bombus

This is all well and good but I think you missed the point. DDT is toxic, that's it's job. It's supposed to be toxic. It wouldn't be any good if it wasn't. You're not supposed to dump it in your mouth (or anyone else's mouth), you're supposed to use it properly.

If DDT wasn't so persistent in the environment it would actually be a very good pesticide. The problem with it is that it does not readily break down into harmless substances - unlike many organophosphates.

It's actually not that harmful to humans if ingested btw (unless you eat loads of it of course!)

And I'm surprised that you seem not to know about the common and generally accepted refutations to the alleged harmfulness of DDT in the environment. You'll note that I don't follow-up on that surprise by expressing any suggestions about what kind of reading you should do, your knowledge level about environmental matters, or your IQ in general. I hope we've finally put that mode of yours behind us.

I am aware of these refutations, but they are in the minority, and usually backed by the pesticides industry! There are similar refutations relating to the Global Climate Change issue.

No, I'd like proof that DDT poisons the environment, which was your claim. "Silent Spring" is opinion, not proof. Proof would consist of evidence such as a scientific study, and I suggest you look carefully because as far as I know what evidence there is has been refuted by other scientists.

 

No more rhetoric. No more asides. No more slipping and sliding. Just proof, please. Provide it.

OK. The reason I mentioned Silent Spring was because it was the first time the possibility of pesticides harming the environment came to the attention of the wider public. It was not intended as a reference in and of itself. Also, it is opinion based on fact

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the rules of the forum to some degree. There are some things which for the purposes of general discussion we accept without citation e.g., the speed of light, existence of gravity, the world being a globe, arsenic being a poison, CO2 being a greenhouse gas etc. I wrongly assumed that DDT being damaging to the environment was one of these, and was genuinely surprised that you did not know.

Now, I will add some references below, and quotes if I can find them easily, like this from wikipedia (of all places!).

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a half life of between 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils. Its half life is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic). These processes generally occur slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[17] These products together are known as total DDT.

DDT and its metabolic products DDE and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals (stored mainly in body fat) than other animals sharing the same environment. In the United States, human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples. A later study of blood samples collected in the later half of the 1970s (after the U.S. DDT ban) showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples. Biomonitoring conducted by the CDC as recently as 2002 shows that more than half of subjects tested had detectable levels of DDT or metabolites in their blood,[18] and of the 700+ milk samples tested by the USDA in 2005, 85% had detectable levels of DDE.[19]

DDT is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[20] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality.[21] Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning,[22] however more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE,[23][24] but not all experts accept those claims.[citation needed] Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically that eggshell thinness remains 10–12 percent thinner than pre-DDT thicknesses.[25] In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect.[citation needed] DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.

From http://www.ces.clemson.edu/ees/lee/organochlorines.html:

DDT is highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s (concentration which causes mortality in 50% of test animals) in various aquatic invertebrates (e.g., stoneflies, midges, crayfish, sow bugs) range from 0.18 ug/L to 7.0 ug/L. Forty-eight-hour LC50s are 4.7 ug/L for daphnids and 15 ug/L for sea shrimp (Johnson and Finley, 1980).

DDT is also highly toxic to fish species. Reported 96-hour LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in coho salmon (4.0 ug/L), rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), bluegill sunfish (8.6 ug/L), largemouth bass (1.5 ug/L), and fathead minnow and channel catfish are 21.5 ug/L and 12.2 ug/L respectively (Johnson and Finley, 1980). DDT is also moderately toxic to some amphibian species and larval stages appear to be more susceptible than adults (Hudson et al. 1984; WHO, 1989).

In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure. This occurs mainly through uptake from sediment and water into aquatic flora and fauna. A half-time for elimination of DDT from rainbow trout was estimated to be 160 days (WHO, 1989).

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8

1.4 Toxicity to Aquatic Invertebrates

Both the acute and long-term toxicities of DDT vary between species

of aquatic invertebrates. Early developmental stages are more

sensitive than adults to DDT. Long-term effects occur after exposure

to concentrations ten to a hundred times lower than those causing

short-term effects.

