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

[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.

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.

Please direct me to a legitimate one. They have been caught corrupting the peer review process so many times that they have zero credibility anymore save to those, like you, who don't care about ethics or facts.

The scientific method was created specifically to keep frauds, like your climatologists, from doing exactly what they have done. They are the modern day Lyshenkoists, and are no different from the psychics of the past....well, the psychics actually DO have a better prediction rate by far!

And that....is truly pathetic.

 

[westwall]

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.

Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is 93 times denser than Earths. Facts my boy, facts. Something you are totally unfamiliar with.

 

[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.

Please direct me to a legitimate one. They have been caught corrupting the peer review process so many times that they have zero credibility anymore save to those, like you, who don't care about ethics or facts.

The scientific method was created specifically to keep frauds, like your climatologists, from doing exactly what they have done. They are the modern day Lyshenkoists, and are no different from the psychics of the past....well, the psychics actually DO have a better prediction rate by far!

And that....is truly pathetic.

Nonsense. The onus is on YOU and the DENIERS to point to a verified illegitimate one. I'm not just talking about an accusation because anyone can accuse someone of something. But accusations of a breach of scientific ethics brings on reviews and investigations which are then published. Scientists are sticklers for that kind of thing since, unlike pundits and talk radio hosts, scientists' careers hinge on their professional reputations.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Every quote was sourced you lying POS. Now I remember why I have always ignored you. Dishonesty seems to be your personal creed.

 

[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.

High enough concentrations? In the preindustrialization era, that was a grand total of around 270 ppm. Today it's around 400 ppm and going up.

 

[westwall]

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.

High enough concentrations? In the preindustrialization era, that was a grand total of around 270 ppm. Today it's around 400 ppm and going up.

"High enough" as in the amount of water vapor which is the ONLY GHG that has enough mass in the atmosphere to do anything. If your entire atmosphere was made up of CO2 in the amounts present here on Earth you would raise the temp from -243 to around -240. That's it.

We owe our wonderfully moderate temperature to the water vapor which makes up the overwhelmingly vast majority of our GHG's. CO2 is such a bit player that its impact is lost in the general noise.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is 93 times denser than Earths. Facts my boy, facts. Something you are totally unfamiliar with.

Yeah, it's dense with greenhouse gases, which, by the way, is what Mars sorely lacks since there's very little atmosphere to speak of on Mars. That's why it's so damn cold there. Now, assuming you know anything about trend line analysis, which direction is Earth headed when it comes to greenhouse gases?

 

[westwall]

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.

Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is 93 times denser than Earths. Facts my boy, facts. Something you are totally unfamiliar with.

Yeah, it's dense with greenhouse gases, which, by the way, is what Mars sorely lacks since there's very little atmosphere to speak of on Mars. That's why it's so damn cold there. Now, assuming you know anything about trend line analysis, which direction is Earth headed when it comes to greenhouse gases?

They could be totally inert gasses, it wouldn't matter. The density is so ridiculously high that that is what drives the temps on Venus. Please refer to the various Gas Laws for your education on that matter.

 

[Crick]

Et Tu Weste?

 

[Mustang]

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.

Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is 93 times denser than Earths. Facts my boy, facts. Something you are totally unfamiliar with.

Yeah, it's dense with greenhouse gases, which, by the way, is what Mars sorely lacks since there's very little atmosphere to speak of on Mars. That's why it's so damn cold there. Now, assuming you know anything about trend line analysis, which direction is Earth headed when it comes to greenhouse gases?

They could be totally inert gasses, it wouldn't matter. The density is so ridiculously high that that is what drives the temps on Venus. Please refer to the various Gas Laws for your education on that matter.

Non sequitur. That atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2.

 

[Crick]

I've got a cast iron fire place poker whose density is WAY higher than that of any gas on Venus. It's room temperature through and through. How come?

 

[Jroc]

Still haven't gotten an answer.

