Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Monday, January 4, 2016

Through The Looking Glass

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published June 25, 2008 updated June 25, 2016

"The time has come," the Walrus said, to talk of many things: Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax - Of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings."- Lewis Carroll


Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory states, "The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes. " May I be so bold as to entertain the thought that this certainly would apply to those who attempt to define Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Green for the structural pest control industry?


Here's the reality we face - we have agreed to use these terms without agreeing on what they mean. I hear the statement often - “we all know what IPM is or; we all know what Green means”. Really?


The reality is that there is “no universally accepted definition of the IPM and Green phenomena; there is no consensus as to their range, their ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize them.”

In short - neither IPM or Green Pest Control have a logical foundation or structure to justify their existence as a part of the structural pest control industry.


Yet, the activists wield words and phrases such as, “we must reduce our chemical impact” like a cudgel to browbeat anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their views regarding IPM or Green pest control. They suggest that we are a bunch of evil fascists attempting to pollute the world and kill our children for mere profit.


My questions are always the same:


1. Exactly what chemical impact are they talking about?
2. Where are the peer reviewable negative statistics?
3. Where are the statistics showing a reduction in life expectancy caused by pesticides?
4. Where is the massive increase in pesticide generated afflictions or diseases?


They aren’t in countries that are the heaviest users of pesticides. In fact, it is now reported that the life expectancy is increasing in these countries. However, the opposite is true in countries that use pesticides the least. They answer by making unfounded claims in the press, where they sound like songbirds chirping the same tune - however, when you challenge these people face to face they sound more like croaking toads.

It can be clearly shown that while they spew out unproven claims about pesticides and those who use them, the green movement has wreaked havoc on people’s lives all over the world. Children dying by the millions and tens millions suffering from a host of maladies and conditions created by the things they promote, which could have been easily prevented except for the influence green Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have on the decision makers of the world. These are facts and they are part of the public record for those who are willing to look for them. They cannot be disputed! They can be spun, they can be denied, they can be twisted and the can be ignored….but they cannot be disputed!


I have abandoned any hope industry and association journals will take this fight public. It's just not what they do. They're not prepared to be crusaders. I don't like it but there it is. However, this brings me to some questions I would really love an answer to:


  • Why are promoters of these misanthropic concepts given columns that regularly appear in chemical industry and association trade journals?
  • Why is it that those who have different views are not given the same opportunity to refute these activist's views?
  • Why do I never see a regular column in the trades or association journals devoted to defending us as we are!
  • Why don't we see the "rest of the story"?
  • And most importantly: Why aren't we demanding to see the "rest of story"? If we don't - they won't!

I have a circle of writers I'm in regular communication with such as Dr. Jay Lehr, one of the founders of EPA, who now believes it needs dismantled and has developed a five year plan to do so. Then there's Steve Milloy, Paul Driessen, Henry Miller, all excellent defenders against the green tide. Why don't we see their work published by those delivering our information?

For years the green activists have promoted causes and programs resulting in devastation to the poorest and most desperate people of the world, starting with the ban on DDT.


All the while these activist induced devastations have been going on these people have maintained a steady drumbeat of misinformation, condemning us with their unscientific claims about pesticides and public health. And the information deliverers inside and outside of our industry has either been silent or has been party to this campaign of Jabberwocky.

What has the application industries done to publically defend itself from these false charges, and I mean attacking these falsehoods with vigor!  As far as I can tell we've done little or nothing! Worse yet - although is seems to me this may be changing - the pesticide manufacturing, distribution and application industries became part and parcel of that package.

Why?

Because this is now become a two fold issue - moral and economic. We, as an industry, are now making more money than ever, and regulations are the cause. Yet we must ask ourselves - is society benefitting from all of this? I say no! And that's the conundrum - do we taking a moral stand or an economic stand? And if we take an economic stand how do we defend the morality of that decision when people are unnecessarily suffering from these green initiatives.  Suffering that could easily be eliminated!  Suffering that should be eliminated!


How do these ideas take hold in an industry? It's caused by decent everyday go to work people who willingly but unknowingly take these green concepts seriously. And why are they so 'willing' and 'unknowing'? Actually it is understandable. It's because there is no one from within our industry strongly rebutting these claims, or responding to the arbitrary demands from the activists and regulators in our own forums. And apparently, it appears that no one else is permitted to publically rebut them. As a result they have no other touch stone to go by except the propaganda of the greenies and the EPA.


Another point that should be obvious to the most casual observer is that we can't get “ahead of this green issue”. How can we get ahead of something that isn’t ours? It is their program and they will adjust it to offset anything we do. If we even appear to be “getting ahead” they will adjust it in such a manner that we will fall behind again. We will never get ahead of this “green” phenomenon - period! 


You can’t get ahead of an irrational concept that is initiated by those who wish you ill. If it isn’t your program you can’t control it - you can only defeat it!

Green is even less definable than IPM. I was recently told: “We didn’t get ahead of IPM and look where it got us”. We waste energy trying to get ahead of things we cannot get ahead of and cannot control. Furthermore, we shouldn’t be trying to get ahead - we should be working to eliminate them.


The reason we have “green” as an issue now is not because we didn’t get ahead of IPM - it’s because we didn’t defeat IPM. This was the next obvious step after IPM. Their goal is to eliminate pesticides, and each time we adopt an attitude of appeasement, they will go to the next level and each level will be more extreme than the last.

Make no mistake about it, we didn’t stand up to IPM then, and if we don’t defeat “green” now the next step will be elimination. The European Union has already taken steps to do just that, although that may not matter so much any longer because the EU is doomed.


