"How is it that a "Christian" radio station can talk about global warming"?

Because it's allowed.

Okay, Okay... I don't want to sound flippant about the subject. And I am concerned, but put a few things into perspective.

1. We live on a dynamic planet
2. We live in a dynamic universe
3. Global warming has been occurring since the ICE AGE stopped. I know that sounds stupid, but if you think about it... it is a correct observation.
4. For giggles... the Yellowstone Caldera has blown 2x in geological history (that scientists can determine through strata analysis). In doing so the ash fallout destroyed life on the land mass both times, and was fairly close to covering 2/3's of the size of the U.S.
5. It WILL blow again - use a geological frame of reference for a time line.

Who know's a meteor could strike first...

That's the problem with living on a dynamic planet. We're probably not going to extinguish ourselves. The forces of 'nature' inherent to our world, could very easily do it for us.

Anyone can talk about it, there are countless books and websites (authoritative in content), that spell it all out. What's the surprise here?

Why are you surprised that a radio station of a particular persuasion discusses things. What if they were discussing the origin of Number Theory, or the brotherhood of Pythagoras, and the brotherhood's "discovery" of perfect numbers. Or how Pythagoras came up with principles of musical harmony? People think. It's what we do. Why should that confound you so?

Well, it has nothing to do with "strengthening the family," it has nothing to do with espousing Christian principles, and it has nothing to do with spreading peace, love, and joy.

A Christian radio host talking about Global warming is kind of like an atheist evolutionary biologist talking about theology.

Sure it's allowed, but why should you listen to what they have to say about it?

Why not? It adds to the discourse. Why do people believe in theories... when they are only guesses?

I thought Joey's observations about our dynamic planet were most astute. However, those truths do not relive us of our responsibility to keep our air, water and food supplies reasonably uncontaminated and fit for human consumption.

I am as skeptical of Christian dominionist rhetoric as I am of environmentalist rhetoric that includes the words, "corporate lapdogs." Is it really about caring for our environment or is it fear mongering for the sake of anti-capitalism?

In a free market, it is the people who decide with whom they will do business, it is the people who make the corporations work, and it is up to the people to consume less, to keep ourselves informed, and to avoid doing business with companies that are not good corporate citizens.

Capitalism gives the people a voice every time they decide what they will of will not buy and from whom they will buy it. Look to the masses, we have exactly the environment, economy, and culture we choose to purchase.

"Global Warming" may very well be happening and it may very well be humanity's "fault," for having naturally progressed to the point where we have become industrialized.

But it might not be us at all. Nobody really knows for sure and everyone's taking his or her own little leaps of faith, here and there.

As for partisans towing the party line on some Christian radio station, so what? The producers are just giving their listeners what they want to hear.

Sure it's allowed, but why should you listen to what they have to say about it?

More to the point (in my estimation), why would its intended audience want to hear about it? Geez, they can hear about global warming or lack thereof on damn near every AM station on the dial. I thought that people who listened to Christian radio chose it because they wanted to hear Christian messages INSTEAD OF the usual rhetoric.

What if Christian listeners only dialed in Christian radio, because they were not assaulted with bad language, sexual innuendo etc... Christian radio then becomes the Christian listener's "home" station. There they would hear news, talk, preaching, praise and worship music... a station delivering the whole package without the offensive qualities of modern radio. In effect you would not only have the audience, but the advertising dollars that go with it... delivering a comprehensive package to the target audience.

That's good business. Christians will tend to go to businesses run by Christians. Furthermore, Christian businesses make of point of letting Christians know who and where they are, in print as well as the airwaves. The Christian also understands that by using Christian businesses a percentage of what they pay for services will also return back to the Christian community in the form of tithes to the business owners respective churches.

The same goes for Jewish businesses, who really started the practice of keeping it all within the group.

Joey said:

"What if Christian listeners only dialed in Christian radio, because they were not assaulted with bad language, sexual innuendo etc... Christian radio then becomes the Christian listener's "home" station."

Joey,

That's exactly my point. All those people listening are getting a slanted perspective on global warming. Ms. Parshall had only climate change skeptics on her show. What does that have to do with Christianity? Why couldn't she have both sides do an honest discussion of the issue?

If you are only listening to the Christian station, you are not getting the full picture and the facts about global warming. Instead you get a slanted, ideological perversion of Christianity.