 

[Crick]

Transcriptional activation of the human estrogen receptor by DDT isomers and metabolites in yeast and MCF-7 cells

Transcriptional activation of the human estrogen receptor by DDT isomers and metabolites in yeast and MCF-7 cells ☆

• Clarice W. Oien, ∗,
• Cliff Hurd‡,
• Daria P. Vorojeikina∗,
• Steven F. Amold§,
• Angelo C. Notides∗, ∥

Abstract
In this study, we determined whether the DDT isomers p,p′-DUT [1,1,1,-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane], o,p′-DDT [l,l,l-trichloro-2(p-chlorophenyl)-2-(o-chlorophenyl) ethane], and their metabolites p,p′-DDD [l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane], o,p′-DDD [1,1-dichloro-2-(p-chlorophenyl)-2-(o-chlorophenyl)ethane], p,p′-DDE [1,1,-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene], o, p′-DDE [1,1-dichloro2-(p-chlorophenyl)-2-(o-chlorophenyl)ethylene], and P, P′-DDA [2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)acetic acid], could bind to and transcriptionally activate the human estrogen receptor (hER). Novel results from competitive binding assays showed that o,p′-DDD,o,p′-DDE, and p,p′-DDT, as well as the established environmental estrogen o,p′-DDT, were able to bind specifically to the hER with approximately 1000-fold weaker affinities for the hER than that of estradiol. In contrast, only o,p′-DDT, but not p,p′-DUT, bound to the rat estrogen receptor. Moreover, two yeast expression-reporter systems, constructed to test if the DDT isomers and metabolites could transcriptionally activate the hER, demonstrated that an o,p′-DDT metabolite could transactivate the hER or LexA-hER fusion protein with just a 140- to 300-fold weaker potency than that of estradiol. The DDT isomers and metabolites that bound the hER in in vitro triggered estrogen receptor-mediated transcription of the lacZ reporter gene in the yeast systems. Furthermore, the DDT isomers and metabolites that transactivated the hER elicited an additive response when given together or with estradiol. The DDT isomers and metabolites that triggered transcription of the yeast expression-reporter systems also stimulated two estrogenic endpoints in estrogen-responsive MCF-7 cells: the induction of the progesterone receptor and the down-regulation of the hER. Thus, in MCF-7 cells and in yeast expression-reporter systems, certain DDT isomers and metabolites act directly as agonists and transactivate the hER at concentrations found in human tissues.

 

[Crick]

Developmental neurotoxicity of four ortho-substituted polychlorinated biphenyls in the neonatal mouse

Developmental neurotoxicity of four ortho-substituted polychlorinated biphenyls in the neonatal mouse

• Per Eriksson,
• Anders Fredriksson

Abstract
The objective of the present study was to investigate whether neonatal exposure to single PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) congeners 2,4,4′-trichlorobiphenyl (IUPAC 28), 2,2′,5,5′-tetrachlorobiphenyl (IUPAC 52), 2,3′,4,4′,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (IUPAC 118) and 2,3,3′,4,4′,5-hexachlorobiphenyl (IUPAC 156) when given as one single dose (0.7–14 μmol/kg body weight per os) to 10-day-old male NMRI mice could induce persistent neurotoxic effects in the adult animal. Furthermore, to ascertain whether behavioural aberrations, both in spontaneous behaviour and in learning and memory function, were followed by changes in the cholinergic and/or the dopaminergic system. It was found that neonatal exposure to lightly chlorinated ortho-substituted PCBs, 2,4,4′-tri- and 2,2′,5,5′-tetrachlorobiphenyls, can induce persistent aberrations in spontaneous behaviour. Neonatal exposure to 2,2′,5,5′-tetrachlorobiphenyl also affected learning and memory functions in the adult animal. In the animals showing a deficit in memory and learning function, the cholinergic nicotinic receptors in the cerebral cortex were affected. Exposure to 2,3′,4,4′,5-penta- and 2,3,3′,4,4′,5-hexachlorobiphenyl, mono-ortho congeners (‘co-planar-like’), in the same dose range did not cause any significant change in the investigated behavioural variables, spontaneous and swim-maze behaviour.