DDT is highly toxic, in acute exposure, to aquatic invertebrates at

concentrations as low as 0.3 µg/litre. Toxic effects include impair-

ment of reproduction and development, cardiovascular modifications, and

neurological changes. Daphnia reproduction is adversely affected by

DDT at 0.5 µg/litre.

The influence of environmental variables (such as temperature,

water hardness, etc.) is documented but the mechanism is not fully

understood. In contrast to the data on DDT, there is little

information on the metabolites DDE or TDE. The reversibility of some

effects, once exposure ceases, and the development of resistance have

been reported.

1.5 Toxicity to Fish

DDT is highly toxic to fish; the 96-h LC50s reported (static

tests) range from 1.5 to 56 µg/litre (for largemouth bass and guppy,

respectively). Smaller fish are more susceptible than larger ones of

the same species. An increase in temperature decreases the toxicity of

DDT to fish.

The behaviour of fish is influenced by DDT. Goldfish exposed to

1 µg/litre exhibit hyperactivity. Changes in the feeding of young

fish are caused by DDT levels commonly found in nature, and effects on

temperature preference have been reported.

Residue levels of > 2.4 mg/kg in eggs of the winter flounder result

in abnormal embryos in the laboratory, and comparable residue levels

have been found to relate to the death of lake trout fry in the wild.

Cellular respiration may be the main toxic target of DDT since

there are reports of effects on ATPase.

The toxicity of TDE and DDE has been less studied than that of DDT.

However, the data available on rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish show

that TDE and DDE are both less toxic than DDT.

1.6 Toxicity to Amphibians

The toxicity of DDT and its metabolites to amphibians varies from

species to species; although only a few data are available, amphibian

larvae seem to be more sensitive than adults to DDT. TDE seems to be

more toxic than DDT to amphibians, but there are no data available for

DDE. All the studies reported have been static tests and, therefore,

results should be treated with caution.

1.7 Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates

There have been few reports on the effects of DDT and its

metabolites on non-target terrestrial invertebrates.

Earthworms are insensitive to the acutely toxic effects of these

compounds at levels higher than those likely to be found in the

environment. The uptake of DDT by earthworms is related to the

concentrations in soil and to the activity of the worms; seasonally

greater activity increases uptake. Thus, although earthworms are

unlikely to be seriously affected by DDT, they pose a major hazard to

predators because of the residues they can tolerate.

Both DDT and DDE are classified as being relatively non-toxic to

honey bees, with a topical LD50 of 27 µg/bee.

There are no reports on laboratory studies using DDE or TDE, in

spite of the fact that these are major contaminants of soil.

1.8 Toxicity to Birds

DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by

causing eggshell thinning (which leads to egg breakage) and by causing

embryo deaths. However, different groups of birds vary greatly in

their sensitivity to these chemicals; predatory birds are extremely

sensitive and, in the wild, often show marked shell thinning, whilst

gallinaceous birds are relatively insensitive. Because of the

difficulties of breeding birds of prey in captivity, most of the

experimental work has been done with insensitive species, which have

often shown little or no shell thinning. The few studies on more

sensitive species have shown shell thinning at levels similar to those

found in the wild. The lowest dietary concentration of DDT reported to

cause shell thinning experimentally was 0.6 mg/kg for the black duck.

The mechanism of shell thinning is not fully understood.

1.9 Toxicity to non-laboratory Mammals

Experimental work suggests that some species, notably bats, may

have been affected by DDT and its metabolites. Species which show

marked seasonal cycles in fat content are most vulnerable, but few

experimental studies on such species have been made. In contrast to

the situation in birds, where the main effect of DDT is on

reproduction, the main known effect in mammals is to increase the

mortality of migrating adults. The lowest acute dose which kills

American big brown bats is 20 mg/kg. Bats collected from the wild (and

containing residues of DDE in fat) die after experimental starvation,

which simulates loss of fat during migration.

