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

[Crick]

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

And you don't?

 

[westwall]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

 

[Jroc]

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

And you don't?

The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it d only have the population density of New York City - OMG Facts - The World s 1 Fact Source

 

[mamooth]

It's going to be hard for Westwall to top his insanity of thinking a compressed gas constantly generates heat, but he's working on it.

 

[mamooth]

The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it d only have the population density of New York City - OMG Facts - The World s 1 Fact Source

And most of them would be dead within a month.

Jroc illustrates why no member of the denier cult should ever be allowed to form public policy. The consequences of their complete lack of common sense would be catastrophic and genocidal.

 

[Jroc]

The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it d only have the population density of New York City - OMG Facts - The World s 1 Fact Source

And most of them would be dead within a month.

Jroc illustrates why no member of the denier cult should ever be allowed to form public policy. The consequences of their complete lack of common sense would be catastrophic and genocidal.

You're ignorant... I'm just making a point genius

 

[Crick]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?

What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.

World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Jroc]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?

What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.

World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the world

 

[Crick]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?

What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.

World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the world

On what do you base that? Are there no shortages? Does everyone have what they need?

 

[Jroc]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?

What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.

World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the world

On what do you base that? Are there no shortages? Does everyone have what they need?

Not because there are too many people. Dysfunctional societies don't have anything to do with the number of people. Every person in the world could fit in Texas with room to spare.... Lets keep it real

 

[westwall]

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

And you don't?

No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.

So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?

What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.

World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The carrying capacity of this planet is around 40 billion. That assumes 95% efficiency of generating, transporting and distribution of food. Obviously that will never happen, but that is the theoretical maximum. Demographers have shown that the population growth is slowing and will halt when it reaches approximately 10 billion people. It will then slide back down to around 6 billion people. And guess what.....it's doing that all by itself. No need for you and your murderous co-conspirators to kill anyone.

 

[Crick]

Put your thinking cap on and explain to us WHAT will make it halt at 10 billion and WHAT will make it slide back down to 6 billion?

 

[Mustang]

The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it d only have the population density of New York City - OMG Facts - The World s 1 Fact Source

And most of them would be dead within a month.

Jroc illustrates why no member of the denier cult should ever be allowed to form public policy. The consequences of their complete lack of common sense would be catastrophic and genocidal.

They're simpletons.

Every American eats a 2-3 meals a day (if not more). That food has to come from somewhere. It requires arable land, water, fertilizer, and ALL the products necessary for growing, producing, processing, packaging, and transporting food products to stores. It all requires land. Meat, in the form of beef (for example) requires a LOT more land, and grain and water per calorie than grain production does. It's the same with manufactured products since this things don't just magically 'appear' out of thin air.

Be that as it may, I would like to prevent the thread from getting too far afield from the fact that conservatives are lying about DDT, how it got banned, why it got banned, when it got banned, and the fact that it was no longer an effective agent to control mosquito populations in the fight against malaria.

What this shows me, among other things, is that conservatives don't appear to have any problem at all with lying about the facts. Considering that the facts are so easily verifiable, conservatives don't even seem to be concerned with being called on their obvious misrepresentations. What that means is that conservatives not only don't have a problem with lying about it, they're not even shamed by such a transparent falsehood. I find that stunning since most reputable people with disavow such a blatant misrepresentation once it's pointed out to them. Have you seen anyone disavow Levin's claims? Hell no! If anything, the Internet spreads the lies further, and men like StosselI give it a credibility it otherwise would not have by broadcasting it on TV. So while most reputable people would disavow blatantly untrue propaganda, it's con men who stand out as an exception to that general rule since they'll generally have another lie readily available to explain away a growing skepticism.

As for me, there was a time I could (and did) vote for Republicans. No more. And the reason is plain and simple. It's because anyone who relies on lies to gain support for their agenda, has, by definition, a VERY weak argument in their favor. Unfortunately, over the last few years, I've found that this general tactic is SOP.

 

[mamooth]

Yep. Westwall knows full well his policies would cause millions to die from Malaria. He doesn't care. He would literally rather see millions die than admit his cult was wrong.

The deniers are not an emotionally healthy group. They've invested all of their sense of self-worth into their cult affiliation. Therefore, they simply will not admit error on the part of their cult, no matter what the facts are. If people have to die so they can feel good, that's a sacrifice they're willing to have someone else make.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do not the tens of thousands of deaths caused by Carson's book make her a serial killer? Dead because of diseases carried by mosquitoes that would never have been hatched had she not spread panic over the only effective tool to combat them.

 

[mamooth]

Henry, you know by now that you're lying your ass off, and that your lies would kill millions.

What does it say about you as a person that you'd rather see millions die than admit your error?

 

[HenryBHough]

Henry, you know by now that you're lying your ass off, and that your lies would kill millions.

What does it say about you as a person that you'd rather see millions die than admit your error?

Who knew that malaria had a fan club even, let alone a mammonth president!

 

[Darkwind]

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.

One 2-second search...

Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

 

[Darkwind]

Do not the tens of thousands of deaths caused by Carson's book make her a serial killer? Dead because of diseases carried by mosquitoes that would never have been hatched had she not spread panic over the only effective tool to combat them.

Actually, her book simply came to many wrong conclusions.

It is the people who implemented policies from this book that are the real killers.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Absorb and emit at a slightly lower frequency. And by the way...all that early work on the greenhouse hypothesis was disproved shortly after it was published. Refer to Robert Woods.