The guy who invented DDT used to eat it to prove to people it was harmless. Nothing ever happened to him out of the ordinary. You're not probably not old enough to remember.  A CBS news crew filched the bottle he claimed to drink his DDT out of, and found that it contained no DDT.  (My memory may be fuzzy, but I think the reporter was a very young Mike Wallace.)

Roger Coppock < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message Why do rightist books, movies, and other materials fail so miserably in the free market?  The same free market that the rightists love. Just a thought... One posibility is the psychology of liberals:  Some are naturally preachy  - they think they are the final authority on any subject they choose to speak (write) on. These are the authors, directors, etc of the liberal world.  You only need to check out some of the more prolific mouth pieces on this group for good examples of these types. It is not important that they do know what they are talking about, only that they say it often and loud. Others are incapable of independant thought and need to be lead around by the hand: told what to think, what to believe. These are the movie goers and purchasers of the preachy books.  These people are are a natural match for the first group. A wonderful synergistic relationship. A relationship that the free marketeers capitalize on by publishing the preachy books, distributing the preachy movies and selling popcorn to masses of mindless little drones. Get real. That can be applied to extremists on _either_ side. The evidence is what really matters. You need to track those who keep ignoring science when it doubts their worldview. It's nonsense to claim that liberals have the corner on preachy books when the Bible has been a foe of science for so long. Global warming denial is the latest in a long line of anthropocentric delusions. If a book seems preachy, debunk its content, not its fervor. R. Lander It's not so much about facts, there are plenty of 'facts' to go around, get edited and distorted inorder to  'prove'  whatever you want.  Its more about attitude.  Roger, Lloyd and several other prolific posters in this group (and yes, some on the otherside of the debate too)  generally take the position that if you dare question anything about GW, then you are a(n) %^%))%&).  Their position is that ALL respected scientists agree on (you fill in the blanks).  If one presents contradictory evidence from another respected scientist, the pat response is to discredit the scientist, their findings and the ancestry of the poster.  Obviously the definintion of respected scientist is someone that agrees with their position. On the specific subjet of GW, what I see presented in this group and much of the popular media seems to be more about coorelation of events than about causation: Man creates CO, CO contributes to greenhouse warming, therefore man's creation of CO is causing the earth's to raise dangerously.  The GW group has the attitude that 'they have it right':  There is no room for error.  What hubris.   Since Katrina, the GWers warned us that it was only going to get worse .... wait until the '06 season.  Well, so far knock on wood, it has been a fairly quiet season in the Atlantic/ Caribbean Basin. Even the East Pacific has been fairly quiet.   The GW response, oh....ummmm, yea ... you are confusing local weather with global.  If the '06 season was (or turns out to be) worse than last year, then it will be proof of GW. Kinda of a win-win for them and lose-lose for anyone who disagrees. But, I guess, this is the nature of all these 'religious' issues  You cheap shot the Bible as a foe of science.  IMHO opinion that is a STUPID position to take. (FWIW I am neither a bible thumper nor a very religious type).  If you take positions like that, you loose a bunch of creditibility points. The Lloyds and Rogers of this group run negative creditibility accounts with me

Here's Ehrlich's own response to those claims about population. Read the fine points if you can muster the brainpower. http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/08/09/ehrlich/index1... I read it... What a waste of time. Ehrlich would be selling used cars if it weren't for ignorant fools like you.

Yeah. Paul Erlich sure turned us all on didn't he? Scare stuff does that That's spelled Ehrlich. sort of thing. Patrick Michaels, Meltdown. (Oct 2005)  Amazon Rank #262,264 262,263 books sell better than this less than one year old paperback work published by Cato.  It'll be pulp in another year or two. Meanwhile, Ehrlich's population bomb, published in 1968, is in several editions of reprint and has also gone into audio and video. Ehrlich's book is a classic 4 decades later. Michaels' book will be scrapped, not worth the paper it's printed on, just a few years after it was published. Apparently, neither is Ehrlich's but you doom folks who like a good scary story will buy it anyway. How many copies do you have? - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Why do rightist books, movies, and other materials fail so miserably in the free market?  The same free market that the rightists love. Most of them are too lazy to read and do serious research on topics they find inconvenient. It's not just environmental issues, it's anything outside their small sphere of knowledge. They go blank when a conservation veers from simple things like money, beer and cigarettes. They're afraid to take that other stuff very seriously because it goes against their inherent smugness. Give them a sound-byte that makes them feel righteous and they're on their way. That's the secret to AM radio's success with conservatives; intellectual laziness at its finest. Yes, all those intelectual leftists are deeply engrossed in Air America. All two of them. The rest claim to be listening to NPR but they rarely do because it's usually over their heads.

Ehrlich would be selling used cars if it weren't for ignorant fools like you. Monkey see Bawana, monkey eat Bawana. Life simple. Rush God. R. Lander