Isn't this great? The queen makes Rushdie a knight and the next thing you know the radical pinheads stop fighting us and start beating each OTHER up! Well heck, I say add Mohommed to the BBC corner bug and maybe the whole problem goes away! Ah, well, darnit, I guess some "innocent" civilians would probably be caught in the middle. (sigh) Oh well.

 

I love this headline from US News:

"US Ignores Rushdie Protests by Muslims"

 

Um, duh? What were they supposed to do? Oh right, issue a press release. Because, you know, press releases solve everything.

 

I'm curious how the far left will make the west wrong on this one. Over in this thread one member's painting us as evil because we mess around with other country's internal affairs. But Britain can hardly be accused of that here! Still, I'm sure it's all our fault SOMEhow. That's the great thing about ideology -- it doesn't have to make sense.

I think Rushdie deserves a Knighthood to honour his writing skills, and what he has said about Islam (he is a muslim himself). Many fundamentalist Muslims hate him because he questions their interpretation of Islam.

There are many Muslims who want Islam to be open for debate, as what happened in the Christian church many centuries ago. I would also welcome such a debate. Maybe if it ever occurs the fundamentalists can be overthrown by the more progressive Muslims, and we can all breath a bit easier.

Then we can start on the fundamentalist Christians again, as they are on the rise!

Marijuana contains a mild hallucinogen. Hallucinogens 'diminish' the Ego, which we use to interpret the world. The Ego is essentially a filter which gives 'meaning' to our experiences.

Once are Egos are diminished we filter less of what we experience and this makes us more open to new ideas, and more sensitive in many ways to what goes on around us (although marijuana also makes us slightly tired as well, which lessens this effect).

Unfortunately, it also makes us more open to ideas such as paranoia, which is the main hazard of marijuana, and in fact most hallucinogens.

Once the door to paranoia is open it's hard to shut again.

Thusly I don't touch the stuff anymore! Also, it's usually smoked so can you lung cancer!

bombus

 

I am not really trying to point anything out to you. I was interested in what Lomborg had to say. My own reading and observations seemed to bear out his point. I was trying to find out if other people were able to refute his point. So far, not really.

Am I correct in thinking that Lomburg's point appears to be that habitat loss is not a major concern? If so, then I think his point has been well and truly refuted many times in this thread.

If this is NOT his point, and he is merely saying that most human related extinctions to date (that we know of!) have not been due to habitat loss (alone or otherwise) then he is not saying very much at all, as we know this already.

So? you have still converted the natural habitat to a small farm! And displaced animals with the garden and/or directly killed them when you tilled the soil.

 

You don't change the conssequences because you have a farm to feed one person rather than a farm to feed hundreds.

True, but there are degrees. Organic farming for example, even in your back garden, can often benefit many of the rarer wild species of inverts. We can't live and have no impact, but we can try to 'tread more gently' on the Earth.

That makes no sense. Put another way, it is internally contradictory. If the premise is to avoid meat because of the pain caused to animals, then the animals suffer just as much pain when killed during the hunt (and probably more) than being raised on a farm.

 

And how about growing plants on farms with the intent of killing them for food?

It's about 'respect' for other animals. The life a wild animal has is better than certain types of factory farming as an animal can express its natural behaviour.

Its more to do with how the animal lives rather than how it dies. However, free-range farming is maybe a pretty good compromise.

Except that it doesn't. How can you possibly not know this?

 

(That's a subtle hint that on this forum you either provide sources or you agree to disagree.)

Because it was like someone not knowing that the Earth is round! Would you like proof of that as well?

No, I expect you to research it, and that expectation will be met, or you won't post.

If you have done no research on a point, why are you arguing with me? If you don't know, find out! I'm happy to be proven wrong.

This is not MichaelMoore.com or MoveOn.org or DemocraticUnderground.com. On ScienceForums.net, ideology does not constitute fact. You're welcome to post an opinion, but if you want people to accept those opinions as facts then you will back it up or you'll be feeding the trash can.

Like I said, if you don't know any better just say so. If you want to know more find out. If you're not interested then stop posting.

They certainly are, but that's not what we're discussing here, and changing the subject isn't going to save you. You're right, it's probably best that you do bow out of the discussion at this point. First good choice you've made in this thread.

What subject have I changed?

I have read many of your posts and you need to learn alot more than just organophosphates............. your rememberance of historical facts is very poor as well.

 

For example, why would we have support from China and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War? We were in a Cold War and they were our adversaries.

That's my point! It couldn't have been sanctioned by the UN then could it as China and Russia have the power of veto.

You ask people to "research it yourself" put really you should do that before you present a point because it makes someone look foolish to be discredited.

I disagree. If you think I'm talking rubbish, show me why.

Sayonara

 

I do not think that events that occurred 60 million years ago can be quoted in this discussion. Humanity did not even exist then. And this debate is related to the current set of extinctions, which humanity is largely, one way or another, responsible for.

Most of the extinctions that have occurred in the past 10,000 years have in the main been a result of over-hunting by man. In that time we have not lost many species from Earth as a result of habitat loss but only because of massive conservation effort.

From what I can gather Lomburg is trying to say that habitat loss is not a major concern. This is complete nonsense, and it only takes the vaguest knowledge of biology, or ecology to figure this out.

So, Skeptic Lance, in all sincerity, what is the purpose of this post exactly? What are you trying to point out to us?

Well, the blocks were quarried and shaped using traditional methods, then were transported on wooden rafts during flood season to where they needed to go (the nile used to completely flood the entire area). They were then hauled up using traditional technologies, similar to that used to build stonehenge, ziggurats, south american ancient cites etc and the whole things were finished with alabaster.

All that was needed was plenty of time, food, slaves - and whips!

The idea that there is a great mystery to how they were built is a myth.

However, one very puzzling thing about the ancient Egyptians is the Sphinx at Giza:

From wikipedia:

English geologist and secretary of The Manchester Ancient Egypt Society Colin Reader who has studied the weathering patterns as well, agrees the weathering occurred from heavy water erosion, but concludes that the Sphinx is only several hundred years older than the traditionally accepted date believing the Sphinx to be a product of the Early Dynastic period.[14] Independently, geologist David Coxill has also come forward to confirm in principle Schoch’s findings, but like Reader has taken a more conservative approach to the dating of the Sphinx, yet concludes: “Nevertheless, it (the Sphinx) is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx-in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 B.C.”[15] Both Schoch and Reader base their conclusions not only on the Sphinx and surrounding enclosure, but have also taken into account other congruent weathering features found on the Giza plateau from monuments such as the Sphinx Temple which are known to be consistent with the time period the Sphinx was constructed.

This theory has not been accepted by mainstream Egyptologists. Alternative theories offered by Egytologists for the erosion include wind and sand, acid rain, exfoliation or the poor quality of the limestone used to construct the Sphinx. Schoch, Reader, and Coxill have independently argued, regardless of when the Sphinx was actually built, that none of these explanations can account for what they consider as geologists to be “classic” water erosion patterns.

Schoch has also noted as have others that the clearly evident disproportionately small size of the head compared to the body suggests the head to have been originally that of a lion, but later re-carved to give the likeness of a pharaoh. This implies that the Egyptian Kings were the inheritors of an already existing structure of which they re-made in their own image to give provenance over the monument.[16]

It's might not be a hoax, or crackpot, but how much energy is being used up to make the flame? I'd bet it doesn't end up as a net gain. If it is for real it will probably be bought up by Shell and buried!!

Have you heard about that company in Ireland who claim to have discovered free energy? see below:

http://www.steorn.com/

You are kidding, aren't you?

Absolutely not.

No, no, my country loves me very much. With me dead, how do they make money?

 

Anyway, according to the article:

 

 

 

Is that a lie?

(Sorry, saw this and had to reply...)

Well, very probably not a lie, but we are learning a lot about organophosphates and how even very low doses can affect the nervous systems of people who are in contact with them regularly. Also, Agent Orange was said to be safe as well!

But regardless of this, in the doses used in the third world to keep thrips off oranges (which only mark the skin, but do not actually harm the fruit) they are far more dangerous to human health.

Isn't that like making a case for no international support for our invasion of Afganistan because Al Quada didn't support it?

 

Er...No

 

 

 

As should you for sacrificing your children so you can type on this board with your computer you're reading this with.

 

Hardly equivalents now are they. It is possible to have computers and not sacrifice the future. It's very hard to bomb civilian areas and miss people!

 

 

No one in a third world country would agree with that. And you wouldn't lecture them about it either...just the west.

Not sure what you're trying to say there. Apart from the fact that you are not really in a strong position to say what a person in a third world country might think, it's irrelevent anyway. The point is IMHO their lives are just as important as anyone in the West.

 

No kidding. You'd think they'd have that figured out by now...

 

They have, but we won't let them.

 

 

This testosterone knowledge competition is really getting annoying. Why don't you two march 10 paces and then turn and fire your smartest nugget of knowledge on the subject? Then we'll all decide which of you is the weiner...

 

Fair enuff. I shall stop being drawn.

 

I've also had enough of this debate. I'm getting nowhere arguing against rampant fundamentalist capitalists! I might as well pick a fight with creationists! But... PLEASE open your minds and question your own opinions as much as mine.

Well I could make bones about the international support that did exist for Vietnam,

 

Oh yeah, among who exactly? China? NO, Soviet Union? NO.

 

but even if we bypass that point, that would be a grand total of... two. You're right. That's plurality. I stand disgracefully corrected. What a vast history of evil villainy we have.

 

Apart from the fact that there are plenty more (research it yourself) why not say that to the millions who have lost loved ones as a result. You with your cosy pampered life are prepared for children to die to keep you in SUVs. You should be ashamed!

 

Exactly. Like I said, the position you're espousing is that what's best for people in other countries is more important than what's best for the United States and its citizens. In all things, and at all times.

 

People in Third World countries are just as important as US Citizens my friend.

 

Well first of all there's never BEEN a time when "we" weren't there yet. You do realize that Africa wasn't discovered by Christopher Columbus 1492, right? And, um, you do realize that Africa is the point of origin for the human race? And, um, you do realize that the northern coast was consistently co-habited by "Western" cultures (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, etc) in ancient times?

 

Well, I was really talking about the industrialized western nations and sub-saharan Africa. We didn't really start much there until the 1800s. North Africa is part of the Mediterranean culture.

 

But even if you focus on the last 3k years and sub-Saharan Africa, they had domestic slavery, autocratic regimes, class inequality, brutal repression, religious zealotry and short life spans, all in plenty of abundance, long before Europeans (or even Romans or Egyptians) showed up.

 

Oh right, so it's fine for us to carry on the tradition. Well yeah, and the Jews have been oppressed throughout history so Hitler was right to carry on this grand tradition was he? Look, as you point out Africa was the cradle of humanity. Man has been living in Africa for 100,000 years. Funny how all of a sudden they can't seem to feed themselves.

 

BTW, do you know much about the history of Africa, bombus?

 

I guarantee, far more than you my friend:-)

It appears to still be quite legal. See separate thread here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27163

 

As for DDT, I stand by what I said earlier. Studies from scientific results are mixed at best. That's a cause celeb, not a definitive scientific conclusion. "Silent Spring" is great stuff for motivating the environmentalists. But for finding the truth of the matter, not so much.

Hah, well I suppose your beloved US government doesn't really give a damn about you! What a surprise.

DDT poisons fish, affects fecundity in top predators, especially birds, and is persistent in the environment. How can you possibly not know this?

I wonder how many popular leaders are threatened with impeachment then dissolve the parliament, have lost most of their allies, and have the communist party angry with them subsequent to nationalizing industries.

I stand by what I said, and if you do enough research you'll find out that I was right. You have been reading western propaganda.

bombus if you would read more carefully you'll notice that I was drawing a comparison between the arguments of anti-semitism, and the arguments placed against the west by various anti-western groups around the world.

Sorry, me reading too fast!

as for the mosaddeq I will direct you to this section from wikipedia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

As you can see he wasn't exactly well liked at the time, and while it certainly wasn't the job of the US and Britain to deal with him, I would venture to guess that the coup would have happened anyway.

Mossadegh was very popular with most of the Iranian people, and is still thought of as a hero by many.

and what does that have to do with it? they could have been given the worst deal on the planet and it still wouldn't matter, the rights were sold and maybe the government got a raw deal (which was composed of an autocrat at the time) the people got the same benefit that they always would have, more jobs.

 

Now if you were a car salesman and you let a customer negotiate you down to a price that was far lower than you could mae money off of, but you still old it to him. would you show up at his house the next day and take it back?

Can you imagine if a corrupt US government sold all US oil rights in the early 1900's (for example) to, say Russia, without consulting the US citizens, and Russia then took most of it for themselves, and took all the profits from what they sold.

Would the US public just sit and take it like a bunch of pussies and say "Well it was all legal so it's just fine by me!" Of course not!!

I'd like to respond to these complaints from a political perspective. In other words, this reply is not directed towards bombus in particular, but rather to the way these issues are paraded about by the far left.

Originally Posted by bombus View Post

1. We could stop invading other countries against the wishes of the UN

 

The plurality of this statment (again, this is commonplace, not just something from bombus) should be explained. The implication is that we've done this a lot. Are there a dozen Iraqs that I'm not aware of? We had unilateral multinational support for Afghanistan and the Gulf War, so I'm not seeing the plurality of this complaint. But maybe I'm in error?

Well, isn't Iraq enough? Anyway, what about VIETNAM!

2. We could stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries and let the respective populations choose who they want to be lead by.

 

In other words, we should fund the United Nations, but not participate in it. And we should continue to provide billions in foreign aid, but not say anything about how it is spent, even if that means it all goes to dictators because nobody bothered to try and stop it. Isn't that obviously too simplistic?

The key word there was 'AND'. If we're doing what the people want there's no problem is there!

In point of (political) fact, nearly everyone, not just the far left, wants us to "intefere" in politics of other countries (i.e. participate). The complaint (again, as typically voiced) is not that we interfere, but that we don't interfere in the correct manner (as prescribed by whomever the complainers happen to be this week).

Well, why don't we start doing what's best for the people, instead of what's best for us.

Does anybody actually think Africa can clean up its own act? How's that worked out in the past?

Chicken and the egg situation here. I actually think Africa is perfectly capable of cleaning up its act once we bugger off and stop messing them about. Funny how they were fine 'til we got there.

3. We could stop having economic aid to benefit the poorest countries being applied with strings attached such as 'you must privatise all your utilities, education and transport systems' so that Western companies can profit from them.

 

Ask any foreign aid worker, even ones who've voted Democrat all their lives, and they'll tell you that you can't bring a 3rd world nation into the 21st century by throwing it a stack of cash. It takes infrastructure, checks and balances, education, solid logistics, and people who know what they're doing.

 

You know what we call that? A corporation.

We could set up non-profit making trusts to deliver the work, rather than sucking the aid back out in the form of profits for western companies.

4. We could stop supporting corrupt regimes just because they 'eat commies for breakfast' regardless of how brutal they are.

 

Why shouldn't we should support whatever regimes further our national interest? After all, that's what every other country on the face of this planet does.

 

But ok, there's a commonly-made case that we should lead by example, and I'm all for that. But, interestingly enough, this would contradict the earlier point about not interfering in foreign affairs. Because, like it or not, by not stepping up and saying something when governments go bad, we are indirectly supporting their continuance. Or at least that's what we're accused off (the rise of Hamas being a commonly utilized example).

And look where its got us - 9/11 remember that? Re: interfering, as said before, fine if we are doing what the people actually want/really need.

5. We could stop selling unstable countries weapons, which enable civil wars, which cause famine, and then act like the good guys by giving the starving populations charity!

 

This common complaint is an example of guilt by association. Who is "we"? And why are "we" responsible for redirected arms shipments that are, more often than not, already illegal?

'We' are the West, who make the weapons. If all arms manufacturers were nationalised or forbidden from making profits or selling arms to other countries much of this nonsense would cease.

6. We could stop encouraging the corrupt governments of Third World countries (supported by the West) to grow cash crops to give the West strawberries in Winter, cheap coffee and bananas and line the pockets of multinationals companies, while paying the workers starvation wages.

 

Ignoring the conflicting overtones from earlier complaints, let me just focus on the end of that statement. In general when this happens with American companies the resulting wages are not "starvation wages" at all, and in fact result in local economic improvement.

 

How else do you expect the local economy to improve? Would it really improve faster if we just threw cash at it, or left it alone? Those are the only two alternatives you've mentioned here (and the only two commonly mentioned in these sorts of complaints).

I really don't want to be patronizing BUT I think you don't know enough about global economics for me to reply properly without giving you a very long lecture. Suffice it to say that in many (but maybe not all) examples the people DO NOT benefit from growing cash crops.

7. We could encourage Third World countries to redistrubute land so that poor people can grow food for themselves, rather than cheap coffee for the West, or

 

Wait, I thought we were supposed to leave them alone? Wouldn't that be interference?

A refer you to the answer I said above

8. We could allow coffee bean producing nations to make their own coffee (thus benefit from the increased revenue of processing) instead of banning the sale of anything other than raw coffee beans to the West.

 

 

You got me there, I can't counter this point, not knowing the first thing about it.

There's loads of unfair trade rules like that imposed by the WTO, IMF and World Bank.

9. We should stop selling the Third World DDT, Malathion and other dangerous pesticides that have been banned in the West.

 

While we're at it, can we un-ban DDT for domestic use? I'd like to use it in my own yard, since there's no evidence that there's anything actually harmful about it.

 

And I thought Malathion was still used in the US. Did I miss something?

DDT unharmful!? Have you never heard of Silent Spring? Malathion might still be used in the US (but I doubt it). It's banned in most developed countries - it's a nerve gas developed by the Nazis!

10. We should stop using depleted uranium tipped shells on middle eastern battlefields, which cause cancers in children for generations after their use.

 

A fairly well-documented issue of growing concern for people who live in areas where such shells have been used (such as present-day Iraq). I can't find any fault here.

Glad to hear it!

11. We could stop selling torture equipment to brutal corrupt regimes in the Third World

 

That's a new one on me. Interesting.

Been done for years, usually called 'Aid'

12. We could ban the import of unsustainable rainforest timber etc thus saving the rainforests and preventing indiginous 'Indians' from losing their land and culture, and save the forests biodiversity.

 

We import timber? I thought we grew it all ourselves (increasing, rather than decreasing, domestic forestation in the process). But hey, maybe you know something I don't know. Could be a valid point here.

Yup, tropical hardwood

Is that enough or would you like some more

 

Wow. It's not every day that I get to respond to a boiler-plate litany of ideological insanities. That was fun! Please provide more!

 

I've told you before, bombus. The world is just not black and white like it is when people listen to Air America (or Conservative Talk Radio). It's gray

I am the gray polluting your black and white! You are sounding like an extremist. It's like arguing with someone who believes in Intelligent Design! You er..don't... do you???

With all due respect to your good self, your examples have not changed Lomborg's arguments. He admits that there are many cases where habitat loss contributes to reduction in population size. He even admits there are times when habitat loss contributes to an extinction. However, there are numerous examples where hunting or introduction of alien species have very clearly destroyed whole species, without any other contributing factors that we can measure.

Yes I'd agree with that. To date most recorded extinctions have probably been caused by hunting.

Such examples - where habitat loss is the sole cause of an extinction - appear to be very rare. I have not seen even one clear cut such case mentioned on this whole thread.

I'd agree with that too, but the missing word is 'yet'. And it is a big word to leave out!

To gator..

You have not even mentioned the grandaddy of all attacks on Lomborg's book. That found in Scientific American, where the editor did the extraordinary, and devoted an entire chapter to denouncing Lomborg. The fact that people get offended by his approach and attack his work does not obviate his work. There are heaps of people, including some quite famous, who hate what Lomborg has done and will attack his work without mercy. All that shows is that he is writing something very controversial.

 

The book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is meticulously researched and referenced in minute detail. His facts remain facts, in spite of the attacks. I seriously suggest you go to your library and get a copy. Until you actually read it, you are not qualified to critique it.

 

Lomborg is a professor of statistics, and understands that most vital of all mathematical disciplines as applied to science. Using his detailed, mathematical approach means his book is backed up by factual data that is hard to criticise. However, the sheer volume of data means that, if someone looks hard enough, they will find a few bits and pieces that are no longer 100% accurate. That provides ammo for his opponents. The fact that any and every book of equal volume of data can be criticised in that way does not stop the critics.

Lomburg misinterprets the meaning of his statistical analysis because he knows bugger all about the subject matter. He's an idiot, and so is anyone who thinks that habitat loss is not a major threat to species (no offence unintended:-))

He was not a Professor either, he was an Associate Professor, which is actually a term used to mean a form of temporary lecturer, not a real Professor at all.

Let it go SkepticLance, you're on a loser here mate.

What I was trying to say above is that the connection is a tempting but false one, based on misunderstandings from purely superficial commonalities

I could agree with most of what you say in many respects, and you make some very valid argumants, but the quote above is something you have no proof of either.

The fact that 'free will' would seem to be the ability to affect the movement of 'electrons' in the brain by consciousness alone, and the fact that conscious observation can seemingly affect the results of experiments in quantum theory, and consciousness itself may be able to collapse wave functions into discreet values seems to be more than just superficial commonalities to me.

Maybe that is exactly how the reality and the universe works, how consciouness works, and why quantum theory seems so wierd.

Maybe the truth is shouting at us but we refuse to listen!

For purposes of future discussion, let's all just assume that the West is at fault for every problem in the world.

 

Now what?

OK! Just off the top of my head...

1. We could stop invading other countries against the wishes of the UN

2. We could stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries and let the respective populations choose who they want to be lead by.

3. We could stop having economic aid to benefit the poorest countries being applied with strings attached such as 'you must privatise all your utilities, education and transport systems' so that Western companies can profit from them.

4. We could stop supporting corrupt regimes just because they 'eat commies for breakfast' regardless of how brutal they are.

5. We could stop selling unstable countries weapons, which enable civil wars, which cause famine, and then act like the good guys by giving the starving populations charity!

6. We could stop encouraging the corrupt governments of Third World countries (supported by the West) to grow cash crops to give the West strawberries in Winter, cheap coffee and bananas and line the pockets of multinationals companies, while paying the workers starvation wages.

7. We could encourage Third World countries to redistrubute land so that poor people can grow food for themselves, rather than cheap coffee for the West, or

8. We could allow coffee bean producing nations to make their own coffee (thus benefit from the increased revenue of processing) instead of banning the sale of anything other than raw coffee beans to the West.

9. We should stop selling the Third World DDT, Malathion and other dangerous pesticides that have been banned in the West.

10. We should stop using depleted uranium tipped shells on middle eastern battlefields, which cause cancers in children for generations after their use.

11. We could stop selling torture equipment to brutal corrupt regimes in the Third World

12. We could ban the import of unsustainable rainforest timber etc thus saving the rainforests and preventing indiginous 'Indians' from losing their land and culture, and save the forests biodiversity.

Is that enough or would you like some more:-)

Isn't it interesting how the far left insists that what's of the Earth belongs to everyone, EXCEPT when what's being discussed is oil under foreign countries -- then those countries are portrayed as doing something noble and positive when they nationalize. Why is local corruption more noble than a profiteering American oil corporation? Oh right, I remember -- because it's American.

Local corruption? I don't understand how nationalisation is equal to corruption? Please explain? Also, it was mostly British oil companies that lost out in Iran.