[Chalo]

landotter wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:

flipper wrote:

I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
often, you scream it.

Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.

Personally, I'd find it heartwarming that Americans were actually too
"green". I'd love to hear the argument.

I think the crux of the issue is the ability to change one's mind
given evidence. DDT, for example, is certainly a bad substance when
used willy nilly, but it's a lifesaver when used to treat mosquito
nets and residential structures in malaria stricken regions.

When my mom was a kid in East Texas, the DDT truck would come down the
street, spraying as it went, to exterminate the insect life in
roadside ditches. The kids rode along behind on their bicycles,
enjoying the cool mist and bug-free zone.

That's where these folk's heads are at. That's how they used the
stuff, when it was possible for them to use it.

You'll notice that anti-environmentalists' compassion for the poor
malaria-stricken people of the world does not extend so far as to
develop and use mosquito-specific biological countermeasures,
effective but environmentally non-persistent alternatives to DDT, or
anything like that. They just like to whine about environmentalists
choosing birds, fish, and cats over cancer, extinctions, diabetes, and
DDT-resistant skeeters.

Chalo