I was not planning on revisiting the climate change debate this article, but then I wasn’t planning on The Lantern running a counter, or being painted as an ignorant propagandist working for “big oil.” Aron Buffen’s response, “Reheating Global Warming,” was long on personal attacks and awfully short on countering the main argument. I am not going to waste an entire column, but some clarification is necessary.

The hockey stick was disproved. Not admitting it doesn’t change that fact. < ahref="http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-07-14/stick.htm">Steve McIntrye showed that random data can produce hockey sticks, among other errors. He happily released his data, which was verified. Michael Mann declined, citing “intimidation.” That I could find this out and a graduate student could not is not inspiring.

As a first time op-ed writer, I should have cited my sources. I was unaware, and it is a mistake I am not repeating. On Mt. Kilimanjaro, Brown masterfully devotes 200 words to saying nothing except personal assaults. John Daly studied climate change for 15 years and wrote numerous articles and books supported by scientists and academics. Buffen simply dismissed him and then failed to counter the argument. As a skeptic, he is of course shouted down (unlike, say, Al Gore). Even advocates of climate change admit the glacier isn’t melting due to climate change.

Luckily, Buffen’s fundamentalism and moral self-righteousness allow a smooth tangent into another environmental tragedy: DDT being banned. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring,” which is often credited for its contribution to the modern environmental movement. The fact that the chemical killed millions with bad facts doesn’t get mentioned.

DDT was first used during World War II to eradicate malaria, and was wildly successful. It saved so many lives that Dr. Paul Muller won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1948 for DDT’s miracles. Then Carson and countless other activists led the charge to ban DDT, claiming it was causing massive environmental damage.

After all the evidence was presented, the EPA judge pronounced that DDT was not carcinogenic and did not have a harmful effect on the environment (including birds). Despite this, EPA administrator and environmental radical William Ruckleshaus banned it anyway. DDT’s lifesaving qualities and incredible effectiveness (as well as affordability) were repressed. All so activists could feel good about saving the environment. Never mind the flimsy evidence against DDT or the many lies told about it.

Estimates say two million people die from malaria each year, the majority in Africa. Only after 30 years and the needless deaths of tens of millions has the United States begun to realize its mistake. Recent articles in The New York Times admit the life-saving potential of DDT and argue for its re-introduction.

What happened? How could a chemical that was not even proven to harm animals – let alone people – be banned? Fear and arrogance combined to produce horiffic results.

The madness continues. Greenpeace today opposes the use of chlorine in water despite the many lives it saves, while opposition to genetic food saves millions from being fed. This is the price we pay when science is politicized and debate is silenced.

Jack Millman can be reached at [email protected].