Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Big property rights victory at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landowner who challenged the government's designation of 1,500 acres of land as "critical habitat" for an endangered frog species.

Edward Poitevent sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who said the land in question – in his family's possession for decades – was critical to the survival of the dusky gopher frog, even though the species had not inhabited the land since 1965.
Daily Caller:
"I am really overjoyed that an eight to nothing court agreed with me that the service's decision was absurd and nightmarish for property rights in the United States," landowner Edward Poitevent told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a Tuesday interview. 
"We all actually thought something like this would happen, but what's really stunning is this is an eight to nothing decision," Poitevent said. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service told Poitevent in 2011 his land, which has been in his family for generations, would be listed as backup critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, which hasn't been seen there since 1965.  The only known domain of the frogs was a single pond in southern Mississippi as of 2001, but the government said the Louisiana zone was the only other possible habitat it could identify.
One small problem with Fish and Wildlife's decision: The land where the frog hadn't lived in more than 45 years had changed..............To Read More......

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Noted climate scientists trashes White House climate report

November 26, 2018 By Rick Moran

Marc Morano at Climate Depot notes that climate expert Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has found a glaring hole in the recently released climate change report by the White House. Pielke points out that the report utterly failed to highlight the significant drop in the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US.

Pielke Jr. asked on November 24: “How it is that the 2018 US National Climate Assessment failed to include or overlooked trends in US landfalling hurricanes which would, ahem, seem pretty important in a US climate report[?] Pielke Jr. then noted that the report ignored one of its own expert reviewers who wrote this:
“National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s… instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones.” Pielke Jr. continued: “Let’s observe here hurricanes are discussed at length in the report, and every hurricane that is discussed is … a landfalling storm. The failure to include trend data on US landfalling hurricanes in USNCA is a remarkable choice. What were they thinking, no one would notice?”.............
In fact, Pielke accepts the basic premise of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.  But Pielke's point is well taken; why leave out information on hurricane landfalls in the US? It's not the only thing fishy about this climate change report, and it begs the question why give ammunition to global warming hysterics in the first place?............To Read More

My Take - Pielke Jr. is a Warmist, but I think what he's doing here is what a number of "scientists" have started doing regarding the green religious tenet of Anthropogenic Global Warming - looking for  a soft landing as this becomes exposed as scientific fraud. 

The evidence coming in has clearly shown the whole thing is a gigantic fraud and has been from the beginning.  Now the federal government is saying so and the money is drying up - more are gong to looking for ways to have a soft landing before this is over, and hopefully, a number of them will end up in prison.

Geo-engineering: Ignoring the consequences

Governments charge ahead on engineering Earth’s climate, ignoring possible harmful effects

Tim Ball and Tom Harris

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions.

NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption” to cool the planet.” Its article proclaimed, “Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.”

Proposal like this are defined as geo-engineering – trying to artificially modify Earth’s climate to offset what are presented as unnatural events. The problem is, the events they are trying to offset are actually natural events. Any scientist or politician who doesn’t understand that will undoubtedly create worse problems than those they are trying to “fix.”

From 1940 to almost 1980, the average global temperature went down. Political concerns and the alleged scientific consensus focused on global cooling. Alarmists said it could be the end of agriculture and civilization. Journalist Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book, The Cooling:

“It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”

Change the word "cooling" to warming and it applies to the alarmist threats today.

The problem then was – and still is now – that people are educated in the false philosophy of uniformitarianism: the misguided belief that conditions always were and always will be as they are now, and any natural changes will occur over long periods of time.

Consequently, most people did not understand that the cooling was part of the natural cycle of climate variability, or that changes are often huge and sudden. Just 18,000 years ago we were at the peak of an Ice Age. Then, most of the ice melted and sea levels rose 150 meters (490 feet), because it was warmer for almost all of the last 10,000 years than it is today.

This misunderstanding, combined with the new paradigm of environmentalism (it is illogical and wrong to soil your own nest) created the belief that perfectly ordinary changes must be manmade, and thus had to be corrected by us as well.

During the cooling “danger,” geo-engineering proposals included:

* building a dam across the Bering Straits to block cold Arctic water, to warm the North Pacific and the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere;

* dumping black soot on the Arctic ice cap to promote melting;

* adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere to raise global temperatures.

All these actions would impact global climate in unpredictable ways. Now we know they would have exacerbated the predominantly natural warming trend that followed.

The recent “volcano” proposal involves adding particulates (microscopic particles) to the high atmosphere to block sunlight, to lessen the supposed manmade global warming. The NBC News article references the cooling effect of the Pinatubo volcanic eruption of June 15, 1991, which ejected more particulates into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. The resulting sulfuric acid haze caused average planetary temperatures to fall by about 0.9 degrees C (1.6 F) between 1991-93.

What NBC News neglected to mention was that this occurred during a warming period. Had the eruption happened during a cooling phase, the results could have been catastrophic. That’s what happened with the volcano Tambora in 1815. It was followed by the “year with no summer” that caused multiple extreme weather events and crop failures because it occurred during a cooling trend.

