to see this one, featuring Bill Gates himself really pissing off the right-wing anti-greenies (the blog reaction was swift and nasty; “bring back DDT, idiot”). And be sure to see this one, and follow the links back to the Seattle Times (hope those links still work!).

    Also, per the NYT article, farmers in Africa oppose DDT because they know thumb sucking irrational liberals in the West will refuse the entry of their products if DDT was used. They are succumbing to blackmail.

    More scare mongering from Bate and Tren, I suspect. Can you find those “irrational liberals?” Name them for me. I haven’t been able to find them in a couple of years of looking. No one can produce their names or quote them.

    I spent too many years in journalism, and too many years with the investigators in the Senate. When sources are that ghostly, you can bet they don’t exist, and you will win that bet.

    Also, please, for your own sake, quit shovelling against the blizzard of facts showing DDT has been BANNED -in the the US and Europe, for instance – and was faced with a complete phaseout even without any suitable replacement – until people rose up against the liberal sanctimonious thumb sucking fools and got the full banishment of DDT lifted.

    Sure. Show me the ban.

    That article says DDT will be available for another 11 years, at least. That’s not the lunatic immediate ban-or-we’ll-shoot-this-dog policy you claimed earlier, not at all.

    Even the POPs Treaty has a special carve out for DDT (see page 29), and the manufacturing of the stuff goes on apace.

    DDT was banned for spraying on cotton in Texas, in 1972. You’re not stupid. You can figure out that a ban on spraying DDT on cotton in Texas in 1972 did not cause a cessation of spraying DDT in any African nation in 1966, nor did the reduction of DDT use in Dallas County, Texas, cause an increase in malaria in Uganda. DDT is not capable of time travel, and it doesn’t migrate thousands of miles in ineffectiveness.

    A ban on use in Europe, similarly, did not end use of DDT in Africa. You will not be surprised to learn that Europe and Africa are different continents, populated by different nations.

    Show me the ban on DDT in Africa, please. It ain’t there. You can’t find it, because it doesn’t exist.

    Please stop shoveling hearsay evidence you’ve not bothered to check out in response to our hard-earned, carefully and thoroughly researched statements.

    You asked me to point you to a stupid group of bed wetting liberal fools looking to ban DDT, a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti malarial drug. OK, here you go.

    That link goes to an article describing WWF’s call for a phase out of DDT. WWF is not as you describe them, and they don’t demand DDT use stop right now. Their position is the same as WHO, same as the National Academy of Sciences, and rational. WWF has undertaken no protests of current DDT use. WWF has initiated no litigation. There are no press conferences calling DDT advocates bed wetters (though that’s one of the results of human poisoning with DDT, I hear).

    WWF said:

    The accord states that “with the goal of reducing, and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT,” individual countries may continue to use the chemical for controlling malaria. However, these countries will also be encouraged to prepare national implementation plans to reduce their reliance on DDT.

    Continued use of DDT in limited, IRS spraying, a phase out over the long run. That’s solid policy, good to go, perfectly rational, and not at all what you described. No, the insanity is wholly contained on the DDT advocacy side.

    (By the way, I don’t see where you replied to my post about the Nobel Prize committee’s comments highlighting DDT’s effectiveness against malaria – completely contrary to how you portrayed it. You need to retract your comments because you were wrong. Your irrational bias against a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel prize winning anti-malarial drug is alarming.)

    No, I’ve not had time today. I posted the links to the article, and anyone can go read them. I’m not sure what you got, but anyone can read the citation, which clearly highlights DDT’s use against typhus. By 1948, use to fight mosquitoes was just underway. it looked promising — we all had high hopes — but the dangers of the stuff outweigh the benefits.

    Maybe later.

    Like

  30. Matt says:

    Nick, your cogent, reasoned reply has convinced me. We should ban DDT immediately.

    Actually, the ALL CAPS alone would have done it, but your cogent, reasoned reply sealed the deal.

    Like

  31. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh also forgot the part where the mosquitos develop an immunity to DDT. You’re also ignoring that one.

    But since you want to whine about “liberals” here then I’ll shoot this across your bow and see if you like swallowing it.