Lessee...

Would I rather listen to Christoids talkin' about Science...

or a pack of baboons read Joyce's Ulysses aloud??

hmmmm... life's full of tough choices...

re: "...Christians or Corporate Lapdogs?"

Godammit.

I'd love to vote, but I don't see "Dangerous Deluded Fuckheaded Idiots" on the list.

[shrugs]

M. Toigo: "...Look to the masses, we have exactly the environment, economy, and culture we choose to purchase."

I hate to agree... but...

...

...

...

...

...


[cut to Shark putting 9mm Glock in his mouth and pulling the trigger]

MORE REALLY ALL-AMERICAN, LIBERTARIAN, CAPITALISTIC WET DREAMY FUCKING INCREDIBLY DELUDED AND DEPRESSING BULLSHIT:

M. Toigo: "...In a free market, it is the people who decide with whom they will do business..."


[cut to Shark with cartoon thought-balloon over his head that says, "YOU MUST BE FUCKING JOKING!" -- while standing in Wal-Mart studying his "choices" among 35 different kinds of Toilet Paper -- all made by the same company... in China.]

M. Toigo said:

Look to the masses, we have exactly the environment, economy, and culture we choose to purchase.

Well, Americans and Europeans get to 'choose to purchase', but it is the poor of the world who will face the consequences of our out of control consumption.

As for us becoming informed citizens and choosing to purchase wisely... well, it's kind of hard to learn the facts when Exxonmobile is giving millions of dollars to politicians and thinktanks to muddy the waters. That's my point.

Is it really about caring for our environment or is it fear mongering for the sake of anti-capitalism?


Hey, you called me out. All this environmental stuff is just a smokescreen so I can establish a socialist state and give your wealth away to the brown people of the world. You are so astute.

Sorry about the term 'corporate lapdog.' I was going to say 'whores' but I thought I'd keep it clean for the front page.

Look, if the consequence of unfettered capitalism is the death of thousands or millions of people, well then I am an anticapitalist, and I would hope you are too.

The problem is that there are a few very powerful and rich corporations pulling the strings here. That's not a free market, that's monopoly, and it's very dangerous.

Shark? Long time.

[cut to shArk having extremely little else to keep him entertained]

shArk, there are many different brands of toilet paper on the market and most of them are made in the USA by American corporations, which are made up of lots and lots of people and are supported by even more people because without the people, corporations would not exist.

(I will admit, however, that I really don't know what sort of toilet paper Wal-Mart sells as I do not shop there.)


Indeed, Future Geek, it is the poor of the world who will face the consequences of our out of control consumption. So what are you doing about it? Are you controlling your consumption? Do you read labels, keep up with the news and consider the products you purchase carefully?

You and a number of others seem to be well-informed about climate changes and other issues regarding our environment. Perhaps those millions of dollars that ExxonMobile gave to those politicians and think tanks "to muddy the waters" didn't pay off for them so well after all.

If some people want to limit themselves to Christian radio, that's their business. But why concern yourself with the people you are least likely to reach when there is a vast moderate middle who is well-informed and who will listen and perhaps take heed?

"All this environmental stuff is just a smokescreen so I can establish a socialist state and give your wealth away..."

That was sarcasm, right?

No, I am not at all concerned that environmentalists are conspiring to establish a socialist state so that they may force us to live as we did before the Industrial Revolution, any more than I believe the religious right has the potential to gain sufficient power to drag us all kicking and screaming back to the days before the Sexual Revolution.

The trouble with terms such as "corporate lapdog" and "corporate whore" is that they are so obviously propagandistic. You're not going to convince anyone of anything with such nonsense, all you'll be doing is preaching to the already-converted choir.

Unfettered capitalism is anarchy, not freedom. The rights of the people must be protected and defended against the business practices of those who violate the rights of the people, which do include the right to air, water, and food that are reasonably uncontaminated and fit for human consumption.

Those powerful and rich corporations that appear to be "pulling the strings here" are made up of millions of people and they are supported by many more millions of people who are living the free market, working and redistributing the fruits of their labors.

No one is forced to be in that world (and there are plenty of alternatives out there if one is willing to work hard and make sacrifices), but many choose it because of the natural human need to belong to something bigger than oneself, to be a part of this great civilization humanity has achieved over the past two centuries.

