Comments

1. 

   Ed Darrell

   June 11, 2010 at 20:18

   So, who does provide the funding for AFM? Would you be so kind as to tell us who has donated how much to the group?

   Reply
2. 

   Daniel

   September 15, 2010 at 21:46

   @Ed, you will find AFM's funding here: http://www.fightingmalaria.org/funding.aspx Many of these names have a bad reputation for funding climate sceptics etc. @Roger I don't see you answering to John's post, really. His point is that DDT was taken out of use pretty much before environmentalism, and because of resistancy, not political pressure. E.g. the history of Sri Lanka (that I think that you have described quite differently elsewhere). Also, who are the "environmental movement"? This is unclear in everything I have read from you. I also find these sentences quite self-contradictory: "Further, a quick look there will show that far from saying that DDT is a panacea, as Quiggin and Lambert assert, AFM continues to explain how complex a disease malaria is" vs. "The reality is that DDT is probably the most useful insecticide ever used for public health." I know that the effect of spraying on humans is under debate, but the case that Carson refers to is a woman who misuses DDT, and die from poisoning. I think this comes from the chapter where she describes how DDT was sold to gardeners, who had know idea how dangerous the pesticide was, and often didn't take precautions. You, I and Carson all know that DDT doesn't harm humans when applied as a powder, since it does not enter the human body. It becomes dangerous when dissolved in oil for spraying. That is why it could be succesfully used against fleas on soldiers in WWII, but be lethal to American home owners.

   Reply
3. 

   Marion Delgado

   November 15, 2010 at 04:19

   Since when is a press release from an industry spokesman a "Web Exclusive?" "Africa Fighting Malaria" happens to be "Multinational Agribusiness Sociopaths Who Increased DDT Resistance In Mousquitos Attempting To Throw The Blame Off Themselves Onto the Investigators Who Caught Them."

   Reply
4. 

   jakerman

   November 24, 2010 at 09:31

   Tim Lambert has a reply to Bates. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/roger_bates_false_history.php

   Reply
5. 

   IAmDigitap

   July 25, 2011 at 23:25

   I find the comment about 'bad reputation of funding climate sceptics' hilarious. What we have in climate frenzy hysteria addicts, is a group of people who thought Mannian 'Statistics' was 'Climate Statistics' and the Jones-Briffa 'extensions' of said 'Climate Statistics' invented the field of 'Climate Math.' Then along came the Head of the Royal Statistical Society and his remark that not only was Mannian Statistics not statistics, but that no 'Climate Math' is even math of ANY kind. Ouch. That's gotta leave a climatola-la-la-gist breathless with anxiety. The men who calculated the end times, did it without being able to tell what they thought, was math, was useless doodles. Then regarding said enviro-wackies, we have the overwhelming silence of the infra-red and optical telescopy fields after all these decades: as manmade gas contributions have raged ever upward for over a hundred years, the infra-red telescopy field is utterly, UTTERLY SILENT regarding the mentioned atmospheric infra-red's blinding their instruments; or, leading to fewer viewing days; or, having shown up in any way, at all. Yea, they just didn't mention it. Oh that's right, some folks did a study of infra red in the midwest, released last April, where it's revealed with all this manmade gas rising, that 3 seasons out of 4, there's LESS atmospheric infra red. Darnit Jim! This one's dead! Sure is. Then there's the optical telescopy field. Remember them? The guys who helped Einstein cement Relativity by measuring the bending of a beam of starlight by galactic, gravitational force? Yea those guys. Well, turns out, that HEAT on a GAS is MOTION of that gas. It's the definition of a gas having more heat on it. And guess what that means? It means Atmospheric Scintillation or in other words the stars twinkling over those climate twinks' heads. See, if there's a G.H.G. Effect at all, it can't be hidden from the optical telescopy field. Because if that heat's there, the optical telescopy field can't HELP but be affected by it. Note the resounding silence from the entire field as not one person on earth can go get those photos from the early 20th century and show photos of the same section of sky, today, with more HEAT DISTORTION MANDATORY to there being a G.H.G. Effect. So when you start up with the clown science, remember: the stars twinkling over those twinks' heads, prove that not one word of ALL THAT BILGE was true. If it was, someone would have trotted out the records of the assemblies that flex telescope mirrors to offset heat distortion and shown the ever rising need, for ever more flexing of those mirrors, as ever rising heat, showed an ever rising effect by fictitiously named gases. But alas, there is none, so the only thing that climate wackos can do is scratch their heads and blame 'Big Awuhl dun DUN iT!'

   Reply
6. 

   snuh

   August 17, 2011 at 01:39

   I first proposed the idea of a pro-DDT campaign because I thought it was scientifically valid... that's weird. because in your letter to philip morris, which you refer to and which you accept you wrote, you say you were proposing it because it would be a great way to distract the world health organisation from its tobacco control agenda. but for some reason you expect people to ignore that contemporaneous evidence, and instead accept you on faith as being someone genuinely interested in public health. (putting to one side the fact that people who are genuinely interested in public health do not, in general, ask the tobacco industry for money to fund their research)

   Reply

Leave a comment

You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.