Gotta love it. Scientists from India, a country that needs the freedoms of industrialization, scientists from government entities which face less funding restraints, and scientists from all over the world are all part of the liberal bias.

 

Is there anything that can't be dismissed with the el pengiuno logic? Fried chicken is healthy for you. Scientists just conspire against it.

 

But Penn and Teller. Well they are the almighty objective source we should consider legit.

 

So Al Gore doesn't have an agenda? People seem to have no issues listening to him. I've also been saying all along here is that you can't expect some of those scientists in academia to be politically neutral.

 

And that article is no less alarmist fodder than anything else that has been making headlines as of late. The wording of the article was also mildly amusing (as was the manner the author stretched key points).

 

 

I would love to read that whopping 21 page (gasp) report. I don't find second hand articles to be the least bit convincing.

 

So what if Al Gore has an agenda? Are you going to deny the existence of a problem, ignore years of hard data, just because you do not agree with Al Gore's political stance?

 

 

Penguino was responding to the 10,000 dollar offer by oil companies alleged in Guardian. So your argument goes both ways. I also wanted to add that science is not a civil trial, it is not about preponderance of the evidence, its about whats right or wrong, whats happening and what isnt happening. Now, governmental policy can be influenced by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but that alone is not enough to determine if it actually is or isnt happening.

 

 

He has basically alleged that the entire scientific community has a hidden agenda because he knows how the process works. It's a good tactic of infusing just the tiniest bit of doubt into the system. It protects the organizations that are paid by industry to produce favorable results(tobacco, GW) just enough cover to reverse the debate.

CO2 vs temperature: http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

 

 

 

Here is the chart of actual CO2 concentration in recent years:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/06.htm

 

So we are in the 400 ppm range...more than ever in the last 600k years

 

Period of Record

420,000 years BP-present

 

 

Methods

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record presented by Jouzel et al. (1987) was the first ice core record to span a full glacial-interglacial cycle. That record was based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica. The 2083-m ice core was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to ~420 kyr BP.

 

The first isotopic analysis of the Vostok ice core was described in Lorius et al. (1985). Sampling of ice for 18O and deuterium was done in the field during the 1982-83 austral summer by cutting a continuous slice from the length of ice after careful cleaning. Sampling was performed on 1.5- to 2-m increments of ice. Samples were sent in solid form to Grenoble, France, and then melted before isotopic analysis in Saclay, France. Two independent series of samples were obtained. For the discontinuous series, duplicated to check reproducibility, one sample was taken at each 25-m interval from the surface down to the bottom of the core. For the continuous series, samples were collected between 1406 and 2083 m. Oxygen-18 and deuterium determinations were simultaneously performed on all the samples, and the δ18O results were discussed in Lorius et al. (1985).

 

The 420-kyr Vostok temperature record presented here was reconstructed from the continuous deuterium profile measured along the core. The new measurements were taken along ice in increments between 0.5 and 2 m in length to a depth of 2080 m and then every 1 m for the remainder of the upper 3310-m of the ice core. Isotopic analysis was again performed by the Geochemistry team at LSCE at Saclay. A sudden decrease from interglacial-like δDice values to glacial-like-values, followed by an abrupt return to interglacial-like values, occurs between 3320 and 3330 m (Petit et al. 1999). This occurrence plus the presence of volcanic ash layers at 3311 m suggests that the Vostok climate records may be disturbed below 3311 m. Thus, discussion of the new data set is limited to the upper 3310 m of the ice core. Petit et al. (1999) reported an ice recovery rate of 85% or higher and a measurement accuracy of ? 0.5?/?? Surface Mean Ocean Water (SMOW). The temperature estimates are based on both experimental and theoretical arguments. One of the fundamental arguments used in deriving this temperature record is that the deuterium content distribution is well documented over East Antarctica and over a large range of temperatures (-20? to -55? C); thus, there is a linear relationship between the average annual surface temperature and the snow deuterium content. The slope of this δD/surface temperature relationship was found by Jouzel et al. (1993, 1996) and Petit et al. (1999) to be 9?/?? per ?C. Further details on the methodology are presented in Jouzel et al. (1987), Lorius et al. (1985), and Petit et al. (1999).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vostok, Antarctica

78?28' S, 106?48'E

3488 m above MSL

 

 

Trends

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature, previously described by Barnola et al. (1987), is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record (Petit et al. 1999). From the extended Vostok record, Petit et al. (1999) concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods (Jouzel et al. 1996), and the detailed δDice record confirms the main features of the third and fourth climate cycles described by Petit et al. (1997). The records also indicate both similarities and differences between successive interglacial periods. Although the third and fourth climate cycles are of shorter duration than the first two cycles in the Vostok record, all four climate cycles show a similar sequence of a warm interglacial, followed by colder glacial events, and ending with a rapid return to an interglacial period. Minimum temperatures are within 1?C for the four climate cycles. The overall amplitude of the glacial-interglacial temperature change is ~8?C for the temperature above the inversion level and ~12?C for surface temperatures. Climate cycles deduced from the Vostok ice core appear to be more uniform than those in deep-sea core records (Petit et al. 1999).

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

I also wanted to add that science is not a civil trial, it is not about preponderance of the evidence, its about whats right or wrong, whats happening and what isnt happening.

Science is based on the scientific method. From dictionary.com:

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses ? generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made.

In our experiments, we like to break the 4th point down into a 5th and 6th point - repeatability and predictability.

 

By "preponderance of evidence," I am merely using a blanket term that refers to the collective data formulated by the scientific process. Rather than devolving into an argument of semantics, try to argue against the valid research being performed by hundreds of scientists around the globe.

 

As posted above, big oil will bribe you to prove this research wrong or to write [and publish] a quasi-scientific article that could theoretically plant the seeds of doubt and thereby allow their business to continue as usual.

 

These methods have been employed before by the tobacco industry ["you can't prove a 100% correlation between smoking and Cancer!"] and GE ["you can't prove a 100% correlation between PCB's and liver damage and/or anemia!"]. More recently, GE paid for a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to stir up public sentiment against dredging the Hudson to remove the 1.3 million lbs of PCB's they dumped in the river between 1930 and 1977. Why? Because they knew they would have to foot a portion of the bill. Their logic was that dredging would stir up the PCB's that had "safely" settled to the bottom of the river. Without actually saying it, they tried to convince people that the PCB's [which are a PERSISTENT organic polutant] would just go away... To my shock and horror, an alarmingly large segment of our population bought in to these tactics and put up "Stop the Dredging" signs on their lawns. It was a disgrace and I don't want to see that happen on this issue.

Penguino, because of people like you, we now need groups like these to counter your BS: http://www.sefora.org/

 

As a matter of fact, maybe you should read this: http://www.sefora.org/pages.php?submitted=1&id=168

 

Dr. MacCracken on Global Warming

 

The Administration and Congress have failed to adequately address global climate change, and their policies are hurting the United States. Climate change has become evident in many places around the world. Sea level is rising as the polar ice sheets melt from warming. The ranges of habitation of sensitive plant and animal species are shifting as a direct result of climate change. Continuing to ignore climate change will lead to more effects, many of them far more severe. An enlightened federal policy would be heeding these early signs of much greater change to come rather than saying the policy is set and will not be reconsidered for another decade?which has been the President?s position.

 

o The present policy of relying on voluntary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions is not working. US emissions are continuing to increase. The resulting changes in atmospheric composition will mean much larger climate changes ahead while also creating the need for much sharper and more disruptive cutbacks in the future. An enlightened federal approach would be moving responsibly now to promote emissions limitations and gradually tightening the policies over time.

 

o There are uncertainties about the future, but all the basics are very clear, and have been for decades (the first scientific report on climate change by the President?s Science Advisory Council was submitted in 1965). But instead of acting progressively to build a new industry based on alternative energy resources, research efforts on alternative energy technologies remain well below what is needed and the President is downsizing NASA?s efforts to look at the Earth from space to assess what climate change will mean for the US and how to better prepare.

