Why Do Mark Levin And Other Conservatives Lie About Rachel Carson & Her 1963 Book, Silent Spring?

[Vigilante]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

 

[ogibillm]

But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

that's just it, you believe what your pundits say, Mustand did research into and found out the facts.

 

[Mustang]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

 

[Vigilante]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

But GLOBAL WARMING is the MOST DANGEROUS topic we can currently discuss...So says the Mess...iah!

 

[Mustang]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

But GLOBAL WARMING is the MOST DANGEROUS topic we can currently discuss...So says the Mess...iah!

Are we now coming a little bit closer to a possible source of conservative behavior; Obama supports the findings of scientists, so you feel you must oppose it?

Perhaps you should familiarized yourself with the history of climate science since it started even BEFORE there were automobiles.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Vigilante]

Take 10 minutes to LISTEN how Levin describes it...He's a fucking genius, and should be president!

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

But GLOBAL WARMING is the MOST DANGEROUS topic we can currently discuss...So says the Mess...iah!

Are we now coming a little bit closer to a possible source of conservative behavior; Obama supports the findings of scientists, so you feel you must oppose it?

Perhaps you should familiarized yourself with the history of climate science since it started even BEFORE there were automobiles.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's called weather, and has been here since earth became a BALL!.... There are SO FUCKING MANY THINGS that can contribute to WEATHER CHANGE, that it's almost uncountable,

Solid Line: Approximate extent of glaciation during last (Wisconsin) ice age. Dotted Line: Approximate extent of earlier glaciations.

Give THINKERS a break for a change, WEATHER can go into EXTREMES WITHOUT man, and by the looks of the last ICE AGE, can do it much worse than man could ever do!

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, Mark Levin is a genius in the way that all self-promoters are geniuses at manipulating others into believing virtually anything they say.

With that said, either Levin lied when he talked about the ban of DDT leading to millions of deaths in Africa, or he was ignorant about the true causes.

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US. But the larger problem with DDT when it came to fighting malaria is that it was overused. Instead of using it ONLY as a control against malaria in homes along with doing other things such as draining swamps and other breeding grounds, DDT was indiscriminately used as a general pest control against numerous insects when it came to farming. As a result, it was VERY effective...at first. But insects either developed a resistance or the survivors which already had a resistance were the ones that continued to breed. Given the incredibly short lifespan of insects and the fact that multiple generations of insects can live and die within a period of a few short years if not months, it didn't take long for DDT to stop working. THAT is what happened with DDT when it came to fighting malaria in Asia and Africa.

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

But GLOBAL WARMING is the MOST DANGEROUS topic we can currently discuss...So says the Mess...iah!

Are we now coming a little bit closer to a possible source of conservative behavior; Obama supports the findings of scientists, so you feel you must oppose it?

Perhaps you should familiarized yourself with the history of climate science since it started even BEFORE there were automobiles.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's called weather, and has been here since earth became a BALL!.... There are SO FUCKING MANY THINGS that can contribute to WEATHER CHANGE, that it's almost uncountable,

Solid Line: Approximate extent of glaciation during last (Wisconsin) ice age. Dotted Line: Approximate extent of earlier glaciations.

Give THINKERS a break for a change, WEATHER can go into EXTREMES WITHOUT man, and by the looks of the last ICE AGE, can do it much worse than man could ever do!

There's a fundamental difference between weather and climate, or are you so truly ignorant on the subject that you didn't know that?

 

[Vigilante]

The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support, who else was going to supply it? But, you believe what your pundits say, and I'll believe mine!

Bring Back DDT

Put that in the 2016 GOP platform, PLEASE! I would just LOVE to see a GOP candidate campaign on that issue.

But GLOBAL WARMING is the MOST DANGEROUS topic we can currently discuss...So says the Mess...iah!

Are we now coming a little bit closer to a possible source of conservative behavior; Obama supports the findings of scientists, so you feel you must oppose it?

Perhaps you should familiarized yourself with the history of climate science since it started even BEFORE there were automobiles.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's called weather, and has been here since earth became a BALL!.... There are SO FUCKING MANY THINGS that can contribute to WEATHER CHANGE, that it's almost uncountable,

Solid Line: Approximate extent of glaciation during last (Wisconsin) ice age. Dotted Line: Approximate extent of earlier glaciations.

Give THINKERS a break for a change, WEATHER can go into EXTREMES WITHOUT man, and by the looks of the last ICE AGE, can do it much worse than man could ever do!

There's a fundamental difference between weather and climate, or are you so truly ignorant on the subject that you didn't know that?

What do you want me to say, ones daily, the other is a compilation?