 

[Crick]

Estrogenic action of DDT and its analogs

Estrogenic action of DDT and its analogs ☆

• R.M. Welch,
• W. Levin,
• A.H. Conney

Abstract
The intraperitoneal injection of 50 mg/kg of purified o,p′-DDT, technical grade DDT, purified methoxychlor, or purified p,p′-DDT increased the uterine wet weight by 49, 43, 37, and 28%, respectively, 6 hours after injection. o,p′-DDD, m,p′-DDD, p,p′-DDD, and p,p′-DDE exhibited little or no activity. The intraperitoneal injection of as little as 5 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg of technical grade DDT or o,p′-DDT, respectively, caused a significant increase in the uterine wet weight in immature female rats. The injection of technical grade DDT or o,p′-DDT into ovariectomized adult rats also increased uterine wet weight, indicating that the effect of the DDT analogs was not mediated through the ovaries. Treatment of immature female rats with a 50 mg/kg injection of technical grade DDT or purified o,p′-DDT caused a severalfold stimulation in the incorporationin vitro of glucose-U-14C into lipid, protein, RNA, and acid-soluble constituents in the uterus 6 hours after the dose of DDT. A smaller stimulatory effect was observed with purified p,p′-DDT. Treatment of rats with technical grade DDT, purified o,p′-DDT, methoxychlor or p,p′-DDT 2 hours before an injection of estradiol-17β-6,7-3H inhibited the uptake of estradiol-17β-6,7-3H by the uterus in vivo, possibly by competing for sites that bind estradiol-17β in the uterus. o,p′-DDD, p,p′-DDD, m,p′-DDD and p,p′-DDE did not inhibit the uptake of estradiol-17β-6,7-3H by the uterus. Pretreatment of rats with carbon tetrachloride inhibited the uterotropic action of o,p′-DDT and technical grade DDT. This suggests the possibility that the action of these substances on the uterus may depend on the conversion of the analogs of DDT to estrogenic metabolites.

 

[Mustang]

Still haven't gotten an answer.

A question: Do conservatives EVER do any research once they hear about a claim made by someone that's inclined to make them outraged? I ask because I was a kid when I first found out that people can and DO lie for a whole host of reasons. I ask because the first time I ever went off half-cocked because of some BS story someone told me (whether the person who told me knew it was BS, or not) only to find out later that I had it all wrong or out of context, taught me a valuable lesson. And it served me well later in life when I didn't take X as a given just because someone said it. Hell, I knew plenty of people who got in jams because of so-called "barracks lawyers" who told other soldiers about 'their rights' when they didn't know shit about the UCMJ. I've seen people spend unnecessary money for small car problems that they were told would be major expenses. I've had people try to con my several times. But for some reason, conservatives keep falling for BS.

Was DDT banned overseas? Yes. But not by the United States. And not back in the 1970s. And not for disease control. It was banned by The Stockholm convention in 2001 (to take effect in 2004) for AGRICULTURAL use which involves the indiscriminate spraying to kill insects related to the growing of crops, NOT for killing mosquitoes in an effort to control the spread of malaria. But the chemical stopped working in places like Africa specifically BECAUSE it was used indiscriminately for agriculture which meant that gov'ts were spending money to spray a pesticide into their environment which wasn't even helping them to control malaria, not to mention the fact that they often failed to take other disease-mitigating steps.

All I can say at this point is that conservatives seem to be a con man's dream come true since all it seems anyone has to do is spin a yarn which is likely to result in conservative outrage and just wait until the right moment to hit you guys up for money.

DDT - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Jroc]

Liberal environmentalist love dead babies. particularly black babies

 

[westwall]

Liberal environmentalist love dead babies. particularly black babies

It's certainly true that the best way to halt environmental degradation is to eliminate the Third World. Conservationists and those like us wish to educate people and invest in their infrastructure so that they can claw their way out of corruption and despair.

Progressive environmentalists however wish them to remain backwards technologically, medically, educationally, and in their creation and use of energy. That of course condemns those peoples (primarily brown and black skinned) to much shorter, more violent and less productive lives.

The evidence certainly shows that progressives are overwhelmingly bigoted who feel that the millions of deaths directly attributable to their ideas and programs are a good thing.

Scary, scary people indeed.

 

[Crick]

I see neither of you has any interest in speaking honestly.

 

[Jroc]

Liberal environmentalist love dead babies. particularly black babies

It's certainly true that the best way to halt environmental degradation is to eliminate the Third World. Conservationists and those like us wish to educate people and invest in their infrastructure so that they can claw their way out of corruption and despair.

Progressive environmentalists however wish them to remain backwards technologically, medically, educationally, and in their creation and use of energy. That of course condemns those peoples (primarily brown and black skinned) to much shorter, more violent and less productive lives.

The evidence certainly shows that progressives are overwhelmingly bigoted who feel that the millions of deaths directly attributable to their ideas and programs are a good thing.

Scary, scary people indeed.

Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people