 

o In 1990, 1995, and 2001, the world scientific community met with policymakers from around the world and unanimously agreed on the scientific underpinnings of global warming. There are few other issues where there has been such universal agreement on the scientific basis of a problem. But the Administration and some members of Congress keep downplaying the science. The Administration has prevented government scientists from speaking freely on global warming and has suppressed government reports that indicated that human activity contributes significantly to global warming.

 

o We?re out of step with the world. Under the Kyoto Protocol and the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, other nations have at least started in their efforts to combat dangerous human-caused interference with the climate system. The United States has not. If we continue on this path, in the next 30 years the types of impacts we could be setting in motion will be catastrophic?including possibly initiating melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, eventually raising global sea level by over 20 feet! An enlightened federal approach would be working with all the nations of the world to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, treating this issue, as Ambassador John Ashton of the UK recently put it, as a security issue and not simply an environmental issue.

 

o We have the power to do something now. A National Academy of Sciences report from 1992 pointed out that the United States should reduce its emissions substantially using approaches that would pay for themselves in a few years?we can do more now, mainly by enhancing incentives to change. California, for example, has created those incentives, through building and appliance standards and energy pricing, so that the average Californian uses half as much electricity as residents in other states, saving the average family about $1000 per year. And California?s long-term plan for reducing emissions also envisions the changeover helping the state?s economy. Implementing similar policies nationwide will save our environment and boost our economy in the end.

 

o The present position of our leaders is putting our industries at a disadvantage. Instead of having a policy that stimulates the development of new technologies that are needed by the nations of the world, our lack of an aggressive approach keeps many of our industries focused on old fossil-fuel-driven technologies. The requirement to limit CO2 emissions can be made into a major innovation program?helping save the environment while creating jobs and building our future economy.

 

The United States can take the lead in transforming the world?s energy system. We have creative minds, plenty of land, wind, and solar resources, and there is significant potential to reduce emissions at low or no cost. Right now governors Schwarzenegger (CA) and Pataki (NY) are competing to have their states have the lowest emissions, the nation?s architects are competing to see how low emissions can be from buildings, and the technology is on the horizon to cut transportation emissions substantially. All we have to do is get headed in the right direction with modest incentives, set our long-term goals, and get going. We must do a great deal if we want to be able to pass a viable environmental legacy on to our children and grandchildren.

 

-- Dr. Michael MacCracken is Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC, and Member of the Board of Advisors, SEA

I also wanted to add that science is not a civil trial, it is not about preponderance of the evidence, its about whats right or wrong, whats happening and what isnt happening.

Science is based on the scientific method. From dictionary.com:

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses ? generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made.

In our experiments, we like to break the 4th point down into a 5th and 6th point - repeatability and predictability.

 

By "preponderance of evidence," I am merely using a blanket term that refers to the collective data formulated by the scientific process. Rather than devolving into an argument of semantics, try to argue against the valid research being performed by hundreds of scientists around the globe.

 

As posted above, big oil will bribe you to prove this research wrong or to write [and publish] a quasi-scientific article that could theoretically plant the seeds of doubt and thereby allow their business to continue as usual.

 

These methods have been employed before by the tobacco industry ["you can't prove a 100% correlation between smoking and Cancer!"] and GE ["you can't prove a 100% correlation between PCB's and liver damage and/or anemia!"]. More recently, GE paid for a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to stir up public sentiment against dredging the Hudson to remove the 1.3 million lbs of PCB's they dumped in the river between 1930 and 1977. Why? Because they knew they would have to foot a portion of the bill. Their logic was that dredging would stir up the PCB's that had "safely" settled to the bottom of the river. Without actually saying it, they tried to convince people that the PCB's [which are a PERSISTENT organic polutant] would just go away... To my shock and horror, an alarmingly large segment of our population bought in to these tactics and put up "Stop the Dredging" signs on their lawns. It was a disgrace and I don't want to see that happen on this issue.

 

The problem is that in my field which is law, terms such as preponderance of the evidence aren't mere semantics, they are the deciding factors that shape everything else. Words mean everything for us. So, I repeat, a mere more likely than not is irrelevant to determine if something is in fact scientifically valid. However, the evidence should be enough to shape policy but just because more scientists think global warming exists now than they did 3 years ago does not in any way mean they are right.