Boy what a nasty radio program. I found this place because I watch for the name "Myron Ebell".

Look, there's several ways to look at this Christian thing. This is how religions or political parties always behave when they are in power. When they are not in charge, they talk about popular things like peace, love and justice, then when they get in control it's as vile as the Spanish Inquisition.

I think the most serious moral issue above all else is LYING. Most people are reasonable and want to do good, but large numbers of them can be made to do bad stuff by being lied to.

I get great hope that just anyone can check up on their computer the names of these "guests" to see if they are being paid to lie. However, I am also despairing that when earlier direct and consistent lies are exposed, such as those which enabled the Iraq war in 2003, there are no repercussions whatsoever. Not one person was guilty. No one is outraged. It never happened. Forget about it already. They just don't care. This is true evidence of moral corruption.

Myron Ebell and Iain Murray know full well that global warming is happening. They know how many credible scientific papers they are having to skip through to find those nuggets they can use out of context to further their lies. It's that clear. I just wish we had some sort of cultural understanding that could promise that when matters like climate change or the non-existance of WMD becomes too apparent to ignore, people would go back through these interviews that they made and hold them to account. What they're doing is worse than rape in my view; the damage is enormous.

Duane, yeah, hiya, xxoo. I miss you too. I remember those fabulous free physics lessons and the attempts to define "Science" for the Christoid anti-evolutionists -- who apparently never read a dictionary and also skipped science class in the 7th Grade.

Yah. I drop in every six months or so just to remind myself that the FUCKING APOCALYPSE is still heading our way.

[cut to Micheal J. West not only stealing my style -- but with nothing better to do than to criticize me because he has little else to keep him entertained]

BTW, Mickey, SHARK posted more "entertainment value" in 15 minutes than has been posted on this entire site for the past year or so. And you should get down on your knees and pray to Gawd I stick around to make this boring piece of shit site a tad more interesting.

Gotta run! The new article on "The Apprentice" is up!

Shark, always nice to see you - good to see the solipcism is intact

Shark!!!

luv you maaAAAAaaaan!

e-mail me if ya get the chance, underscore between first and last at the hotmail place

i'll get back to this piece later....

Excelsior?

Where was it that I read this? Ah yes, "The World According to Garp"

"Every business is a shitty business."

Commercial radio, publishing, selling butter and eggs - the same rule holds.

You want the tree hugger viewpoint of things? Go to Pacifica Radio. You want the corporate whores? Go elsewhere - including CPB.

Christians and corporatists have hign affinity because they both feel comfortable in large oppressive hierarchies. And they think everyone should be content to be so governed. Popes and CEOs, Bishops and VPs, etc., they both speak knowledgeably and admiringly about the components of hierarchy.

To christians and corporatists alike science and technology are threats because they have no respect for power, only for discovery and change, and that threatens their grip on statements of the imposed reality the corp and the church presume to define. So their solution is the same solution they always use: oppression and domination.

They are natural allies. It's always been that way.

Bliffle: ... science and technology are threats because they have no respect for power, only for discovery and change ....

You've captured something there. Very nice. It's interesting that, for example, ID proponents try to portray "science" as a monolithic hierarchy based on authority, when it's actually a bunch of people trying to prove that everyone else is wrong. I hadn't thought about the Christian-corporate connection before. Can't comment on that, although I understand the analogy.

You want the tree hugger viewpoint of things? Go to Pacifica Radio. You want the corporate whores? Go elsewhere - including CPB.

Ruvy,

There's no Pacifica radio where I live... and no Pacifica across most of the United States - unless you have high speed internet.

On the other hand, Salem Radio Network is the third largest radio station owner in the US - and aggressively expanding.

That's the problem.

Future Geek,

Pick up the local NPR or APR affiliate where you are. They are bound to carry some shows from Pacifica Radio. They kiss Arab ass enough but they haven't sold out entirely. At least I don't think so...

Ruvy,

Thanks, but like I said, there is no Pacifica here unless you have high speed internet. Nor was there Pacifica in the city where I used to live.

On the other hand, Citadel Communications took over a very powerful transmitter where I used to live. A popular station in the middle of the FM dial that used to play rock music now plays conservative talk shows all day long and beams it all over the eastern half of the state.

