Now global warming will cause you physical pain...are you scared yet?
7/18/2008 - 7:11am
In the "you must be kidding" category comes this story: Doctors in Texas are predicting that global warming will cause more Americans to get kidney stones.
Yes, just in case they global warming industry hasn't caused you enough fear about increased hurricane activity (not happening), gigantic rises in sea levels (not happening), Antarctica losing net ice mass (not happening), or Greenland melting in some way which has never happened before (not happening), the Algore followers have decided to make you believe that global warming will cause you intense physical pain.
As someone who's had kidney stones, maybe I should be worried...but I'm not, of course, for a few reasons. One, I believe that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. Two, it seems that the planet has been cooling for at least this decade. And three, all predictions such as more kidney stones, more heat deaths, etc, assume that humans are stupid and won't stay indoors more, hang out near air conditioning, or drink more water. I realize that liberals think humans are stupid...all humans except for them of course.
At least one mainstream media outlet, the Houston Chronicle, included a bit of skepticism in their coverage of the story. But even there, the reporter piled on the scare tactics, saying that some scientists believe we'll see an increase in malaria from climate change. (Not if the liberals retract their opposition to DDT, the banning of which has already cost tens of thousands of lives in Africa due to the do-gooder environmentalist movement which seems to care about everything except human life and its quality.)
The reliably left-leaning Scientific American reported the study uncritically except for admitting at the end that "study co-author Yair Lotan, an assistant professor of urology, acknowledges that the study is based on estimates that may change." Duh.
As opposition to the global warming industry becomes more well organized and well funded, with organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute putting out effective antidotes to Algore propaganda, the alarmists are acting desperate (despite the fact that they're clearly winning the war of opinion so far).
With the Bush administration caving in (on the ridiculous claim that the polar bear is threatened even though its populations have been stable for decades including through modest temperature increases) and with the likelihood of a president who has drunk the alarmist koolaid (no matter which of the two leading candidates wins) it's that much more important that people start getting some intellectual vaccination against the Big Lie of global warming.
I don't know whether predicting more kidney stones is something which will cause Americans to grimace in anticipated pain or to say, as they should, "you must be kidding".
Bookmark/Search this post with:
doesn't really matter
First of all consider the titles Fundraising Director and Executive Director. These are titles typical for those running non profits. Political Director is another one for non-profits and 527 groups. None of these are board positions. Regardless, for you to say you've never been an employee of an organization but being on the board of one is just ludicrous. The fact of the matter is, being in such a position, what you write, say and do, is part of that organization. You may not get monetary compensation, but you do get other less tangible benefits and that's why you're a shill. I'm fine with that though. But, to call out those who are paid to do this on the left, causes a lot of your house's windows to break.
really? You're still trying
really? You're still trying to deny global warming with crap like this?
On your beloved GOP propoganda outfit Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,385547,00.html
"The 284-page report, mostly written by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said every region of the country will be hit by worse health from heat waves and drought. It said all but a handful of states would have worse air quality and flooding. It predicts an increase in diseases spread by tainted food, bad water and bugs.
The report "concludes that climate change poses real risk to human health and human system that supports our way of life in the United States," EPA's climate change research program director Joel Scheraga said at a news conference."
So, I'm sure you've seen this report.
BTW, being the head of a right wing think tank without a salary shows that you're not very good at your beloved free market economy. You seem to not be very smart to head an organization and not be compensated for it.
As for Ben blogging for the Independence Institute, poppycock. He's posted in the middle of the day when he would ostensibly be at work. That means the Independence Institute wants him blogging as such.
Huh?
John,
Of course they're predicting biblical-style plagues. It gets them grant money.
Enough members of the prestigious American Physical Society have departed from the so-called consensus about climate change that APS is start a series in their journals including scientists who haven't drunk the Algore koolaid.
The editor's comment is here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
A very important article skeptical of global warming is here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Next, I think you read to either read or think more carefully. I NEVER said, implied, hinted, or anything else, that I was the "head of" a think tank, much less a right-wing one.
I was a Director, i.e. a member of the Board of Directors. We met several times a year to set direction for the organization. You must not have much experience in the real world not to know the difference between a director and a President or CEO, but I wouldn't expect a liberal to know better.
Most director positions at non-profit organizations are unpaid positions. We serve because we care about the issues. Pretty funny that someone who hates capitalism and capitalists is trying to be critical of me for doing something for free.
Also, as I mentioned to you, Heartland is pro-free market, not "right wing".
Finally, I am not Ben's keeper. How he spends his work hours are up to him and his boss.
"I was a Director, i.e. a
"I was a Director, i.e. a member of the Board of Directors. We met several times a year to set direction for the organization. You must not have much experience in the real world not to know the difference between a director and a President or CEO, but I wouldn't expect a liberal to know better."
WTF? In my world a director refers to head of an organization. The very top being executive director, or chief operating officer usually for a for profit business. If you were on the board, you would have said you're on the board. Since a board controls the direction of an organization that would also mean you have control (though not all) of the organization anyway.
"Most director positions at non-profit organizations are unpaid positions. We serve because we care about the issues. Pretty funny that someone who hates capitalism and capitalists is trying to be critical of me for doing something for free."
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I hated capitalism. Board positions tend to be unpaid but your bio didn't say you were on the board. Looks to me like you were either lying in the bio or lying now. Being a director of an organization implies one runs things day to day. Anyone who takes a position like that without compensation is just dumb. The free market must not think very highly of your skills to not pay you anything to do their work.
"Finally, I am not Ben's keeper. How he spends his work hours are up to him and his boss."
Exactly, so I'm right on this issue and you're wrong.
...
John,
I don't know what "your world" is, but the term "Director" is standard usage for a member of the Board of Directors. Sometimes the term "Managing Director" or, much frequently, "director" is used to denote someone who runs an organization but such usage is generally in England, not in the US.
For example, if you do a Google search for "Directors of IBM", you'll get results for members of the Board of Directors.
What I said I was a "director" of Heartland, most people would understand that to mean a member of the Board and not a member of the paid management team.
It's a little odd for you to claim that I'm lying about my role with Heartland since it's so easy to prove what I was there. Your misunderstanding of a word doesn't mean I wasn't precise and accurate in my terminology:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10584
Kaminsky says "liberals killed thousands".
Geez Ruse. For a "self employed vagabond trader" you certainly know how to make fool of yourself. You gave Bobby Schaffer a grand.
I was not aware The Scientific American was a political publication let alone "reliably left leaning". Really Ruse. You should seek professional help. Your kidney stones have migrated to your brain. How about we spray your backyard with DDT and be done with it.
Your rants are a Joke.
Malaria and DDT
Ryecatcher,
Do you know anything at all about the history of DDT, malaria, Rachel Carson, etc?
Bottom line, as I've said before, you're unfit to be commenting on things you don't understand, which basically means anything that requires a high school diploma.
Here are a couple articles for your weak mind:
One from Harvard, hardly a bastion of conservatism:
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/SA_Readers_Digest_1200.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
http://www.ohiopca.com/pdfs/insight/DDT/id=842.pdf
And, for John E, here's one from Heartland:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127
Kaminsky blows his stack again.
I'm sorry your angry again. You know nothing about me. My fitness to comment is not yours to judge since you are hardly in a position to comment on "things you don't understand". Your weak mind comment speaks for itself.
Relax and be nice Ruse. I know you can do it.
one more
I should add this article for anyone interested in knowing the truth about Rachel Carson, DDT and Malaria and not the gross distortions and out-right false hoods that Kaminsky habitually traffics in.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/
The simple fact of the matter is that DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial purposes and is currently in use many countries.
Rachel Carson?
What about Rachel Carson? Be specific, tell us exactly what you mean when you say "DDT, malaria, Rachel Carson, etc.."
DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial. That is indisputable fact. So please clarify for your readers Ross - what exactly do you mean with your vague reference?
For anyone interested in learning some of the facts regarding Rachel Carson and DDT (and not the gross distortions sure to follow from Kaminsky) please see this article, http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10175
DDT and malaria
Carson's book did indeed have a major impact on the use of DDT in malarial regions. It has made a decent comeback for inside-house spraying, but not in wider use. (I am not arguing for renewal of full agricultural use.)
Anyone who says that Carson wasn't responsible for bans on DDT doesn't know what he's talking about. It was banned in the USA and that caused a dramatic drop in availability and interest in DDT in Africa, even in places where it wasn't directly banned.
Carson is responsible for the death of uncountable numbers.
Here's a non-political study of the benefit of DDT in South America:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm
Another interesting article:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
Another article, from the libertarian site, Reason.com:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html
DDT and the Kaminsky pipe dream.
Your joking concerning Carson's responsibility for the death of thousands aren't you Ruse.
The Ruse gives us three sources to back his absurd argument. The first is "non political" as he states. The other two come form right wing libertarian interests.
His "interesting article" is indeed interesting. It comes from the ACSH American Council on Science and Health. The ACSH is a conservative public interest group funded by pharmeceutical, chemical, oil, and such health food distributers like Burger King, Oscar Meyer, and Coca Cola. The Coors Foundation, Scaife Foundation, and John Olin Foundation three extreme right wing groups as we well know support the ACSH. It is headed by a Dr. Whelan a known anti-environmentalist who consistently downplays the risks from DDT, dioxins,and asbestos.
The ACSH contends saccharin does not cause cancer, the pesticide EDB is safe, that their is no evidence PCB's cause cancer, that there is no link between heart disease and a high fat high cholesterol diet. ACSH receives 75% of their funding from the pharma and chemical industries like Merk, Dow Chemical, Union Carbide, and Olin.
The libertarian article from reason.com is not worth our time.
I'm not sure when the right co-opted the DDT Rachel Carson absudity. It seems to be another of their clarion calls of fear and ignorance to the fearful and ignorant. Get a life Ruse.
this is awesome. You've
this is awesome. You've resorted to name calling. What a way to win arguments. Good luck with that.