Print

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

I would be glad if e.g. SUVs weren't so popular among americans.

So would I - for many reasons, not just environmental.

[damam]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 11 2005, 11:37 PM)

Global warming, which is caused by pollution(not what you think, I know) affects floodings and tornadoes(you should know about them, FL), which most often occurs in poorer areas. So, I'm not talking about asthma.

I still dont know what your talking about.  Florida and America as a whole saw average hurricanes and flooding.

Average hurricans per year = 5-7
Hurricanes in 2004 = 5    <- its on the lower side of whats considered average

Granted we did see just over 1700 tornadoes - and the average is abt 1200 - but its still a stretch to say pollution caused them.  And we have only been recording tornadoes for abt 50 years.  So who is to say that 51 years ago, there was not 1800?  Also, our ability to detect smaller tornadoes that no one ever sees has increased dramatically due to satalites etc.  So their is a good chance that years 1950 through 1990 did not have accurate counts.

QUOTE(Gronne)

I would be glad if e.g. SUVs weren't so popular among americans.

Some people do need SUV's.  Most dont.  
Heres a picture of hypocritical idiot and (by coincidence?) Kerry supporter, Ashton Kutcher
 that definitely doesnt  -  Wouldnt life be better without hollywood hypocrits?
   
for me its pure economics - its simply cheaper for me to ride a bike when ever possible.  I do have a car but I based the type I bought on the real cost of owner ship which takes into account how expensive it is to driver per mile.  Consequently my sentra gets just over 40mpg.  Right now, I am driving all of the time cause I just gave birth to a baby girl 2 weeks ago.  As soon as I can I will be back on my bike.

[melon]

[gronne]

QUOTE(damam @ Jan 12 2005, 12:56 AM)

I still dont know what your talking about.  Florida and America as a whole saw average hurricanes and flooding.

Average hurricans per year = 5-7
Hurricanes in 2004 = 5    <- its on the lower side of whats considered average

Granted we did see just over 1700 tornadoes - and the average is abt 1200 - but its still a stretch to say pollution caused them.  And we have only been recording tornadoes for abt 50 years.  So who is to say that 51 years ago, there was not 1800?  Also, our ability to detect smaller tornadoes that no one ever sees has increased dramatically due to satalites etc.  So their is a good chance that years 1950 through 1990 did not have accurate counts.

Ok, so you can see that there's more tornadoes now than before. Let's say you're right it doesn't have anything to do with pollution, but haven't the tornadoes also become more destructive than what we're used to?

Do people think it's strange that we're worrying when there's proved to be a gigantic hole in the ozon-layer?

And yes, I agree that Hollywood actors are hypocritical. Very many artists are on the political left and claim they care about the poor, yet they demand $20 million dollars/movie. Very hypocritical indeed. If the actors used all the money to charity I would be glad they charged a lot, but they keep most to themselves. Jay Leno, being pretty smart and anti-Bush, is also a real polluter.

[SKoT]

they arent being more destructive, the media just has better coverage and/or they overplay it WAyyyyyyy to much.

[damam]

QUOTE(Gronne)

Ok, so you can see that there's more tornadoes now than before. Let's say you're right it doesn't have anything to do with pollution, but haven't the tornadoes also become more destructive than what we're used to?

No they really arent.  My Dad says that americans are wooses today when it comes to tornadoes.  Even just in my lifetime, during the 80's, I saw bigger tornadoes with more destructive force.

QUOTE(Gronne)

Do people think it's strange that we're worrying when there's proved to be a gigantic hole in the ozon-layer?

Im not argueing that there is no whole in the ozone layer.  I am saying that humans have had a negligable effect on it at best.  Solar proton storms have been shown to be a much bigger problem for the ozone, as it has been observed that solar proton storms cause immediate enormous wholes in the ozone.  A single storm depletes .5 - 1% of the entire ozone on the planet.  There has also been increased solar activity over the last 20 years compounding this problem.  So what should do about that?  Block out the sun?

If you going to talk about CFC dribble, dont bother.  Atmospheric Scientists have now concluded that CFC's only go up to a max altitude of 40 km (the average elevation is actually much lower around 25km).  At that rate, 1 billion O3 (ozone) molecules are reformed for every one CFC that is busted apart.  So guess what that means, the entire CFC scare was total bunk.  

