Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Look At Some Key Races

Now that Obamacare has passed I thought it might be interesting to take a look at some Senate and Governor races to see how well the Dems are doing so lets start out in Pennsylvania and Senator Arlen “I switch parties all the time” Specter (For those that don’t know Arlen Specter started his political career in Philly as a Dem District Attorney, then in 1980 switched to Rep to ride Reagans coatails into the Senate and this past year switched back to Dem because the Repub’s were fed up with his backstabbing them). All numbers are from Rassmussen Reports

Pa Senate: Toomey [R] leading Specter [D] 49% to 40%

Governor: Corbett [R] leading State Auditor Jack Wagner [D], by 13 points, 46% to 33%

Corbett [R] leading former Congressman Joe Hoeffel [D] 49% to 28%

Corbett [R] leading Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato [D] by a 46% to 29% margin.

So in Pa, which is a key battleground state, it doesn’t look good for the Dems.

California Senate: Boxer [D] leading Campbell [R] 43% to 41%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided. There is two other Rep nominees within striking distance.

Governor: Brown [D] and Whitman [R] earning 40% of the vote each. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 14% remain undecided.

Things are tight for Boxer who many last year thought was in a solid position and the Dems can’t seem to capitalize in the dismal performance of Ahnuld to grab the lead in the Governor race.

Wisconsin Senate: Feingold [D] leading real estate entrepreneur Terrence Wall [R] 49% to 40%, however Feingold might have a much tougher opponent to face: matched against Thompson [R], Feingold [D] now trails by a statistically insignificant 47% to 45%.

Governor: Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker [R] leading Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett [D] 48% to 42%.

Former GOP Congressman Mark Neumann [R] now posts a 46% to 42% lead over Barrett.

So depending on if Tommy Thompson runs or not the Dems might get shut out there as well.

Ohio Senate: Portman [R] leading Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher [D] 44% to 39%.

Portman holds a 43% to 37% lead over Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner [D].

Governor: Kasich [R] leading Strickland [D] 49% to 38%.

Ohio is another battleground state that last election got a lot of attention from Acorn.

Oregon Senate: Incumbent Democratic Senator Ron Wyden with a 49% to 35% lead over law professor Jim Huffman, the most prominent Republican reportedly considering running against him. This is a very troubling news for Dems, for two reasons: 1. There is no announced Rep candidate yet and the Dem can’t get 50%. 2. As Rasmussen states “Given Oregon’s political leanings, it’s a tough struggle for any Republican candidate against a popular Democrat like Wyden. Still, an incumbent who polls less than 50% at this stage of the campaign is viewed as potentially vulnerable.”

Governor: Right now its a free for all as there is two top Dem candidates and 4 Rep candidates.

Oregon is a very liberal state and if the Dems are having trouble there it could be a repeat of Mass.

Illinois Senate: Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias holding a slight 44% to 41% lead over Republican Congressman Mark Kirk

Governor: State Senator Bill Brady [R] leading Quinn [D] 47% to 37%. Quinn is filling in for the ousted Blago.

Those 6 were the only states that had both Senate and Governor races so lets look at some important races such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s race:

Nevada Senate: Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, with a 51% to 38% lead on Reid.

Businessman Danny Tarkanian [R] posts a similar 50% to 37% lead over the embattled Democratic leader.

Well unless Harry can pull off a miracle like Truman it looks like he is gone.

Delaware Senate: Republican Mike Castle leading Democrat Chris Coons by 21 points, 53% to 32%.

This is Joe Bidens seat and look at those numbers, what surprised many (but shouldn’t have) Joe’s son Beau Biden, the Attorney General, decided not to run for papas seat. The reason that it shouldn’t have been a surprise, is that papa knows the Dems are going down faster than the Titanic.

Florida Senate: Former State House Speaker Marco Rubio [R] leading Meek [D] 48% to 34%.

Governor Charlie Crist, who is battling Rubio for the GOP Senate nomination, posts a 45% to 34% lead over Meek.

Now in case the Dems get their hopes up that Crist might decided to run as an Indy if he loses the primary and that way split the Rep vote and their man can sneak in, think again: Even in a three-way match-up with Crist running as an independent, Meek comes in second with 25% of the vote. Rubio leads with 45% support, while Crist earns 22%.

Florida is another key Battleground state.

You can find more races here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Advertisements

Make Your Own Space Agency!

All it takes to make your own space agency operational is:

1. A cheap digital camera

2. A SD card loaded in said device in #1

3. A Polystyrene box with a round plexiglass window put into it and sealed.

4. Wrap said box in #3 with Duct Tape.

5. Install a GPS tracking device in said box from #3.

6. Make and attach a cheap parachute to said box from #3.

7. Obtain a full Helium Tank.

8. Obtain a weather ballon and fill it from the said tank in #7.

9. Set timer on cheap camera from #1. Close and latch the box from #3. Attach the filled ballon from #9 and then launch.

10. When the Ballon reaches the edge of space the ballon pops and the box parachutes back to earth. Use the GPS tracking device to locate the box and then download the pictures from the SD card into a computer.

Hmm and how much do we pay NASA to take pictures from up there again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfHRM2YSl0s&feature=video_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbCVJ-J_Sc

How to counter a vegetarian!

This is how you deal with Vegetarians!

You can also see the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTsWjbjQ8E

When A Poll Goes Wrong!