I think the point that needs to be made is that climate science and climate policy aren't necessarily complementary, and that many--perhaps most--people who shout that "something needs to be done" about global warming haven't really approached the issue from a policy perspective. In other words, thinking about it from the point of view of "How much of a problem is this, and what solutions can we devise to best alleviate the problem? What further issues would arise from our proposed solutions?"

 

Simply slapping an emissions cap on the US and other industrialized countries (the solution called for by most global warming "alarmists") fails to produce this sort of analysis. For starters, the cap that would be needed to truly make a dent in global warming would be so large as to defy comprehension; a 2003 study showed that to stabilize CO2 levels, emissions would need to be cut to 1928 levels--a decrease of about 70% from the present day. That type of change is simply unrealistic even if the worst credible predictions of climate change came to pass, and most likely they will not. Note that each time a new UN study comes out--and these studies have occasionally been criticized by team members for ignoring dissenting viewpoints--the forecasts for sea level rise decrease. Most hurricane experts will say that the effect of climate change on hurricanes is dwarfed by cyclical regional effects such as El Nino or the decades-long fluctuations observed in the Atlantic.

 

So to go back to the original questions:

1) How much of a problem is this? We don't know. The most serious effects attributed to global warming are thinly supported by evidence or, in some cases, not supported at all (see 20' sea level changes by 2100).

2) What solutions can we devise to alleviate this problem? I'd argue that we're (we being the US) on the right path now, in that high oil prices based on political instability have provided an incentive for researchers to develop non-fossil fuel means of energy production. Some of the relevant technologies are in their infancy, so I'd think it's inappropriate for the government to try and pick winners now (via the ethanol subsidies for instance, which come with their own set of environmental problems) and let the cream rise to the top, so to speak.

3) What effects arise from our proposed solutions? I think that this minimizes the negative effects as far as solutions go. As there is a need for alternative energy completely independent of climate change, the technology will be developed one way or the other. In the meantime, economically-draining policies such as the ones that are typically advocated might, in fact, delay the introduction of alternative energy by favoring some systems which turn out to be unworkable, which puts more promising developments at a disadvantage.

We could mine the Greenland ice and relocate it to the desert.

So to go back to the original questions:

1) How much of a problem is this? We don't know.

I would argue that we have a very good idea. Researchers have information from an ice core [the Vostok Core] taken in 2003. This ice core gives us an unbiased journal of information that dates back over 750,000 years. Of particular interest is this:A period between ice ages known as Stage 11, which occurred about 450,000 years ago, is of particular interest because the Earth's orbit at that time is believed to have been very similar to its orbit today.

 

It could give us our best picture of what today's climate would be like without man-made pollution or global warming, says Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey.

Source: Newscientist.com

 

The results of this research were included in the new body of evidence regarding global warming and helped steer the committee to their determination that gw is man-made.

 

2) What solutions can we devise to alleviate this problem? I'd argue that we're (we being the US) on the right path now, in that high oil prices based on political instability have provided an incentive for researchers to develop non-fossil fuel means of energy production. Some of the relevant technologies are in their infancy, so I'd think it's inappropriate for the government to try and pick winners now (via the ethanol subsidies for instance, which come with their own set of environmental problems) and let the cream rise to the top, so to speak.

I agree with most of what you have to say here. I know that we are finally receiving larger and larger grants to apply towards our E2TAC Program that is developing newer, cleaner, more efficient alternate power sources. However, these grants are still dwarfed by the grants we receive to develop better computer chips... I also think that we are at least 30 years late in establishing a federal standard that forces automakers [ALL automakers - foreign and domestic] to develop more fuel efficient vehicles. We also need better incentives to take advantage of current technologies. There is no reason that new homes in Texas or Arizona, for example, can't be outfitted with solar arrays that feed the grid. A 2KW system can be installed for as little as $10,000. If you consider the fact that this power is 100% clean and conditioned by virtue of the collection method, this is the most desirable type of power out there. Since utilities are federally controlled, why wouldn't there be more interest in helping to subsidize these projects like NYSERDA attempts to do in NYS [which is not a far inferior candidate for solar technologies]?

