Merry Christmas to all my readers. Enjoy this 1946 ad for DDT -- you can put it everywhere!
Yaaaahoooo, kill them thar bugs.
I don't see why we need to regulate business at all.
Mankind vs the bug. They'll keep fighting! And they'll win!
And so convenient.
You don't need gloves or masks or anything!
So the point of the post is scientists were wrong. Understood.
Merry Christmas, Tim! I hope Santa brings you all the toys you asked for! :)
4:14 - "It's a handful of concentrated death."
You got that much right, buddy.
Odin! That was depressing. "*Can we eat it? Can we make money from it? No? Then KILL it! Ah hahahahahaahaaaaa!!*"
Merry Christmas to Tim and all - well, most posters at Deltoid.
And hey! Why not get rid of that nasty DDT powder taste that seems to get everywhere with some refreshing [radium toothpaste](http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/radieux.html).
It brings back the sparkle to places you didn't even know you had!
Holy crap. Smother your shrubbery with powdered DDT, and make sure to distribute thick clouds of the stuff around your summer campsite. Wheee!
It sure is a mystery how the creepy-crawlies developed resistance to the stuff...
Merry War on Christmas everyone!
As we approach the New Year, can we find a snappier name than AGW?
How about 'the Janus theory', after the Roman god who had two heads and could look both ways at once, like the current AGW theory now accounts seamlessly for both warmer winters and colder winters?
Oh such a lovely vision, just like a soft winter blizzard, so fluffy and light.
Ho ho ho [Rick B](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/merry_christmas_to_all_my.php#c…).
There is [an explanation](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-…) which is entirely consistent with our understanding of AGW, but - like initially getting your head around the fact that winter only affects half the globe at a time - it may well be beyond your powers of comprehension.
Perhaps Santa may have brought you some brains this year, or if not there's rumoured to be a Wizz in Oz who can help.
Either way, come back and try again when you're better equipped to deal with the apparently counter-intuitive which is what actual science (as opposed to, say, the Wattsian version) is really, really good at making clear.
Merry Christmas and God bless all our intellectually crippled Tiny Tims.
On the first day of Christmas,my true love sent to mea Monckton in a pear tree!
* * *
This Christmas, one person who's on my mind is British nobleman Christopher Monckton -- he who brings joy and laughter to the world with his countless antics, he who saves the day by uncovering vast Masonic conspiracies every other week, he who completes each meal with a dose of wholesome DDT. Merry Christmas to all!
What ever happened of Monckton's libel cases? Did he ever follow through?
Well, the video started out ok...using DDT on doorways was unlikely to lead to much bioaccumulation or resistance. But then it continued.... yeeeesh. Just make sure not to put any of that on your cat!
> What ever happened of Monckton's libel cases? Did he ever follow through?
Well, the most important thing to remember is that, um... let's put it this way... Monckton hasn't yet been defeated in a single libel case. :-B :-B :-B
* * *
All true ... as long as you can sell the house reasonably quickly. And if the next buyer sells, and so on, fair confidence that no one would get sick. What makes DDT cheap is its long residence.
At the same time you complain of a cold winter wherever you are, our Antarctic runway at Wilkins Aerodrome has been melting and our flight programme is already delayed several weeks.
Try and develop a GLOBAL perspective when you talk of GLOBAL warming.
Surely, including the footage of puffing the DDT dust on fresh water was incredibly foolish. By 1943 it was already known that DDT was highly toxic to herpetofauna. From the description of paralysis, it would have seemed reasonable to assume that it was neurotoxic.
Due to the similarity between vertebrates, it could reasonably be inferred that toxicity would be likely to extend to all vertebrates from fish to mammals. Surely it would have been safer to assume it was toxic rather than not.
I presume the decision to spray this stuff everywhere was political-expedient / ignorance-based, rather than science and fact-based.
Rick Bradford @ 8,
I think you should stick your theory up your jANUS.
Rick Bradford sez:
blah blah blah SNOW ... blah blah blah COLD!
For the umpteenth friggin' time, weather is not climate! Sheesh.
Thanks for playing though.
Happy Chanukah and a Merry New Year for the rest of ye.
PESTROY! It came from "top scientists from famous universities and from industrial and government organizations"
It sounds like the IPCC may have a hand in this...
"For the umpteenth friggin' time, weather is not climate! Sheesh."
Unless of course, there is a blizzard in the Northeast, then it's due to Global Warming...
"Holiday Blizzard: More Signs Of Global Warming"
Scientists are wrong according to the wrong media therefore I'm right. Victory!
* * *
On the fifth day of Christmas,my true love sent to mefive nuclear bombs,four talking points,three teabags,two trolling trolls,and a Monckton in a pear tree!
I know it's a little late, but S. Fred has a Xmas present over at the Washington Times!
The knee-jerk reactions have all missed my point - perhaps not accidentally.
I don't say that a short string of extremely cold winters across the Northern hemisphere has anything significant to say about global warming theory.
It is the AGW cadre who are making the link, from Viner in 2000 saying that snow in the UK would become `a very rare and exciting eventâ to PIK's Vladimir Petuchov saying last week: "Hard winters do not refute global warming, instead they more so confirm it."