Like I said... it's a problem.

Only dominionist Christians have a high affinity for large, oppressive hierarchies and think everyone should be content to be so governed, while other Christians actually follow the teachings of Christ and serve humanity by feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, educating the ignorant, etc.

And, yes, there are businesses out there that fear new scientific theories and discoveries that affect their bottom lines, but others see such knowledge as opportunities to improve and expand theirs.

Biffle's analogy is an interesting one that unfortunately applies to certain types of Christians and some corporations. However, the notion that all Christians and all corporations are alike is an example of sophistry, not very much unlike that which is employed by certain types of Christians and some corporations for the purpose of forwarding their respective social, economic and political agendas.

For the record, I have always viewed the war in Iraq as a waste of resources, even before the question of whether or not Iraq had WMDs was answered definitively.

It is not yet known whether it was lies or incompetence or a little of both that enabled Mr. Bush and his administration to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the Coalition of the Willing.

2003 was not really that long ago. 2006 is a mid-term election year, Republican incumbents are under fire from their constituencies and Mr. Bush's approval rating is hovering around 30%, with little sign of improvement. So have a little patience and don't forget to vote this November.

While there is some very compelling documentation and evidence of climate change, it is, by no means, definitive proof of its cause. Perhaps it is a result of industrialization, maybe it is just the natural fluctuations of our planet or it could be a little of both.

Because there is no concrete answer to that question, we take our various and sundry leaps of faith and believe whatever seems most plausible and advantageous to our individual motives.

Indeed, lying is a very serious moral issue because it causes confusion. Some unethical corporate citizens lie about how their business practices affect our air, water and food supplies by playing down certain inconvenient truths, while some environmentalists lie about the effects of industry upon our air, water and food supplies by overstating those same inconvenient truths.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are caught somewhere in the middle of all those exaggerations and understatements, not really knowing if humanity's achievements will eventually lead to humanity's doom, and wondering how the human race can possibly survive without reasonably uncontaminated air, water, and food that are fit for human consumption or without the industrialization upon which we have all come to depend for our way of life.

Of course, the above either/or proposition is a false dichotomy, which is why we must strike some sort of balance between those two extremes -- and neither side helps when it promotes radicalism instead of reason.

duane: It's interesting that, for example, ID proponents try to portray "science" as a monolithic hierarchy based on authority...

Well, that's logically consistent. ID proponents see everything as a monolithic heirarchy based on authority.

JR (#30), exactamente. I was thinking about this a little as I was driving into work. It's not entirely consistent that IDers see the scientific enterprise as though it were authority-based, while at the same time feeling threatened by the scientific community's lack of respect for power. I don't think the leaders of the ID movement see science that way. I think they are perfectly aware of how science is done, although they are unable to practice what they see. It could be that they cast scientists in a false light -- members of a rigid heirarchy trembling in fear of castigation at the thought of questioning the dogmatic stance of their leaders -- for the benfeit of their constituency. When ID leaders portray the "enemy" in this way, the uninitiated receivers of "ID wisdom" are better able to identify the nature of the "battle." It's our edifice of beliefs against your edifice of beliefs. Ha! It just so happens that our beliefs are based on the word of a universal omnipotent being, whereas your beliefs are derived from old, if not dead, narrow-minded atheistic curmudgeons in lab coats. You lose!

It just so happens that our beliefs are based on the word of a universal omnipotent being, whereas your beliefs are derived from old, if not dead, narrow-minded atheistic curmudgeons in lab coats. You lose!

HA! HA! HA!

Right on... you've hit on the essence of both their arrogance and their stupidity.

If, as some have suggested, science does not respect power, is that not a good thing? I would submit, however, that religion and science are not inherently at odds with one another-- it's the various supplicants who are.
I don't believe in religions--they are created by men with ulterior motives. I do, however, believe that spirituality is fundamental to human existence.
Of course, the "Christian" radio station has a biased viewpoint. So does Tim O'Reilly. So does Al Franken. They're all selling ad space that appeals to their individual demographic. So that renders that particular argument moot.
A lot of people on both sides pay a lot of lip service to the effects, or lack thereof, of global warming.
It's not a theory, any more than evolution is a theory--some facts are inescapable.I live in Dallas, and I see, or more to the point, the effects of it on a daily basis. Each year here is hotter than the one before it, the smog levels are on the rise, the droughts worsen, our ozone levels are among the very worst in the country and we have the highest incidence of skin cancer in the US.
Oddly, we're also one of the top markets for SUV's. I see Christians, Jews and Muslims tooling around (or the would be tooling if we weren't in gridlock most of the time) if only to go to the corner 7-11.
This isn't an issue of some crackpot radio personality blathering on about something--it's an issue for which must take responsibility...
...or die.