    Is it safe to assume that the reason that you don’t give a damn what damage DDT does to people, the environment and the fact that mosquitos develop immunities to it because you’re talking about using it on Africans?

    Every time, Matt, you pull that irrational anti-liberal bullsh– I am going to punt kick you upside the head for it. You will argue science and not paranoid idiocy.

    Like

  32. Nick Kelsier says:

    Matt, what part of DDT kills people have you decided to ignore? IT CAUSES CANCER YOU BRAINLESS HALFWIT.

    Like

  33. Matt says:

    So, you mention a single environmental group that gives grudging acceptance to the patently obvious – and that supposed to free all the other green idiots from blame?!? Nice try.

    The NYT article talks about an overwhelming general push by [sanctimonious liberal idiots in] the West to suppress the use of a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti-malaria drug.

    You say you read the article several times, yet you obviously missed this quote from a WHO official: “bed nets are an auxiliary. In tropical Africa, if you don’t use DDT, forget it.”

    Sadly, when someone has an irrational bias against something, they become narrow minded and blind to the truth even when it is right in front of them. They can completely miss clear quotes right in front of their eyes when those quotes run counter to their irrational biases – even if they read those quotes several times.

    You seem to imply the Gates Foundation distributes nets instead of funding DDT. But a quick search of the web shows the Gates Foundation supports DDT spraying. Of course it does; DDT is a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti-malarial drug.

    Also, per the NYT article, farmers in Africa oppose DDT because they know thumb sucking irrational liberals in the West will refuse the entry of their products if DDT was used. They are succumbing to blackmail.

    Also, please, for your own sake, quit shovelling against the blizzard of facts showing DDT has been BANNED -in the the US and Europe, for instance – and was faced with a complete phaseout even without any suitable replacement – until people rose up against the liberal sanctimonious thumb sucking fools and got the full banishment of DDT lifted.

    You asked me to point you to a stupid group of bed wetting liberal fools looking to ban DDT, a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel Prize winning anti malarial drug. OK, here you go.

    (By the way, I don’t see where you replied to my post about the Nobel Prize committee’s comments highlighting DDT’s effectiveness against malaria – completely contrary to how you portrayed it. You need to retract your comments because you were wrong. Your irrational bias against a highly effective, cost effective, Nobel prize winning anti-malarial drug is alarming.)

    Like

  34. Nick Kelsier says:

    Whoever writes:
    I can and do blame environmentalists for mass deaths in the Third World from malaria.

    Can we blame you for mass deaths in the third world from ddt?

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Please read the NY Times piece.

    I’ve read it several times. Since that time the Bush administration backed down, at the request of Environmental Defense, and allowed some DDT to be purchased with U.S. funding. It was discovered that DDT, while cheap itself, is not so cheap in application. Too many populations of mosquitoes are immune, so testing is required before application (you don’t want to spray for nothing); resistance is triggered quickly, so other alternative substances need to be kept available. And Africans don’t want DDT — businessmen and farmers sued in Uganda to stop DDT use. Go figure.

    Also since 2005 the Gates Foundation went around U.S. channels and distributed bed nets for free, rather than charging a “token” fee for them. Free distribution was shown to work, producing a 50% to 85% reduction in malaria, opposed to a 25% drop with DDT.

    Bed nets run about $10.00 each, and last for five years. A spraying of DDT runs about $12.00, and must be repeated every six months. If you’re average at math, you can see that the $2.00/year for better results with a bed net is vastly cheaper than $24.00/year with DDT. Better solution, lower cost — surely you do not want to bankrupt Africans and kill them at the same time.

    I can and do blame environmentalists for mass deaths in the Third World from malaria.

    And you probably blame pigs for the swine flu. No amount of reason can overcome irrational bias. I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t get to by reason.

    It is true that corporations pushing their own less effective chemicals have also worked to stop the use of DDT (just as they’d rather have you pay $5 for some new pill vs. a penny for a tried-and-true aspirin), but that merely brought them into league with the devils that were already in the field: Sanctimonious, meddling environmentalists.

