permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

On May 3, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Oystein Tandberg wrote:

> :-) Thank you, Toby, for your kind reply - you produce NO arguments though

There are a few in there, if you know what an argument is. These sites, 
however, produce no relevant arguments.

> 1. Destructive man made climate change - 
> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

This website is a superb example of the same old pseudoscientific soundbite 
ambiguities, distortions, and a few outright lies, that have been shown to be 
false over and over again. Zombie arguments: why won't they die? Their point 
amounts to "climate is always changing." It is designed to influence the 
ignorant. It's not worth my time to make the same corrections that have been 
made by good scientists hundreds of times, but there are about 400 websites 
out there that cite research data (instead of stories, like that website) 
that specifically refute this garbage. With all that out there, you have to 
be working hard not to have these falsehoods corrected.
> 
> 2. Overpopulation - http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

What a smokescreen. For example, they say we have enough food. Yes, we do, 
for now, but that is a typical distraction that hides the real issue. Their 
argument, "we are producing more food now on less land" is just stupid--it's 
because of oil, which is non-renewable, and it's really sick food that causes 
obesity, diabetes and heart disease, grown at a terrible ecological cost. No 
problem there! The site is full of poor or "inside a small box" thinking like 
that.  Their main argument, another distraction, is that overpopulation is 
not the cause of poverty, disease, and war. Well, duh. But to then conclude 
that a large population doesn't cause problems is really bad reasoning. The 
true problem with a large human population is its ecological consequences and 
overexploitation of resources which then cause collapse of both the human and 
non-human realm (it's happened many times), which they completely ignore. 

And, I had to laugh when they wriggled out of it all by stating that 
population will soon begin to drop, anyway, which tells me that in their 
hearts they know that it is indeed a problem, but we don't need to worry 
about it because it will be naturally checked (uh, by running out of food?). 
Really poor thinking.

I've already agreed that a healthy organism is much less likely to succumb to 
infection. The arguers try to make a sensational story out of nothing, 
relying for it on the layperson's confusion around the many meanings of 
"cause," which has vexed philosophers for 2500 years (same with the 
population website: what "causes" poverty?). They aren't saying anything that 
a virologist would disagree with, but the bottom line is that without an 
infectious agent, there will be no infection. Yes, people in good health 
rarely get sick (circular reasoning?). Healthy tissue resists infection. Poor 
health causes infection. Viruses cause infection. All are true, they just use 
the concept of "cause" differently. This is immediately apparent if you ever 
studied logic or philosophy. Apparently, few have. 

I'll stop there, because the lame excuses for thinking on these sites are 
really just awful and a waste of my time, although it's always fun to wade 
into the garbage pits on the internet. But that people fall for it makes me 
sad. 

Toby
> 
> 3. Viruses - http://www.virusmyth.org/  
> 
> 4. Pasteur - http://www.whale.to/a/lost_history_of_medicine.html 
> 
> best regards
> Øystein 
> 
> 
>