 

[Mustang]

I'm curious about how conservatives feel about this. Betrayed? Duped? Or do you feel that people like Levin don't do sufficient due diligence on the facts before going on the radio to proclaim things that are not factually true? Does it make you less likely to accept his word in the future? Or do you see this as no big deal? I can't help but ask because if I ever found myself in the position of believing someone I trusted to be honest and forthright and then found out that they were so completely off the mark, I don't think I could trust them from that point forward unless they came forward and made some kind of mea culpa confession of having gotten the facts wrong. I mean, that's the way it is with just about everyone in real life, right? Why should it be different when it comes to public policy issues? If you can't trust someone to get their facts street or maybe even to be honest about what the facts were, why should you continue to take them at their word on anything they say after you've discovered their penchant for misrepresenting the facts in furtherance of an agenda. I mean, how would you ever be able to trust that they weren't lying to you for completely self-serving reasons not to mention that they did not respect you enough to be honest with you in the first place?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why Do Mark Levin And Other Conservatives Lie About Rachel Carson & Her 1963 Book, Silent Spring?"

For much the same reasons they lie about most everything else.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm curious about how conservatives feel about this. Betrayed? Duped? Or do you feel that people like Levin don't do sufficient due diligence on the facts before going on the radio to proclaim things that are not factually true? Does it make you less likely to accept his word in the future? Or do you see this as no big deal? I can't help but ask because if I ever found myself in the position of believing someone I trusted to be honest and forthright and then found out that they were so completely off the mark, I don't think I could trust them from that point forward unless they came forward and made some kind of mea culpa confession of having gotten the facts wrong. I mean, that's the way it is with just about everyone in real life, right? Why should it be different when it comes to public policy issues? If you can't trust someone to get their facts street or maybe even to be honest about what the facts were, why should you continue to take them at their word on anything they say after you've discovered their penchant for misrepresenting the facts in furtherance of an agenda. I mean, how would you ever be able to trust that they weren't lying to you for completely self-serving reasons not to mention that they did not respect you enough to be honest with you in the first place?

Your problem is denial!

 

[Vigilante]

"Why Do Mark Levin And Other Conservatives Lie About Rachel Carson & Her 1963 Book, Silent Spring?"

For much the same reasons they lie about most everything else.

So says the founder of the LYING LAWYERS club!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“On balance, it seems to be because the investigations of climatologists and other scientists are reaching conclusions that conservatives don't like AND because the proposed solutions lack a certain freewheeling free market capitalistic bent to them.”


And as a consequence most on the right have contrived this bizarre, paranoid ideology that they'll be forced to give up their cars, be compelled to live in multifamily dwellings without air conditioning, subject to a 'one world government,' whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Dot Com]

SSDD illustrates why denialism is not harmless. If he and his fellow cultists had been allowed to have their way, millions in the developing world would have died of malaria.

Now, most deniers are not deliberately genocidal, having been duped by their masters into supporting genocidal policies. That's of little comfort if those policies killed you, so decent people are morally obligated to oppose denier-types. A few of those deepest in the cult, like SSDD, have a proud history of Stalinist tactics, so they see the killing of millions as a desirable outcome.

its what deniers do

 

[Vigilante]

 

[SSDD]

First of all, DDT was not banned overseas. For one thing, the EPA had no power to restrict its use anywhere outside of the US.

You think the EPA is the only agency in the world. By the early 80's use of DDT was banned in most developed countries...Hungary banned it in 1968,,,Norway and Sweden banned it in 1970...Germany and the US in 1972....by 1990 26 developed countries had banned it...Now if it was banned in the developed world...where exactly, do you think the third world was going to get it for their use? By the time the Stockholm convention was ratified, more than 170 countries had banned its use.

The information you have is revisionist in nature....pieced together by people who simply don't want to admit how much blood they have on their hands. I can't say that I blame them that much...if my actions resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths and permanent disabilities...mostly children....I would probably try to rationalize as much as I could to assuage my guilt as well.

 

[SSDD]

Now, that I've made my point about the FACTS surrounding the use of DDT in Africa as opposed to the revisionist history that's being proffered by some conservatives, it's time to address a larger point that is only indirectly tied to the disinformation about DDT.

You really haven't made any point regarding the facts...you have dutifully recited the revised history of the ban; cobbled together by people who can't bring themselves to admit how much blood they have on their hands as a result of their actions...It has been stated, and it is a statement that is hard to refute with the facts that the ban on ddt was in large part a means of population control...much as the ongoing efforts to deny cheap, plentiful energy to the third world.. They are, after all, only brown people...right?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD illustrates why denialism is not harmless. If he and his fellow cultists had been allowed to have their way, millions in the developing world would have died of malaria.