"Europe is also dying for reasons independent of geopolitics and policy. All but six of its 27 members (the UK is one of the six) have already aged past any hope of demographic recovery. Germany -- the country the EU seems to be pinning its hopes on -- has the world’s most distorted population structure, with more people in their 50s than 40s than 30s than 20s than teenagers than children. Which means that all three forms of economic growth -- consumption, investment and export -- are about to prove beyond them. In essence, Europe’s aging is transforming it into a collection of old folks’ homes."


The Brexit vote is just the beginning of Europe's woes. Europe, along with Russia have been breeding themselves out of existence. Their demographic pyramid is so bad they don't really have enough young men to man their armies properly. Russia has seven defensive gaps they need to defend but only have the manpower to man three of them.


Europe is doomed right along with the EU, so why would we want to sign on to any international agreements changing any of our policies regarding chemicals, especially pesticides. It's my belief the world's economy will seriously worsen after 2020, and European chemical companies will have to abandon Europe by 2030, if not earlier, if they wish to survive.  And guess where they'll move?


(Editor's Note: I will address this soon in an article entitled "Let Me Tell You About Bretton Woods". RK)

Who will we blame when we awaken from this irrational and nightmarish attempt to please the green activists inside and outside of our industry? More importantly - who will take responsibility for the disasters that awaits us if or when the developed world eliminates pesticides and loses the benefits they impart? We've seen the consequences of losing carbamates and organophosphates - a massive plague of bed bugs enveloping the nation. We've seen Zika virus fears throughout the Americas, and now according to the World Health Organization's situation report it appears "Yellow Fever is having an outbreak in West Africa. This has all of the markings of the next global health emergency, and it may happen very quickly."  This is an affliction that "remains endemic in 47 countries in Africa, Central and South America, causing an estimated 84,000-170,000 severe cases and 29,000-60,000 deaths annually." 


What is so hard to understand? History and reality clearly demonstrate the falacious reasonings and actions of the green movement.   They are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. 

"Through the Looking Glass" was a book by Lewis Carroll with Alice (As in Alice in Wonderland) as the main character. In the book Alice finally awakens from her irrational and nightmarish dream and promptly blames one of her cats for the whole thing. When we've faced enough disasters to awaken from this nightmare of environmentalism and see the disasters they've wrought - Who will we blame? Who will answer for it? You?

One more thing.  Definition leads to clarity!

Green is no longer about the environment. "Socialism and environmentalism have become opposite sides of the same coin......for many in the green movement the environment is no longer the cause, but the vehicle. The environment, and climate change in particular, is the big sail at the backs of activists who have hijacked the green movement. They are watermelons—green on the outside, red on the inside."


Chemicals and Cancer

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!

By Rich Kozlovich - Orginally published Thursday, May 13, 2010

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency accepted public comments regarding Ohio’s request for an emergency Section 18 exemption for propoxur in order to help bring this plague of bed bugs under control. A letter was sent to EPA from one of the anti-pesticide groups insisting that EPA refuse this request claiming, among other things, that propoxur causes cancer; in spite of the fact that the MSDS sheet clearly states that propoxur is not carcinogenic. In an article I saved some time back a writer outlined the three pillars of science.

• The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.
• The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest.
• The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence.

We shall avail ourselves of these pillars to come to an understanding of the subject of chemicals and cancer. I will state this from the onset. Pesticides do not cause cancer, and that includes DDT. Science is firmly based on these three pillars; these claims about chemicals and cancer are green superstition; which is based on mysticism. Let's listen to real scientists and those who have followed this issue for years.

Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, states that “In recent decades, many have claimed that cancer is rising because of increased use of human made chemicals. But if chemicals were a source of health problems, one might expect that as chemical use increased around the world, there would be a measurable adverse effect on life expectancy, cancer rates, or other illnesses.

Yet in developed nations, where chemical use has greatly increased, people are living longer, healthier lives.” In another article entitled “The True Causes of Cancer” Logomasini observes that, “Environmental activists have long claimed that man-made chemicals are causing rampant cancer rates that could be addressed only by government regulation. Accordingly, lawmakers have passed laws directing government agencies to study environmental causes of cancer, estimate the number of lives allegedly lost, and devise regulations to reduce death rates.

However, lawmakers should be aware of some key problems with how this system has worked in practice. First, the claim that chemical pollution is a major cancer cause is wrong. Second, agencies have relied on faulty scientific methods that grossly overestimate potential cancer deaths from chemicals and potential lives saved by regulation. As a result, regulatory policy tends to divert billions of dollars from other life-saving uses or from other efforts to improve quality of life to pay for unproductive regulations.”

An article which appeared in the New York Post by Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health entitled, “A Cancer Non-Epidemic” states; “We have an epidemic of disbelief about cancer in this country -- but it's the opposite of what you probably expect. Cancer death rates have been falling for years, and now are falling even faster. Yet it's still stories about allegedly ignored cancer threats that grab our attention."

"If death rates were rising, the situation would rightly be front-page news. But the new report by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Cancer Society notes that the rate of decline in U.S. cancer deaths has doubled. And that story got buried (A18 in The New York Times, nowhere in the Wall Street Journal). Most people will have forgotten the good news by the next time an activist group talks up "the cancer epidemic."

In 2006 this was published on the National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health web site. “Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations -A new report from the nation's leading cancer organizations finds that Americans' risk of dying from cancer continues to drop, maintaining a trend that began in the early 1990s. However, the rate of new cancers remains stable. The "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2003, Featuring Cancer among U.S. Hispanic/Latino Populations" is published in the October 15, 2006, issue of Cancer*.

The report includes comprehensive data on trends over the past several decades for all major cancers. It shows that the long-term decline in overall cancer death rates continued through 2003 for all races and both sexes combined. The declines were greater among men (1.6 percent per year from 1993 through 2003) than women (0.8 percent per year from 1992 through 2003).”

Bjorn Lomborg in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, notes that if you were to compare the cancer rates and demographics from the turn of the last century to the turn of this century you would see two startling statistics. In the early 1900's few people smoked and few people lived to be over sixty five, which is why sixty five was chosen as the retirement age for Social Security purposes.