    I dare you to name those “environmentalists” who oppose the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS). Show me their names, show me their documents.

    In the meantime, read this: http://www.edf.org/documents/5046_DDT-letterUSAID.pdf

    I note that letter particularly because ED, then as EDF, was the first group in the world to sue to stop the use of DDT, and the first group to successfully sue to stop DDT. They are leaders in environmental awareness and vanguard environmental policy.

    And if you read carefully and note the date, you’ll see it’s the environmentalists urging President George W. Bush’s administration to get off the dime and fight malaria with safe, carefully-controlled DDT.

    Now that we know you’re wrong in condemning environmentalists and wrong in celebrating anti-environmentalists, and wrong about DDT, what was your point?

    Oh, and of course you’ll notice the article Dr. Balbus references in the letter: It’s that New York Times, the one you were claiming indicted environmentalists.

    You owe Environmental Defense an apology, and there are a bunch of kids who would appreciate your showing your regret by purchasing a bed net for them. Go here: https://secure.globalproblems-globalsolutions.org/site/Donation2?1340.donation=form1&df_id=1340

    You just got aware of this issue? Give $1,000. Save 100 kids.

    Environmentalists are also very slippery: Now they pretend they weren’t hysterical about global cooling in the 70’s, just as they pretend they don’t have the blood of countless thousands on their hands because of malaria. Very soon, they will also pretend they were never hysterical about global warming.

    In the 1970s I worked in one of the nation’s premier air pollution labs. I think you’re imagining things.

    There were serious discussions in the air pollution community about the future, and about greenhouse gases, even then. The question was about what would happen if we were able to control particulates as well as the greenies said. Surprise! We did it.

    Particulates counter greenhouse gases. Particulates contribute to cooling. The projections were that the planet might face some serious cooling if particulates could not be controlled and use of coal rose dramatically. But use of coal did not rise dramatically then, and particulate control, and other light reflecting and dimming aerosols control technology worked dramatically better than some optimists had predicted.

    Do you see what that leaves us? The greenhouse gases are left to warm us by themselves.

    I’d love to see you document claims that air pollution scientists feared cooling only way back then. I don’t remember that, and I can’t find articles that discuss only cooling. I think you’re misremembering — but by all means, please produce the documents. I’d love to see them, if only for old times’ sake.

    Of course, all of this merely proves environmentalists are human. What separates humans from other animals is not tool making or communicating; we know other animals do these things. Where humans truly excel is in their ability to rationalize and explain away their evil behavior. Poor Macbeth couldn’t get his hands clean, but he is a fictional character.

    And now you campaign against effective malaria control, and you campaign to keep the world warming. How do you rationalize that?

    Like

  36. Matt says:

    Please read the NY Times piece.

    I can and do blame environmentalists for mass deaths in the Third World from malaria. It is true that corporations pushing their own less effective chemicals have also worked to stop the use of DDT (just as they’d rather have you pay $5 for some new pill vs. a penny for a tried-and-true aspirin), but that merely brought them into league with the devils that were already in the field: Sanctimonious, meddling environmentalists.

    Environmentalists are also very slippery: Now they pretend they weren’t hysterical about global cooling in the 70’s, just as they pretend they don’t have the blood of countless thousands on their hands because of malaria. Very soon, they will also pretend they were never hysterical about global warming.

    Of course, all of this merely proves environmentalists are human. What separates humans from other animals is not tool making or communicating; we know other animals do these things. Where humans truly excel is in their ability to rationalize and explain away their evil behavior. Poor Macbeth couldn’t get his hands clean, but he is a fictional character.

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:

    Mass spraying of walls in doors with DDT requires 1) the funds to do it and 2) the will of a central government. Western environmentalists have attacked both of these for years.

    Not true. In fact, Environmental Defense campaigned for years to get Bush to allow US Aid money to go to DDT. Bush, as you may know, was no environmentalist.

    DDT is no panacea. It can’t make a program work that lacks the other components, but its dangers can quickly scuttle a good program.

    Today, opposition to DDT comes from conservative businessmen and agricultural interests. You should study what’s going on in Africa sometime.