In the early 1800s, the world was already colder than today, and was in the process of cooling still further as a result of low, and decreasing, solar activity. This was during the period of the low sunspot activity of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). The billions of tons volcanic dust injected by the Tambora eruption, the largest in force of ejection for over 10,000 years, reduced sunlight dramatically.

The eruption occurred in April 1815, but its full impact on temperature wasn’t felt until 1816 because the volcano erupted vertically at the Equator and the dust it ejected into the Stratosphere took several months to impact both Hemispheres.

Harvest failures were widespread, especially in the densely populated areas of the eastern US and western Europe. In 1816 it snowed as far south as the Carolinas in July, and the year was dubbed “Eighteen hundred and froze to death.” The US government pleaded with farmers not to eat their seed stock as they would have nothing for the following year. That’s hard to do when your children are starving.

A gravestone inscription reads: “1771-1847, Reuben Whitten son of a revolutionary soldier a pioneer of this town (Ashland NH), cold season of 1816 raised 40 bushels of wheat on this land which kept his family and neighbours from starvation.”

In Germany, they even produced a medal for 1816-1817 with the inscription, “Great is the distress, Oh Lord, have pity.” In England the price of corn ( “wheat” in the USA) soared, and probably for the first time in history a government introduced legislation (The Corn Laws) to control price increases.

Since the best climate experts say that we can expect a gradual cooling over the next few decades as the Sun weakens, the last thing we should be doing now is artificially cooling the planet still further. Consider that as recently as 1680, in the depths of the Little Ice Age, there was a meter of ice on the Thames River in London, something unimaginable today.

In approximately 90 years, the height up the side of the glens in Scotland to which you could farm lowered by 200 meters. That doesn’t sound like much, but such a vertical change took half of Scotland out of food production. That’s the real reason for the Highland Clearances, the forced evacuation of Scotland’s Highlands and western islands.

As always, government response was inadequate or inappropriate. It is setting up to be the same this time, because the government not only ignored science but attacked those who tried to practice proper science.

“Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere,” as advocated by the IPCC in its October 8 news conference, is also foolish. Historic records show that, at about 410 parts per million (ppm), the level of CO2 supposedly in the atmosphere now, we are near the lowest in the last 280 million years. As plants evolved over that time, the average level was 1200 ppm. That is why commercial greenhouses boost CO2 to that level to increase plant growth and yields by a factor of four.

The IPCC has been wrong in every prediction it’s made since 1990. It would be a grave error to use its latest forecasts as the excuse to engage in geo-engineering experiments with the only planet we have.

Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

When 'reasonable' burdens aren't

Friday, November 23, 2018

Thanksgiving Dinner Chemical Terrors In Every Course - 'Organic' Or Not

By Josh Bloom — November 17, 2017 @ The American Council on Science and Health

The traffic on Thanksgiving is killer. If you happen to be driving to Aunt Wilma's in Connecticut you will find this out for yourself. But what about when you arrive? Which is riskier? The trip or the meal (1)?

Of course, there is no right answer here, but one thing is for certain: Unless your Thanksgiving meal consists of distilled water, you are going to be eating some toxic chemicals, and it doesn't matter whether the turkey is "organic" or not. Or anything else in the meal. So I thought it might be sort of fun to take each course and arbitrarily select one of many chemicals that is in that course. Then let's take a look at what the professional chemical scaremongers have to say about each. Bon appétit!

First course: Wine (sulfites)

Wine contains hundreds of chemicals with ethanol (a known carcinogen) being the most obvious. But it also contains sulfites, especially red wine. Sulfites are a form of sulfur dioxide and are commonly used as preservatives for dried fruit. Since all preservatives are evil, it should come as no surprise that the Natural Resources Defense Council, a.k.a. "The Empire of Ignorance," doesn't regard sulfites so highly. A 2013 article entitled "USFDA Allows Chemicals in Food Despite Lack of Toxicity Testing" by Jennifer Sass, who fancies herself as a toxicologist, (2) has all kinds of icky things to say about sulfites:
  • Sulfites were banned by FDA in 1986 for use on fruits and vegetables that are eaten raw
  • They are also approved by EPA as pesticides.
  • They induce allergy-like reactions in many people.
  • When FDA approved their use as a food additive in the 1970s, sulfites were deemed to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and exempted from FDA premarket approval requirements. 
  • Sulfites are called ‘food additives’. In other contexts, the same chemicals may be considered industrial chemicals or pesticides
Jennifer Sass, NRDC, 2013
Uh oh. Better ditch the wine. What can you drink? Maybe this?

Second course: Fruit plate (monosodium glutamate, a.k.a., MSG)

Regardless if you went for either the wine or the Mountain Dew, now it's time to cleanse the palate before the meal! And what better way to do so than with a delicious platter of fresh fruit? Except fruit has all kinds of chemicals in it. Hundreds of them. And good luck finding a fruit that does not contain glutamic acid, which is just another form of monosodium glutamate (MSG), depending on pH. Let's see what the professional ignoramuses in the Environmental Working Group, an organization that is wrong more often than a weather forecast, have to say about MSG.