When the Chesterfield Girl died of lung cancer in 1992, Pulitzer Prize winning nationally syndicated columnist George Will wrote an article about it. He recited an account where “at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis in 1919, a doctor summoned some medical students to an autopsy, saying the patient’s disease was so rare that most of the students would never see it again. It was lung cancer.” Cancer is mostly an affliction of smokers and the aged. Yet we see the cancer rates dropping and we have a lot of smokers and a lot of people over sixty five. If those two demographics were taken out of the modern equation the drop in cancer rates would even more impressive.

“Dr. Bruce Ames is the recipient of the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation Prize and of the Tyler Prize for environmental achievement. He has served on the National Cancer Institute board of directors, and he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences” found through his research that naturally occurring chemicals, when fed in extremely high doses to test animals, were as likely to test carcinogenic as synthetic chemicals produced by chemical companies. “At one time, he was the darling of the environmental movement. But now, the members of that movement have turned on him with a vengeance, accusing him of aiding and abetting "Corporate America," although he accepts no money other than his university salary”. Unfortunately his conclusion “was a very politically incorrect conclusion.”

Ames said that, “The environmentalist activists, ‘have a religion’ saying corporations are behind an exploding epidemic of cancer.” This idea that “a rodent is a little man” became a valuable weapon for environmental activists and in 1958 the Delaney Clause required the Food and Drug Administration to ban any substance that cause cancer in animals….even when fed doses that could never be reached in a person’s lifetime of massive everyday use. In short, Delaney outlined the idea that if a substance causes cancer at any level, it causes cancer at every level. This is not science!

Until then it was clearly understood the dose makes the poison. At some point the molecular load of any substance becomes too small to impact cells. This “any dose is deadly” mentality lingers in spite of the fact that toxicologists disagree.

In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) petitioned the EPA to “eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans.” “The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public.” “Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals "carcinogens" -- implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans -- based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of super high doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels.

Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem.” Bruce Ames notes that “there are major problems with this procedure.

• One, animals aren't necessarily the best stand-ins for humans. In fact, 30% of the time, a chemical that causes cancer in mice won't do so in rats and vice versa, even though these species are much closer to each other than they are to humans.

• For another, the dose given the animals is on average almost 400,000 times the dose that the Environmental Protection Agency tries to protect humans against.”

The ACSH went on to “request that EPA eliminate statements that indicate that a substance may properly be labeled a "likely" human carcinogen based solely or primarily on the results of animal studies. Such statements are scientifically unsound, argues the petition, which notes that the great majority of toxicologists share that assessment.”

EPA continually dodged this by extending their deadline for responding. Finally five months later they claimed their “Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and still is; if EPA policy isn’t based on science, then what's it based on?

I think Dr. Elizabeth Whelan answers this best. “This is a free country, and we all have the right to be guided by superstitions, no matter how nonsensical; for example, my mother still forbids me to open an umbrella in her apartment. But we should no longer tolerate the mindless regulatory ritual of banning useful, safe chemicals "at the drop of a rat."

Editor's Note: This article by Dr. Gil Ross, Cancer Causation: Environment, Not Bad Luck, Study Says appeared 12/17/2015 at the American Council on Science and Health website.

Sources:

1. Leaders and Success: Bruce Ames, by Michael Fumento
2. Cancer Trends , and, The True Causes of Cancer, by Angela Logomasin
3. A Cancer Non-Epidemic, and, We Should Expect More from the EPA, by Jeff Stier, Esq
4. Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations - National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
5. The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg


Through The Looking Glass

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published June 25, 2008 updated June 25, 2016

"The time has come," the Walrus said, to talk of many things: Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax - Of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings."- Lewis Carroll


Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory states, "The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes. " May I be so bold as to entertain the thought that this certainly would apply to those who attempt to define Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Green for the structural pest control industry?


Here is the reality we are faced with - we have agreed to use these terms without agreeing on what they mean. I hear the statement often - “we all know what IPM is or; we all know what Green means”. Really? The reality is that there is “no universally accepted definition of the IPM and Green phenomena; there is no consensus as to their range, their ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize them.”


In short - neither IPM or Green Pest Control have a logical foundation or structure to justify their existence.


Yet, the activists wield words and phrases such as, “we must reduce our chemical impact” like a cudgel to browbeat anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their views regarding IPM or Green pest control. They suggest that we are a bunch of evil fascists attempting to pollute the world and kill our children for mere profit.


My questions are always the same:


1. Exactly what chemical impact are they talking about?
2. Where are the peer reviewable negative statistics?
3. Where are the statistics showing a reduction in life expectancy caused by pesticides?
4. Where is the massive increase in pesticide generated afflictions or diseases?


They aren’t in countries that are the heaviest users of pesticides. In fact, it is now reported that the life expectancy is increasing in these countries. However, the opposite is true in countries that use pesticides the least. They answer by making unfounded claims in the press, where they sound like songbirds chirping the same tune - however, when you challenge these people face to face they sound more like croaking toads.

It can be clearly shown that while they spew out unproven claims about pesticides and those who use them, the green movement has wreaked havoc on people’s lives all over the world. Children dying by the millions and tens millions suffering from a host of maladies and conditions created by the things they promote, which could have been easily prevented except for the influence green Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have on the decision makers of the world. These are facts and they are part of the public record for those who are willing to look for them. They cannot be disputed! They can be spun, they can be denied, they can be twisted and the can be ignored….but they cannot be disputed!


