But environmentalists understand the real issue here, and it isn’t just about bed bugs. It’s all about lifting the ban on DDT that would be far reaching. The article goes on to say, “a local environmentalist and chemical scientist say thinking about bringing back powerful and banned chemicals is a bad idea.”
There is the real issue in a nut shell. If DDT’s ban is lifted then there will be serious efforts to do what this newly elected official wants to do when he uttered the most frightening words no green activist ever wants to hear: “I need to take a closer look at the science, but there are chemical solutions and I’d like to revisit that”.
The raw emotion created by Rachel Carson’s fallacious diatribe in her successful “science fiction” book Silent Spring against chemical pesticides is long past, and any honest scientific effort to revisit all these laws and regulations used since 1972 to eliminate these life saving products from the marketplace would devastate their movement. Carson’s claim about how the poor robin was going to disappear was not only wrong she was deliberately lying. The claims about bird shell thinning was a lie based on studies that deliberately eliminated calcium from the test bird’s diets. Carson had to know all of that and deliberately lied.
Scientists – if that’s what you choose to call them – have been going along with this propaganda for decades because it’s profitable, and as the years have gone by I have discovered these people are incapable of ramping up the moral fiber to be the rock in the current. ….[T]he ban on DDT is foundational to the green movement. If that’s overturned their foundation of sand will start to crumble and eventually everything they have promoted will be called into question. That’s a day that’s long overdue! The green movement’s success has been humanity’s nightmare. The…green monsters of the 20th century have left human devastation in their wake.
Doubling and even nearly tripling saturated fat in diets does not drive up total levels of saturated fat in the blood, according to a controlled diet study.
The researchers found that total saturated fat in the blood did not increase – and went down in most people – despite being increased in the diet when carbohydrates were reduced. Palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid associated with unhealthy metabolism of carbohydrates that can promote disease, went down with low-carb intake and gradually increased as carbs were re-introduced to the study diet.
However, increasing levels of carbohydrates in the diet during the study promoted a steady increase in the blood of a fatty acid linked to an elevated risk for diabetes and heart disease.
In the study, participants were fed six three-week diets that progressively increased carbohydrates while simultaneously reducing total fat and saturated fat, keeping calories and protein the same.
A sampling of foods provided to research participants during the three weeks that they were eating a very-low-carb diet. Credit: Ohio State University
The finding “challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn’t correlate with disease,” said senior author of the PLOS One paper Jeff Volek, a professor of human sciences at The Ohio State University. “It’s unusual for a marker to track so closely with carbohydrate intake, making this a unique and clinically significant finding. As you increase carbs, this marker predictably goes up.”
When that marker increases, he said, it is a signal that an increasing proportion of carbs are being converted to fat instead of being burned as fuel. Reducing carbs and adding fat to the diet in a well-formulated way, on the other hand, ensures the body will promptly burn the saturated fat as fuel – so it won’t be stored.
“When you consume a very low-carb diet your body preferentially burns saturated fat,” Volek said. “We had people eat 2 times more saturated fat than they had been eating before entering the study, yet when we measured saturated fat in their blood, it went down in the majority of people. Other traditional risk markers improved, as well.”
The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they’re trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn’t cooperating
This doesn’t mean the climate change “debate” will stop, the news media will cease reporting weather as a dire threat, or that the true believers will no longer be obsessed by it. However, the ultimate arbiter, climate itself, has made clear its decision by ceasing to warm for over 18 years. Despite the ongoing use of fossil fuels, a proclaimed 95% certainty of 97% of scientists and the high-powered projections of the world’s most advanced climate models, the climate has refused to pay the slightest heed.
Contrary to all the confidence and predictions of alleged experts, storms are no more intense nor frequent, while droughts, floods and sea levels have declined to confirm alarmists’ barely concealed hopes of disasters. The simple fact is that the alleged experts and their high-powered models were wrong. The climate has ceased to warm and, with little or no greenhouse warming, the entire theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), aka Climate Change (CC), aka Global Warming, aka Extreme Weather, is left with no basis.
