Feed on
Posts
Comments

The following passage has been lightly edited:

Over the past decade these problems have cast long shadows, but we have been slow to recognize them. Most of those best fitted to develop natural controls and assist in putting them into effect have been too busy laboring in the more exciting vineyards of chemical control. It was reported in 1960 that only 2 percent of all the economic entomologists in the country were then working in the field of biological controls. A substantial number of the remaining 98 per cent were engaged in research on chemical insecticides.

Why should this be? The major chemical companies government and green energy companies are pouring money into the universities to support research on insecticides Global Climate Change. This creates attractive fellowships for graduate students and attractive staff positions. Biological-control Skeptical studies, on the other hand, are never so endowed — for the simple reason that they do not promise anyone the fortunes that are to be made in the chemical Green Jobs industry. These are left to state and federal agencies free-lance bloggers and a few independent thinkers in academe, where the salaries paid are far less.

This situation also explains the otherwise mystifying fact that certain outstanding entomologists chemists, physicists and climate scientists are among the leading advocates of chemical control mitigation. Inquiry into the background of some of these men reveals that their entire research program is supported by the chemical Environmental industry. Their professional prestige, sometimes their very jobs depend on the perpetuation of chemical methods the Global Warming Crisis and Global Intervention to address it. Can we then expect them to bite the hand that literally feeds them? But knowing their bias, how much credence can we give to their protests that insecticides are harmless we are on the precipice of human disaster?

Amid the general acclaim for chemicals as the principal method of insect control vastly curtailing or eliminating capitalism to address the warming planet, minority reports have occasionally been filed by those few entomologists loners who have not lost sight of the fact that they are neither chemists nor engineers, but biologists engineers nor climate scientists, but understand the benefits that capitalism has brought and the difficulty of intervening in spontaneously ordered outcomes.

F. H. Jacob in England has declared that “the activities of many so-called economic entomologists would make it appear that they operate in the belief that salvation lies at the end of a spray nozzle a government mandate, rule, tax and subsidy… that when they have created problems of resurgence or resistance or mammalian toxicity economic and perhaps environmental consequences beyond their initial comprehension, the chemist watermelon will be ready with another pill round of planning and intervention and even imprisonment. That view is not held here … Ultimately only the biologist social scientist will provide the answers to the basic problems of pest control basic environmental problems.

I don’t entirely sanction (in the affirmative sense of the term) the view of my rewrite, but it does seem a little hypocritical not to understand the methods employed in the above quotation – motives matter, experts matter, and a total misunderstanding of the fact that while patience and humility is urged when dealing with “the environment” it is completely overlooked (it’s not overlooked, that’s the wrong word, that makes it sound unintentional) when it comes to matters of economic and political policy. ┬áThe above passage was Rachel Carson in Silent Spring indicting modern entomologists for their role in perpetuating chemical solutions to pest problems.

2 Responses to “An Environmentalist Examines Global Warming Research”

  1. Arthur Dashan says:

    What’s really sad about many of the climate change and global warming myths is that since they are so stuck in most peoples heads, if you explain the real situation to them (as you have in this post), they consider you an idiot! For some reason the data that they show supporting global warming and human perpetuation of global warming is “obviously correct,” but when you show them data that is more logical, you are “obviously wrong.”

  2. Harry says:

    It is reassuring to know that it takes time for someone else to read a book closely. I plan not to read Silent Spring soon, but I will ask for it, along with Human Action. If I were a perfesser like Wintercow, I would want to be prepared, which is ssomething not to be expected from tenured royalty.

Leave a Reply