Why should we fear climate change?

[Arch_Rival]

Got a moth problem? Hose your clothes down with DDT.

That is a very good idea. DDT is actually safe enough to eat, provided not in large quantities.

Problem is DDT is not readily available anymore, at least where i am.

 

[Blindman]

Certainly I agree with you that we should reduce our reliance on cars. Good suggestion.

It's one and the same (apart from the "mixed up" part).

We can do something about climate change. We can limit its extent.

This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time. The great depression would look like an all you could eat smörgåsbord.

Human society requires growth. Unfortunate but true. We can not stop growth, we can not ban children, we can not abate the human desire for comfort, health, and long life.

Lets get real and concentrate on how we are to adapt to a changing world. Put in place strategies to help those that will be adversely effected by climate change.

Increasing TAX, limiting growth will not help society. Times are good why mess it up because we fear something we don't understand. Kyoto was a joke, Copenhagen even greater.

There has never been a light at the end of the tunnel of human growth lets not make it darker. Live for now not for an unknown future. IMHO

 

[Repo Man]

Not bs. That was what happened.

"When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture. The program was forced to switch to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective."

from wiki

Malaria mosquitos became resistant because of the halt. If the program had persisted things would have became better for India.

No, according to the information that you linked to, DDT's continued agricultural use is the suspected cause of mosquito resistance to DDT.

 

[Arch_Rival]

Wrong. If you want to totally erradicate a species, you go all out to destroy it. You don't do a half-hearted attempt, stop, let them adapt and develop resistance, then continue again.

If India continued the use to erradicate malaria, at the same time use it for agricultural, there was a chance they could have established a malaria-free zone. But they messed it up.

 

[Trippy]

Not bs. That was what happened.

"When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture. The program was forced to switch to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective."

from wiki

Malaria mosquitos became resistant because of the halt. If the program had persisted things would have became better for India.

Absolut BS.

From the segment you posted:

The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture.

Even had the continued spraying, the mosquitoes would still have gained resistance, and the population qould still have rebounded.

Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?

 

[Arch_Rival]

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

All i can see is 3,000,000-29 cases of malaria prevented.

 

[Repo Man]

Wrong. If you want to totally erradicate a species, you go all out to destroy it. You don't do a half-hearted attempt, stop, let them adapt and develop resistance, then continue again.

If India continued the use to erradicate malaria, at the same time use it for agricultural, there was a chance they could have established a malaria-free zone. But they messed it up.

Where was unlimited use of DDT able to make mosquitoes extinct?

 

[Arch_Rival]

In any case, I'm sure the world will continue to focus on climate change. Which, to tell the truth, is good for me.

Where i am, it is so easy to get government funding if you pretend to be doing anything related to to fight climate change.

Sure, over here all the scientists pay lip service to the urgent need to fight climate change, but over lunch our opinion is that this is all bullshit. We're only in this for the jobs and money. If the US decides to spend big money on alternative energy technologies, we want a piece of it too.

Ever heard of the fuel cells fiasco? We managed to pass it off as clean alternative energy. Made big promises, got alot of money. Nothing came out of it. This year Obama scrapped fuel cell research. The money that trickled down to where we are is essentially zero. Fuel cell research here is halted.

No matter, we will move on to the next big thing. Long live climate change.

 

[Trippy]

That is a very good idea. DDT is actually safe enough to eat, provided not in large quantities.

Problem is DDT is not readily available anymore, at least where i am.

Right...

Which is why WHO has it listed as "Moderatly Hazardous" and the NTP has it listed as "Moderately Toxic".

But by all means, if you think you know best, go right ahead and knock back a big glassfull, and let us know how that goes for you.

 

[Trippy]

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

All i can see is 3,000,000-29 cases of malaria prevented.

Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making.

 

[Arch_Rival]

Where was unlimited use of DDT able to make mosquitoes extinct?

ho ho ho. Of course, unlimited use of DDT will make mosquitoes go extinct. So will everything else.

Don't believe? Get a huge tank of DDT. Then immerse yourself in it until you drown. That is unlimited DDT for you.

Come on, be reasonable. Whoever advocated the use of "unlimited" DDT?

The idea of a malaria-free zone is also nothing more than an ideal. Now and then, we still do get cases of malaria popping up in these zones, but the numbers are small and easily controlled. By then you don't use DDT anymore, because other less intensive, small-scale measures now work better.

 

[Arch_Rival]

Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making.

No, i understood your point perfectly. Your point is you refuse to accept the extent of benefits DDT bring and instead focus on are the disadvantages of DDT, which, in comparison to the number of lives saved, is mostly insignificant.