The debate over CC has been unique in the history of science in that its proponents have largely abandoned the primacy of evidence and openly declared methodology in favour of self-proclaimed authority backed by their own confidential methods and models. It is also unique in that the alarmists refuse to directly address their arguments, prefering to ignore, censor and personally denigrate them. In a few instances in the early part of the public debate, the proponents attempted direct debate with their critics but came away looking decidedly second-best and they soon refused any further direct discussion. With no convincing answers to the uncertainties and conflicting evidence raised by their opponents they simply chose to ignore them, declare the science “settled” and anoint themselves as the only experts. All who disagreed agree were deemed to be fools, knaves and/or in the pay and pocket of Big Energy.
With a naive and compliant news media steeped in the same politically correct, left wing academic indoctrination as the researchers, the latter enjoyed a near monopoly on favourable news coverage. Self-serving publicity releases were regurgitated undigested beneath the by-lines of environmental “reporters”, who eagerly reduced themselves to unquestioning stenographers.
Although public opinion has coalesced around the belief that the bee death mystery is settled, the vast majority of scientists who study bees for a living disagree—vehemently.
How could a “Harvard study” and a sizable slice of the nation’s press get this story so wrong?.
The buzz that followed the publication of Lu’s latest study is a classic example of how dicey science can combine with sloppy reporting to create a ‘false narrative’—a storyline with a strong bias that is compelling, but wrong. It’s how simplistic ideas get rooted in the public consciousness. And it’s how ideology-driven science threatens to wreak public policy havoc.
Bees are important to our food supply. They help pollinate roughly one-third of crop species in the US, including many fruits, vegetables, nuts and livestock feed such as alfalfa and clover. That’s why the mystery of CCD is so troubling.
One of the central problems with Lu’s central conclusion—and much of the reporting—is that despite the colony problems that erupted in 2006, the global bee population has remained remarkably stable since the widespread adoption of neonics in the late 1990s. The United Nations reports that the number of hives has actually risen over the past 15 years, to more than 80 million colonies, a record, as neonics usage has soared.
Country by country statistics are even more revealing. Beehives are up over the past two decades in Europe, where advocacy campaigns against neonics prompted the EU to impose a two-year moratorium beginning this year on the use of three neonics.
Took them only couple of 100’s of billions euros but common sense starts to creep in.
GERMANY TO ABANDON STRICT ‘2020’ CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS
Germany’s Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, has indicated that the country will abandon its commitment to reducing CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2020, from a 1990 base level. In doing so he has won the ongoing clash with his own environmental minister Barbara Hendricks over energy policy, telling her that he will tolerate no further resistance to the change of direction, according to Der Speigel.
The target has been in doubt for some time, not least because Gabriel, a former environment minister himself and current minister for economic affairs and energy, is known to be supportive of the coal industry. According to the Environment Ministry, Germany would have to find a way of cutting emissions by between 62 and 100 million tonnes of CO2 every year for the next sixteen years in order to reach the target. Shutting down coal power stations would only contribute 40 million tonnes to that target.
“It’s clear that the [2020 CO2] target is no longer viable,” Gabriel said, adding: “We cannot exit from coal power overnight.” Earlier this year Gabriel told Spiegel: “It is an illusion to believe that Germany could simultaneously move away from both nuclear and coal energy”.
ACSH advisor Dr. Jerry Cuttler, an independent consultant based in Toronto, has been carrying on an almost solitary crusade to de-mythologize and tether to actual evidence the widespread fears and regulatory hyper-precaution concerning ionizing radiation and nuclear power. His recent talk at the VII International School on Nuclear Power, National Centre for Nuclear Research, in Warsaw Poland, was entitled Radiation effects on humans and organisms, and reasons for the fear.
His main focus was on the enhanced fear of radiation effects subsequent to the tsunami-induced damage to the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan in March of 2011. Some of his main points bear repeating:
- Fukushima radiation same as natural background radiation
- Evacuation resulted in 1600 premature deaths
- Precautionary action was not “conservative”
- Chronic radiation is beneficial < 700 mGy/year. Radiation becomes harmful > 700 mGy/year (According to the National Council on Radiation Protection, the average person receives about 3.6 mGy/year from background sources and a dental X-ray is about .005 mGy).
- The official policy, “linear non-threshold,” is invalid, based not on science, but on antinuclear ideology
- End regulations based on politicized science