Now, most deniers are not deliberately genocidal, having been duped by their masters into supporting genocidal policies. That's of little comfort if those policies killed you, so decent people are morally obligated to oppose denier-types. A few of those deepest in the cult, like SSDD, have a proud history of Stalinist tactics, so they see the killing of millions as a desirable outcome.

its what deniers do

Your rebuttal reflects the depth of your thinking processes...

 

[skookerasbil]

Among all the other conservative claims about how climate change isn't really happening, or if it is happening, humans have nothing to do with it, I've both witnessed and felt a very strong anti-scientific sentiment from conservatives. On balance, it seems to be because the investigations of climatologists and other scientists are reaching conclusions that conservatives don't like AND because the proposed solutions lack a certain freewheeling free market capitalistic bent to them. That's not to say that free market capitalism won't or can't play a role in the solutions since I'm sure it will. But it seems as if the hostility is because of conservatives ire that governments (not just ours) would be playing a central role in helping to change (some would say forcing a change) in the energy and consumption habits of average citizens. And since conservatives hate government involvement from an ideological perspective, they only way conservatives can see to forestall any further gov't involvement is to try to discredit the science.

Enter Rachel Carson and her book, Silent Spring, which was published 50 years ago. Now, seemingly overnight, there seems to be a renewed assault on both Carson and the book and how it led to DDT being banned in the US. I've heard conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President, Mark Levin, say many times that Carson wrote a book that was alarmist in nature, and that DDT wasn't the danger she made it out to be. Furthermore, according to Levin, Carson is and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans because of the ban on DDT.

Really?

Well, it just so happens that I already knew something about DDT when I heard Mark make that statement which isn't the only time I've heard him say it. It's the fact that the use of DDT was not banned overseas. In fact, the US didn't have the legal authority to ban it's use anywhere other than here at home. But it wasn't even entirely banned within the US. Its use was merely severely restricted here in the USA. Furthermore, DDT continued to be used in Africa for many many years. What actually happened is that the efficacy of DDT was severely diminished from overuse once the insects that survived it's use multiplied. Had DDT been used more sparingly in the spraying of walls inside homes and other buildings instead of being used in a wholesale fashion in fields and farms, it could have been used for years. It was the OVERUSE of DDT which led to it becoming ineffective. But the point is that DDT wasn't banned by the US, and the book didn't lead to it being discontinued.

Now, it wouldn't take much work to learn this. So, whey do Mark Levin and other conservatives lie about Rachel Carson and her 1963 book, Silent Spring? Could it be because of a greater overall effort to discredit the environmental movement which is at the heart of the climate change debate?

nobody cares s0n........

Nobody cares about the science. Apparently, that offends some people. Americans haven't cared about global warming for some years now.


And anyway......... More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Mustang]

I'm curious about how conservatives feel about this. Betrayed? Duped? Or do you feel that people like Levin don't do sufficient due diligence on the facts before going on the radio to proclaim things that are not factually true? Does it make you less likely to accept his word in the future? Or do you see this as no big deal? I can't help but ask because if I ever found myself in the position of believing someone I trusted to be honest and forthright and then found out that they were so completely off the mark, I don't think I could trust them from that point forward unless they came forward and made some kind of mea culpa confession of having gotten the facts wrong. I mean, that's the way it is with just about everyone in real life, right? Why should it be different when it comes to public policy issues? If you can't trust someone to get their facts street or maybe even to be honest about what the facts were, why should you continue to take them at their word on anything they say after you've discovered their penchant for misrepresenting the facts in furtherance of an agenda. I mean, how would you ever be able to trust that they weren't lying to you for completely self-serving reasons not to mention that they did not respect you enough to be honest with you in the first place?

Your problem is denial!

When a person is perfectly willing to research the facts for himself, like I and others routinely do, there is no denial. It's others who don't bother to question the information they're presented or the motivations of the people who present it in order to find out what actually is and isn't true, who have a problem with denial. It's the kind of denial where people who don't WANT to know the truth and are perfectly content to be misled can continue on exactly as before which means that they don't ever have to change anything in their lives. In other words, they not only don't have to change their preconceived beliefs or even alter them slightly. As a consequence, they don't have to change their habits, or their lifestyle, or their wasteful consumptive habits because they think that there will never be, and never COULD be, any negative consequences from the collective activities of humanity even though the number of people inhabiting the planet is now in excess of 7 Billion. THAT is denial. Oh, by the way, just so you'll know, that's 5 Billion more people living on this planet putting CO2 into the atmosphere and vying for resources than was the case less than a hundred years ago.