EWG's 2016 "Wellness Chat" features an article entitled  "The Importance Of Nutrition In Cancer Prevention" by Jocelyn Weiss, Ph.D. Weiss, who really ought to know better given that she is the Assistant Director of Clinical Research at Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center in New York.

Yet, that didn't stop her from these doozies(emphasis mine):
"Monosodium glutamate, MSG, present in packaged foods under many names, can trigger headaches and other allergic symptoms... If you do not recognize or cannot pronounce ingredients on a label, there’s a good chance you should not eat that product." Jocelyn Weiss, Ph.D. writing for the Environmental Working Group
Uh oh. Weiss has apparently watched too many episodes (that would be one) of the Food Babe because she parrots Vani Hari's incredibly ignorant statement that the ability to spell or pronounce a chemical somehow is somehow correlated with the safety of the chemical. (See: The Food Babe Hath Spoken, And Subway Bread Will Still Suck).
 “When you look at the ingredients [in food],if you can’t spell it or pronounce it, you probably shouldn’t eat it.” Vani Hari (the Food Babe) Source: Subway: Stop Using Dangerous Chemicals In Your Bread
What little credibility Weiss and EWG may or may not have had, it just went out the window. Don't eat something you can't pronounce? Let's pronounce this: DUH.

Third course: Home-baked bread (acrylamide)

Acrylamide is formed whenever starch and amino acids are heated together (See: Cooking Up Some 'Toxic' Chemicals; The Maillard Reaction). Since many foods contain starch and amino acids, it is not surprising that we have been eating a steady diet of acrylamide since 300 B.C., when Egyptians first baked bread. So, it's absolutely astounding that there is anyone still alive on earth, assuming that "Crazy Joe" Mercola is right, something which happens about as often the simultaneous occurrence of a solar eclipse, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and a single flight to LaGuardia Airport landing on time.
Acrylamide, a cancer-causing and potentially neurotoxic chemical, is created when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, whether baked, fried, roasted, grilled or toasted."Crazy Joe" Mercola, "When You Heat Natural Plant-Based Foods You Can Get Cancer-Causing Acrylamide"
Fine, skip the bread. At least you can have some turkey, especially if it's an organic turkey, which we all know is devoid of all chemicals. Or is it?

Fourth course: Turkey

Let's assume that your turkey was raised and prepared under ideal conditions. No antibiotics, hormones, plastic wrappers, or inhumane conditions.

Said turkey will still be jam-packed with tryptophan, the amino acid that gets converted into serotonin and makes you sleepy. (Except, it doesn't. It's your Aunt Gertrude talking about her bunions). OK, it doesn't make you sleepy, but it's a naturally occurring amino acid, so what could possibly be wrong with it (aside from it being a chemical)? When is a reputable source needed to address complex scientific and medical issues, who amongst us wouldn't turn to a supplement company for the truth? It's a good thing that supplements-and-health.com exists. The Case Against Taking L-Tryptophan Supplements is nothing if not even-handed and accurate. Surprising too! Even the most astute scientists and doctors are woefully unaware that tryptophan has a few teensy problems:
  • Drowsiness
  • Nausea
  • Headaches
  • Impaired Liver Function
  • Higher Risk For Eye Damage 
  • Disturbed Protein Metabolism And Impaired Brain Function
  • Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome
  • Severe Inflammation
  • Promotion Of Cardiovascular Events
  • Cancer Initiation & Promotion
OK. There goes the turkey.
Turkzilla: Image - imgur

I figure that at this point between impending starvation and Aunt Gertrude's bunions you are in one lousy mood. But fear not, there is always dessert, or in this case, just dessert.

Fifth course: Apple pie (formaldehyde)

Formaldehyde occurs naturally in a variety of fruits, including apples. So, there's gonna be some of the stuff in apple pie. How bad is it? When it comes to chemistry, pharmacology, and toxicology, it would be hard to find a more authoritative source for than the aforementioned Food Babe:
Formaldehyde is one of the most highly toxic substances on earth. It is linked to allergies, brain damage, cancer, and auto-immune disorders.
Vani Hari (the Food Babe)
Source: You Won’t Believe Where Silly Putty Is Hiding In Your Food

She's pretty much dead on if you ignore the 10,000 (or so) chemicals on earth that are more toxic. And the fact that a small amount of formaldehyde is actually required for the biosynthesis of amino acids. Or that it is metabolized within minutes in the blood and then cleared from the body.
Well, I'm sorry to report that you just drove 3 hours to eat nothing, but not for naught. Fasting is good for you! And has more cred than the "Dean of Derangement," Andrew Weil?

(If you want to know why I turned Weil into a Pez dispenser you'll have to read "It's World Homeopathy Week! All 8 Days Of It.")

"At one time, I experimented with fasting one day a week as a useful physical and psychological discipline. Many people experience a clearer mental state and increased energy after a short-term fast." [Psst. It obviously didn't work]
Dr. Andrew (Pezhead) Weil
If I don't stop now it will be Christmas before this damn thing gets done. And we at Council sincerely hope you live until Christmas. But beware. Phony scares don't end in November.