And i noted you avoided providing an answer to your own question too,

 

[Repo Man]

ho ho ho. Of course, unlimited use of DDT will make mosquitoes go extinct. So will everything else.

Don't believe? Get a huge tank of DDT. Then immerse yourself in it until you drown. That is unlimited DDT for you.

Come on, be reasonable. Whoever advocated the use of "unlimited" DDT?

The idea of a malaria-free zone is also nothing more than an ideal. Now and then, we still do get cases of malaria popping up in these zones, but the numbers are small and easily controlled. By then you don't use DDT anymore, because other less intensive, small-scale measures now work better.

The answer is nowhere. Massive amounts of DDT were used all over the world from the 1940s through the 1970s. Many insect pest species were greatly reduced, but so were many beneficial species. But the species generally regarded as pests rebounded, and were selected for resistance very quickly. DDT was no more capable of eliminating pest species of insects than antibiotics are capable of exterminating pathological bacteria.

 

[Trippy]

No, i understood your point perfectly. Your point is you refuse to accept the extent of benefits DDT bring and instead focus on are the disadvantages of DDT, which, in comparison to the number of lives saved, is mostly insignificant.

And i noted you avoided providing an answer to your own question too,

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you.

You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it.

 

[Arch_Rival]

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you.

You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it.

Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat.

Your original question :
"Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?"

I said i don't know, why don't you tell me, to which you replied

"Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making. "

To which i said you avoided your own question, and you said

"The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you."

Lets be clear. I never made any claims on anything to do with "DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes". All i did was show the drastic decrease of malaria cases. You are the one who, all of a sudden, brought up this point in your question, and now you want to shift the burden of proof to me.

You want to prove a point about how DDT kill predatory insects that may prevent malaria, and in the process cause deaths, you do your own homework.

But please note, those predatory insects had their chance before DDT came along, and you get millions of malaria cases a year. Just sayin.

And your original question is now changed to
"You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it"

Ok, lets forget about you initial question, since you probably do not know.

But I did claim DDT is safe enough to eat. If you require proof of that, just think back to the days when DDT was in widespread use in the US. Everyone was eating it.

 

[Arch_Rival]

In any case, the bottom line for DDT is this:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html

In 2006, WHO reverts back to use of DDT.

"IRS (indoor residual spraying) has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

"We must take a position based on the science and the data. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

“Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”

 

[James R]

Arch_Rival:

It is actions like this that will save lives and property the next time a disaster hits. Yet climate scientists only seek to further their own cause by using this incident to showcase the effects of climate change.

You're conflating separate issues. Of course cities need to prepare properly for forseeable disasters. No climate scientist disputes that. But preparing for disaster on its own will nothing to address the underlying problem. It's a very simple point.


Blindman:

This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time.

I don't think you've managed to get one basic fact right in this thread yet. Isn't it time you did a little research? You're making yourself look like a bit of a fool, unfortunately.

Addressing climate change won't cause an economic depression. One analysis I saw recently for England, for example, suggested that addressing climate change would make England reach the same standard of living at 2052 that it would otherwise have had at 2050. The percentage of GNP that would need to be dedicated to combating climate change is tiny.

 

[Trippy]

Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat.

Your original question :
"Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?"

I said i don't know, why don't you tell me, to which you replied

"Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making. "

To which i said you avoided your own question, and you said

"The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you."

Lets be clear. I never made any claims on anything to do with "DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes". All i did was show the drastic decrease of malaria cases. You are the one who, all of a sudden, brought up this point in your question, and now you want to shift the burden of proof to me.

You want to prove a point about how DDT kill predatory insects that may prevent malaria, and in the process cause deaths, you do your own homework.

But please note, those predatory insects had their chance before DDT came along, and you get millions of malaria cases a year. Just sayin.

And your original question is now changed to
"You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it"

Ok, lets forget about you initial question, since you probably do not know.

But I did claim DDT is safe enough to eat. If you require proof of that, just think back to the days when DDT was in widespread use in the US. Everyone was eating it.

Thanks for that - I needed the laugh.

 

[Arch_Rival]

No problem. I find our exchange quite entertaining. You want more laughs? Plenty where that came from.

We recently inked a deal with a development company. Modeling climate change for them in a built-up bay area.

Morons don't know modeling a 16kmx16km area of land and water does not equal climate change. The results will be fudgy at best.

But those dudes couldn't care. They get some government money for showing they pay attention to climate details and the living environment. And they are willing to pass some 200k to us over 3 years.

We're laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[engineerjoe]

Climate change could happen! We must pass laws to avoid it!

We might get attacked by glitter unicorns! We must pass laws to avoid this as well!

If anything could ever happen EVER we must pass a law NOW to avoid it! (regardless if the "science" is currently being debated about the subject)