QUOTE(melon)

congratulations

Thanks  

[gronne]

QUOTE

So guess what that means, the entire CFC scare was total bunk.

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

So what are you telling me? Won't there be global warming? Or won't the warming affect anything?

I can't understand why you want to be so naive about this situation. It's like christian fundamentalists who claim dinosaur bones can't be older than 6000 years old and so forth. Some stupid people might take those statements for fact. It's ALL about being rational. Being rational is not the same as defending something at all costs for various stupid reasons. It's good to question the scientists, but to begin with defending the opposition because you want them to be right is neither good nor intelligent. As I've said before, I would love you to be right, but it seems VERY unlikely to be so. But when you eventually must admit you were wrong I hope you take responsibility for what you've done. But then you'll say that you couldn't know it was bad, like all smokers who defend their smoking in the sixties because they couldn't know it was bad. It's called stupidity and nothing else.

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

Elitism will be the downfall of humanity.

"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."

[gronne]

QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Jan 12 2005, 07:21 PM)

Oh sweet irony. Elitism will be the downfall of humanity.

[damam]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 05:58 PM)

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

Heres Link
Nasa on Proton Storms
Think of this article and all the ozone that is being destroyed the next time you see the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights).  When I lived up in Alaska, I read an article in the news paper about a study that showed direct corelations between Aurora Borealis occurances and ozone depletion over Fairbanks.


This graph was taken from the Enviromental Protection Agency and the Picture was taken from the University of Tennessee.  Basically showing that CFC dont get higher than 40KM and generally settl around 22km.  Ozone exists from 10km-50km but has its highest concentration in the upper stratosphere around 40km.  Thats very important because UV radiation is gone by 25km (except in areas where there are holes).  Nearly all of it is absorbed before 40KM.  Basically, the CFC's never get the chance to do the destruction they are accused of doing.
UV penetration in the Stratosphere
University of Tennesee

QUOTE( gronne)

So what are you telling me? Won't there be global warming? Or won't the warming affect anything?

What I am basicly saying is that their is no evidence that any of this is human induced.  Tree Ring reconstruction is showing that the earth was much hotter 1000 years ago, than it is today.  You cant blame humans on that.  And, since elder knowledge seems to be so important to enviromentalists, their are no Eskimo Elders to say "I remember back in 921, now that was a hot summer . . . "

What Enviromental Alarmists fail to realize is that the Earth, Solar System, and Universe as a whole is dynamic and ever changing.  They would like you to believe that the Earth is Static.  And that is simply not the case.  The Earth has gone through far too many extinction periods for that to be true.  

QUOTE(Gronne)

I can't understand why you want to be so naive about this situation.

We have been observing the ozone for abt 50 years.  The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Who knows how old the solar system is?  What is both naive and arrogant is to assume that from our little snapshot we can assess anything at all let alone what is human induced and what is a naturally occuring process.  The only thing I will agree with you on, is that the ozone hole is getting bigger.  The cause is what is up for debate.

Now Gronne- I gave you some links.  If you would please.  Provide me with a couple links that demonstrate the CFC reaction with O3 proposed has been tested and verified in a lab, or the actual chemical reaction has been observed in some other way.  ie. not just through theory and chemical equations

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 05:58 PM)

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

[gronne]

 I'm bad at searching. I'm actually sure you could find those links, however  

No, but seriously I can't say if the links you provided are definitive evidence the problem with CFC was all bogus, as I don't have any of the knowledge concerning the issue. The reports could be all faked as well, but I suppose NASA would lose all credibility then. I'll drop this one for the time being.

QUOTE

What Enviromental Alarmists fail to realize is that the Earth, Solar System, and Universe as a whole is dynamic and ever changing. They would like you to believe that the Earth is Static. And that is simply not the case. The Earth has gone through far too many extinction periods for that to be true.

I would refrain from believing scientists think the earth to be static, but sure, some make sure they get results they want. This is the same on both sides, however.

