Greens and Psuedo-Science
Much blog discussion today has centred on Roger Kerr's excellent column - Why the Greens Charm Offensive Failed. In the article, Roger Kerr says:
"Many green crusades have been responsible for human misery and environmental damage.
A classic example is the campaign against DDT. Despite massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife, the ideological ban on its use in many countries led to a resurgence in malaria and an estimated 50 million deaths. South Africa has gone back to using DDT and deaths have fallen away."
The Centre for Independant Studies published this article on DDT use and Malaria rates in 2001 which supports Kerr's statement.
I noted the comment in the article which is attributed to Greenpeace: "Relying on a precautionary approach based purely on science is not enough." (The link at the bottom of the article doesn't work any more.)
So the Green movement admits it doesn't want to rely on science, but emotion. Hmmmm, so just why would any thinking person support the Green Movement?
As an aside - This reminds me of how an emotive email sent to Sue Kedgley requesting support for the ban of DiHydrogen Monoxide. The email listed a number of negatives about the chemical substance, and then listed places where it is commonly found, like food, and got Sue Kedgley to declare her support for a ban.
Of course, DiHydrogen Monoxide is plain old water. (It's a very clever urban legend that some science geek came up with and published a website. But the support has earned the NZ Green Party a permanent link!) The emotive way the letter was written over-rode common sense and the simple step to check out the actual chemical and make a scientific judgement.
"Many green crusades have been responsible for human misery and environmental damage.
A classic example is the campaign against DDT. Despite massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife, the ideological ban on its use in many countries led to a resurgence in malaria and an estimated 50 million deaths. South Africa has gone back to using DDT and deaths have fallen away."
The Centre for Independant Studies published this article on DDT use and Malaria rates in 2001 which supports Kerr's statement.
I noted the comment in the article which is attributed to Greenpeace: "Relying on a precautionary approach based purely on science is not enough." (The link at the bottom of the article doesn't work any more.)
So the Green movement admits it doesn't want to rely on science, but emotion. Hmmmm, so just why would any thinking person support the Green Movement?
As an aside - This reminds me of how an emotive email sent to Sue Kedgley requesting support for the ban of DiHydrogen Monoxide. The email listed a number of negatives about the chemical substance, and then listed places where it is commonly found, like food, and got Sue Kedgley to declare her support for a ban.
Of course, DiHydrogen Monoxide is plain old water. (It's a very clever urban legend that some science geek came up with and published a website. But the support has earned the NZ Green Party a permanent link!) The emotive way the letter was written over-rode common sense and the simple step to check out the actual chemical and make a scientific judgement.
posted by Michael at
5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home