"...the notion that all Christians and all corporations are alike is an example of sophistry,..."

Ah, only in recent times have The Sophists, once considered important teachers, fallen on such hard times that the very mention of their name is considered a disparagement.

First off, to everyone, I'm not sure I said everything I needed to say. Janet Parshall's show is nationwide, carried on a very large radio network, Salem Radio Network. It's not just some wingnut on a local AM station.

SRN is nationwide, and aggressively expanding - and it is biased. I don't have a problem with individuals, Christian or otherwise, expressing their opinion and debating the issues. I have a problem with misinformation being peddled out by powerful media groups with agendas.

Secondly: Those of you who are skeptics about global warming: check your facts. There is not "wide debate" about whether it is happening or who is causing it. Maybe there was 10 years ago, but today, it is the consensus that it is happening, and that it is caused by emissions.

Check your sources. Who do they work for? What are their qualifications? Who's paying them to research?

The problem with global warming skeptics, like the intelligent design crowd, is that all they have to do is keep repeating "well, there's still some doubt..." If the message goes out enough, people will think it's true whether they have any science to back them up or not.

Now, to M. Toigo:

Indeed, Future Geek, it is the poor of the world who will face the consequences of our out of control consumption. So what are you doing about it? Are you controlling your consumption? Do you read labels, keep up with the news and consider the products you purchase carefully?

Yes, yes, and yes. But what I do at the individual level is nothing compared to what could be done if coal burning power plants limited their emissions, and vehicle manufacturers had to meet certain mpg standards. That's where the real difference will be made against global warming.

You and a number of others seem to be well-informed about climate changes and other issues regarding our environment. Perhaps those millions of dollars that ExxonMobile gave to those politicians and think tanks "to muddy the waters" didn't pay off for them so well after all.

Well, you and a number of others appear to believe the skeptic's rhetoric. You appear to be intelligent and thoughtful, so maybe their attempts have worked.

The trouble with terms such as "corporate lapdog" and "corporate whore" is that they are so obviously propagandistic. You're not going to convince anyone of anything with such nonsense, all you'll be doing is preaching to the already-converted choir

Well, the title seems to have provoked a lot of discussion here...

Some unethical corporate citizens lie about how their business practices affect our air, water and food supplies by playing down certain inconvenient truths, while some environmentalists lie about the effects of industry upon our air, water and food supplies by overstating those same inconvenient truths.

The difference is that if an environmentalist lies about the results of pollution, the earth gets cleaner. If a corporation lies about poisoning the water, your children could die.

Because almost everyone has some sort of "special interest," (a relative term, if ever there was one), bias is almost everywhere.

Yes, check your sources' qualifications and see who employs them. Almost everyone has some sort of agenda. And hardly anything is ever certain, such as the true nature of the universe, our Solar System, and the Earth, or the origins of life as we know it. We all take our various leaps of faith in some direction or another.

Apocalyptic fear mongering about the state of our environment is a form of disinformation, too (and it really comes across that way when you use the language of bias to criticize other people's biases) because it has not been definitively proven that climate change is a direct result of our emissions.

Conservation is a very Good Thing, but you have to sell it better. Provocative titles and opening lines are important tools for bringing attention to the subject matter, but once you've reeled them in, you have to appeal to the broader audience and perhaps explain to them why conservation is to their advantage: you save money, you get to feel good about doing your part to make a better world, and you get to enjoy cleaner air and water and better food quality.

If you believe that global warming is our fault because we over consume, waste resources and don't do more to police the polluters who violate our right to clean air, water and food, (I may not believe in the global warming connection, but our over consumption and wastefulness are pretty difficult to overlook) then why not frame a positive message about conservation?