    To say otherwise opens you to derision.

    Fools will deride anything good and noble. DDT has been available, and is still available, to African governments and private interests who want to use it. There was no ban on DDT until 2001, and that ban specifically allows DDT to be used to fight malaria.

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    But in the real world, powerful forces have made strenuous efforts to effectively ban DDT by fighting its ‘vector’: donor money.

    DDT is cheap. Africans didn’t use DDT because they didn’t want to use it. Quit assuming Africans are stupid.

    There are more effective repellants. There are nearly as effective insecticides with fewer harms. We can’t poison Africa to good health.

    Money for DDT has been there all along. The real barrier is a government capable of implementing a malaria-fighting campaign. You can’s spray and run. Medical care is the key component. DDT can’t help with that.

    Like

  39. Matt says:

    You keep arguing that DDT was never banned. You are only partly and technically correct. But in the real world, powerful forces have made strenuous efforts to effectively ban DDT by fighting its ‘vector': donor money.

    It is very small consolation to a poor starving family if there was always food available at some store – if that store was either too hard for the family to reach or if its food was too expensive for the family to afford.

    Mass spraying of walls in doors with DDT requires 1) the funds to do it and 2) the will of a central government. Western environmentalists have attacked both of these for years. To say otherwise opens you to derision.

    What the World Needs Now Is DDT

    Like

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    But in point 6 you completely downplay fighting the vector and stress curing humans. I have never had malaria because I have never been bitten by a mosquito carrying it, not because I have been ‘cured’ of it.

    Good for, you’ve never had malaria. That means no mosquito could get malaria from you, either. If you’ll do a search of Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, you’ll find a variety of posts that discuss malaria, how it’s cured, how it’s fought, and the life-cycle of the malaria parasite, and why some methods of fighting the disease work better than others.

    Please check that stuff out.

    There are two points to consider in point 6.

    First, DDT has never been in short supply, and it has been constantly available in Africa. If you’re going to claim a problem with malaria, you can’t blame it on a non-existent ban. You can’t claim DDT wasn’t available, because it was widely available. You can’t blame environmentalists and Rachel Carson, because they did absolutely nothing that could have spread malaria.

    Moreover, beating malaria requires more than poisoning the mosquitoes. Especially if DDT is used, that means mosquitoes will be reduced for a short period, but so will mosquito predators. The msoquitoes will come roaring back — and if the malaria is still present in the human population, those mosquitoes will be relatively unchecked in their spreading the disease because their predators will be gone. Also, much of the new population will be resistant to DDT or whatever insecticide was used.

    So to beat malaria, you have to do more than just spray DDT. You have to beef up the medical care facilities, improve disease diagnosis and treatment, and do it quickly.

    DDT can’t do most of the work; and it’s widely available in Africa for anything it can do.

    So stop saying a ban on DDT caused the problem. There was no ban. DDT has been widely available. We know DDT alone can’t contain the disease.

    I’m not sure I can invent many more ways to say it, Matt.

    Like

  41. Matt says:

    You have mentioned a rise in mosquito DDT resistance. Two points to consider: 1) Perhaps this resistance has been increased by on/off/on again usage. 2) DDT is not only effective because it kills mosquitos; it is also very effective at repelling them. They smell it and fly away. (google ‘DDT and excito-repellency’. I reviewed this article on google books:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=B33ki32uuh8C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=DDT+excito-repellency&source=bl&ots=pRAf95UjIp&sig=DRx_aTPG7bEwcbFkCQa6vIN_D60&hl=en&ei=YnzcSoH5Fc2ZlAf548WhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=DDT%20excito-repellency&f=false)

    Like

  42. Matt says:

    Yes I meant your point 6. Your point 2 basically stated we eradicated malaria in the States almost without DDT and you list the effective campaign against the vector – the mosquito.

    But in point 6 you completely downplay fighting the vector and stress curing humans. I have never had malaria because I have never been bitten by a mosquito carrying it, not because I have been ‘cured’ of it.

    And, what exactly is wrong with Rachelwaswrong? Something more useful than ‘it’s a hoax site’ please.