There is an old saying about lawyers never asking a witness a question, without first knowing what they are going to answer. The reason for this is because can go seriously wrong from that point if you get an unexpected answer. Well the Knoxville News Sentinel just found this out when a poll of theirs went horrenously wrong on them.

First lets lay the ground work. The University of Tennesse at Knoxville is planning on giving Al Gore and honory degree. After that the above named paper ran an oped opinioning that this was a lovely idea and then blasting people that objected to it:

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2010/mar/03/gore-a-fine-choice-for-honorary-degree/

Now at that point they should have left well enough alone after poking the sleeping dog with a stick but they went and did the stupid thing of asking the people what they think and this is what they got as of 1:30 am EST:

http://www.knoxnews.com/polls/2010/feb/al-gore-poll/results/

I wonder what their circulation is going to look like in a week.

h/t WUWT and Dr. Svalgaard

GISTemp Trend Map Data Analysis

In my last post (which if you haven’t read yet you really need to or you won’t get everything I’m saying here) I showed how, at least on the GISS Map Maker program, that the 1880-2009 gridded trends have a couple of hidden blemishes. For most of the land area “trends” have interpolated data used as the basis for its trend not observed data through out the time period. This applies either back around 1880 when there was very little stations outside of the US and Europe or to the “Great Dying of Thermometers” starting around 1990. In some cases like Central Africa and portions of Central South America the data is “infill” or as I like to call it a SWAG in both 2009 and 1880. That’s right in those areas the entire trend of its “warming” for that grid point is a guess with very little observable data from those areas over that almost 130 time frame.

That’s fine and dandy for those areas where it is complete or mostly infill but what about the areas where there is a lot of historical data to compare to?

You would think that the infill would have no impact on those grid cells right? Why would they need to infill since they have actual observed readings right?

Well we can check that using the data provided by GISS from their Map Maker program. You see by turning down the infill to 250km you get closer to the actual observed data for those areas. Now if they have actual observed data for the entire or close to entire time period in question for a specific grid then there should be no influence from infill and the turn back from 1200 to 250 would not change the value of the trend. Sure there is still some infill since it does say 250km “smoothing” but you expect that to be  a small portion of what is left and not every grid box or even a majority of them to change.

Now before I show the results of the comparison between the trends for 1200km and 250 km infill lets lay out what we are talking about.

First on the Gridded Global map from the GISS site as shown at this link:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1880&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

Now from this is an option to get the data and from the following link you get the page for the data for the map in the above link:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_1200km_Trnd0112_1880_2009/GHCN_GISS_1200km_Trnd0112_1880_2009.txt

Now when you are looking at the data you see a bunch of columns with numbers. The first 2 columns is the label GISS gives for each box on the gridded map. They start at the bottom of the map in the lower left hand corner and go left to right from there filling the boxes. You repeat this for each layer going up the map. These boxes are centered on the Longitude and Latitude of the center of each grid box. That Long/Lat reading is the next two columns of numbers. The next column of numbers is the temperature trend GISS believes is the actual change in temperature for that grid. A 9999.0000 means no data.

So this is how I handled the data:

Step one copy the data from that page into a Spreadsheet. Now I got rid of the grid labels since I didn’t need them, but kept the Long/Lat numbers since that acted as a way to line up the numbers for 1200km and 250km. First thing I noticed is that there is 16,200 individual grid boxes and of those only 9,232 is used by the GISS land analysis. The other 6,968 is taken up by the Had SST anomaly data and is not needed for this so is turned off and comes up 9999.0000. From there I went and turned down the map from 1200km to 250 km infill and pulled up the data. I then copied it into the spreadsheet program and then started eliminating every grid where there wasn’t an overlap of data, this cut the number of used grids down to 2,778. So there is less then 17% of all grids and only 30% of all land grids that GISS has observed data for in the 1880-2009 trend. Now of this 2,778 grids you would not expect the majority of them to have had their trends change by going from 1200km infill to 250 km infill, however the answer is that almost every grid trend changed.

Differences in Trend between 1200 km and 250 km Infill

Now how I did this was take the data from the 250km infill and subtract the data from the 1200km infill and this gives you the difference between the two and in the correct direction of change. (I almost pulled a Mann when I first did it and had the thing inverted). What you notice is that one very big area of change in the negative direction is at the far right end. The Long/Lat where those differences occur is for a strip of land up where northern Russia meets the Arctic Ocean and what you see is that with 1200 km infill you had a warming trend of 1.62 degrees change into .61 Cooling trend. Other areas you see the opposite occur example there is a strip where the grids had 2.61 degrees of warming and when the infill was ripped out it went up to 3.39 degrees of warming.

So the bottom line is that we do not know with any certainty what the real trend is for the globe because of GISS infilling.

It’s Official: The National Enquirer In Running For Pulitzer

This is just too funny, the Pulitzer Prize committee has accepted the National Enquirer’s submission for the work they did in breaking the John Edwards scandal. You know the scandal that the NY Times and Washington Post buried their collective heads on and wouldn’t cover until the scandal got to big to ignore? No, not the one with the Communist Green Jobs Czar. No, not the one with the 2 young people exposing ACORN as nothing more then a criminal organization. That’s right the one where the Presidential canidate got his mistress pregnant, tried to pawn the kid off on a staffer and lied his ass off. Just goes to show that there is no more investigative journalism at “mainstream” newspapers anymore.

The NYT and WAPO have drunk so much of the liberal Koolaid that they can’t even recognize that by ignoring these scandals they are just bringing about their own end. I wonder what is going to happen to them when the alarmism from AGW finally completely implodes. The American media has been silent for the most part (outside of Fox and the WSJ), except for some damage control pieces. Unlike the British print media which has been running stories on all the flaws in the UN IPCC 4th assessment report, the American Media has been stunning in their lack of coverage. So when it finally does collapse, what can they say then? This past fall the NYT came out with a bunch of mea culpa’s because of their lack of coverage of Van Jones and ACORN. They, like the rest of media, buried their collective heads until they couldn’t hide it anymore (Jones’ resignation, Congress defunding ACORN).

Their readers who have this warped view of the world did not understand why Van Jones resigned nor why ACORN was defunded. To them it was  a mystery, until they found out how the media kept them in the dark. The NYT’s said that they would start doing what Fox does and keep an eye on the Blogosphere where the Van Jones and ACORN stories broke so they wouldn’t get scooped again. I guess what they meant by that is that they would watch Blogosphere for stories, not to cover them fairly, but to try to be more proactive in cover ups and damage control.

The way the Edwards/Van Jones/ACORN scandals broke was the lid being placed on the coffin for the liberal print media in the US. The coverage of those scandals after they broke was the first nail in the lid. The way they are dealing with the meltdown of AGW is going to be another. 

From a Pew research poll there is this graph which is very revealing:

http://people-press.org/report/543/

Notice something in that graph? Thats right both the amount of people that get most of their national and international news fron TV and print is falling and the amount that get it from the Internet is growing. Matter of fact sometime in 2008 the Internet surpassed the print media as the second most used primary source. Now for the really bad news for the print media: That survey was released in Sept 2009, I wonder how their mishandling of Climategate and all the IPCC scandals have effected the trends in that graph.

Now you got the Enquirer in the running for the Pulitzer which is another nail in the coffin. What the Pulitzer committee is telling the print media is not that the Enquirer has risen to the level of the NYT or the WAPO, but they have dropped down to the Enquirer’s level of birdcage liner. Then again if the Enquirer wins the Pulitzer we shouldn’t use it to line the bottom of a bird cage anymore since it would then be the pinnacle of investigative journalism that all will strive for in the US.

So the next time you are standing in the checkout line and see a copy of the Enquirer with an Alien Kidnap or Elvis Baby headline, don’t laugh that might be the next Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/media/19pulitzer.html?ref=business

h/t SDA

The DDT Scare: AGW’s Grandfather

Here is a question for you: 

Who is responsible for more Human deaths then any other person in the history of the planet? 

The answer is Chairman Mao who is believed to be the reason behind the deaths of over 70+ million people in China. 

Now here is a second question for you: 

Who is in second place behind Mao? 

If you guess Pol Pot, he is not even in the same universe as this person with a “paltry” 2 million to his credit. Hitler you say? He was a piker in comparison with his 6+ million total. How about “Uncle” Joe Stalin? Hah his 30+ million is only roughly half of this persons total. 

So who is this person? None other then Author and Environmentalist Rachael Carson who has 60+ million human deaths on her hands. That’s right over 60 million people have died due to her efforts to ban the insecticide DDT and the lies and myths she propagated in the 1960’s are still spouted today and the death count keeps climbing. 

The story of the DDT scare up to and including the banning of its use by the EPA is the blueprint for the AGW movement. You want to see where AGW will take the human species just check out what the DDT scare did. 

Lets start with the abstract from a paper by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards in the Fall 2004 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: 

The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

What was the book? It was called Silent Spring and it was written in 1962 by Rachael Carson. 

To put DDT into perspective this is what the National Academy of Sciences had to say about it: 

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable

That is what Rachael Carson wanted to get rid of, something that saved 500 million lives in 20 years. 

Why did she want to do this?

It was the beginning of the radical green movement and their beliefs that Humanity was nothing more then a pestilence on the body of “mother earth”. So they set out to to get rid of things like pesticides that helped humanity while at the same time hurting the profits of evil corporations. So lets start looking at some of the myths she propagated: 

Myth #1: DDT causes cancer. 

For anyone that has grown up in the 1970’s through today that is almost always the first claim that the left leaning green fringe points to. 

Fact #1: DDT doesn’t cause cancer, it helps prevent it! 

Human volunteers in Georgia ingested up to 35 milligrams daily, for nearly two years, and did not experience any difficulties then or later. Workers in the Montrose Chemical Company had 1,300 man-years of exposure, and there was never any case of cancer during 19 years of continuous exposure to about 17 mg/man/day. Concerns were sometimes raised about possible carcinogenic effects of DDT, but instead its metabolites were often found to be anti-carcinogenic, significantly reducing tumors in rats. DDT ingestion induces hepatic microsomal enzymes, which destroy carcinogenic aflatoxins and thereby inhibit tumors. 

After an 80-day hearing in 1972 on the potential for carcinogenicity, the EPA concluded that. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard for man. Nevertheless, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT two months later, stating that .DDT poses a carcinogenic risk. to humans. The primary evidence used to support his assertion was two animal studies. The first was challenged because it was not replicated by other workers using similar dosages and because the findings might have resulted from food contaminated with aflatoxin. The second study, which used a nearly lethal dose, reported hepatomas in 32 percent of the experimental group compared to 4 percent of the control group. However, the tumors were not shown to be malignant, and the litters were not distributed randomly 

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

So the EPA banned DDT based on 2 flawed studies, one that couldn’t be replicated and another where they had to feed so much DDT to the test animals it was almost a fatal dose. 

Myth #2: DDT thins the shells of bird eggs thus putting Robins and Bald Eagles at risk and sometimes kills them outright. 

Many anti-DDT activists alleged that DDT was killing birds or causing them to produce thin-shelled eggs. Some extremists even wrote that because of DDT birds dropped from the sky, dead. Others said that birds were falling out of trees by the thousands. 

Every kid growing up in the 1970’s has heard of this and it is still taught to a lot of people even today. 

Fact #2: DDT doesn’t thin bird shell eggs. 

No such tragedies actually occurred, not even to a few birds. It was easy to test such claims of toxicity by simply feeding known quantities of DDT to caged birds. Even extreme amounts of DDT in the food did not seriously poison birds. 

Rachel Carson declared that like the robin, another American bird, [the Bald Eagle] seems to be on the verge of extinction.. That same year Roger Tory Peterson, America’s greatest ornithologist, wrote that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America. There is no doubt as to which writer was correct! 

During the “DDT Years”, the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts published the numbers seen per observer in 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after peak use of DDT). The actual numbers seen increasedfrom 90 birds seen per observer in 1941 to 971 birds seen per observer in 1960. 

Similarly, the counts of raptorial birds migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, indicated that there were many more hawks there during the “DDT years” than previously. The numbers counted there increased from 9,291 in 1946 (before much DDT was used) to 13,616 in 1963 and 29,765 in 1968, after 15 years of heavy DDT use. 

In Massachusetts, herring gulls on Tern Island increased from 2,000 pairs in 1940 (before DDT) to 35,000 pairs by 1970, before DDT was banned. Gulls were on the state’s list of “protected sea birds,” but the Audubon Society was permitted to poison 30,000 of them there. William Drury of the Society said that killing those 30,000 gulls was “kind of like weeding a garden”. 

On Funk Island, in the north Atlantic, the gannets increased from 200 pairs in 1945 (when DDT use began) to 2,000 pairs in 1958, and 3,000 pairs by 1971 (before DDT was banned). Murres there increased from 15,000 pairs in 1945 to 150,000 pairs in 1958 to 1.5 million by 1971.

 http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Well so much for the birds dropping dead. 

The alleged thinning of eggshells by DDT in the diet was effective propaganda; however, actual feeding experiments proved that there was very little, if any, correlation between DDT levels and shell thickness. Thin shells may result when birds are exposed to fear, restraint, mercury, lead, parathion, or other agents, or when deprived of adequate calcium, phosphorus, Vitamin D, light, calories, or water. While quail fed a diet containing 2 percent calcium produced thick shells, a calcium content of only 1 percent resulted in shells 9 percent thinner than normal. In the presence of lead, shells were 14 percent thinner, and with mercury, 8 percent thinner. 

Bitman and coworkers demonstrated eggshell thinning with DDT by reducing calcium levels to 0.56 percent from the normal 2.5 percent. After this work was exposed as anti-DDT propaganda, Bitman continued his work for another year. Instead of the calcium-deficient diets, however, he fed the quail 2.7 percent calcium in their food. The shells they produced were not thinned at all by the DDT. Unfortunately, the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Thomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT (T. Jukes, personal communication). Bitman therefore had to publish the results of his legitimate feeding experiments in an obscure specialty journal, and many readers of Science continued to believe that DDT could cause birds to lay thin shelled eggs.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

So there you see even back then “Peer Reviewed” science is not all it’s cracked up to be and how results of tests that didn’t support the scare story were supressed. 

Myth #3: DDT kills fish, algae and makes alligator privates smaller. 

Florida’s Lake Apopka became famous when anti-pesticide propagandists stated that DDT killed fish and caused shortened alligator penises.(Bolded to show the ridiculous claim) 

DDT was claimed to have dire effects on marine life. Charles Wurster claimed that marine algae died in his tank of seawater because it contained 500 ppb DDT. 

Fact #3: DDT does no such thing. 

First on the alligators: 

It was stated that a mere 0.1 nanogram (1 nanogram = 10 g) of ethinyl estradiol (EE) per liter of water is a potent estrogen. W. R. Kelce claimed that DDT was antiandrogenic, based on an experiment in which he gavaged DDT metabolite DDE directly into pregnant female rat stomachs for five days, at a level 200,000 times the average human dietary intake. The resulting male pups retained their nipples for 13 days,indicating, Kelce said, “prenatal anti-androgen activity of DDT”. 

However, it was reported that “Lake Apopka is a fetid shallow body of water, the state’s most embarrassing pollution problem. Human waste is dumped into the lake from the Winter Garden’s sewage treatment plant,” as well as citrus-processing wastes, agricultural chemicals, and fertilizers. Also, the alligators had been exposed to the birth control chemical EE that was in the sewage water with the urine of women in Winter Garden. Moreover, it was reported that alligators there were also being killed by a bacterium, Aeromonas liquifasciens, which dissolves internal organs of marine animals. 