I have abandoned any hope industry and association journals will take this fight public. It's just not what they do. They're not prepared to be crusaders. I don't like it but there it is. However, this brings me to some questions I would really love an answer to:


  • Why are promoters of these misanthropic concepts given columns that regularly appear in chemical industry and association trade journals?
  • Why is it that those who have different views are not given the same opportunity to refute these activist's views?
  • Why do I never see a regular column in the trades or association journals devoted to defending us as we are!
  • Why don't we see the "rest of the story"?
  • And most importantly: Why aren't we demanding to see the "rest of story"? If we don't - they won't!

I have a circle of writers I'm in regular communication with such as Dr. Jay Lehr, one of the founders of EPA, who now believes it needs dismantled and has developed a five year plan to do so. Then there's Steve Milloy, Paul Driessen, Henry Miller, all excellent defenders against the green tide. Why don't we see their work published by those delivering our information?

For years the green activists have promoted causes and programs resulting in devastation to the poorest and most desperate people of the world, starting with the ban on DDT.


All the while these activist induced devastations have been going on these people have maintained a steady drumbeat of misinformation, condemning us with their unscientific claims about pesticides and public health. And the information deliverers inside and outside of our industry has either been silent or has been party to this campaign of Jabberwocky.

What has the application industries done to publically defend itself from these false charges, and I mean attacking these falsehoods with vigor!  As far as I can tell we've done little or nothing! Worse yet - although is seems to me this may be changing - the pesticide manufacturing, distribution and application industries became part and parcel of that package.

Why?

Because this is now become a two fold issue - moral and economic. We, as an industry, are now making more money than ever, and regulations are the cause. Yet we must ask ourselves - is society benefitting from all of this? I say no! And that's the conundrum - do we taking a moral stand or an economic stand? And if we take an economic stand how do we defend the morality of that decision when people are unnecessarily suffering from these green inititives.  Suffering that could easily be eliminated!  Suffering that should be eliminated!


How do these ideas take hold in an industry? It's caused by decent everyday go to work people who willingly but unknowingly take these green concepts seriously. And why are they so 'willing' and 'unknowing'? Actually it is understandable. It's because there is no one from within our industry strongly rebutting these claims, or responding to the arbitrary demands from the activists and regulators in our own forums. And apparently, it appears that no one else is permitted to publically rebut them. As a result they have no other touch stone to go by except the propaganda of the greenies and the EPA.


Another point that should be obvious to the most casual observer is that we can't get “ahead of this green issue”. How can we get ahead of something that isn’t ours? It is their program and they will adjust it to offset anything we do. If we even appear to be “getting ahead” they will adjust it in such a manner that we will fall behind again. We will never get ahead of this “green” phenomenon - period! 


You can’t get ahead of an irrational concept that is initiated by those who wish you ill. If it isn’t your program you can’t control it - you can only defeat it!

Green is even less definable than IPM. I was recently told: “We didn’t get ahead of IPM and look where it got us”. We waste energy trying to get ahead of things we cannot get ahead of and cannot control. Furthermore, we shouldn’t be trying to get ahead - we should be working to eliminate them.


The reason we have “green” as an issue now is not because we didn’t get ahead of IPM - it’s because we didn’t defeat IPM. This was the next obvious step after IPM. Their goal is to eliminate pesticides, and each time we adopt an attitude of appeasement, they will go to the next level and each level will be more extreme than the last.

Make no mistake about it, we didn’t stand up to IPM then, and if we don’t defeat “green” now the next step will be elimination. The European Union has already taken steps to do just that, although that may not matter so much any longer because the EU is doomed.


"Europe is also dying for reasons independent of geopolitics and policy. All but six of its 27 members (the UK is one of the six) have already aged past any hope of demographic recovery. Germany -- the country the EU seems to be pinning its hopes on -- has the world’s most distorted population structure, with more people in their 50s than 40s than 30s than 20s than teenagers than children. Which means that all three forms of economic growth -- consumption, investment and export -- are about to prove beyond them. In essence, Europe’s aging is transforming it into a collection of old folks’ homes."


The Brexit vote is just the beginning of Europe's woes. Europe, along with Russia have been breeding themselves out of existence. Their demographic pyramid is so bad they don't really have enough young men to man their armies properly. Russia has seven defensive gaps they need to defend but only have the manpower to man three of them.


Europe is doomed right along with the EU, so why would we want to sign on to any international agreements changing any of our policies regarding chemicals, especially pesticides. It's my belief the world's economy will seriously worsen after 2020, and European chemical companies will have to abandon Europe by 2030, if not earlier, if they wish to survive.  And guess where they'll move?


(Editor's Note: I will address this soon in an article entitled "Let Me Tell You About Bretton Woods". RK)

Who will we blame when we awaken from this irrational and nightmarish attempt to please the green activists inside and outside of our industry? More importantly - who will take responsibility for the disasters that awaits us if or when the developed world eliminates pesticides and loses the benefits they impart? We've seen the consequences of losing carbamates and organophosphates - a massive plague of bed bugs enveloping the nation. We've seen Zika virus fears throughout the Americas, and this won't get better until we resolve to defeat all these initiatives by the green movement and their cat's paws in government.


"Through the Looking Glass" was a book by Lewis Carroll with Alice (As in Alice in Wonderland) as the main character. In the book Alice finally awakens from her irrational and nightmarish dream and promptly blames one of her cats for the whole thing. When we've faced enough disasters to awaken from this nightmare of environmentalism and see the disasters they've wrought - Who will we blame? Who will answer for it? You?


One more thing.  Definition leads to clarity!

Green is no longer about the environment. "Socialism and environmentalism have become opposite sides of the same coin......for many in the green movement the environment is no longer the cause, but the vehicle. The environment, and climate change in particular, is the big sail at the backs of activists who have hijacked the green movement. They are watermelons—green on the outside, red on the inside."


Some Resemblance to Reality

By Rich Kozlovich, Originally published February 1, 2009, updated December 30, 2015
 
Science fiction writers are an interesting lot. They do seem to have an innate ability to see farther into the future than most. They can take seemingly innocuous trends and extend the potential effects of these trends beyond the horizon. 