 

3) What effects arise from our proposed solutions? I think that this minimizes the negative effects as far as solutions go. As there is a need for alternative energy completely independent of climate change, the technology will be developed one way or the other. In the meantime, economically-draining policies such as the ones that are typically advocated might, in fact, delay the introduction of alternative energy by favoring some systems which turn out to be unworkable, which puts more promising developments at a disadvantage.

Again, I think that a shift in priorities is in order. We need to stop beating around the bush and make people aware that there is a major problem with the way that we are treating our planet. Regime change starts at home, right? Once the population starts believing that there really is a problem, private and federal resources start shifting their focus. There is a TON of money to be made in the emerging technologies that will come out of the search for alternate energy source. So the fact that Exxon won't be making as much doesn't bother me. It's simply going to be a shift in money flow from big oil to big green.

 

I would like to add a 4th point:

4) Is there evidence that humans are having a negative impact on the environment in general? Well, let's see.

We have polluted fresh water sources to the point that they are completely undrinkable

• example 1: until recently if you had fallen into the Charles River in Boston, you would need to get a shot or you would break out into a painfull rash
  
• example 2: thanks to nuclear waste, Lake Karachay is now so radioactive that you would receive a lethal dose of radiation just by standing near the shore for less than an hour
  

We have polluted our oceans to the point that large stretches of beach are danger zones

• example 1: obviously the Exxon Valdez disaster should immediately come to mind
  
• example 2: Doheny Beach used to be a surfer's paradise and is now the most polluted beach in California due to the bacteria, viruses, and human waste carried by runoff and deposited in the ocean
  

We have polluted our air to the point that it can be dangerous to spend too much time outside

• example 1: 50% of the summer days in LA are dangerous to Asthmatics
  
• example 2: 70% of the summer days in San Bernardino are dangerous to Asthmatics
  

I think there is ample evidence that humans are having at least some impact on the health of the planet. I think we can all agree on this and should start from there. Since it is easier to see the tangible results of our actions and the scope of damage we have caused, I think pollution is a good starting point. If we continue down this path and see that certain chemicals being released into the atmosphere add to global warming, it wont be long until you see that human actions are having at least some effect on global warming. Once you agree to that, it doesn't really matter what % of global warming is natural and what % is man-made, you will just want us to do our part to reduce our contribution. If I found out that a certain percentage of the profits from buying Nike shoes went to help fund Al Qaeda, I wouldn't care if it was 50% or 5%, I would do everything I could to stop buying and supporting Nike! I think the same thought process has to be applied to the gw problem.

 

But that's just my 2 cents.

Its cold as balls here

We can counter-act global warming by increasing sulphate aerosol emissions:

 

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/1...6.x?cookieSet=1

Uh, what are you getting at? DDT? I guess you want to kill more bald eagles then, huh? It may be your country, but damn the symbol that represents it, huh? Let me put it into a very simple syllogism for you - DDT:bald eagles::mercury:humans. IT ACCUMULATES IN THE BODY!!!!

 

But with respect to adding sulfate aerosols, VERY bad idea. Sulfates will have a temporary cooling effect, but then they rapidly trap heat. What do you think the atmosphere of Venus is made of?

-13 degree wind chill here.

I was half joking about the sulfates, but ultimately I think it wuld have to come to fighting pollution with pollution if it becomes a real big problem. Bioremediation is used in water treatment and for soil contamination, I don't see why it cant be used in a future for the atmosphere.

 

Any attempt to alter warming chemically is probably a bad idea because there is still considerable uncertainty in the data at hand.

 

Although I find very little data to be convincing from the alarmist side (although I do disagree with many skeptics as well on certain factors), acting upon uncertainty in an attempt to mitigate various variables is scary. There have been various proposals to release chemicals into the air in an attempt to reflect sunlight.

 

It's quite possible that much of what is being fed to us is wrong. In the 70s, environmentalists warned against global cooling. They were wrong. They warned against the use of dichloro diphenyl drichloroethane. They were wrong. As a result tens of millions of people died. Yes, environmental alarmists over the last century have killed more human beings than Hitler and Stalin combined.