It is also worthy of note that the estrogenic potency of naturally occurring plant bioflavonoids relative to 17 -estradiol is 0.001 to 0.0001, whereas for estrogenic pesticides it is about 0.000001. The estrogen equivalent intake of plant bioflavonoids is about 102 /day, compared to 2.5 x 10 /day from estrogenic pesticide residues. Therefore, the estrogen equivalent ingested in natural substances is estimated to be about 40 million times that from estrogenic pesticides. 

Well so much for that claim so onto the algae. 

DDT was claimed to have dire effects on marine life. Charles Wurster claimed that marine algae died in his tank of seawater because it contained 500 ppb DDT. Paul Ehrlich seemed to approve of Wurster’s hoax, for he wrote an article based on it, which many schoolchildren were required to read. The following year Ehrlich published that same article in England, in a Sphere Book titled The Year’s Best Science Fiction – a more appropriate outlet. 

Because DDT is only soluble in water at 1.2 ppb, Ehrlich was asked how he could have such high concentrations of DDT in his seawater. He explained that he had added enough alcohol to the tanks to obtain the desired concentrations of DDT in the water. Of course, the seas do not contain much alcohol, so what happened in his tanks bore no resemblance to what would happen in unaltered seawater. Not surprisingly, two other scientists had earlier reported that DDT in their tanks of seawater caused no harm to the same species of algae that Wurster used. 

It has often been said that DDT persists for decades in the ocean. Researchers at EPA’s Gulf Breeze Laboratory in Louisiana added DDT to seawater in huge submerged containers. They reported that 92 percent of the DDT its metabolites, DDD and DDE, disappeared from the seawater in just 38 days. 

At the EPA consolidated hearings on DDT, George Woodwell, testifying under oath, attempted to convince the court that DDT was building up to high levels in the environment. Incredibly, he had had an article published in Science a month earlier, in which he and his coauthors found that only 11 million pounds of the 6 billion pounds of DDT that had been produced, less than one-thirtieth of a year’s production in the 1960s.could be accounted for in the world’s biota. Indeed, they concluded that .most of the DDT produced has either been degraded to innocuousness or sequestered in places where it is not freely available to the biota.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

Hmm doesn’t that DDT build up claim sound familiar to the IPCC’s claim about how long CO2 lingers in the atmosphere compared to what the actual science says? Oh and when you can’t get the DDT to high enough levels just add Alcohol to the tank so that it doesn’t represent the real world at all. Hey that reminds me of that little test the head of NOAA did in front of the Congressional committee with the chalk and vinegar to show the acidification of the oceans and what it will do to shelled marine life. We all know that the ocean is just like vinegar. 

Well as shown DDT didn’t do any of the claims the environmentalists claimed it did. The science didn’t back it up but the EPA still banned it, Why? 

The printed testimony from seven months of hearings on DDT filled 9,300 pages. My impression was that persons chosen to testify often presented very biased reports that were not truthful. 

In an interview with reporters for Business Week, published on July 8, 1972, George Woodwell said that he was told by EPA lawyers not to mention his article in Science, lest his testimony be disallowed. I specifically discussed Woodwell’s testimony in a letter to William Ruckelshaus concerning the frequent absence of truthfulness in testimony. Ruckelshaus responded: “Not only did we not tell Dr.Woodwell to avoid making those statements, but he was not our witness and our lawyers did not talk to him at all.” (W. Ruckelshaus, personal communication, 1972). I again read Woodwell’s testimony to determine whether that was true. The EPA lawyer (Mr. Butler) had stated: “I’d like to call our next witness, Dr. George M.Woodwell“. Notice that Butler said our next witness. 

In his final 113-page decision issued on April 25, 1972, Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife..and..there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.” 

This decision, however, was overruled by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. In his 40-page Final Opinion, handed down on June 2, 1972, he omitted most scientific data, misnamed the major chemicals involved, and proposed that farmers “should use organophosphates, like carbaryl, instead”. (Carbaryl is not an organophosphate). He also recommended substituting parathion, a very deadly chemical, for DDT. He later wrote that “in such decisions the ultimate judgement remains political.” (W. Ruckelshaus, letter to American Farm Bureau President Allan Grant,April 26, 1979). 

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

Now lets introduce someone that is well known in the AGW debate and one of his most famous quotes and you will see that he used it for DDT. 

The procedure for banning DDT reflected the method described by Stanford biology professor Stephen Schneider, who appeared on the scene during fraudulent anti-pesticide debates, predicting grave environmental harm. In a widely quoted statement to Jonathan Schell in a 1989 article in Discover, he explained: “We need to get loads of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios and make dramatic statements. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Schneider has objected to the omission of the last line, “I hope that means being both” 

 As Jonathan Schell wrote: “Scientists should disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real”. 

Forecasting environmental disasters often requires taking a value-laden leap of faith beyond the present state of knowledge,.writes Jocelyn Kaiser. Thus, scientist activists lead a double life,imperiling the credibility of science.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

Hmm does that not sound familiar to us? 

Now you could still believe they were just misguided but no, you have to keep in mind that there is one species that environmentalist want to see on the endangered species list: Homo Sapiens. 

The balance sought by environmental activists is not one of costs and benefits to humanity. Rather, they balance the needs of humanity against the needs of the Planet and the Biosphere in general, as they perceive them. One measure of planetary health is the viability of species. The extinction of any species is a cosmic tragedy, and huge numbers of species are allegedly threatened. 

Paul Ehrlich and E.O. Wilson wrote that there is “a massive extinction rate caused by human activity, which threatens the aesthetic quality of the world”. They predicted that “thousands of species will become extinct each year, before they have even been discovered” in spite of the fact that Ehrlich himself said that only three species of forest birds became extinct during all of the “destruction” (his word) of eastern North America.{Now doesn’t that also sound so familiar to AGW} 

Other assertions about massive species extinctions include these: Norman Myers estimated that we lose “one species a day” and “most haven’t even been identified”. He added: that “The extinction rate will accelerate to one species every hour, by the late 1980s”. Thomas Lovejoy, formerly of the Smithsonian Institution predicted that “15 to 20% of all species, [or] as many as 1,875,000 species, would become extinct” and “at least ten million species, would be extinct by 200”. In the Global Report 2000 commissioned by President Jimmy Carter, the range of extinctions was stated as 3 to 10 million species. Former Vice President Al Gore stated that “species of animals and plants are now vanishing one thousand times faster than at any time in the past 65 million years. [emphasis in original]. 

Obviously there can never be any factual basis for such hypothetical suggestions, and no credence can be accorded to predictions which have already been proven to be false. Between 1600 and 1900, the estimated extinction rate of known species was about one every 4 years.Since the endangered species list was established, precisely seven species have been declared extinct in the U.S. 

In attempting to reach the stated if mostly hypothetical objective of preventing a decrease in nonhuman inhabitants of Earth, environmental activist policies have demonstrably increased the human death rate, primarily by thwarting efforts to control malaria. Could this be the true objective of many activists? Jacques Cousteau stated, “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day”{My bold}. This is nearly 128 million people per year, or 1.27 billion people over 10 years. Edwin J. Cohn of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) Office of Policy Development was quoted as saying, with reference to the fecundity of many women in poor tropical countries, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing”. 

Environmentalist Gro Brundtland, Director of the World Health Organization, stated in 2001 that her goal was “to halt half of the malarial mortality by 2010 and half again by 2015”. Apparently, Brundtland will be content if by 2010 only one child dies of malaria every minute, instead of two children dying every minute as at present. 

Currently, no obvious efforts are being made to reduce the numbers of infective mosquito adults or larvae, and neither Brundtland nor any of the dozens of recent malaria researchers have proposed plans to help save human lives by killing mosquitoes or their larvae. Such humane preventive endeavors have not even been mentioned in Science in recent years! Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars are devoted to the search for vaccines, which might or might not be effective. 

At least two malaria vaccine researchers have been indicted. Dr. Miodrag Ristic received $3.28 million in grants, but developed nothing. In 1990 he was indicted on four counts and heavily fined, but not imprisoned. Dr.Wasim Siddiqui of the University of Hawaii, who had claimed that his vaccinewas almost ready for clinical trials, was accused by the U.S. Inspector General of “an apparent diversion and theft of funds, submission of false claims, and criminal conspiracy”. Siddiqui was arrested by Honolulu police, but that very day the Vaccine Research Office of AID awarded him another $1.65 million “to continue his research”. Hawaiian Senator Inouye then announced on live television that if Siddiqui was handed any more federal funds he personally would see to it that the University of Hawaii would never get another grant of federal research money. Siddiqui served six months of house detention, but the local newspapers reported that he was still receiving his salary of $92,340 a year, even though not teaching classes. {Buck up Dr. Jones, see even when caught “scientists” still get their money} 

The malaria protections that were hoped to replace mosquito controls have simply been expensive fantasies. After 25 years, AID’s malaria vaccine research project is still proving to be a disaster. In a 6-year effort, during which perhaps 18 million human beings died of malaria, U.S. Navy researchers sequenced the genome of the parasite causing falciparum malaria, which has about 6,000 genes, compared to fewer than 30 in a typical virus. The “breakthrough” was announced at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C., called by Science and Nature. The genome of the vector, which contains nearly 300-million DNA base pairs, has also been sequenced. To date, there is no evidence that knowing the sequences will lead to any methods of controlling malaria transmission. 

With no better methods available, past mosquito control programs were terminated. From 1974 to 1977, the U.S. Export-Import Bank financed more than $3 billion of pesticides, saving millions of human lives. In 1977 environmental groups sued to force AID to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used. Madagascar suffered from a similar forced lack of mosquito control. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree to control mosquitoes by not using DDT. In 1986, the AID issued Regulation 16 Guidelines. Secretary of State George Schultz, relying on that as his authority, telegraphed orders to all embassies, stating: “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin”. Millions of poor natives in tropical countries died as a result, from starvation or from malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. The term “genocide” is used in other contexts to describe such numbers of casualties.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf 

I recommend that anyone reading this post, hit the link and read the paper for themselves. 

To Rachael Carson and her “spiritual” descendents congratulations, shortly you will surpass Chairman Mao as the all time mass murder/s, especially if you get your way with AGW. As a final piece of evidence that these people know what they are doing just look to Rachael Carson’s dedication in Silent Spring: 

On the first page of the book widely credited with launching the environmental movement as well as bringing about the ban on DDT, Rachel Carson wrote: “Dedicated to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth’.” She surely knew that he was referring to atomic warfare, but she implied that he meant there were deadly hazards from chemicals such as DDT. Because I had already found a great many untruths in her book, I obtained a copy of Dr. Schweitzer’s autobiography, to see whether he even mentioned DDT. He wrote: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us”.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

As shown Rachael Carson warped the views of an eminent person for her own benefit.

For even more on this read the American Spectator article and see how the head of the EPA back then,refusing to comply with FOIA, mirrors Dr. Jones.

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy/2

Here is more on how the banning on DDT has cost Human lives:

In some countries such as Sri Lanka, spraying programs that had virtually eliminated malaria were terminated. As a consequence the number of cases of malaria in that country rose to 2.5 million in 1968 and 1969.[9] More than 100,000 people died as a result of malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s after house spraying with DDT was stopped. Since the early 1970s the UN and the WHO have blackmailed developing countries, through the withholding of financial aid, to force them to discontinue the use of DDT. The result has been an upsurge in the number of cases of malaria. The South African government has reported that the annual number of deaths from malaria there have risen from 20,000 to 350,000 since the ban on DDT. Malaria currently kills about two million people each year, and the number is rising.

DDT was used in Ethiopia in 1991 to control a major epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in refugee camps.[10] As had been the case in World War II, it was highly effective in controlling the human body louse that transmits the Borrelia recurrentis of relapsing fever. Millions of lives have been saved by the control of mosquitoes, flies and lice that transmit such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, filariasis and plague.  Many residents of West Africa were spared the ravages of river blindness (onchocerciasis) when DDT killed the insect vector (black fly) carrying the filaria for this disease. All of this progress is now threatened by UN politicians who are either totally ignorant of the facts or dedicated to population reduction.

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=89

How Big Oil Co-Oped the Environmental Movement Part 2

  Okay in Part One I laid out the direction I’m taking this and here in Part 2 we will start laying the foundation and how ‘Big Oil’ was the one putting in that foundation. First we have to deal with a common misconception about ‘multi-national’ corporations and big government: The multi-nationals are pro one world government, always have been, always will be. Just take a look at who backs these ideas for a big centralized government, it is the richest of the rich with ties into the biggest corporations on the planet. Rockefeller and Rothschild are just a few names that one should keep in mind when talking about centralized world government. Now the next part is they know something you don’t and that is: If your the one that is the power behind that big worldwide government you are the one in charge and you call the shots. Remember Big Oil kept losing their overseas oil fields to ‘nationalization’. Think that would have happened if the world was run by a centralized government set up by corporations like Big Oil? I think you can figure that one out. Big Oil would love a UN style world government where the real power would be in the hands of the multinationals. Of course they would make it look like they are the bad guys and that things need to be done to them and not for them, but somehow the laws never seem to work out that way. I will get more into how that plays into AGW in a later part.

 We go back to the 1960’s and here we find ourselves with one movement and two groups that would like to use that movement. One side you have the Intellectual Elites that want a one world government where they make the decisions for those that are intellectually inferior to them. On the other you had Big Oil facing diminishing returns from their investments overseas due to having tin pot dictators overthrowing the governments that for the most part Big Oil bought and paid for and rising demand from their customers back in the western world. What happened was that both these groups found out they had more in common then you would think. The intellectuals gave Big Oil the cover of scientific ‘neutrality’ they needed for getting control of the environmental movement, while Big Oil had the funding that the Intellectuals needed to scare the piss out of people to stampede them into doing something they normally wouldn’t do.

 The question was how do you do it? The intellectuals had been trying to scare people with the ‘population bomb’

 The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in 1970’s and 1980s due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. The book also popularized the previously coined term, population bomb.[1] The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and unfilled predictions. Erlich stands by the basic ideas in the book.

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

but weren’t getting enough traction. It also didn’t meet the needs of Big Oil of getting the environmentalists off their backs or show a case for putting more holes in the ground. What they settled on was Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. Sounds strange today to hear that and for some they think it is a myth that such a thing even happened. Well it did and most of the “old guard” of the AGW crowd was beating the Global Cooling drum in the 1970’s. The New York Times and Time magazine ran articles about the coming “Ice Age” which actually does have some basis in science. For hundreds of thousands of years the planet has widely swung between periods of warmth and Ice Ages according to the geologists. So Global Cooling was a real possibility and mother nature was cooperating as the temperatures kept falling.

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

 The winters got so bad that there was even TV shows hosted by Mr. Spock himself (Leonard Nimoy) telling us we need to get ready for the famines and hardships from the coming Ice Age.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tokbiZW3gVY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds&feature=related

(Please take note that near the end of the third Youtube clip our friend Dr. Stephen Schneider is talking about the possible actions needed to stem Global Cooling and their possible consequences. Watch all three clips then think on what you have been told about Global Warming or as they like to say now Climate Change)

 The question was how to take advantage of this. Well you needed a few things:

 1.  “Independent Scientific Evidence”

 2.  Some type of “Official” body to support the actions you want.

So you needed some type of leader that had connections to policymakers and the big money types. The typical enviromentalist of the time did not fit what was needed and was not going to get invited to lunch with Government honchos and the money men. They needed someone that was already on the inside, a member of the club per se to start championing the environmental cause. You also needed some type of semi official, semi government body and some type of “scientific” organization to provide the evidence you needed for the “leader” to turn to and use.

 That brings us to a man named Maurice Strong and to the University of East Anglia and the Climatic Research Unit. In the next part it is time to look at Maurice Strong, his connections to Big Oil, the UN and how what he has set in motion almost 40 years ago is changing the world today.