Forty five or so years ago I read a science fiction short story that dealt with the concept of risk mitigation.  As the story went, there was some scientist on another planet who created robots whose sole purpose was to keep people safe. Although this scientist's motives were of the highest order, his creation got away from him. Naturally, these robots had difficulty determining what exactly "safe" meant, and interpreted their programming far beyond anything he had intended or wanted. They extended risk mitigation to a computers logical extreme and stifled all activity.

They increased in number and eventually discovered the Earth. They started out quietly by creating an automobile that was called (if I remember this correctly) the Everlasting Car. Safe, efficient, cost effective wouldn’t rust (that was a big deal in the 50’s and 60’s), and they were, most importantly, very inexpensive. Soon they put all other car companies out of business. This gave them enormous capital and credibility and they soon took over more and more of mankind’s responsibilities.

There was to be no war, no dangerous jobs and no risk to mankind of any kind. Naturally everyone thought this was a great idea. Everyone was to be safe! Except the robots would be the ones to determine what constituted "safe". Since these were robots with computer brains, “safe” became extreme, and now this “great idea” wasn’t so great anymore….but it was too late. They now controlled every aspect of human life.

The state of New York has banned total release aerosol cans because some idiots blew up their houses with them. I am sorry that people do stupid things, but unfortunately that's a part of what it means to be human. It is unfortunate that homes have been destroyed and extremely unfortunate when someone is hurt. I have to ask though; over the whole of this country - in how many houses has this happened over the last 60 years? I would bet that the number is remarkably low compared to the number of aerosol cans sold.

Although I have used them I've never been a big fan of total release aerosols, but when these products are removed from the market, “for our own good”, aren't we depriving responsible people of the ability to control pests in their homes. Are they all that effective? I don’t think so, but they do have their place and people should have the choice and option to use them or not as they please.  They represent a risk, but so does everything else in our lives.  Just like the guy who was using alcohol in his apartment to control bed bugs while smoking a cigarette, setting his apartment on fire.  Stupid?  Oh yeah - but can we blame the EPA for that?  Actually I think we can!  In this case stupid was caused by desparation.  Desparation that was caused by the  EPA's eliminations of effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. 

Risks are definable and there are
charts that list risks. Approximately thirty thousand people are killed on the nation’s highways every year. Between ten and fifteen thousand children are hurt by lawn mowers each and every year. Each and every year approximately three million adolescents will contract a sexually transmitted disease and thousands drown every year. These are very high on the risk charts and yet we find it necessary to ban total release aerosol cans.

Our view of risk has been molded by misinformation through a corrupt media. We worry unendingly about theoretical risks regarding genetically modified foods, food additives, hormones in milk, electromagnetic radiation, fluoride and chlorine in our water and most importantly, pesticide residues on our fruits and vegetables. These have been shown to be extremely low on the risk charts.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In reality we live longer, healthier and more satisfied fulfilling lives than ever in human history. In 1945 the world’s population amounted to two billion people, and it took thousands of years to attain that number. During the time when modern chemistry came into its own, mankind’s numbers grew at an unprecedented rate, with people living longer to boot. The greenies constantly spew out all forms of claptrap about how dangerous chemicals and modern living are; and yet if all that they claim was true; do we really believe that we would have increased the world’s population to over seven billion in less than 75 years?

Make no mistake about this. The patterns of history will repeat over and over again. Starting with the progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, which laid the ground work for Woodrow Wilson's (whom historians call the first Fascist president) massive government programs, which was the basis for FDR’s New Deal (same people and programs as Wilson’s with different names), to Nixon’s massive regulatory factories at EPA, OSHA, and the Wildlife Service enforcing the Endangered Species Act, we see that very same extreme computer like mentality.


We know best! Only we can protect you from yourself!

Perhaps all these government people really are robots from another planet since they claim special knowledge as to how we should live our lives.  If that's the case it seems to me it's impossible for them to be human and to have originated with the rest of us, otherwise from where did all this grand understanding and knowledge originate?  Interplanetarial aliens maybe?  Whadda ya think? 

We need to stop emoting and start thinking. That starts by reading something besides the lava flow of misinformation put out by the EPA and the green movement. I would like to recommend the book "Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals", by the American Council on Science and Health.



Do You Have An Itch For An “ISM”?

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published September 5, 2009 updated December 30, 2015
 
How many have tasted foie gras or even know what it is?

It's liver, but not just any old kind of liver - it's goose or duck liver - but not any old kind of goose or duck liver. It seems that when you
force feed a migratory goose or duck species (they claim this doesn’t work on non-migratory species - who knew?) that it gets a large - really large liver - which supposedly tastes really great. Foie gras, (pronounced fwa gra) is French for “fat liver”. This is achieved through a process of force feeding that goes back to ancient Egypt. “Foie gras is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.”  And it's really expensive....really expensive.....costing up to and over $100.00 a pound depending on what you buy.

Now clearly this isn’t the kind of liver that my parents and grandparents generation doted on. That generation will go to a restaurant with a huge menu and go into rapture because liver and onions is the special the day! Of course that is usually beef liver, but they even like chicken livers as the special of the day.

I am 69 and you don't see people from my generation getting all that excited about liver..smothered in onions or any other way for that matter....why? I have always believed there must be a reason why anyone would like liver.. and I think I know what it is. They only liked liver because it was one of the few meats they could afford during the Great Drepression years. Liver, gizzards, chicken wings and pork ribs were mighty cheap back in those days, sometimes free. In those days they used to make chicken soup with chicken feet as the base for stock. That is one ugly sight!

