Yes arrogance and stupidity are is a terrible things.

Important document: Safe Malaria Solutions – Beyond DDT – http://www.panna.org/ddt

“Well, I’m unsubbing from the comments here,”

Mission accomplished, don’t come back either.

While the amount of climate sensitivity remains controversial, the question as to how that sensitivity is defined is not.

The following is excerpted from http://www.physorg.com/news188220613.html

Climate Sensitivity — defined as how much the average global surface temperature will increase if there is a doubling of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) in the air, once the planet has had a chance to settle into a new equilibrium after the increase occurs.

According to the IPCC it is 3 deg. C, with a range of uncertainty from 2 to 4.5 degrees.

* My comment: in other words, the range of uncertainty, which is larger than the projected amount, means the earth could cool by up to 1.5 deg. C as well – and that according to the IPCC, which I consider a dubious source.

Contd’: This sensitivity depends primarily on all the different feedback effects, both positive and negative, that either amplify or diminish the greenhouse effect. There are three primary feedback effects — clouds, sea ice and water vapor; these, combined with other feedback effects, produce the greatest uncertainties in predicting the planet’s future climate.

With no feedback effects at all, the change would be just 1 degree Celsius, climate scientists agree. Virtually all of the controversies over climate science hinge on just how strong the various feedbacks may be — and on whether scientists may have failed to account for some of them.

Is there anything you wouldn’t blame on “global warming”? In point of fact, mozzies don’t mind the cold. Ask someone living in Canada.

One of the worst ever outbreaks of Malaria occured in Russia, you know, the cold place? DDT got rid of it.

Temperatures have little to do with malaria or mosquitos.

Since unfounded accusations seem to be the norm here, are you sure you’re not just keen on the idea of “population control” in Africa, by any means necessary?

It often strikes me that for many environmentalists the real ‘enemy’ is simply humanity itself. The more you can reduce populations and subject the survivors to poverty the better, huh?

Ignoring of course, that wealthier countries can afford to do a better job of looking after said environment…

Well, I’m unsubbing from the comments here, as I’ve never found arguing against religion to be productive. Believers just believe, regardless of facts or how often their leaders are exposed as charalatans.

I’m reminded of Phil Jones (who recently admitted there’s been no statistially significant warming for 15 years), stating he wished there was more catastrophic warming, just to prove him right.

What a swell guy!

Instead of doom and gloom, why can’t you people celebrate the fact that your “scientists” and leaders have been fudging the data to suit their theories?

Relax, climate changes. Always has.

Goodbye.

Ah, so you work for industries that benefits from the spin you put out but you deny they pay you.

Produce some credible science to back your arguments intead of ‘points’, and the answers will be clear.

I have finally worked out the synergy between the DDT lobby and the climate change denialist lobby.

More malaria from global warming means more DDT needs to be sprayed, good for profits for DDT company, so keep that globe heating up and live in denial.

However:

Lancet Medical Journal: Managing the Health effects of Climate Change
Launched in London, UK, May 13, 2009

A collaboration between The Lancet and University College London, UK, resulting in the first UCL Lancet Commission report, setting out how climate change over the coming decades could have a disastrous effect on health across the globe.
MORE:
http://www.thelancet.com/climate-change

Strange you so want to save African lives by spraying DDT but could not give a damn about “Climate change to force 75 million Pacific Islanders from their homes” MORE:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5915829/Climate-change-to-force-75-million-Pacific-Islanders-from-their-homes.html

Yes your argument of dousing Africans with DDT to save lives while climate change ravages the continent does not make sense, unless you lobby for the fossil fuel and DDT industry.

Climate Change to fuel hunger in poverty struck Southern Africa:
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/climate-change-fuel-hunger-poverty-struck-southern-africa

Considering the mass funding behind “AGW”, how do we know YOU aren’t some paid shill for the warmist brigade?

Here’s an idea, answer the points instead of trying to obscure the issue by calling the messenger silly names. What do you think?

Your selective comments come across as a typical industry think tank blogger. Who employs you?

Consider the vastly larger volumes of DDT used throughout Europe and the US, for decades, with no noticable ill effects (and the total elmination of malaria). But DDT is so toxic we should ban the stuff, leaving people to die or suffer horribly from this dreadful disease?

Trust me, if you ever get malaria you’ll change your mind on this issue.

Happily, it seems some sane middle ground is being found, with limited spraying of home interiors. That’s enough to prevent the spread of disease, as after biting mozzies look for a flat surface to rest and digest. Spray the walls with DDT and they may bite you – but you’ll be the first and last person they bite.

Now, I hear “denialist nonsense”, yet everything I mention is out there and can be verified. Heck, much of it comes from their own emails and websites – these people are pretty much making up the “science” as they go along.

I found this blog via having a “google alert” for the word “climategate”. It’s been an eye-opening experience over the last few weeks. It’s literally a struggle to keep up with the revelations and exposures of wrong-doing.

Things seem to be dying down now, leaving a hardcore of “denialist” skeptics like myself – and your lot, true believers, despite the evidence of faked and flakey “data”.

You believe because you want to, not any evidence.