Other side of the debate.

[Noleader]

Very interesting (but long) presentation on Global Warming.

http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/22/new-monckton-presentation-video-includes-slides/

[Muadi]

Loved the video NL... ty. I sure wish more people would pay attention to actual data, vs. PR.

Pretty scary stuff at the end... his last message... I had no idea that the Climate treaty would be so controlling. I figured it would by like the Kyoto Treaty... empty.

[Noleader]

Yea it kind of stuck a cord with me as well. Thats why I decided to share the video.

[]LoL[Harm]

Okay, I know DDT was banned for Agricultural use, but it was never as far as I have learned, banned for use as a pesticide against malaria carrying mosquitoes.

So, I'd really like to see where he is getting his facts on this, in fact DDT is still used today in killing mosquitoes so his 40 year ban is a flat out lie. This does not bode well for me trusting this man for the remainder of this video.

[]LoL[Harm]

I decided to wiki up DDT and it confirmed most of what I recalled the last time I read up on it. It also pointed out this which is an interesting tidbit:

The evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes has greatly reduced its effectiveness in many parts of the world, and current WHO guidelines require that before the chemical is used in an area, susceptibility of local mosquitoes to DDT must be confirmed.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-IRS-WHO-85) The appearance of DDT-resistance is largely due to its use in agriculture, where it was used in much greater amounts than the relatively small quantities used for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural uses of DDT and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-pmid7278974-18)

[]LoL[Harm]

He had some good stuff in there, but his repeated "red scare" tactics (calling those on the other side of the argument communist, which is as tired and old as calling your opponent a Nazi) and also his use of a manipulation tactic that he condemns, where he states that Polar Bears are used to manipulate your emotions in order to aid in the environmentalist argument and then he moves to pushing the anti-DDT communist killing off a poor 3rd world woman and her children.

His ending statement where he dooms us to a Communistic country that has signed away all of its freedoms if we sign into this treaty, is pure drivel and doomsaying, as off the mark as the climate change doomsayers. To think that we would lose our democracy from some external treaty takes a massive leap in rational thought. We have a well known track record for signing into treaties and then just ignoring them when they no longer fit our national stance.

[Noleader]

Based off my reading on the DDT subject it seems that America was a leading exporter of DDT until we outright banned the use of it for all reasons with few exceptions. Once we banned its use within our borders the production of DDT fell and the rest of the world was left without the supplier they were dependent on. Here is one the articles I ran into: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

As for the red scare and the killing off of 3rd world people.. Well a lot of it is just slippery slope argument coming into play. The fact remains that any treaty we sign does become supreme law of the land and any that surrenders our sovereignty to any world body is a direct attack on our Republic.

At any rate how come when someone sounds the sovereignty bell they are just doomsaying yet those that claim sea levels will raise by 20 feet are profits that are warning us of the future.

[]LoL[Harm]

I don't think the other side are profits. I think Al Gore is just a businessman like any other. He used fear to sell a product. And he may be a doomsayer as well, using extremes to create a reaction.

And though you state it as fact that any treaty we sign becomes a supreme law that is a direct attack on our Republic is a bit of an overstatement and oversimplifies our responsibilities as a global community where some aspects of our actions are not directly tied to the core of our nation and freedoms. If we signed the anti-mine treaty and stopped using and deploying mines do you really see the fabric of our nation coming undone? So international treaties, though they may become supreme law will not by them selves as international treaties, directly or indirectly attack our Republic.

Now I haven't read the latest treaty, so I don't anything about it, and it's contents may "directly attack" our Republic, though no one here, and nothing I've read online has actually provided the information that shows this attack.

Also on the DDT front, I read chunks of this:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.html

This section has a ton of info on testing done from rats, dogs to monkeys:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c3.pdf

All in all, with the amount of saturation and the life of the chemical in our food chain, I feel more comfortable without it in our food supply. You're opinion may vary, but I'd be surprised if you'd be willing to feed DDT to your kids. And having it with agricultural use would be doing exactly that.

[Noleader]

That is some serious reading... I will start looking it over tomorrow and see what it has to say. I have heard lot of bad things about DDT before and I have also heard that there are many that tested it and feel it is safer then a lot of the stuff we currently use on our crops... but until I actually read that I will refrain from comment on it.

As for you seeing them as profits, that was not my intent I was talking about the global warming community at large. I have actually seen videos of people saying he was, using the word profit.

As for the aspect of it being a direct attack on our Republic... well lets look at it. If some world climate governing body controls all our energy (via carbon limits) who is really in change in this nation? Whos to say they don't place an embargo on us if we just ignore the treaty.

How about the fact that they want us to pay the 3rd world nations, via taxation, for all the CO2 our grandparents put up into the air while they were not burning anything. This is nothing more then a power grab and transfer of weath.

Aside from the global warming doomsaying would you even consider this treaty? All it does is grant a world body the authority to tax us, control our energy use, reduce the third world into hell (all while paying their governments with our tax dollars; blood money).

[]LoL[Harm]

If that is the context of the treaty then no I don't really agree with it and can see that it may run contrary to how our country may need to position itself in the future. If the treaty was more along the lines that x amount of dollars would be put towards developing alternative energy sources that may be viable and that do not impact 3rd world countries (like many biofuels due, since it does impact our food supply...though there are those that state we already over produce but that's another topic), or that countries would agree to lower tariffs on car imports that have a certain efficiency, then I could see it as something that we would want to move towards.

Human nature when safety, shelter and food are abundant is to sit idle and to ride the comfort. We need struggle or leadership to drive innovation so I'm all about someone forcing us to move forward, we as a country have been stagnant too long in many of our industrial and technological sectors. But I agree, that if what you say is what the treaty is trying to do, that it does not seem to be a driving, innovation creating thing and more of something that would just burden our country and possibly, but not certainly, cost us jobs and create other problems.

[Noleader]

This treaty (granted it never made it past a proposal stage so no one knows what the final version would look like) was basically what I said above and that is why I disagree with it.

As for your concept of investing in alternative energy sources that was also in the treaty but it was a small part of the larger text. If that is all the treaty would have required or was the center of the treaty then I would agree that it would be a non-issue for most.