Try to inspire people to consume and waste less, to re-use and recycle, avoid doing business with convicted polluters -- a list of them would be most helpful in this endeavor -- and to campaign for practical and reasonable legislation against business practices that are harmful to our air, water and food supplies.

And don't be too quick with the binary thinking, here. Sure, an environmentalist's lies could possibly lead to a cleaner Earth, but they could also put a lot of people out of work and economically decimate entire communities -- our politicians often find themselves in such paradoxes because they have to prevent their consituents from being poisoned and keep their comunities economically viable at the same time.

If corporations lie about polluting the air, water and food, children could indeed die, which is why it is important to thoroughly investigate suspected individual polluters so that sufficient evidence for prosecution can be obtained, and not waste time and energy on arbitrary generalizations about industry and the corporate economy.

Margaret is right about the consequences of environmentalist lies, but she doesn't take it far enough. Environmentalist lies about the impact of DDT result in millions of malaria deaths every year. Environmentalist lies about CFC's result in food spoilage in developing countries. Environmentalist lies about nuclear safety are responsible for more oil-burning than GM. Environmentalist lies about short asbestos only increase the need for heating fuel.

I realize I sound like Homer Simpson talking about the Egg Council here, but do some research. Bad policies kill.

Baronius,

Been reading a little Steve Milloy, eh?

Like I said, check your sources and who's paying their bills before you swallow everything they say.

I'll be back later with some specific data to refute some of those claims.

Baronius,

Here are some links as promised.

DDT: DDt actually increased malaria in India. Mosquitos eventually developed a resistance to DDT, and despite ever increasing quantities being used, Malaria went up. Eventually India stopped using DDT and started using other, more effective methods.

timlambert.org

timlambert.org 2


Not sure what lies you are talking about when you mention CFCs. It is pretty simple chemistry - CFCs decay and the biproducts destroy ozone:

epa.gov article


Nuclear power: The jury is still out on Nuke power among environmentalists I think. It is very dangerous, but it is also cleaner in terms of air pollution. I personally think there might be some promise for nuclear power in the future - but with the amount of money we've spent on Nuke power, we could have developed cleaner technologies.

I won't go into it now, but if you want to hear some really scary things about nuclear waste, ask me.

Asbestos? Don't know much about that, not going there. But really... would you want to be the guy who installs asbestos insulation 8 hours a day?

[Future Geek: please take a moment to remind yourself how to make URLs active in line with BC protocol. Thank you. Comments Editor]

I'm familiar with India's DDT program. The current trend is toward indoor spraying. It doesn't kill all the mosquitos, but it takes care of the ones that people are most likely to come in contact with. It requires substantially less DDT compared with agricultural spraying, so the cost is lower, the environmental impact is minimized, and since fewer mosquitos are targeted, resistance is less of an issue.

Even at high doses, DDT is dollar for dollar the best weapon against malaria. At these new decreased levels, it's a steal. The major treaties permit this type of low-level use, but NGO's are reluctant to fund it.

I'd never heard of Steve Milloy, but a quick google search sure makes him sound interesting.

Baronius,

I'm interested in your sources about DDT.

I'm also interested in your assertion that environmentalist lies cause the deaths of millions with the ddt ban.

I could take it further back and say that it was European imperialism that causes the deaths of millions from malaria, because of the resulting wars, impoverishment, lack of access to care, and inability to purchase more expensive pesticides than ddt.

I'd like to continue this conversation if you are willing to provide some links to back up your assertions that it was "environmentalist lies" that are ultimately responsible.

"If you are only listening to the Christian station, you are not getting the full picture and the facts about global warming. Instead you get a slanted, ideological perversion of Christianity." -- Future Geek in #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9...

I don't disagree with that. Key words include slanted, idolgical perversion...

One could also conclude the same assumption about NPR and those listeners who regard it as a sole source, or home station for information.

One could also conclude that the earth has been warming up nicely since the last Ice Age. Hmmm.

The key point I was making was that Christians don't really want to listen to trash talkin' DJ's, In your face advertisments and all the other trappings of "regular" radio (which I am sure they have another name for). They want a "safe" haven, one that speaks politly (NPR), one that aligns with thier belief systsm (maybe not NPR). Some broadcast areas are all inclusive, others not so broadbased of content. Around my place there are the modern pop Christian stations, which play all the Christian rock you can handle. One plays nothing but the old hymns, and another mixes it up a bit, however there is a lot of morning preachin' going on. But never any Hannity or Limbaugh type radio talk.