    Like

  43. Matt says:

    Umm, I went to your Noble Prize link, but it seems to refute you:

    “Field trials now showed it to be effective not only against the common housefly, but also against a wide variety of pests, including the louse, Colorado beetle, and mosquito;”

    “Production was soon established on both sides of the Atlantic and they proved to be of enormous value in combatting typhus and malaria – malaria was, in fact, completely eradicated from many island areas.”

    Contrary to your comments, they seemed pretty impressed by DDT’s use against malaria. I say they emphasize malaria much more than typhus. One of us is badly misreading the Nobel committee’s comments.

    Like

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Matt, I assume you mean point 6?

    I’ll repeat: DDT didn’t end malaria in the U.S. Better delivery of health care and screens on windows, in better houses, reduced malaria to almost nothing by 1939 — seven years before DDT became available to fight malaria. Remember, we’d beaten malaria before, in Panama, building the Panama Canal. Malaria was the problem. We beat malaria with a combination of draining areas close to homes where vector mosquitoes bred, screening mosquitoes away from humans, and better medical care.

    Remember, the malaria parasite must spend part of its life in humans. If there are no humans with malaria, there is no pool of parasites for mosquitoes to draw from — and the disease is beaten.

    DDT probably helped reduce malaria in Africa and Asia, but the fact is that DDT was NEVER USED in most of sub-Sahara Africa — and still the malaria rates declined. DDT is freely available to any African government who wants to use it to fight malaria, but they don’t. Are you accusing them of being stupid? WHO stopped heavy use of DDT in Africa because the mosquitoes were resistant.

    Malaria came roaring back in Africa when the parasites developed resistance to the drugs used to treat the disease in humans. That had nothing to do with mosquitoes. DDT is not a drug to treat humans, and is wholly ineffective in such use, if not downright dangerous.

    Like

  45. Ed Darrell says:

    Vincent,

    Were it true that Gore tells lies — and the judge in England determined that is not the case — would that justify Monckton’s making stuff up?

    Fact should be the response to a falsehood, not damaging fiction.

    Matt,

    If DDT works so well, why don’t African nations use it? Why has the World Health Organization reduced its use again? Why does India still have malaria? (India makes and uses tons of DDT annually.)

    If you click on the point I make about the Nobels, the link takes you to Muller’s Nobel citation. You can read it. It discusses DDT’s usefulness against typhus, and then notes briefly that malaria vectors are thought to be subject to the stuff, too. I didn’t give you that link because I’m making it up; it would be useful if you would study the issue before claiming I got it wrong.

    “Rachelwaswrong” is a hoax site. Any resemblance it bears to any person, living or dead, or any fact, good or bad, is purely coincidental.

    Like

  46. Matt says:

    DDT is a powerful, cost effective means to reduce deaths from malaria.

    The guy who invented it DID get a Nobel Prize – and it wasn’t awarded narrowly for killing fleas (typhus) vs. killing mosquitoes (malaria).

    Paragraph 6 above is simply bizarre. Did you have a high fever when you wrote it? Please compare it with Para 1 above: How did we eradicate malaria in the US again? Weren’t mosquitoes the problem? Weren’t we effective against that problem? Or did we ‘cure the humans’?

    Environmentalists lie, innocents die.

    http://rachelwaswrong.org/malaria-legacy/

    Like

  47. Vincent says:

    So what about Al Gore’s lies then? Or are they ok?

    Like

  48. Mike says:

    Marco:

    I try to avoid stepping in Watts whenever possible.

    Like

  49. […] So, what’s Watts doing repeating Monckton’s hysterical, inaccurate rant?  We already know Monckton’s testimony is impeached. […]

    Like

  50. Marco says:

    @Mike,

    “now”? Watts been ‘collaborating’ with Monckton for quite some time already.

    Like

  51. Mike says:

    As an indication of just how seriously we should take Monckton’s political and scientific views, he’s now being promoted by Anthony Watts, of infamous climate denialism fame.

    Like

  52. […] Update, October 17, 2009:  Good Lord!  He’s at it again. […]

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,419 other followers

%d bloggers like this: