Peter -

It is quite noticeable that you continue to duck a rather simple question.

I will link you to my comment to gbaikie above. Any time you’d like to rectify the facile nature of your assertion, and address just some of the issues I raised above, I would be interested in reading your response.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/post-normal-science-deadlines/#comment-226672

In the meantime, I find it quite interesting that when asked to consider important aspects in relation to your claim that the DDT ban killed tens of millions, you consider addressing problems with your statement as a “diversion.” Unfortunately, I think that says quite a bit about your argument.

If your interest is on policy, then you should address important considerations of the outcomes of various policy options, and not simply dismiss those you find inconvenient as a “diversion.”

and gbaikie -

Just ’cause I know you’ll want to address all the problems, there is also the problem of “cross-resistance,” where prolong usage of DDT (DDT require prolonged usage to be effective) causes resistance to other insecticides. And I just read in Wikipedia that there may also be a problem in that DDT’s irritant properties can actually “promote outdoor transmission.”

http://www.shvoong.com/exact-sciences/1747531-ddt-fallen-angel/

“The 95% figure was Jim Karlocks not mine. Levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased by about 40% since pre-industrial times from 280ppmv to the current level of 390ppmv. These figures may not sound much but they are significant.”

Sure 40% increase is a significant increase. And perhaps greater than it might appear, considering one is suppose get about 1 C increase per doubling.
Meaning before 40% level one has slightly more than 1/2 of the warming should have occurred.
Or the increase 280 to 390 has more warming than will the 390 to 560 increase.
Or the more CO2 added the more is needed to get same increase in temperature- because it’s based doubling the amount to get 1.
If start doubling at say 100, then 100 ppm added gets 1. but at 200, you need 200 to get 1. [Or it's 2 instead of 1- its same thing. start at 100, add 100, and get 2, from 200, need add 200 to get another 2.]
Or if imagine that CO2 rise has already caused .8 C, then by 560 ppm it will cause around another .8 C.
Of course the excuse is that 1: there delay in the warming [looks bad after 15 years of non-warming] 2: that natural variability would caused it to be much cooler without the added CO2. Which also is “bad for warmists, because it’s much better to be this much warmer than compared to being a lot more colder. Or the warming affect of CO2, has scorecard, of saving a few hundred million people from death.
The other excuse is version of 1. CO2 is mostly heating ocean [and explains why the atmosphere *failed* to warm more. The problem with the this excuse is why wouldn't, then, continue warming the ocean and failing to warm the air. The result being air doesn't warm much, ocean warms a lot, and might have some noticeable effect in couple thousand years [and help stave off the coming ice age].
And course there certainly a lot different theories for the “the settled science” which offer by the believers [not even including the wacky ideas of the heretics].
Some other believer and non-believer ideas are step increases. And CAGWer who believe one can make the Gaia Goddess angry. Or “One of these days… POW!!! Right in the kisser!”.

“gbaikie –

Mosquito resistance to DDT is a very complicated issue; for example, one of the complications is that physiologically resistant mosquitoes can develop resistance to the repellent effects.

The studies that you cite with carefully applied DDT for vector control are not particularly helpful in understanding the impact of widespread, largely indiscriminate spraying for agricultural purposes – which was the target of the international agreements on DDT usage. ”

Yeah, I think you missing the real important point. Stupid Americans before the beginning of 20th century- could handle Malaria. The existence of Panama canal is the proof. The French went bankrupt, because the problem with Malaria- it was driving there costs thru the roof.

And it would be analogous to nuclear energy. The campaign against nuclear energy in the US, mainly stopped more nuclear reactor to be made, because it drove up the costs of making new nuclear powerplants.

The campaign against DDT, stopped any effort to stop Malaria in other countries. Because it threw the solution out the window, the solution which policy could be based upon to solve the problem. And without a solution, you can’t get traction on getting something done. Even if Malaria for whatever reason would not have worked [which isn't the case] it still would given direction to the project to stop all this needless death and suffering.
And it demonstrate lack of compassion for other people.
All this silly fuss, would not have stopped Americans for solving the problem [solving problem would involved immediately using DDT] if American children dying in hundreds of thousands each year.

Michael,

You and the others who are obsessing about the DDT ban are missing the point. The point is not about whether you can now argue about the detailed science.

The point is that it was another example of massive hysteria, fervour belief, scaremongering, hype and zealotory. Just like CAGW.

And it was fostered on us by the same types – the catastrophists, alarmists, eco-warriors, zealots, extremists (pick what describes you best). That is the point.

Myrrh,
“That 67°C for the temperature without water is, or used to be, standard, as was spotted, the wiki reference referred back to a NASA page which has since disappeared it.”
NASA is at its darkest age under Hensen. When he were gone, it should be back .

Robert,
You were led to misconception with AGW bias to have counted gbaikie made half-a-dozen basic factual errors. The basic problem with gbaikie is English which I suppose is not his (and my) native language. His basic is fine and arguments are quite sound.

- Or the ground, walls and ceiling will control air temperature. One has a factor, if one has a large enough greenhouse in which allows gravity to have significant affect [rather than merely being pressure container] and such a large greenhouse would act more like a atmosphere than like a pressure vessel. And of course to more closely mimic an atmosphere one need a larger greenhouse.-

So continuing above.
If one had a roofless greenhouse on the Moon, one could get the highest air temperature of an atmosphere at Earth distance.
One also needs to reduce losses to walls.
So very large diameter high elevation curtain/wall having moon’s gravity keeping the air from leaving.
So diameter of say 1000 km. And wall height of say 100 km. The higher the wall the more atmosphere it hold and retain for hundreds of years.
You could make smaller: 100 km diameter and 5-10 km high walls.
The 100 km high walls still would not be high enough hold a earth like atmosphere [mainly because of Moon's low gravity]
But point is if you had a 1000 km diameter area with 100 km walls one could hold some atmosphere- perhaps breathable.
But question is how warm would the air get in a week of constant sunlight?
Getting low elevation air temperature of more than 80 C seems fairly likely.
It seems one have some serious problems related to rapid surface air heat, and lifting thermal effects.

Peter -

You and the others who are obsessing about the DDT ban are missing the point. The point is not about whether you can now argue about the detailed science.

I realize that you have awarded yourself the power to arbitrarily determine what “the” point is, but what’s interesting here is that you’re focusing on a point that you say isn’t the point.

The point is that it was another example of massive hysteria, fervour belief, scaremongering, hype and zealotory. Just like CAGW.

According to you, this isn’t the point – so why are you discussing it?

Actually, Peter,>Strong> I think that point is (do I have the same power to determine “the” point as you do?) that you want to discuss policy, yet you promote myths – such as about the “ban” on DDT causing tens of millions of deaths – as a basis on which to discuss policy. Policy rooted in myths is inherently poor policy. You were asked, multiple times, to justify your statement given the problems of DDT resistance, and you declared that a “diversion,” and now you circle back around to enter the discussion?

Peter – justify your statement. If you can’t then there really is no reasonable conclusion other than you actually had no idea what you were talking about, and you were cynically exploiting the deaths of tens of millions of people merely for the sake of political expediency.

Once again, Peter, – have you accounted for the problems of DDT resistance as you seek to blame “progressives” for the deaths of tens of millions of people from malaria? It is a rather simple question. There is no valid justification for you not to present your answer, and if your answer is yes, to elaborate in some detail. Were you just repeating something that you heard, something as serious as that accusation, without bothering to investigate its veracity? Did you do that only because it confirmed your political orientation?

You seem to research issues thoroughly and you present yourself as quite a knowledgeable person; I have seen you now, tell other people more than once that they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about – despite that it seems to others on this board that actually they are quite well-informed. How can you be expected to be taken seriously in any of these claims, and in your presentation of yourself as one who is well-informed, if you actually blame people for tens of millions of deaths yet can’t justify that claim?

gbaikie –

I do want to acknowledge that as opposed to our friend Peter – you are at least willing to engage on the question of whether Peter’s statement blaming the deaths of tens of millions of people on “progressives” and the “ban” on DDT is accurate.

However, I have some problems with your latest post:

I would characterize the ban of DDT as direct result of the Silent of Spring- a popular overwrought book hyping some perceived danger.

First, do you know what Carson actually said about DDT in Silent Spring?

“It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I contend…that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself.”

Her concerns were validated – and concerns about the problems from resistance were not new with the publishing of Silent Spring.

Be that as it may….

But if the question is would all the tens of millions of deaths been saved if not for the Silent Spring? First it written in September 27 1962. And to quote what I quoted “DDT was the main component of the WHO Global Malaria Eradication Program during the 1950-60s. ” So book couldn’t had any effect BEFORE 1962.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is – but as I said, the problem with resistance was known in the 1950s.

But to the point: I think that it is agenda-driven rhetoric- it illustrates a point. It is a political issue. And calls attention to the issue….So I think it’s fair to say it lessened the chances of saving some percentage of this group of tens of millions who suffered and died.

So now we have to put these two statements together. A claim that the “ban” cost tens of millions of deaths is less than completely true. Accounting for resistance, and other complicating issues as we’ve discussed, how many of those tens of millions would not have died absent the ban? Do you have any actual idea?

Was it 10%? 30%? 5%? .005%? So if the claim “calls attention to the problem,” it does so by inaccurately exploiting the deaths of how many people (the # who would have died absent the “ban”) for political expediency? Ten million? 1 million? You don’t actually know, do you?

i would suggest that you are dancing around the obvious. That kind of cynical exploitation of the deaths of (how many?) people is not really in the interest of calling attention to a problem, but in advancing a political agenda at the expense of well-reasoned discussion. Allow Peter to do that on his own if he wishes to do so – unfortunately to his discredit. It is a facile argument, based on facile logic. You don’t effectively “call attention” to problems in such a manner.

Questioning the wisdom of the “ban” on DDT is a very reasonable and important focus. It deserves a valid and scientific process of scientific investigation. Political expediency through exploiting deaths is not the way to undergo such investigation. I think you and I can agree on that.

World leaders and their pet scientists are feeling the heat now.

We had a primary election here in Missouri today, amid rumors that politicians are buying votes:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/deferred-action-program-could-legalize-1-8-million-221839009.html

+1. Since when has personal choices and responsibility been so out of vogue?

“First, do you know what Carson actually said about DDT in Silent Spring?

“It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I contend…that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself.”

Her concerns were validated – and concerns about the problems from resistance were not new with the publishing of Silent Spring.”

Of course there is many chemical insecticides.
So I guess search internet and find quote about what she said about DDT. So this doesn’t have direct quotes, but says:
“1962 Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, sprang onto the scene. It claimed that bird’s egg shells were thinning (especially those of birds such as the eagle) and other environmental problems were arising as a result of pesticides such as DDT.”

And message which gotten to public was DDT would cause extinction of birds [and maybe all of them]. All very similar to CAGW- unknown things are going to happen- be scared. This was quite entrenched in the culture before was a teen.
Anyhow. Quotes. Here’s one:
” Over increasingly large areas of the United States, spring now comes unheralded by the return of the birds, and the early mornings are strangely silent where once they were filled with the beauty of bird song.
— Rachel Carson
http://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/D_Cat/DDT-Quotations.htm
It’s the Gore saying, New York being under water from sea level rise,
kind of thing.
Here some one who thinks she a hero:
Silent Spring:

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s next book was published: Silent Spring. Carefully researched over 4 years, the book documented the dangers of pesticides and herbicides. She showed the long-lasting presence of toxic chemicals in water and on land and the presence of DDT even in mother’s milk, as well as the threat to other creatures, especially songbirds.
After Silent Spring:

Despite a full-scale assault from the agricultural chemical industry, which called the book everything from “sinister” and “hysterical” to “bland,” the public’s concern was raised. ”
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/carsonrachel/p/rachel_carson.htm

So to be clear DDT was never a threat to song birds. I never killed one song bird.
And important point you seem to ignore is: “public’s concern was raised.”
Raised, yes but public concern was utterly clueless. And remains utterly clueless. It caused fear, because it told something was going blight the land and they had no control over it.
As anyone praising the brave Al Gore, is almost guaranteed to know NOTHING about science and particularly nothing about climate science. And zero interest in the topic, in it’s “settled science”.
Well, how about a summary:
The theme of Silent Spring would definitely have to be related to the centralized idea of the environment. The main idea behind this novel is how pesticides, which are applied to the environment to stop pests from eating away at crops or disturbing crop growths actually do more harm than good. Carson based her theme on the environment because she wrote from the perspective of what the pesticides would be doing to the environment and how we should all take the environment more seriously because harm to the environment would eventually lead to harm for us. When the pesticides get trapped in the soil and it rains, the pesticides will enter our water supplies. When it gets into our water supply, we will consume it in our bodies and it will cause serious nervous, endocrine, reproductive and organ failures. Luckily for us, we are at the top of the food chain so the animals before us, such as the birds are the ones affected more severely and faster than we would be.
Reading Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is a complete wake up call for all people because at some point or another every one of us has been exposed to harmful pesticides intentionally or unintentionally. Rachel Carson explains that when DDT was sprayed to help control the pests in some agriculture lands in the Midwest it was doing more harm than
Carson’s topic was on pesticides and the environment. Carson focused in on the different kinds of pesticides such as DDT, Chlordane, Heptachlor, Dieldrin, Aldrin, and Endrin. Each pesticide has a certain agricultural crop that it works best to kill the pests off of. Each pesticide has its own weight that it can damage, for example Aldrin causes kidney and liver failure and when ingested as the size of an aspirin pill it is enough to kill almost four hundred quails! Endrin is the most toxic of the chlorinated hydrocarbons and is highly dangerous for humans. As for birds, Endrin is about three hundred times more poisonous than any other pesticide. Carson’s focus was about the different types of pesticides and what affects it had on the soil and the well beings of humans and wildlife.
Carson’s main points throughout this novel would have to be that she wanted DDT to be banned and she wanted the use of pesticides to be banished. Carson made many pleas with the government to see that DDT was doing more harm than good. Carson recorded the average deaths of cardinals and robins in one area of the United States and she saw that when DDT was sprayed in that area there were hardly any living birds at all. Carson saw that the birds would slowly get convulsions and then suddenly die. A report earlier showed that nearly all of the cardinals and robins in that area died and had been on the streets where DDT was sprayed. In that area the overall population of the birds fell because the DDT in their bodies was poisonous that caused them to go into severe convulsions and die instantly.
http://www.shvoong.com/books/novel-novella/1910019-silent-spring/#ixzz22vqv7COX
For some reason this guy has different take than our quote indicates

Apropos climate science and conspiracy theories, conventional analysis has it completely back-to-front.

Since
- climate science is funded by the state, and
- the state stands to massively benefit from a finding of alarmism

Then
far from it being or requiring a conspiracy for a finding of alarmism, it is business-as-usual for state climate science.

In fact it would be most surprising if they ‘concluded’ anything else – indeed for that to happen would really need a conspiracy; government scientists would have to secretly agree to act honestly instead of advancing the interests of their paymaster and ideological home*, the state. Which, as Climategate shows, is exactly the opposite of what is actually going on.

–

* Studies show a large majority of climate scientists have a strong totalitarian bias, as evidenced by their voting Democrat.

climatereason | August 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

..the complexity of the sea can not be ..

This is an important question. In Chaos Theory, in Complexity Theory, sometimes the process of simplification can distill a complex system into a general principle.

A sparrow and a cannonball are both ruled by the same Physics in flight; there is no question the path of the one can be described and prediced to great accuracy (but not perfectly) by Newton’s Laws; the sparrow? Not so much.

With a mere three centuries of Newton’s tools and brilliance to guide the entirety of human thought, we can even now _explain_ the path of the cannonball, based on the discovery of a particle that is probably the Higgs Boson. The work of CERN, and others, put together, gives us evidence for that explanation.

How much evidence, and of what quality, do you think that is? Compared with the evidence for AGW? The evidence for CO2E’s influence on global temperature, and on many other effects besides? One percent? One tenth of one percent? Less? Yet the Higgs Field explanation for gravity is fairly well tolerated by most.

But back to Complexity. When can we Simplify a Complex system into such parameterized formulae as Muller et al produced? As Hansen et al? As Mann? In general, when it works, but not when it doesn’t.

The correlation of CO2E with temperature isn’t perfect. Aerosols complicates the connection. Yet with only a handful of factors we can see a probable explanation for global temperature that actually works, and that works through manifold ridges and changes, which forms a ‘fingerprint’ in graphical terms. Experience tells that fingerprints of this sort are very powerful persuasive instruments. The Simplification done by Muller is plausible, over 95% of the time. Where there are excursions, they tend to be about 2:1 warmer rather than cooler than the CO2E, but to still have plausible explanations for the most part.

Are these excursions in the 20th dodecile Complex? Yes. Dr. Curry will be right in that 1/20th of the climate. Might there be a super-tipping-point that will wipe out the correlation of CO2E and temperature? Sure, could happen; but it’s not like that’s something to desire, because those sorts of breaks in Complex systems always involve extraordinary increases in the Disorder of the system.

Fan

This ‘thuggish’ behaviour occurs on both sides in many forums but has been especially bad here the last few days by a number of sceptics. They are intelligent people and hopefully they will review the material they have written here and realise it is inappropriate. You have my apologies at least for the poor behaviour displayed here by some that shows rational sceptics in a bad light.

tonyb

Edim | August 7, 2012 at 11:18 am |

You didn’t know when the Industrial Revolution started?

Hardly my fault if you don’t acquaint yourself with where the goalposts are by this late date. Or are you accusing me of changing the date of the Industrial Revolution?

Though always nice to see people brushing up on source data, and reviewing correlations on graphs.

captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 7, 2012 at 10:56 am |

And a semi-relevant reference to Unintended Consequences of state promotion of impractical enterprises that can’t stand on their own. A lesson it would be nice if the USA’s northern neighbor learned about its massive Syncrude subsidies starting in the 1960′s.

“Land use contributed to the Dust Bowl,” is a reported popular theory. I no more hold to it nor deny it than I do such impossible to define and prove hypotheticals as the MWP or the LIA. I’d say that science was never really settled.

Unlike today, when we’ve got enough data, enough observations, enough tools and proofs, evidence and knowledge, to warrant decisive action. Well, if by “today” you mean any time in the past 30 years or so.

Because in a Market that inspires the confidence of the buyers and sellers in the equity of dealings, there are fewer barriers to entry and participation, and higher net efficiency. You’ve spent too much time reading socialist agitprop, judging by your “truly deserve and wisely save” malarky.

k scott denison | August 6, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

And you welcomed the government changing the rules and limiting your recourse to just and fair outcomes based on flummery and nonsense of well-connected developers?

You sound like Howard Rich.

I do believe that’s the first time I’ve seen a Curry snip.

I don’t know what was snipped, actually, so don’t blame me if I repeat the offense. Was it the link to public records showing the salaries of state employees? I think it’s very relevant to this debate for taxpayers to know how much of their money goes to academic advocates of anthropogenic climate change. Extremely relevant. Ever heard the phrase “Follow the money?” Sure you have. Yet you won’t allow it. Hits a little too close to home would be my guess.

Or maybe that wasn’t what got snipped. I don’t really know.