How Big Oil co-oped the Environmental Movement Part One

Think I’m nuts saying that the AGW crowd is tied to ‘Big Oil’? Then you need to poke your head out of the sand and pay attention to the world around you. Here I’m going to show you why ‘Big Oil’ is all for what is called the Cap and Trade system in the US and ETS in places like the UK and Australia and sequestration of CO2 schemes. This will be in multiple parts.

 The environmental movement basically grew out of the upheaval of the changes that the 1960’s wrought in the western world and at the time had no central direction. It was basically taking a back seat to other problems such as the Vietnam War and the possibility of a nuclear WWIII. At the same time you had a group of intellectuals that were steeped in the old 1920’s/30’s progressive movement that believed that an ‘Intellectual Elite’ should rule. The way they saw it the world should be run from a big central government, preferably a world government. They knew that people that were steeped in traditions of government being accountable to the citizens was not going to buy that idea; they would have to be scared into it by exaggerations, lies and falsehoods. The best way to do that was to invoke the image of the neutral scientist that the majority of the citizens of the western world held, but use the methods I just described. This is called post modern science, where the theory doesn’t have to fit the empirical evidence on its own but must also take into account other things such as cultural and political ends. This point was made by Dr. Stephen Schneider with his statement:

 “It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming issue] as though it were a question of balance. . . . I don’t set very much store by looking at the direct evidence. . . . To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (qtd. in Bandow 1998, 35)

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_4_clark.pdf

 While that was going on ‘Big Oil’ was having a rough go of it. The oil companies before and after WWII had spent a lot of money exploring for oil in such far flung places as Libya, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They developed these oil fields and kept finding themselves being kicked out afterward as those countries ‘nationalized’ the oil fields. In and of itself that was bad enough since they didn’t always recoup the investment back but the real problem was their old oil fields in the US was increasingly drying up. This meant they then had to turn around and buy the product of their investment from the same people that kicked them out. With the coming of the 60’s and communist revolutions popping up seemingly everywhere these companies saw more trouble coming, and there was this new environmental movement back home that was getting more and more concerned about pollution and the environment. Seems these people didn’t want more drilling happening in the US and the companies kept losing their overseas fields and they were being backed into a corner. See the demand for oil was growing and it wasn’t just for use to make gas at the time the planet was getting colder and oil was the preferred method of heating. So Big Oil had a choice either find some way to keep their overseas fields from being ‘nationalized’ or finding someway to make the environmental movement work for them.

They went with option number two.

Blood Red Oceans?

  Over on his site EM Smith yesterday had this post:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/is-the-null-default-infinite-hot/#comment-3077

Now this has stirred up some debate of what is going on with some wanting to just scoff it off as, well who does a null check on this stuff and so what it doesn’t effect the regular maps. So after thinking on this stuff overnight and playing around with the GISS page some I came to some conclusions.

      1.   There is a bug in the code used by the GISS computers for that site.

      2.   There is no set standard of integers for ‘no data’ in temperature databases. In some such as GHCN the number is 999, If you go to another area of the GISS site you can download data for a single station. When you do that you see that they use 999.9 not 9999 as the no data number. Other times the number isn’t even a positive it’s a negative number. So a simple thing as missing the decimal place or missing the – sign could screw things up if the code is looking for them. No – sign in front of the 9999 to the code means real data and passes it through.

      3.    This is not just a graphical bug, it is treating the numbers as real data not as ‘no data’. You can logically figure this out from this simple fact: The average anomaly is over 5000 and the 9999 appears on the temperature scale. If it was just a graphical bug where the code used Red instead of Grey as it is suppose to, the average anomaly would still read 0 and the temperature scale wouldn’t go to 9999. The 9999 is being used as data for those areas in the ‘Time Interval’ selection but is not being used in the ‘basleine’ selection (If it was used in both the oceans would be white and the Global average would be back to 0) and the code is using it to calculate the global average anomaly.

I played with the set up myself and did polar views that showed the entire planet bright red except for some dark red and posted the links to them in the comments section over on EM’s site.

UPDATE: I went and just tested those links and they are now dead with a message from GISS:

Surface Temperature Analysis: Maps

Simple reminder

Anomalies for any period with respect to itself is 0 by definition – no map needed

I wonder if GISS realizes that by placing the settings to a null value and turning the infill down to 250km it is much easier to see the no data areas, even when it was buggy. Also of note no mention that the code to do such a null value test is buggy.

Bottom line the code has a bug, it does use the 9999 as data in some cases, GISS is now aware of this problem and killed links to the maps made by the bug, you can’t redo the maps you get the reminder message. GISS should have acknowledged that the maps were due to a bug and they are looking at fixing the code not the message they put up. It smacks to much of the “Hide the decline” attitude. So this leaves us with some questions

1. Was the bug just confined to Null value maps? I tend to think so since there is enough no data areas, especially with no SST data added, to show a huge increase in average anomaly if it wasn’t.

2. Is there more bugs in the code that does affect the regular maps? Don’t know at this point, however once you find one bug in a code that has been released you have to actively start bug hunting again or get burnt (See Microsoft and buggy code after release).

3. Was this code used to make maps in official presentations? Again we don’t know but as an example was this code used in Dr. Hansens recent presention? If the answer is yes you have to keep this bug in mind when looking at his maps.