Dec15
Founder of Weather Channel to sue Al Gore?
Please let this be true. From Energy Publisher:
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has called global warming a “total myth” and a “scam.” Coleman and 30,000 other scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) may sue Al Gore and others selling carbon credits for fraud. Coleman says the manipulated hysteria over global warming has become an “environmentalist religion.”
Ho-hum who cares, you say? Well, how about the impact biofuels are having on the Third World where the cost of grain has skyrocketed because it is now being grown for cleaner-burning fuel, thus creating food shortages. Al Gore’s environmentalist hoax takes bread out of the mouths of babes literally. I doubt he loses any sleep at night. After all, Gore is a long-time anti-natalist who with President Clinton aggressively promoted population control in the third world. What’s a few million starved poor folk in Africa who don’t look like the Gores anyway? – Fewer carbon footprints messing up the planet.
Elitists consider the teeming masses in the third world a threat and the Clinton-Gore Cairo Conference of 1994 made it absolutely clear that population control, particularly in the third world, was at the top of their priority list. Could it be that global warming is just one more way to promote de-population? Already, voices clamor for carbon taxes on newborns who will clutter up the planet for eighty years or more interfering with the lifestyles of the the rich and famous whose favorite tourist attractions are overrun with the hoi-polloi these days.
These are shocking accusations against Gore and his environmentalist friends, but, sadly, they’re true. Environmentalism kills people and on a massive scale. Remember the ban on DDT? It led to the deaths of millions of people and is still killing millions, mostly children, by allowing Malaria to spread like wildfire, all to “protect” the environment. Do environmentalists regret the millions of deaths that have resulted from the ban? No. They still defend it enthusiastically and their impact is devastating. From Project 21:
But during that global war, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) was dusted on Allied soldiers and tents to prevent malaria. After the war, it stopped a European typhus epidemic. It then helped virtually eradicate malaria in the United States by 1952 and in Europe by 1961. It was also used – often carelessly and in excess – to protect crops against insects.
However, in the midst of these successes, Rachel Carson and the emerging environmental movement concluded that DDT was building up in wildlife, livestock and humans. They said it would result in devastating consequences. Instead of conducting objective, scientific studies to see if DDT was actually harmful, they mounted a worldwide campaign that ultimately caused DDT to be removed even from the malaria control arsenal.
For these Americans and Europeans, seeking this ban imposed no costs. Malaria was largely gone in their countries. When they visit Africa, they stay in five-star hotels, away from mosquitoes. They have bug sprays and medicines to prevent and treat disease. They rarely visit the hospitals or homes where people are suffering and dying or feel the pain of million of poor people whose cause they claim to champion.
Africa essentially became a sacrifice zone where environmental ideologies demand that only politically-correct tools like bed nets be used to prevent the disease that is still the biggest single killer of our children. It is a crime against humanity to ban DDT and leave over 300 million African mothers, fathers and children to suffer every year from acute malaria.
Even today, 65 years after it was first used in disease control, no other chemical works as well for as long or at a lower cost in stopping malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases than DDT. There is no proof that it is harmful to people or animals when used responsibly. That is why hundreds of physicians, clergy and human rights advocates have demanded that it be put back into the malaria control arsenal.
The people who push the global warming scam today have the same ideology as those who pushed the anti-DDT scam in the 80’s. If the global warming crowd gets its way, not only will Africa be devastated, but the United States will as well because Al Gore and his cronies’ anti-global warming initiatives are business killers.
I truly hope Coleman and his scientists sue Al Gore and and his buddies. Someone has to stop this train wreck from coming to fruition.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or subcribe via email. Thanks for stopping by!
My husband is one of those scientists (he’s a meteorologist). He doesn’t think it’s a hoax, he thinks it’s one of those cyclical things. The earth goes through cycles of both warming an cooling. We should be good stewards of the planet, but the whole carbon credit thing is ridiculous (my thoughts, not necessarily dh’s).
Ok, I guess I should clarify that. Dh thinks that it’s not necessarily man made, as the environmentalists claim. Can we be better stewards of the planet? Yes. Can we stop “global warming?” No. In fact, water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. What causes water vapor? Evaporation of water. Nothing can be done about that at all. Both he and I believe that humans impact on the environment is minuscule compared to things that we have no control over.
Oh please let it be true that Gore will be sued for this! Although I am not a scientist, I also believe that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. When you look at the amazing vastness of space, it would be pretty laughable to think that a few gases could have much effect on it.
My husband used to work for an appliance manufacturer and as an engineer, he had to help come up with ways to eliminate the use of freon in refrigerators. At the time, he thought it was absurd. It ended up costing companies tons of money to come up with an alternative source of coolant – all because of an unproven theory.
I wasn’t aware of the DDT-Malaria connection in Africa. That is outrageous!!! I find it amazing that the Democrats have convinced people that they are the ‘party who cares’ about the poor. When rubber meets the road, they don’t give a RIP. It’s all about power and their socialist agenda.
Do I remember the ban on DDT? Indeed I do.
I think it is the height of irresponsibility to claim that the DDT “ban” did anything other than save the bald eagle, the brown pelican, osprey, peregrine falcons, and our environment. That’s what all the evidence says.
Did our stopping the use of DDT on cotton in Texas really cause malaria to explode in Africa? No, that’s completely bizarre, and false. DDT had already stopped being effective against mosquitoes due to overuse in agriculture by the mid-1960s. WHO abandoned its program to eradicate malaria because the agricultural overuse had made the goal impossible, by 1965. The U.S. and Sweden banned the agricultural use of DDT in 1972, seven years later.
Is there a shred of evidence that says DDT is magically effective now, where it was not before? No.
So, what hoaxster claims DDT is a magic bullet?
There were dozens, maybe hundreds of scientific reports on DDT by 1972. Each and every one of them documented the harms. Two federal courts ordered EPA to get off its duff and study new restrictions. EPA dragged its feet for another year, compiling a 9,000-page record that said DDT was deadly to all wildlife, uncontrollable in the wild, increasingly ineffective against pests, and probably a cancer causative agent, too.
Who says otherwise? Does this fellow from Nigeria actually expect us to believe that Idi Amin in Uganda bowed at the altar of Rachel Carson and stopped spraying DDT because he was convinced he could save birds? Does he really expect us to understand that his own government, accused of many human rights violations, decided they would like to save birds in America with scant evidence of success, and so sacrificed Nigerians?
Might he be a little bit in error?
Recent studies confirm that there are many other things necessary to control mosquitoes, and malaria, than simply spraying DDT — and using the other control methods works better, with lower cost, with much less environmental damage, with much less morbidity and mortality in humans, than poisoning Africa with DDT.
It’s outrageous that anyone would take such obviously false claims at face value, and impugn the reputation of a great scientist like Rachel Carson. It is precisely this sort of propaganda-quality diatribe that keeps effective solutions from being acted upon. If it were true that we could poison Africa to health, don’t you think Africans would have done it already? There is even a special provision of the Persistent Organic Pesticides Treaty that keeps DDT available for use against malaria. U.S. law has had the same exception since 1972.
If DDT is so effective, why doesn’t Nigeria just poison the hell out of its own nation? Who is stopping them?
For a somewhat more calm response, take a look here:
http://www.irishleftreview.org/2008/12/15/story-told-irish-media-reports-climate-change/
If DDT is so effective, why doesn’t Nigeria just poison the hell out of its own nation? Who is stopping them?
The UN.