NOTES:

(1) If you dare, you can read about Aunt Wilma's turkey. See: "Exploding Turkeys Or My Aunt Wilma's? Pick Your Poison"

(2) I fancy myself as Barry White, but I'm pretty sure this is false. 
 

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Blaming climate – ignoring incompetence

California wildfires incinerate people, wildlife and habitats. Politicians blame climate change.

Paul Driessen

Two more raging infernos in California have burned an area nearly ten times the size of Washington, DC. Wildlife and habitats have been torched. Over 8,000 homes and businesses, and nearly the entire town of Paradise, are now ashes and rubble. Cars were partly charred and melted as they escaped the flames, others completely incinerated, sometimes with occupants still inside. Well over 60 people have perished. Over 50,000 are homeless. Hundreds remain missing.

President Trump expressed deep support for the thousands of courageous firefighters battling the conflagrations, urged residents to evacuate quickly and expedited disaster assistance to the ravaged communities. He also sent a poorly crafted tweet: “Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”

The tweet is “partisan,” “ill-informed” and “insensitive” to those who are suffering, state politicians and celebrities railed – before engaging in their own ill-informed, partisan insensitivity.

"This is not the ‘new normal.’ This is the ‘new abnormal,’ Governor Jerry Brown asserted. “And this new abnormal will continue. Dryness, warmth, drought, all those things, they’re going to intensify.” We have to “do more” on forest management, he continued. “But managing all the forests everywhere we can does not stop climate change. And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing and will continue to witness in the coming years.” This chart refutes his climate claims.

Resorting to “manmade climate change” has become the favorite, most politically expedient tactic for deflecting attention away from the abject, ideological, even criminally incompetent forest management practices demanded by politicians, regulators, judges and environmentalists in recent decades.

The hard, incontrovertible reality is that California is and always has been a largely arid state, afflicted on repeated occasions by prolonged droughts, interspersed with periods of intense rainfall, and buffeted almost every autumn by powerful winds that can whip forest fires into infernos.

43% of California timberlands are privately owned, 1% are state owned, and all of them are governed by state laws, regulations and regulators. The remaining 56% are federally owned and managed, largely by preservation-oriented, change-resistant bureaucrats, subject to constant litigation by environmentalists.

This past summer brought unusual rainfall that spurred plant growth. It was followed by hot weather that dried foliage out and set the stage for conflagrations in thick, poorly managed brush and trees.

In this context, it doesn’t much matter if the state is also now confronting climate change, whether natural or manmade – or that California’s or the world’s average temperatures may have risen 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 or even 1.0 degree in recent decades. It doesn’t matter if humans or nature caused the recent fires.

Instead of casting blame, responsible parties need to come together, and deal with the situation at hand. That means first extinguishing these fires and helping devastated families rebuild their lives. Thankfully, everyone is committed to doing that. But it also means better forest management, which is not happening.

In 2016, Governor Brown vetoed a bipartisan wildfire management bill that had unanimously passed the state Assembly and Senate. For decades, radical environmentalists have demanded – and legislators, regulators and judges have approved – “wildlands preservation” and “fires are natural” policies. Tree thinning has been banned, resulting in thousands of skinny, fire-susceptible trees growing where only a few hundred should be present. Even removing diseased, dead and burned trees has been prohibited.

All that timber could have gone to sawmills, to create jobs … and lumber for homes. Instead, the mills and jobs are gone. It could also have fueled biomass electricity generating plants; but most are also closed. State and federal forests in California now host over 129 million dead trees that cannot be touched!

In 2009, Clinton-appointed Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the Bush era US Forest Service had not fully analyzed the effects of potential timber harvesting on endangered plants and animals. In 2015, Obama-appointed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected concerns that new, highly restrictive Obama-era forest plans would further harm local economies and increase the risk of forest fires.

Did those judges and pressure groups, or the politicians and regulators who support them, ever ponder how thoroughly the inevitable infernos exterminate habitats, immolate endangered plants and animals, leave surviving animals starving, and incinerate organic matter in the thin soils? Did they consider how subsequent downpours and snowmelts denude hillsides, wash soils into streambeds, and ensure that trees and biodiversity won’t recover for decades?

Did they gave a moment’s thought to the way horrific conflagrations obliterate communities and kill firefighters, parents and children who get trapped by sudden walls of fast-moving flames? Not likely.

But now many of them seem ready to blame Pacific Gas& amp; Electric, whose power lines may have may have caused a spark that ignited the current deadly inferno on private lands in Northern California. Let no one forget that these pressure groups and government employees share the blame – by causing and perpetuating the conditions that set the stage for this horrendous destruction and loss of life.

Governor Brown recently said that, especially during this “new abnormal,” you have to “do prevention” and “have escape routes” and adapt to “a changed world that not so many people were aware of or were thinking about.” These actions are part of his job – the job of regulators, politicians and judges.