 

The moral here is that climate studies is a new and raw science. It is far too early to jump to extreme measures to reverse an uncertainty.

 

How were environmentalists wrong about DDT? How do 10 million people die directly as a result from the banning of DDT? You know DDT is still used in many developing countries?

They were wrong in the sense that they thought they were improving the human condition by placing so much emphasis on a biological rippling effect, whereas its ban caused tens of millions of needless deaths via malaria while further crippling third world economies.

Ummm. The DDT ban was in the United States. Other countries [sri Lanka for example] stopped spraying because it was expensive and they thought they had the problem under control. When they started spraying again, they discovered that a large % of the mosquito population was already DDT resistant. So, good luck figuring out which deaths were caused by a lack of spraying and which were caused despite spraying.

 

Oh right, and then there's the fact that DDT is not the only solution for preventing malaria. Also, there's the fact that DDT isn't even the most cost effective method, as proven by this study which showed that treated nets were over 20% more effective.

 

Again, since the ban on DDT was a policy enacted by the United States, I'll have to check and see how many deaths have been attributed to malaria contracted in the US since 1970. I'm thinking it is significantly less than 1 million. I think it is probably significantly less than 100, but I am not positive so I wont pull a number out of my rectum like SOME people around here... :whistle

 

I also find it quite humorous that many of the environmental agencies lobbying for a ban on DDT have changed their stance in indecision. One of the initial foundations was the claim that it needed to be banned because it was a serious life-threatening risk to humans.

Inaccurate. DDT was banned specifically because of a negative impact to the environment and as a backlash against chemicals like Agent Orange.

 

But the point I'm trying to make is that often a narrow, unsubstantiated agenda can often have tragic results.

Inactivity and delay in the face of an alarmingly large body of evidence can have even more tragic results..

I was just curious why--and maybe it's just that I don't run in the right circles--I've heard little to no talk from environmental types trying to put the data out on various energy-efficiency measures (from light bulbs to solar panels...currently practical technology) and how they can save individual consumers or companies money. It seems like a message presented in this way would be pretty well-received...certainly more so than "humanity is going to wipe out the planet." After all, who wouldn't want to at least look into something if they can save themselves a decent chunk of change without much hassle? Think of when hybrid cars and fuel efficiency became a big selling point: after gas started going for $3 a gallon and people wanted to fill up their cars without taking out a second mortgage.

I was just curious why--and maybe it's just that I don't run in the right circles--I've heard little to no talk from environmental types trying to put the data out on various energy-efficiency measures (from light bulbs to solar panels...currently practical technology) and how they can save individual consumers or companies money.

This information is actually being pushed out by a number of organizations including the Ad-Council [i just heard their Energy Hogs commercial this morning].

 

The problem is that this is the same information that was pushed in the 70's and 80's and 90's... Compact florescent lamps have been globally available since the 80's for example yet they are just now starting to become a little more popular. We had a solar panel installed on our house in 1982 just for hot water. Because the panel had to be installed on the south side of the house and that side happened to face the road, people on our side of the street didn't want to install them because they looked ugly. These ads alone just haven't been working.

 

I don't know how many of you remember when seatbelt laws started going into effect. Every car in America came with a seatbelt, everybody knew you should wear a seatbelt, the Ad-Council reminded us "You could learn a lot from a dummy!" Yet, no one really wore seatbelts until laws started getting passed to FORCE people to wear seatbelts. Now, I don't feel comfortable in a car without one. Weird, huh?

 

Lesson learned: where ads don't work, legislation will. And that is a strong statement for a libertarian to make!

 

Inaccurate. DDT was banned specifically because of a negative impact to the environment and as a backlash against chemicals like Agent Orange.

The EPA banned it for both environmental and falsified medical reasons.

 

A quote from EPA's William Ruckelshaus:

 

"Man may be exposing himself to a substance that may ultimately have a serious effect on his health." Subsequently, it was given a toxicity rating by the EPA. Tell the whole story. DDT was given the same toxicity rating [b2] as coffee and low-frequency magnetic fields. That's why he used the word "may" so many times. The reason for the ban was the negative environmental impact - which was a proven link. The ban would not have passed otherwise.