In years gone by, average people didn’t have meat three meals a day. During the depths of the Great Depression many didn’t have meat once a week. Those old enough to remember the Little Rascals will remember an episode when Alfalfa was all excited because he was going to have meat at dinner that night. Meat was a big deal and if liver smothered in onions (the only way it could possibly be eaten) is all you can afford, and you have it enough in your youth, you might have the tendency to think the stuff is pretty great. Personally, I have always thought that anything tasting that  bad must be toxic.

Enough about that - back to foie gras! This is the liver that the gourmets go into rapture over. As it turns out the animal rights activists are enthusiastic over it also.
The difference is they want to ban it because they claim the raising process is cruel. There is an awful lot of green house gas being emitted by these people over this issue.

People who buy their food at the market and have never lived or worked on a farm should have nothing to say about this or anything else farmers do. None of these things ever became an issue until there were so many people living in the cities and so few living on farms. One hundred years ago over fifty percent on the population was involved in agriculture of some sort. Two hundred years ago most of the population farmed or at least raised some of their own food because the population in the cities was relatively small. Industrialization changed all of that, especially after WWII and so did attitudes.

We must remember that this is a process of incrementalism; one step at a time. The reality is that they are against eating any part of an animal and this is just one step in the process. Today foie gras, tomorrow the goose, the next day ducks and then chickens and so on until the eating of all animal flesh is banned. At least that is their goal, but make no mistake about it…if they hadn’t chosen animal rights it would be something else.


Take the Swiss for example. The Swiss have really gone over the edge. They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the “decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished. Folks, we have to stop being so anthropomorphic. Placing human values on non human things is irrational.

What if someone starts a movement that claims plants feel pain during harvest and therefore we shouldn’t eat bread? Would that be called Doughdoughism?

Sunday, January 3, 2016

We Are the World’s Healthiest Chemophobes

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published 6/6/2010 and updated 1/12/2016

There is a report published a few years ago called
Making Sense of Chemical Stories, which attempts to point out some very basic concepts most people are not grasping about chemicals. We need to see things clearly and not through a telescope of activism which makes it impossible to see the whole picture. We live in a world where pollution has become “the cause” for celebrities of every ilk. Movies, television and sports notables will come out and take a position on subjects of which they know little or nothing about.  Jenny McCarthy, with the support of Oprah Winfrey,  and her crusade against vaccinations is one recent and deadly celebrity promoted insanity.  We have been inundated by so many articles and television shows regarding chemicals that we in the developed world (which owes so much to chemicals) have become chemophobic. 

Malaria in the developed world is thought of as being impossible. Why? DDT largely eliminated it in developed countries! Our economy, which supports a life style that most would not be willing to give up, came about as a result of an innovative chemical industry. Our ability to feed ourselves, and huge portions of the rest of the world, is a direct result of that research. Research that resulted in the Green Revolution, for which Norman Borlaug was largely responsible, and who literally saved a billion lives with extensive use of high yield varieties of crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Chemistry!


Rachel Carson, the author of the science fiction book Silent Spring, railed against that chemistry and became the mother of the modern environment movement that is directly responsible for policies that killed hundreds of millions and sickened billions. 

During my young years it was not uncommon for mothers to take their dry foods such as pasta, rice and beans and dump them into a boiling pot of water and wait with a strainer to filter out the dead bugs that would float to the top. We would be outraged now if that happened. The chemical industry provided the answers for that. Pesticides were developed that gave us not only abundant foods, but mostly pest free foods.

Why then - as a society - do we strive to be kept away from “that stuff”? Why do we have the attitude that all manufactured chemicals must be avoided at any cost? The universe (that includes us by the way) is made up of chemicals. I see advertisements that claim something is chemical free. If it is chemical free it doesn’t exist. We can’t survive without them because we are them. In fact Americans live longer, healthier lives than Americans have ever lived as a result of our chemical rich society and environment.

I have great cartoon in my computer that shows two cavemen sitting in a cave and one of them says, “Something is just not right. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”

In 1840 when everything was “natural” the average life span was approximately 40. Today, when everything that is important in our lives was created by manufactured chemicals the average life span is about 80. What part of that is so hard to grasp? What part of that is so terrible?  We live longer as a direct result of those chemicals and it is obvious that these chemicals, when properly used, are not damaging the environment or us, no matter what the activists say, the BP oil spill notwithstanding.

A cup of coffee contains 11 chemicals that are considered carcinogenic. You will be exposed to more carcinogens in that one cup of coffee than all the carcinogenic potential of all of the pesticide residue on all of the food you will eat in one year.

City councils all over the country have taken up the cause of banning potentially harmful substances that have already been tested, regulated and approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have to ask: Why have they decided to take up this task for which they're totally unqualified? Is it because they spent three hundred million on research and came to a different conclusion than did the EPA? Is it because these city councils are filled with toxicologists and chemists who looked at the original research and decided that the scientists who performed the research were lackeys of the chemical companies and their work should be dismissed? Or is it perhaps a case of merely taking the word of anti-chemical activists who may have even less scientific acumen and less qualified to determine the worth of these products than are these local politicians. Then again, these politician often number themselves among them. Try and picture a society that would elect all of their officials from the Sierra Club or PETA.

A city council in California wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it burns human tissue in its gaseous state and prolonged use in its solid state could cause severe tissue damage. What is dihydrogen monoxide? Water! Were they embarrassed when they found out what it actually was? Probably not, after all, their intentions were good.


I would rather their actions were correct.

The EPA is spending a fortune to promote IPM and Green Pest Control. The School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) had been introduced and re-introduced in Congress -  why? Because anti-pesticide activists “know” so many things that simply aren’t true and they have the power and money to promote these untruths. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. You can’t. It is indefinable and Green Pest Control is even worse. Everyone has his own ideas about IPM. Such foolishness is seen for what is worth in the third world
where children are dying because of a lack of pesticides. Is it our desire to become one with the third world? The actions of anti-pesticide activists indicate that is exactly what they want, and EPA is part and parcel of this outcome.