Not only have they been derelict in their duties. They have colluded to prevent tree thinning and dead tree removal. They’ve contested recent initiatives by the Interior Department and Forest Service to revise and reverse policies that invite deadly infernos in the 56% of California forests that are under direct federal control. They’ve perpetuated what Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) calls “ponderous, byzantine laws and regulations administered by a cadre of ideological zealots.”

In too many areas, tree and brush clearing, dead and diseased tree removal, and the construction of fire breaks and additional escape routes are prohibited – or must go through decades-long study, review, approval and litigation processes. Only a fool or ideologue would fail to foresee the inevitable results.

In many cases, companies are not even allowed to salvage blackened trees that might be left standing after a conflagration has passed through an area. In stark contrast to these areas, privately and tribally managed forests outside the once-Golden State are actively managed to prevent major fires like those that have devastated vast national forest areas in California and other Western states.

In California, if private landowners want to burn leaves and tree limbs to reduce fire hazards, they must first obtain air-quality permits from local air districts, burn permits from local fire agencies, and other permits depending on the location, size, type and timing of a proposed burn, air and ground moisture levels, and other factors. That’s all well and good, if the rules prevent fires that could turn into infernos.

But do the bureaucrats make any attempt to factor in the horrendous air pollution and utter destruction from the monstrous fires their decrees cause by delaying or blocking brush clearing or controlled burns?  

As to climate change, what actual evidence can alarmists provide to show that today’s climate and weather conditions are predominantly due to fossil fuel use – or would be significantly different if the state or USA went 100% renewable, especially when the developing world continues to increase its coal, oil and gas use to lift billions out of poverty? Can they prove energy and climate edicts would enable the state to control the timing, frequency and severity of future climate fluctuations, rains, droughts, winds, and other weather events? Will Governor-elect Gavin Newsom seek common ground on forest issues?

We clearly need less hidebound ideology, greater compassion and respect for human and animal life – and greater willingness to find bipartisan ways to deal with the perpetually arid conditions in California and throughout the West, via responsible and scientific management of our forest heritage.

Above all, we need to remember that people live in these areas and need to be protected. And right now, we should all lend a hand to those who have lost their homes, livelihoods and family members – perhaps by donating to the Red Cross or the WattsUpWithThat.com Camp fire relief fund.

Paul Driessen is policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on energy, natural resource, climate change, health, environmental and human rights issues.

Organic fungicide copper sulfate poses dangers to humans, animals, insects—how does it compare to conventional pesticides?

| | November 16, 2018

Organic farming uses pesticides just as conventional farming does. The only difference is that (with a few exceptions) the pesticides used in organic agriculture have to be derived from “natural” sources. One such example is copper sulfate, which is used in temperate climes as a fungicide. It’s used by both organic farmers although conventional farmers do have synthetic alternatives.

How does this ‘natural’ pesticide compare in toxicity to synthetic or other natural chemicals commonly used by conventional farmers?

Many anti-GMO activists have pointed to pesticides used in conventional agriculture, such as the herbicides glyphosate and the highly toxic organic 2,4-D, as dangerous to people, animals and the environment. For example, anti-GMO organization, The Environmental Working Group, writes this about 2,4-D:............To Read More.....

Viewpoint: As global honeybee population increases, activists blame neonicotinoid pesticides for ‘bird-pocalypse’ that’s not happening

| @ | November 13, 2018

Are we in the midst of another bout of unfounded environmentalist-fueled exaggerations—this time about birds becoming extinct because of pesticide exposure?

We’ve seen this script most recently, with hyped fears about the demise of the honeybee. Anti-pesticide activists abetted by some mostly inexperienced bee keeper newbies, claimed that honeybee populations in Europe and North America were collapsing as a result of a mysterious condition that came to be known as ‘colony collapse disorder’. CCD, mostly concentrated in California in 2006-07, was marked by a unique condition in which worker honeybees suddenly abandoned otherwise healthy-seeming hives for no apparent reason. It remains a genuine mystery, although research has turned up similar collapses that have occurred periodically and inexplicably in Europe over the past few centuries.

CCD was followed by a series of severe winters that led to higher-than-usual overwinter bee deaths, fueling genuine concerns among scientists about bee health. The issue soon migrated into the mainstream media when anti-GMO and anti-chemical groups aligned to blame pesticides for both CCD and the overwinter losses, and by-and-large refused to recognize the complexity of bee life and bee health.

Politicization of the ‘bee crisis’

Most of the finger-pointing was initially directed at a class of pesticides developed in the 1990s—neonicotinoids—that were designed specifically to replace organophosphates, pyrethrins and pyrethroid insecticides, which are highly toxic to mammals and beneficial insects, including bees. From this sprang an entire cottage industry of (mostly laboratory) studies by some activist-oriented scientists that appeared to be designed more to prove a case than explore a mystery.

The politicization of what should have been a science-based issue culminated in the European Union’s decision earlier this year to expand its 2013 partial ban on these insecticides to cover all outdoor uses—which has led to the reintroduction of the more toxic chemicals phased out in the 1990s.

It’s now widely accepted that honeybee populations aren’t collapsing after all, with populations steady or rising in Europe and North America for the last 20 years—and rising worldwide for more than a half-century, as even the Sierra Club now grudgingly acknowledges.
…honeybees are at no risk of dying off. While disease, parasites, and other threats are certainly real problems for beekeepers, the total number of managed honeybees worldwide has risen by 45 percent over the last half century 
What threatens bee health?

We now have a pretty good idea of what drove the higher-than-normal health problems that existed after the CCD scare : the Varroa destructor mite infestations of hives combined with widespread prevalence of a honeybee gut fungus called nosema ceranae. It should be noted the experts agree that rising global honeybee colony numbers do not mean that bees are not struggling; in fact there is general agreement that bee health is a serious issue, but pesticides are a comparatively minor threat compared to the host of diseases and the overuse of miticides to fight some of the challenges. In Australia where neonics are widely used, and Varroa and nosema are health, bee health is not an issue.

Bees are seen by farmers and professional beekeepers as, essentially, livestock but in the wake of the extinction scares, bees have taken on almost a romantic, mythical status among the public and hobby bee keepers. That goes a long way to explaining why no activist campaign has been launched to eradicate Varroa and the nosema fungus. First, they are both extremely difficult to combat. The mites, in particular, have rapidly developed resistance to every synthetic chemical mite treatment yet devised. What’s more, poor mite-control practices by amateur beekeepers who refuse to treat their mite problems with effective chemicals has had the effect of turning their collapsing hives into escalating sources of contagious infestation for neighboring beekeepers’ hives.

But more to the point, focusing attention on a combination of complex factors doesn’t have the pizazz of finding any easy bogeyman like pesticides. The anti-chemical hysteria also has helped fill an expanding piggybank for advocacy groups for years now. Consider the Sierra Club again. Even as it was proclaiming an end to its own bee-pocalypse hysteria, it launched a fund-raising campaign designed to raise money by scaring the public with dire warnings that pesticides were on the verge of wiping out bees. This Sierra Club fund raising flyer arrived at my house.


Now ‘threatened’ birds provide a new scare opportunity

In April, a pair of studies from France—one regionally focused, one nationwide—claimed widespread declines in European populations of field birds. The studies, which were not yet released, reportedly attributed these declines to modern agricultural practices, specifically, the widespread use of the same neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for the non-existent ‘bee-pocalypse’.

Articles about these studies appeared widely last spring, including in the New York Times, and the spate of stories persisted for weeks. The studies, however, remain unpublished today—suggesting a novel form of advocacy for activist environmental scientists: leak or brief your sensational results to the press to generate media attention while keeping a controversial study, and the data on which the advertised findings depend, under wraps. The peer-reviewed data that led to headlines around the world might in fact never be released.

Understandably, the stories fueled a new anxiety over neonic pesticides: They threaten bird population along with the bees.

In late summer, another study from the team of Saskatchewan-based scientist Christy Morrissey, known for her anti-neonic views, sought to demonstrate that birds (in this case tree swallows) that catch their insect prey in flight were being adversely affected by a dearth of aquatic insects. Those insects, it was assumed, were being decimated by the run off of neonicotinoid pesticides from farm lands into freshwater rivers, streams, lakes and ponds.

As it happens, the study didn’t confirm this hypothesis; it actually demonstrated much the opposite: It found that tree swallows were enjoying even richer diets of aquatic insects. So, whatever was happening in all those streams and ponds, neonics weren’t affecting the abundance of aquatic insect meals for insectivorous birds.

Morrissey’s team did, however, find something else in their data that they characterized as a neonic-caused calamity: Tree swallows foraging in cropland exhibited lower body weight than those foraging in grasslands. Morrissey speculated that these birds were ‘struggling’ as neonic-treated croplands left them with a scantier insect diet. This she wrote, is what has led to a fall-off in the birds’ overall numbers.

What is the status of bird health in North America?

But there are questions as to this purely speculative conclusion. We know what the main killers of birds are, and they aren’t pesticides:
  • By far, scientists say, the greatest challenge to bird populations is habitat losswhich is mostly attributed to ‘urban sprawl’ the conversion of rural acreage, whether farm or forest, to (sub)urbanization. The parallel here to Varroa and bees is unmistakable: We know the main problem but since it’s complicated and doesn’t lend itself to a facile solution, let’s not acknowledge or analyze it.
  • Other man-made environmental challenges, such as windmills and high-voltage electric lines crisscrossing the rural landscape, kill up to a billion or more birds annually. The US Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that collisions with high-voltage electric lines alone kill 174 million birds per year. In-flight collisions with skyscrapers and other buildings kill between 97 million and 976 million birds per year in the US. Collisions with cars account for another roughly 60 million bird fatalities. The list goes on.
  • Cats have been estimated to kill an astounding 1.3 billion and 3.7 billion birds per year.  
As for the threat from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, they have been shown to have low toxicity to birds. Vertebrate nervous systems are much less susceptible to nicotine and synthetic compounds that mimic the disruptive effects on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors essential to the functioning of insect nervous systems. Moreover, birds generally avoid the tiny fraction (1% is deemed permissible under EPA rules) of neonic-treated seeds that may remain on the ground after mechanical planting, due perhaps to their altered appearance (many are colored), smell or taste.  

The most common of these treated seeds, corn, is, in any case, too large for small and medium-sized birds to ingest and too hard for them to crack with their beaks. All of which may help explain why such research as we have seen trying to link the supposed ‘devastation’ of bird populations to pesticides hasn’t focused on the effects of direct ingestion by birds; instead, as with Christy Morrissey’s team’s most recent study, the effort appears designed to demonstrate some indirect effect on bird populations from indiscriminate adverse impacts on the birds’ insect food sources.  
How badly are birds actually fairing? Is the bird-pocalypse any more reality-based than the bee version? Ultimately, all of these claims about the supposed imminent extinction of some species or other—honeybees a few years ago; field birds today—depend on a lack of context driven, it appears, by ideology.  

There is, in fact, a good deal of evidence that birds in general are in pretty good shape in the US. Numerous studies have documented a gradual decline of bird populations in the US and the developed world, but as in the case of bee population fall-off, these declines occurred in the


decades before the large-scale introduction of neonicotinoid pesticides in the late 1990s. As the Genetic Literacy Project reported some years ago, many bird populations seem to have leveled off during the last two decades and have in many cases increased since the 1990s. Bird populations don’t appear to have been impacted since their introduction.

What about other pesticides? Bird deaths directly attributable to pesticides—all pesticides, not just neonics—have been estimated to total 76 million annually. (An unknown additional number die from other indirect effects.) That’s about three-quarters of 1% of the day-to-day bird population in the US or three-eighths of 1% of the peak autumn bird population. Clearly, they are not a major driver of bird population trends, as so many other factors, including ‘natural causes’, result in far more bird fatalities annually.

Stampeding policy-makers on the basis of mischaracterized, misdiagnosed, half-understood supposed problems into adopting measures that won’t, in any case, solve them is a prescription for dreadful decisions.

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, has been a journalist for more than 40 years as a writer, network television news producer and author of seven books, four on genetics and risk. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @JonEntine

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Unfounded fears about synthetic pesticides

By Steve Goreham November 15th, 2018 Environment 0 Comments @ CFACT

Our modern society suffers from “chemophobia,” a fear of industrially-made chemicals. Synthetic pesticides, used to control insects, rodents, and weeds and to boost crop yields, are a major concern for many people. But the evidence shows that everyday exposure to synthetic pesticides is negligible and that widespread pesticide fears are unfounded.

Farmers have long sought to reduce damage from agricultural pests. Sulfur compounds were used as pesticides by the Sumerians as early as 4,500 years ago. Ancient Persia used a powder of pyrethrum, derived from dried chrysanthemum flowers, as an insecticide. Pyrethrum remains a frequently used natural pesticide. But modern chemical pesticides are labeled unsustainable and are widely feared by the public.

In her 1962 best-selling book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson leveled an attack on agricultural pesticides that continues today, stating :

"Since the mid-1940s over 200 basic chemicals have been created for use in killing insects, weeds, rodents, and other organisms described in the modern vernacular as ‘pests’ … Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?”

Carson’s book targeted the widespread spraying of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an effective pesticide against malarial mosquitoes, typhus-carrying lice, farm pests, and other insects. Carson falsely claimed that DDT was killing birds and causing cancer in humans.

Due to a rising tide of public concern, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT use in 1972, followed by bans in most developed countries. DDT bans are blamed for triggering a malaria resurgence and millions of deaths in developing nations over following decades.

But DDT use was not found to be harmful to people, and with the possible exception of the thinning of raptor egg shells, no environmental impacts from DDT have been identified. In 2006, the World Health Organization lifted its ban on DDT and authorized indoor spraying of DDT to control malaria. Nevertheless, because of Carson’s book and fears promoted by environmental groups, synthetic pesticides are wrongly blamed for a wide range of human health problems.

Pesticides are poison. At high levels of exposure, pesticides can be harmful to people and associated with cancer, genetic and reproductive issues, nervous system damage, and skin damage.

But, as with all natural or synthetic chemicals, the dose makes the poison. Paracelsus, a Swiss physician of the 1500s, is regarded as the father of modern toxicology. He stated, “All substances are poison. There is none which is not a poison. The right dose makes the difference between a poison and a remedy.” Even sunlight and water are poisons in high doses. The good news is that, for the average person, synthetic pesticides are encountered at far below harmful levels.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) analyzes samples from thousands of foods each year to detect synthetic pesticide residues. Laboratory methods detect residues down to low parts-per-billion levels. In 2016, the USDA collected and tested 10,365 samples from dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. Over 99.5 percent of the samples had synthetic pesticide levels below limits set by the EPA.

US and European pesticide safety levels are set at extremely low levels of exposure, typically 100 times below the no observed adverse effect level found in laboratory experiments with animals. Limits for pesticides in water are yet hundreds of times lower than food-limit levels. Food and water in developed nations today is remarkably free of synthetic pesticides.