That means the Christians in my area aren't getting dosed with scientific banter or "dominionism." Instead my area is more focused in content, and not the broad brushstroke. There are AM stations that play only holy roller and heavy black gospel music, plus the regular talk AM stuff which is mere banter.

What do I listen to? Alan Holdsworth, David Weckle, Fusion jazz, old prog rock anything instrumental... because I don't really care what other people think. I can think for myself, thankyouverymuch. Oh, and Click and Clack, plus some gardening show on AM saturday mornings. But I do scan, and I'm not crawling out from under a rock, or rather... I didn't fall off of the turnip truck last night.

Joey is right, if for no other reason than he knows who Allan (two "L"s) Holdsworth is.

I provided a link to a World Health Organization faq on the issue of DDT. It seems fairly comprehensive.

Re: "environmentalist lies". I wouldn't have used that term, except that Margaret introduced it in comment #29. (I see now that the second word was a verb, but the gist is the same.) As a defender of Bush's war policy, I'm sick of mistaken information being labeled "lies". I shouldn't have used the term.

I think that much of the environmental movement carries a set of assumptions that prevent them from envisioning a Western-invented toxin as a benefit for developing countries. "If you the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." For Al Gore, every problem can be resolved by an international intervention against multinational corporations and Western technology. One might say that NGO-types feel comfortable in large oppressive hierarchies. And they think everyone should be content to be so governed.

The quotation about hammers is from Maslow, who by coincidence I was going to write about anyway. As Maslow and his successors demonstrated, money is rarely sufficient motivation for a person to do something. Humans have a surprising tendency to act on their beliefs. I think if you take that into account, you'll find that the paid lobbyist isn't necessarily telling a lie, and the unpaid environmentalist isn't particularly impartial.

---

I didn't think that three people knew who Allan Holdsworth is. I can't believe that a non-music board would have three Holdsworth fans. I've seen him two or three times in concert. He's just amazing.

Baronius,

You bring up the Iraq war and Bush's, er, lies. That's a whole other can of worms, but there were a lot of people before the invasion who were saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Many of Bush's intelligence sources were highly questionable. UN inspections weren't turning up the weapons...

So Bush Inc. did a great job of making it look like lies, even if it was a sincere belief.

Maybe your observation about people acting on their beliefs rather than other motivations is especially true in this case?

Of course, to me, that sort of ideological blindness from a president and commander in cheif is just as bad as lies.

Sorry, probly shouldn't have gone there.

Anyway, I'll read up on what you have posted.

Thanks.

I think if you take that into account, you'll find that the paid lobbyist isn't necessarily telling a lie, and the unpaid environmentalist isn't particularly impartial.

...and isn't necessarily unpaid. Many "unpaid" environmentalists are receiving grants and funds from organizations like the Sierra Club, WWF, etc. George Soros gives a LOT of money to enviromentalist scientists.

Baronius,

I looked through your link... doesn't say anything about environmentalists causing malaria deaths.

What it says is that DDT is dangerous, but it can be used carefully and in small quanitities in some areas to reduce malaria. There are a lots of other factors - people plastering over it once it's been sprayed on their walls, or not allowing their houses to be sprayed.

It still says that agricultural use is dangerous and ineffective.

Clavos: a valid point. NASA, NOAA, NGO's, and universities all provide financial incentives to the person who generates the scariest prediction. On a side note, I love the WWF lawsuit that forced the World Wrestling Federation to change their initials. When I hear about either group, I always think of the other one. Soros funding wrestling - heh.

-Malaria results in deaths.

-The overreaction to "Silent Spring" has diminished DDT use, which results in deaths.

-Western imperialism has prevented the developing countries from attaining the financial wherewithal to fight malaria, resulting in deaths.

-The first insects developed in the Paleozoic era, on a course that would eventually lead them to malaria transmission. Resulting in deaths.

Any of the above could be argued. I think it's reasonable to say that the mosquitos are the villains but the environmentalist movement has aided and abetted their acts. In the moment immediately before infection, a pesticide is not available, and that's the doing of the environmentalist.

