Computer teacher Tim Lambert has a history of beclowning himself when it comes to analysing those things he disagrees with.
For example, he denies there's a UN ban on DDT and, anyway, even if there isn't then mosquitoes are resistant to it so there's no point using it.
Facts, you see, are not one of Lambert's strong points.
DDT is listed as a persistent organic pollutant by the UN and if a country wants WHO funding then they can only get it if they don't use DDT.
Lambert does not believe this is the case. One of my close relatives was directly involved in the issue, working in Africa and representing the UN. What he told me, and showed me, proves Lambert and other DDT detractors dead wrong. When my relative retires from working and is not subject to the blowback of disclosure then I'll give the details.
Anyhow, Lambert has undertaken to critique Ian Plimer's new book, Heaven and Earth, subjecting it to exactly the sort of scrutiny they should be undertaking on anything produced by Hansen, the Hokey Stick team, Lonnie Thompson and the rest of the useless scientists that support the IPCC's ridiculous position on global warming.
Check out the latest posts:
Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3
Ian Enting is checking Plimer's claims
Sales of Heaven and Earth
Reaction to Ashley's review of Plimer
An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer's book
The Australian's War on Science 38: more denial from Ian Plimer
Ian Plimer 'can not recall' where his graph came from
Plimer does the Gish gallop
Ian Plimer and the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines
The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"
The fact that the left has reacted so violently, and irrationally, to the success of Heaven and Earth demonstrates how worried they are that the so called science supporting their position is about to be exposed for the sham it is.
Lambert is a self professed computer expert and I have no doubt he has a fair bit of skill in that area.
Why doesn't he analyse how climate models are created and why they have a zero percent successful forecasting rate?
That would be the intellectually honest thing to do if he really wanted to make a contribution.
(Nothing Follows)
17 comments:
I can't remember where it was posted, but the inability to control mosquito borne illnesses in Africa due to the restrictions on DDT has resulted in thousands of deaths. At what point is the survivability of humankind considered part of the natural ecological movement?
"For example, he denies there's a UN ban on DDT"
That would probably be because there isn't.
"if a country wants WHO funding then they can only get it if they don't use DDT."
Let's have a look at what the WHO themselves say. With a couple of seconds of googling, I found a document entitled "WHO position on DDR use in disease vector control under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants". It says this:
"WHO proposed and supports the continued use of DDT for disease vector control, under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The reason for the Organization’s position is summed up by the recommendations of a WHO Malaria Expert Committee meeting in 1998:
It is anticipated that for some time to come there will continue to be a role for DDT in combating malaria, particularly in the poorest endemic countries. Restrictions on DDT for public health use contained in a future Persistent Organic Pollutants Convention should therefore be accompanied by technical and financial mechanisms to ensure that effective malaria control is maintained, to at least the same level, through vector control methods that depend less on pesticides generally, and on DDT in particular. WHO urges that a premature shift to less effective or more costly alternatives to DDT, without adequate preparation of the capacity of Member States (human, technical, financial), will not only be unsustainable but also have a negative impact on disease burden in the endemic countries."
Facts, you see, are not one of your strong points.
Is your relative as much of a nutjob as you are?
fudgie,
I can tell you that what WHO says and what WHO does are two VERY different things.
My relative works for them.
Yeah, right. Show us some evidence that the WHO does not do what it claims to do, or admit you were bullshitting. Imaginary relatives are not evidence.
Is this a parody site?
Anyone with "truth" or "common sense" in their name is probably anti-science.
I would have almost believed you were real but for ridiculous arguments such as saying "One of my close relatives was directly involved in the issue... told me..."
Excellent parody of anti-science fools. Thanks for the laugh. HAHA
Ok Fudgie, you may have scored a goal there, but trying to ram it home by making a third post in a row pretending to be someone else is a little undignified, wouldn't you say.
Also you haven't really tackled the point that Jack made. The WHO do indeed list DDT as a polutant, but allow limited treatment by DDT (is vector control solely internal? - Sorry I don't know)
They did have a change of heart in 2006 it appears but a recent flurry of press releases suggest that a total phasing out is now proposed in the 20's I believe.
And all of your hastily Googled stuff however does not address the funding issue, so get back on your Google and come up with something to disprove this point and I'll gladly conceed this round to you.
Jack may say otherwise.
Thank you by the way for the link to wood to the trees, some while back. Most interesting, and Raw data, which I have downloaded and chart in excel....Unscientific I know, but we luddites try our hardest.
Finally thanks to Jack for the links to Deltoid. The viciousnous of debate in the comments has to be seen to be believed. Much too rich for my blood, but it does cheer me up to see all of these highly educated people, who presumably hold down responsible jobs going at each other like fish wives.
You'd love it over there Fudgie.
I worked for the WHO during the 1970's. What the talking heads in NY said and what they did were two different things. They bought the green line about DDT and the efforts at vector control were very limited and half hearted. I'd like environmentalists to spend some time in sub-saharan Africa. They might learn some humility.
Ex-WHO-guy here again. I just went to look at the Lambert Plimer links. Sheesh. He wants to find every tiny error in Plimers book that he can. If only he would go over realclimate with such a fine-tooth comb.
Its clear he is acting in bad faith. His goal is to make plimer look bad, rather than to get to the truth.
The truth was an early casualty of this sad little AGW war.
"I worked for the WHO during the 1970's"
And I invented the question mark.
Actual WTO position
"And I invented the question mark."
Well, I guess you dont want to hear opinions that contradict your faith. Don't believe me? Fine. I have several colleagues at WHO and do not want to compromise them. Again, I suggest you go to sub-saharan Africa and see how people live. I recommend Kenya, where I worked on occasion.
Mr Lambert is a self acknowledged computer Graphics expert.
Cheers
What WHO says and what WHO does are two completely different things.
To those people who point at WHO's supposed official policy - please find me an example or two of WHO providing funding for DDT spraying since 2006...not 'support' but funding....
You're a fucking idiot, Lacton. How about you provide a single piece of evidence to back your claims? "My relative says..." is not evidence.
Fudgie,
When the guy retires from his role with the U.N. then I'll tell the full story. I made that clear previously. If you don't believe what I'm saying then that's your right.
And what is it with the left and abusive language? Can't you act like a decent person when you disagree with them?
Ignore the bloke. He used to pretend he was a scientist, so he can hardly criticise you.
Have you read much of the Deltoid blog?
I have to say it's one of the nastiest places I've ever been on the internet. The comments are mostly arrogant, pig-headed and rude, rather like a hundred Fudgies all on one blog.
Strangely compelling though, the 'car crash' theory I suppose.
Post a Comment