So AGW theory predicts warmer winters, but at the same time, colder winters prove AGW theory. Hence the theory is unfalsifiable, and so ceases to be science.
> So AGW theory predicts warmer winters,
No it doesn't
> but at the same time, colder winters prove AGW theory.
No they don't
> Hence the theory is unfalsifiable,
Hence this is a non sequitor
> and so ceases to be science.
...and this is another
Rick Bradford, you haven't been paying attention (or you have no comprehension skills).
Anyone care to address this issue raised at Wikipedia:
South Africa is one country that continues to use DDT under WHO guidelines. In 1996, the country switched to alternative insecticides and malaria incidence increased dramatically. Returning to DDT and introducing new drugs brought malaria back under control. According to DDT advocate Donald Roberts, malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Research data shows a significantly strong negative relationship between DDT residual house sprayings and malaria rates. In a research from 1993 to 1995, Ecuador increased its use of DDT and resulted in a 61% reduction in malaria rates, while each of the other countries that gradually decreased its DDT use had large increase in malaria rates.
I'm hoping someone can point out something that the wiki page is missing. On the surface, this quote seems to show that stopping DDT use = significant increase in malaria deaths.
Rick Bradford has a history of [making up quotes to dishonestly represent material](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate…). Little wonder now Rick pretends there is an argument that:
>*colder winters prove AGW theory*
Your fabricated argument is nonsense Rick if for no reason other than the fact that global temperatures have not been cold, and we've just had another hot year.
What "short string of extremely cold winters across the northern hemisphere" would that be?
Recent winters have thrown up some unusually cold weather in some relatively small areas for short periods. But averaged over the whole hemisphere for the whole season, recent winters have been remarkably mild. Northern Hemisphere Land anomalies of December-January-February for the last three years have been +0.63, +0.84, +1.01.
Spatially, so far for this year, the very cold UK and eastern US is balanced out by very warm weather over much of Canada, and mild conditions in much of the rest of the N Hemisphere. Temporally, after a few weeks of bitter weather which so captured news coverage, temps in England are pretty normal again. The mdeium range forecast is generally pleasant, with occasion bouts of...wait for it...wintry weather.
Shock! Horror! Wintry weather in winter!!1!!11!11!Eleventy-one!!
Ben - the phrase 'residual house sprayings' is doing most of the work in that statement.
This day, 1 Jan 2011, my New Year's resolution is that I won't have to listen to the completely confused and ignorant crap sprouted by denialists such as Rick anymore.
I suspect it's about to be the first of many New Year's resolutions to be broken.
I'm equally puzzled as everyone else where the "cold winters proves AGW" allegation comes from. Winter is still winter. The seasons are still the seasons. The earth still has an axial tilt as it orbits the sun (unless some giant space duck has come along and knocked it about). I do not know of any climate scientists who have said cold winters are henceforth impossible in a warming world overall.
Speaking of 'cold' winters, does anyone have links to US and European sites that display recent temperature and precipitation data in the same detailed and convenient manner that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [does](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/)? I've had a bit of a poke around but I keep coming up with tourism sites or with forecasting sites that seem to have no historical data.
#23: RN, thanks for the link. So that old fraud S. Fred is still at it. Back in the '80s, he was insisting that ozone depletion was caused by the solar cycle. This sounded plausible, until the ozone levels kept going down while the solar cycle swung back in the opposite direction. Does this guy never give up? He is still insisting on "natural causes" of recent warming, but never offers any quantitative theory to predict such "natural" warming. Therefore, there is nothing in the claim that is falsifiable. Then he, like the rest of the crowd, claims that AGW is "unfalsifiable"! Note the misleading line, frequently advanced, about "science not being conducted by majority rule". Quite so, but the person who advances claims that fly in the face of the so-called "consensus", or accepted science, is under a correspondingly greater obligation to come up with falsifying evidence. This they seem unable to do.
I was going to respond to Rick Bradford and Betula, but I thought, why waste my (figurative) breath... especially since William has [done it for me](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/12/explaining_too_much.php).
Thanks [P. Lewis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/merry_christmas_to_all_my.php#c…) - although I'd found those!
I guess I should have been a bit more specific: what I'm particularly looking for is the mapping of anomalies over recent time, as AusBoM does. If such are on those sites, I'm missing them as I sometimes do when I'm staring at the socks that are right under my nose, but don't register in the brain.
"You can put it everywhere?" Hah! They haven't even yet begun to realize how awesome DDT truly is - you can put in anywhere, it will end up everywhere all by itself.
Bernard. I've gone through several layers of NOAA and other US organisations. I know exactly what you're after and I can't see anything remotely like it. (I started out because I thought it would be simple to help you out. Either they don't have such things or my mind cannot latch onto the logical sequence that would lead to the destination.)
Perhaps you should put up a screenshot of the typical page you like and ask if anyone does a similar format for their own area.
No sooner said than done!
[This is the type of output](http://i53.tinypic.com/34g984i.jpg) that I am looking for. AusBoM provides them [here](http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp), with a wide variety of adjustable parameters.
It appears that in this, they are ahead of the rest of the world.