Placing blame isn't my great passion in life. We need to recognize what's gone wrong in disease prevention in order to make it more effective.

My real point is that the set of assumptions of the environmental movement lead to statements like you made earlier, that overreaction's worst consequence is a cleaner earth. Overreaction to DDT fears reduced its use during a period when it was very successful, during a period when its overuse led to resistance, and today as the techniques has been mastered.

NASA, NOAA, NGO's, and universities all provide financial incentives to the person who generates the scariest prediction.

You act like there's just millions of dollars floating around for anyone who can scare the public. Activism doesn't pay well for most.

Your point about people acting according to their beliefs is valid, but it cuts both ways. ExxonMobile isn't going to hire someone who's impartial to lobby against environmental regulation - they're going to hire the person who sincerely believes what's convenient.

As for DDT, you haven't proven that its continued unregulated, unrestricted use would have been better, overall, than the current limited use. DDT is dangerous - what would have happened if agricultural spraying had continued to increase?

I'm open to conversion here, but you have to back up what you're saying.

Beating a dead horse:

More excellent information about DDT here.

A quote from that blog that explains why even in-house spraying can be ineffective:

"India has been using DDT against malaria continuously since the 1940's. V.P. Sharma, DDT: The Fallen Angel (Current Science 85 1532-1537) explains why it is becoming ineffective:

'The Health Department of Maharashtra reported an increasing trend of malaria even after two rounds of DDT indoor spraying between 1995 and 1997, with a 75-83% coverage of rooms in houses. Monitoring in 74 villages revealed that malaria transmission continued, and cases had sharply increased by the third quarter of 1997. In November 1997, a special spraying round with Lambda-cyhalothrin (10% WP) managed to interrupt malaria transmission ...

The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT. The excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission ...'"

So like I said... give me something to back up your claims.

That's good Futureman (wait he's a Victor Wooten's brother)...

Do you use anti-bacterial soaps? Resistance is resistance. Roaches have it, aphids... we need to start looking a alternative methods of controlling insects... or we're not going to be able to feed the world some day. And I mean that.

coupla quick points apropos nada:

1) I LOVE DDT! I'm all for it!

2) I was listening to Holdsworth when yall were in diapers.

re the [baronius -vs- futuregeek] pissing contest attempting to cite various factors that contributed to the "deaths of millions":

Yall keep it up -- and you TWO can add "The Internet" to the list, although it will be about 999,998 short of the 'goal'.

...But the day is young.

Good. Let's talk about Holdsworth. The first time I heard him was on the Bundles album by Soft Machine. And while I was definitely out of diapers, I can't recall whether or not I had graduated from my trike to a actual bike. It was some time last century. I distinctly remember being completely blown away the first time I heard him with Tony Williams Lifetime. I recommend All Night Wrong and Sixteen Men of Tain, if you don't have them already, shArk (did I get that right?). He just keeps getting better.

I with you Duane, all the way. I was disappointed when I heard 16 men of Tain, went to see him at the Birchmere sans Carpenter and Novak. Humphreys was drumming... nothing against Humphreys... he's a power drummer. Novak has more finesse', but Holdsworth did stick around for a pint after the show. Which was really cool.

Shark, I still *am* in diapers. (But that's because it's the weekend. It's a thing I do sometimes, and no one has the right to judge me.) We should probably save the guitar stuff for the Music subfolder, if only for their sakes. The conversations there can use some livening up.

Of course India is having a problem with DDT resistance. They used it for agricultural spraying, and now the mosquitos found indoors and outdoors have resistances. With indoor spraying, fewer mosquitos come in contact with DDT, so immunities are less of a problem. But you have to use multiple techniques.

Today, DDT can help save lives. If it were used in more places (in small doses, using modern techniques), malaria deaths would decline without causing significant long-run resistance. But the name scares people. We wouldn't be having an online debate about DDC or whatever, because it doesn't have the reputation. The discrepancy between DDT's reputation and its capability is a result of the environmental movement.

Let's say an American company shows up in the Belgian Congo with insecticides. "Use DDT! Sure, it's illegal in my country, because it would damage white folks' country clubs, but you should use it down here. It's cheap." That meeting will end badly, not because of the quality of the product, but because of the baggage. A less-effective method will be used instead, or no method, and people will die.