When we read labels at the grocery store it gives the impression we are being poisoned because we clearly don’t understand the chemical terms. Whether chemicals are naturally occurring or manufactured they have been given names and reading those names do not give most of us any clue as to whether they are safe or not. In short, we don’t know what's good or what is bad.


DDT has saved more lives than any chemical, naturally occurring or otherwise, in human history, and yet we hear how terrible it is. And I will state this again. Everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie. Those who actually read books about Rachel Carson's work realize that she was not a great scientist.  In point of fact an argument can be made she wasn't a scientist at all since she did no research.  She was a writer with a degree in science reporting on research done by others.  Oh, she was a great writer - unfortunately her signature book, Silent Spring - was science fiction.

(I would like to recommend reading Klaus and Bolander’s 1972 issue of “Ecological Sanity” and Roberts and Tren’s “The Excellent Powder, DDT’s Political and Scientific History”, which just came out. )

If we actually look at the facts we find most of what comes from the greenies is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, of which they are surely guilty, but mostly lies of omission. The end result is the same - we draw wrong conclusions. For them to satisfy their egos and enact their entire slate of feel good policies people must die. Why? Because their policies kill people! We have the evidence of science and the truth of history, which proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. The “conventional wisdom” of the activists was nothing more than the “philosophical flavor of the day”, and has not and will not become traditional wisdom.


Wisdom becomes traditional when it stands the test of time.

Greenie wisdom has not stood against the march of time or the uncovering of the facts, that's why they have to move from one "crisis" to another. Something must always be on a back burner for them to exploit because it soon becomes obvious the latest one is a lie, such as anthropogenic climate change AKA Global Warming. No matter how many times a lie is told (even if everyone believes the lie) it will never become the truth! As Benjamin Franklin said, “truth will very patiently wait for us”. What is of concern is how much damage will be done until we find it. The world has suffered upwards of 90 million deaths from malaria and upwards of 13 billion unnecessary cases as a result of banning DDT in 1972. How much patience can the world afford while truth waits for us?  How many lives must be lost? 

Recently there appeared a CNN special report called “Toxic America” which falsely claimed “that trace levels of environmental chemicals are causing myriad diseases in America, from cancer to diabetes and more. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from the American Council on Science and Health stated “It was worse than I could have imagine. “ She went on to say that “The most shocking part of it was that they recruited people from certain towns who thought that they were harmed by chemicals, and brought them all together to talk about how dangerous these substances are.” ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agreed with Whelan saying that, “Their segment about so-called ‘toxic towns’ was bizarrely unscientific. When a physician bills himself as an expert and gathers people in a room who believe they were sickened by chemicals, taking a show of hands to see who believes they were harmed, there’s no scientific basis to that whatsoever.”

These "chemical scare” specials from the media are a no win situation for real scientists unless the entire scientific community stands up and condemns them. The emotional drama of parents who have lost children to cancer, and who believer trace chemical elements are the reason for their death, will be so emotionally overwhelming to any viewing audience no matter how accurately you present the actual science, and no matter how logical your arguments are - emotion will triumph over actual science every time. And our corrupt media and the green movement knows that and feeds this insanity to society.   They must all share in the guilt for those lost lives.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to reality. At the end of WWII the world’s population was approximately 2 billion people. Currently we have about 7 billion. It took thousands of years to get to 2 billion and yet in less than 75 years we have soared to 7 billion and we live in a chemical rich society. When tested, our bodies will show over 2 hundred different chemicals produced by the chemical companies - and we live longer healthier lives than ever in human history.


Somewhere there is a serious disconnect between what we see going on in reality and what we are being told. Is it possible that what we are being told is merely the propaganda of an irrational movement with an agenda?  A movement with an agenda promoting the idea the world's population has between 4 and 5 billion too many people that need to be eliminated - and those are the moderates among them.  The radicals want humanity eliminated. 

To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective!

This additional link was posted 6/8/2010. Please read my next post
Facts Versus Fears: DDT

Who Raises A Banner That Says: I Stand For Consensus!

By Rich Kozlovich. Originally published December 28, 2009

For a number of years I sent out an e-newsletter called Green Notes each week. I had people e-mail me saying “thank you for all the work that you do” putting together these fifty two issues. Naturally I was always flattered and I thanked them for making me feel as if it wasn’t all in vain, but there isn’t really as much work as you might think, at least for me because I would have been reading these articles and researching the information anyway. That’s where the most time is involved, so after that, it’s pretty much a snap. Perhaps what makes it all special is the desire to share this information - which is appreciated and enjoyed , or irritating depending on one’s point of view.

In most of my Green Notes issues I had a section called, “Quotes of the Week”.  As I was going through all of the quotes I couldn’t help thinking how insightful some of them were when all of a sudden I had a SHAZAM moment. Why not create a readable article out of nothing but these quotes even if they have to be paraphrased?

I am going to have to watch those SHAZAM moments! I keep forgetting I have a job that interferes with my life.  If I had known how much work this was going to turn out to be I wouldn’t have undertaken this task in the first place, but……. here it is and I hope you will enjoy it!



For me, pragmatism is not enough, nor is that fashionable word consensus. To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders - no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern - the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us . Opposing this new authoritarian collectivist green offensive is "The Battle of Our Times".

For me, the laws of physics are not subject to change by virtue of a public consensus or declarations of highly placed politicians and governmental science bureaucrats. We're under attack by a lot of alarmists. We must learn and remember that the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary .

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. I have said more than once that history never repeats itself - what happens is that people keep forgetting it . Show me someone who does not read books and I will show you someone lost in the fog of propaganda, manipulation, and the lies that pass for the news of the day. Books can tell you who you are, what you believe, and why. They always leave you changed in some fashion.

