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

[Kosh]

Oh my the far left does not understand the difference between Climate Change (which happens naturally) and the religion known as AGW..

 

[Mustang]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

 

[Kosh]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Here we go...

I'm frankly disturbed by the herd mentality of some people who blindly believe X or don't believe Y based on the source of the information or who it's about. A everyday good example of that might be when someone makes an accusation against a certain person. Fans refuse to believe it might be true, while detractors seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that it might be a lie. With that said, I can understand that some people may be skeptical about climate change since it's so technical in nature, and it's not the kind of topic that lends itself to easy understanding by people who don't have a significant scientific background.

With that said, the whole revisionist history of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, is verifiable through historical records. If certain people will lie about a book that was written 50 years ago which led to restrictions of DDT here in the USA some 40 years ago even as DDT continued to be used quite freely in other parts of the world, doesn't it seem reasonable that people should begin to question the honesty and integrity of these revisionists when it comes to other environmental issues like climate change? Or does it make sense to continue to just blindly believe someone once they've been exposed as either liars or woefully ignorant?

You just totally ignored the evidence provided by SSDD, turned a blind eye to the fact that a ban on DDT is the reason for the deaths of millions in Africa, and the talk about herd mentality; you who follow global warming ((WITHOUT QUESTION)) like it is mana from the Gods?

Ho Li Fuk......

 

[mamooth]

You just totally ignored the evidence provided by SSDD

You mean his unsourced cut-and-pasted big list of dishonest cherrypicks, crazy fabrications, historical reviosionism and laughably suckass science? SSDD just cribbed that list. He hasn't looked at a single "source" on it. It's quite dishonest of him to quote sources he never looked at, and to refuse to say what his actual kook source was that compiled the propaganda piece.

And you fell for the propaganda, because you're a herd follower. It told you what you wanted to hear, hence it never crossed you mind to look for independent information.

There are limits to what stupidity can excuse. We don't excuse drunk drivers who give the excuse "but I didn't mean any harm!". When stupidity is taken to such extremes that it harms others, it crosses the line into malice. You and SSDD would take your stupidity to levels that would kill millions, so you're crossing the line into being evil.

You can start looking at actual evidence. Or you can continue to believe how your cult must be infallible, and thus continue to back SSDD's genocidal policies. It would say a lot about you if you'd willingly see millions die just because you won't admit your cult screwed up.

Fortunately for the millions that SSDD would butcher in the name of his cult, nobody listens to his pack of cranks. He can keep sputtering on message boards over the years, and he will still remain completely irrelevant. The only good purpose he will serve is as a warning to others, an example of what blind cult devotion can do to a person. Don't join him.

 

[SSDD]

You mean his unsourced cut-and-pasted big list of dishonest cherrypicks, crazy fabrications, historical reviosionism and laughably suckass science? SSDD just cribbed that list. He hasn't looked at a single "source" on it. It's quite dishonest of him to quote sources he never looked at, and to refuse to say what his actual kook source was that compiled the propaganda piece.

Unsourced?...the lying just never stops with you does it hairball....I provided the peer reviewed publication for every reference...

 

[Kosh]

Stuff it, liar. You haven't looked at a single one of those "publications". You literally have zero idea of what they actually said, or if they even exist at all. You cribbed a list from a website, and you're not honest enough to tell us that source.

Just like the AGW cult members that can not post the science with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

30+ years of waiting for this to be released and still waiting...

 

[Mustang]

Stuff it, liar. You haven't looked at a single one of those "publications". You literally have zero idea of what they actually said, or if they even exist at all. You cribbed a list from a website, and you're not honest enough to tell us that source.

Conservative revisionist history seems to work...but primarily within the conservative 'community' which seems predisposed to latch on to any argument, regardless of how lame or silly, that furthers their agenda and allows them to continue embracing their ideology. A good example of that is all the conservative 'explanations' for what caused the 2008 financial meltdown as if poor people had the power to topple the economy. (That one was pretty funny)

But thankfully, because policymakers, and the scientists and professionals on whom they rely for accurate information, are not so easily snookered by passionate nonsense, it's almost a certainty that future public policy will reflect the view of mainstream scientists and not the views of conservative revisionists. But like I said, there's also no doubt in my mind that conservatives can slow down, but not stop, progress on a wide range of public policy debates.

 

[jc456]

within the sound of silence

 

[Mustang]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[westwall]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

 

[westwall]

Stuff it, liar. You haven't looked at a single one of those "publications". You literally have zero idea of what they actually said, or if they even exist at all. You cribbed a list from a website, and you're not honest enough to tell us that source.

Conservative revisionist history seems to work...but primarily within the conservative 'community' which seems predisposed to latch on to any argument, regardless of how lame or silly, that furthers their agenda and allows them to continue embracing their ideology. A good example of that is all the conservative 'explanations' for what caused the 2008 financial meltdown as if poor people had the power to topple the economy. (That one was pretty funny)

But thankfully, because policymakers, and the scientists and professionals on whom they rely for accurate information, are not so easily snookered by passionate nonsense, it's almost a certainty that future public policy will reflect the view of mainstream scientists and not the views of conservative revisionists. But like I said, there's also no doubt in my mind that conservatives can slow down, but not stop, progress on a wide range of public policy debates.

Revisionist history seems to be the mantra of the climatologists. They have been caught going back over 50 years to falsify temperature data to support their failed theory. Before you start calling reasonable people "deniers" you better be looking in the mirror silly person, because it is YOUR "SCIENTISTS" who are denying the science.

 

[jc456]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

 

[Mustang]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

What is it that GH gases do again?

 

[jc456]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

What is it that GH gases do again?

prove you wrong for 18 years!!!!

 

[Mustang]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

 

[jc456]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

nope you don't understand. And nope you are wrong, the earth proved you wrong. And where we're at is you not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Hahahahhahahahah.

 

[westwall]

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

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

What is it that GH gases do again?

In high enough concentrations they act as a blanket to prevent heat from escaping to space. That's why the Earth is not a snowball.

 

[Mustang]

Stuff it, liar. You haven't looked at a single one of those "publications". You literally have zero idea of what they actually said, or if they even exist at all. You cribbed a list from a website, and you're not honest enough to tell us that source.

Conservative revisionist history seems to work...but primarily within the conservative 'community' which seems predisposed to latch on to any argument, regardless of how lame or silly, that furthers their agenda and allows them to continue embracing their ideology. A good example of that is all the conservative 'explanations' for what caused the 2008 financial meltdown as if poor people had the power to topple the economy. (That one was pretty funny)

But thankfully, because policymakers, and the scientists and professionals on whom they rely for accurate information, are not so easily snookered by passionate nonsense, it's almost a certainty that future public policy will reflect the view of mainstream scientists and not the views of conservative revisionists. But like I said, there's also no doubt in my mind that conservatives can slow down, but not stop, progress on a wide range of public policy debates.

Revisionist history seems to be the mantra of the climatologists. They have been caught going back over 50 years to falsify temperature data to support their failed theory. Before you start calling reasonable people "deniers" you better be looking in the mirror silly person, because it is YOUR "SCIENTISTS" who are denying the science.

Let me know when one of your 'esteemed' climate deniers manages to get a peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports his (or her) contentions about climate change published in a reputable scientific journal.

 

[Mustang]

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

What is it that GH gases do again?

In high enough concentrations they act as a blanket to prevent heat from escaping to space. That's why the Earth is not a snowball.

That's also why Venus is almost as hot as a blast furnace.