QUOTE

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Not that it matters but weren't you a christian fundamentalist. Or at least I thought you believed in the 6000 years theory.

I agree with you we haven't had that much observing of really anything, but the numbers are alarming nonetheless. I would rather take the alarms seriously, and try to adapt according to the alarms, rather than saying it's rediculous and continue as nothing. Then in the future I can say I wasn't one of the bastards who ignored the scientists because I loved driving cars all the time.

It's good to question scientists as many of them think they're Jesus reincarnated, if you follow me. But automatically saying they're wrong is ludicrous.

QUOTE

Respect someone else's perspective for once. The only elitist here is you comrade (ooh another paradox). If you weren't one, then you would understand her "naivety", and leave it at that, there would be no argument, because her belief is just as plausible as yours.

When did you last respect others opinions? I really haven't seen anyone more of a supremacist than you. You just told someone in the other thread to "adapt". You have no respect for anyone but your capitalist brothers. You're the only one that can't be argued with. Damam is someone I respect a whole lot more than you, at least.

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 10:56 PM)

I really haven't seen anyone more of a supremacist than you.

[gronne]

QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Jan 12 2005, 11:15 PM)

For someone who seems to rely so heavily on science, you sure don't appear to know the basic fundamentals Darwinism. Evolution is capitalism, survival of the fittest

[damam]

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 10:56 AM)

  I'm bad at searching. I'm actually sure you could find those links, however 

It was a loaded requests.  They dont exist.  No one to date has ever been able to prove that the reaction can occur in a lab, let alone in nature.  I will grant that CFC's MAY NOT be entirely bogus.  We simply dont know, and wont know until it is tested and shown.  That is what science is about.  Its about reproducable tests and observations, its not about speculation.  Proton Storms, on the other hand, have been observed in nature, AND demonstrated in labs to have severe consequences on the ozone layer.  

QUOTE(Gronne)

Not that it matters but weren't you a christian fundamentalist. Or at least I thought you believed in the 6000 years theory.

I am a Christian.  I am not a christian fundamentalists.  This is off topic, but I assume that you refering to the carbon dating thread.  Carbon dating is deeply flawed.  You can only trust it as far as it has been calibrated too.  And it has been calibrated to 13,000 yrs ago based on Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings).  Anything beyond that is speculation.  If it were a hard science, carbon dating would never have been needed to be calibrated in the first place.  I do think that the earth is much older than 13,000 yrs old.  I really dont want to debate this again unless you can see flaws in my logic from the other thread.  I have no problem with speculation, so long as it is appropriately labeled and we are not making laws around it.  If you do see flaws in my carbon dating stance feel free to start a thread, and I will join in.

QUOTE(Gronne)

I agree with you we haven't had that much observing of really anything, but the numbers are alarming nonetheless. I would rather take the alarms seriously, and try to adapt according to the alarms, rather than saying it's rediculous and continue as nothing. Then in the future I can say I wasn't one of the bastards who ignored the scientists because I loved driving cars all the time.

I understand where you are coming from.  I guess my only reply is that how do we (the human race) know that the numbers are alarming, when we have no experience to base them on?  As far as we know, there has always been holes in the ozone.

 

QUOTE(Gronne)

It's good to question scientists as many of them think they're Jesus reincarnated, if you follow me. But automatically saying they're wrong is ludicrous.

I would never automatically disregard a well done scientific study.  I will admit that I have become rather cynical about researchers, having done research on doxorubicin for 2 years and been immersed in the research culture.  What I found from my experience is that the researcher that can raise the most alarms gets the most grant money.  And thats what its all about, getting grant money.  So researchers send their research to Activist groups and the media.  The media spins it to make the biggest story, and activists spin it to propell their agenda.  Both take advantage of the publics scientific illiteracy.  By the time it actually gets to general public its complete bunk.  The public eats it up, and puts pressure on the govt to do something so they sink more money into research and make laws.  Other researchers, wanting to get in on the money join in, and it starts this really bad cascade of what is being dubbed as "junk science".  Aside from grant money, their is also money to be made through lawsuits as well.  And it just goes on and on.

I love science.  It was my life.  But, currently it is in a terrible state.