Fortunate is the person who can look back at his or her life and say, "I would do it all again, the same way.” Most of us mortals have made mistakes, sometimes too many to count. Some mistakes have to do with career. Some have to do with money. Some have to do with other poor decisions and poor choices – reconsidered, of course, with the benefit of hindsight. But the ones that cause the most regret and the most pain have to do with the treatment of other people – especially those who loved and trusted us. We finally discover the value and worth of what we once had and failed to appreciate . Let all who are here remember that we are on the stage of history, and that whatever our station may be, and whatever part we have to play, great or small, our conduct is liable to be scrutinized, not only by history, but by our own descendants.

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.  Losing liberty over a theoretical threat is the main concern here (no one has ever been killed by manmade global warming. because there is no way to distinguish manmade warming from natural warming). We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is real science does not support scares involving global warming, the banning of chemicals, vaccinations and a host of other scares, and never did. Real scientists - branded as dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end these vast and terrible hoaxes leaving catastrophes in their wake.

We keep hearing outrageous statements from the greenies claiming that modern living is killing us and they repeat things they know are false over and over again. The Bolsheviks discovered that truth does not matter so long as there is reiteration. The greenies have no difficulty whatever in countering a fact by a lie which, if repeated often enough and loudly enough, becomes accepted by the people .

It ain’t what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's the things you know for sure that just ain't so . Think about the things that have improved our lives the most over the past century – medical advances, the transportation revolution, huge increases in consumer goods, dramatic improvements in housing, the computer revolution. The people who created these things – the doers – are not popular heroes. Our heroes are the talkers who complain about the doers.

In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years, notes climatologist John Christy: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they live far better than anyone in history . Then ask yourself….do I really want to abandon what we have to live in squalor and dystopia? Because that is the alternative!

Greenies don't like tidal power, it might upset the fish, you know. So: Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric are positively EVIL; windmills are no good; tidal power is no good. There's just no such thing as a happy Greenie . What is the alternative? What will make the greenies happy? Make no mistake: Living green is really about someone else micro-regulating you -- downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained .

Journalists have generally given up on seeking to understand science, but instead look for the next scientist who will say something strange so that they have a “story” . Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered , and with the internet we have discovered that the media squandered any credibility they had many years ago.

Let’s just take Global Warming scares promoted by the media. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s.

It will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one meter" Changes in solar irradiation have been the dominant causes of changes in climate. Volcanic eruptions can have caused some cooling events and greenhouse gases may have contributed to the increase in temperature over the last decades. However, the influence of solar variability has been the major forcing factor and will probably also remain so in the future .

Every totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it was the “Aryan” fantasy of racial purity. With the USSR, it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularized, semi-pagan Western societies in historic decline, it's global warming.

Environmentalists-even mainstream environmentalists and fellow traveler business owners are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behavior and restrict economic activity. Their true plans and ambitions? Stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. They are interested in their businesses and their profits made with the help of politicians” . Take away the grant money and they will go away.

Why are economic conditions chaotic? The reason is simple. Americans no longer possess the freedom to produce the goods and services required to maintain their former standard of living. Taxation – both direct and indirect through currency inflation – runaway government regulation and government-sponsored-and-encouraged litigation have reduced the productivity of Americans below that required to maintain their way of life. This tyranny – this economic slavery – has been produced entirely by the federal and state governments of the United States .

Science has traditionally been held in high esteem. That clearly is no longer the case. What has changed? The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming? In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy , yet those who dared question the “consensus science” of the warmers were declared, skeptics and deniers such as the holocaust deniers. In short…they were called heretics.

What is the mission of the environmentalists? To spread the truth! No matter how many lies it takes. Green activists will always be outraged about something. What outrages them on any given day will depend on the emotions they are feeling on any given day . This is where I really have a problem with modern-day environmentalism; it confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric . Those who talk about climate change are the same ones who occupy the tenth circle of Hell for many Americans: Politicians, the Media, Scientists, Educators, Hippies, and Showbiz types. So it’s a moral imperative to be against what they’re for .
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” – Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
It’s bad enough that politicians and scientists have been drinking the Kool-Aid, what is truly amazing is how many corporate types have been imbibing and buying into these anti-business Corporate Social Responsibility scenarios. When these corporate Neville Chamberlains are ultimately forced to forfeit their salaries, bonuses and their jobs thanks to their spineless leadership and the anti-capitalism cabal that now inhabits wine and cheese bars in the District of Columbia, I hope to be around to ask this simple question: “So, how’s that hope and change working out for you ?

Pesticide use, climate change and energy production are not scientific problems that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found some scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favors central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someone’s property than to subordinate one’s private property rights to environmental concerns . If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks . It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy .

There is one good thing about the lunatic "global warming" catechism now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda camps : When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand precisely the same remedies for "global cooling" (which they will cleverly dub "climate change") as they did for "global warming" -- that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that America and particularly the "capitalist rich" must be "punished" and "made to sacrifice" in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of town .

Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism .

The EPA's muddled machinations should not come as a surprise, because the agency long has been a haven for scientifically insupportable policies perpetrated by anti-technology ideologues in career and appointed positions. It has a sordid history of incompetence, duplicity, and pandering to the most extreme factions of the environmental movement, all of which appears to be accelerating . The environmental movement has become so radical as to be an easily identified hazard to American life, and the EPA is to the green movement as Senn Fein is to the IRA, and not on my list of favorite people.

There is no dealing with the greenies. They have no command and control structure and as soon as you make a deal with one group the others will attack the deal and those who made it.  They will never be satisfied and as for those who wish to define green and adopt it as a business model and make the green movement partners of some sort - let me help you! Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that - any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color.

When you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.

Suffice it to say the 99% of this article are quotes. I inserted some of my words for continuity. If you wish to see the names that go with the quotes, please go to Green Notes Quotes 2009.