Through great marketing efforts, “natural” agricultural techniques have become favorites, while “processed” or “synthetic” methods are rejected. Organic fertilizer, or horse manure, is promoted as superior to chemically-processed nitrogen fertilizer. But the chemical composition of a material is the important factor, not whether it is “natural.” Natural and synthetic pesticides are an excellent example.

The vast majority of pesticides that humans ingest are natural, produced by plants. Natural pesticides include aflatoxin, nicotine, pyrethrum, and strychnine. Plants produce pesticides to deter insects and rodent predators. Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California estimated that 99.99 percent of pesticides in our diet are from plants. Only 0.01 percent of dietary pesticides are synthetic pesticides produced by industry that Rachel Carson so feared.

Caffeine is an insecticide. A single cup of coffee contains natural pesticides equal in weight to a full year’s consumption of synthetic pesticides. This does not mean that coffee is hazardous, only that dietary fears about synthetic pesticides are irrational.

One of the early concerns about DDT and some other organochloride pesticides was their tendency to persist in the environment. DDT is fat soluble and can accumulate in the tissues of birds and animals.

But newer pesticides are designed to quickly break down in farm fields to minimize any long-term environmental impact. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp, breaks down within a few weeks of application. In addition, bioengineered crops are designed to allow less pesticide to be used while increasing agricultural yields.

Only a few members of society need to take proper precautions regarding synthetic pesticides. These are people manufacturing or applying pesticides that may be exposed to high doses of the chemicals.

So enjoy your coffee and the abundant foods produced by modern agriculture. But don’t sweat the pesticides.

US and European pesticide safety levels are set at extremely low levels of exposure, typically 100 times below the no observed adverse effect level found in laboratory experiments with animals. Limits for pesticides in water are yet hundreds of times lower than food-limit levels. Food and water in developed nations today is remarkably free of synthetic pesticides.

 Through great marketing efforts, “natural” agricultural techniques have become favorites, while “processed” or “synthetic” methods are rejected. Organic fertilizer, or horse manure, is promoted as superior to chemically-processed nitrogen fertilizer. But the chemical composition of a material is the important factor, not whether it is “natural.” Natural and synthetic pesticides are an excellent example.

The vast majority of pesticides that humans ingest are natural, produced by plants. Natural pesticides include aflatoxin, nicotine, pyrethrum, and strychnine. Plants produce pesticides to deter insects and rodent predators. Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California estimated that 99.99 percent of pesticides in our diet are from plants. Only 0.01 percent of dietary pesticides are synthetic pesticides produced by industry that Rachel Carson so feared.

Caffeine is an insecticide. A single cup of coffee contains natural pesticides equal in weight to a full year’s consumption of synthetic pesticides. This does not mean that coffee is hazardous, only that dietary fears about synthetic pesticides are irrational.

One of the early concerns about DDT and some other organochloride pesticides was their tendency to persist in the environment. DDT is fat soluble and can accumulate in the tissues of birds and animals.

But newer pesticides are designed to quickly break down in farm fields to minimize any long-term environmental impact. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp, breaks down within a few weeks of application. In addition, bioengineered crops are designed to allow less pesticide to be used while increasing agricultural yields.

Only a few members of society need to take proper precautions regarding synthetic pesticides. These are people manufacturing or applying pesticides that may be exposed to high doses of the chemicals.

 So enjoy your coffee and the abundant foods produced by modern agriculture. But don’t sweat the pesticides

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Green Energy is the Perfect Scam

By Norman Rogers November 12, 2018

Green energy is an incredible money-making scam. The promoters of green energy make billions of dollars promoting dumb energy schemes that are completely useless. What makes the scam extremely clever is that the scammers have convinced the public that the purpose of their scam is to improve the environment. The scammers pretend to be earnest environmental advocates.

Any really good scam needs endorsements from authoritative sounding sources. In the case of green energy, the authoritative sources are in on the scam. The beneficiaries of the green energy scam go way beyond the wind and solar industries.

Non-profit environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, need to be seen as fighting against an urgent looming catastrophe. If they don’t have something dreadful to fight against, no one is going to join their organizations or give them money. Global warming, allegedly caused by carbon dioxide, is the looming catastrophe and green energy is the solution. When the globe failed to warm they renamed the looming catastrophe climate change in place of global warming. Now they blame every instance of bad weather on climate change created by burning coal and oil. What were formerly acts of God are now the fault of the oil and coal companies...........

The biggest victim of the green energy scam is the public in general. Everybody pays more taxes and pays more for energy as a consequence of the scam. But the waste of billions of dollars may not be noticeable when spread over the 320 million Americans. The public has been exposed to relentless propaganda promoting green energy as beneficial and less expensive. The public is the greatest victim, but most people don’t know that they are being victimized, so there is little incentive to organize against the scam.............Read more

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 12, 2018

By November 12, 2018

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

National Association of Scholars: Making Science Reproducible

Greed Energy Economics:

Turbine Health Matters:
Silencity: Wind Turbines 2018

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

Miscellaneous Energy News:
Short Video: Caught Green Handed

Nuclear Energy:

Manmade Global Warming Articles:
National Association of Scholars: Making Science Reproducible

See Prior AWED Newsletters