n. b. the deafening silence about the ozone thinning these past ten years, even though the panic mongers said we should see continued thinning to worsen for at least twenty years post CFC ban.
Additionally, read here. Note his reliance on actual math and science, and not the assumption that humans are better off extinct:
Since we didn't even know there was an ozone layer 40 years ago it is pretty hard to have any real historical data about the effect of CFCs on it. This is just theoretical chemistry added on to the fact that the original "Freon" patents had expired and Dow wasn't making much money on it. Since the fix is another synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbon we are not really sure whether the cure is better than the original problem. See you in 10-15 years when these patents expire. I bet there is an R134 crisis.
Environmentalism is a cult religoin for those who don't believe in God or Allah. Everyone needs their faith in something they can't see that requires guilt and sacrifice..
No affect on the mechanism or the rate of synthesis, obviously. But since it increases the rate of breakdown, it clearly produces a net loss of ozone.
Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
False.
And we know that those holes are abnormal how?
Exactly. We detected them when we launched the satalites to measure ozone, and then we discarded the data because we assumed it was faulty.
Only years later after the fact did they go back and confirm that the data confirmed seasonal thinning of polar Ozone. We have no idea, at present, what the cause may have been.
Also, since this debate was fashionable, we've discovered creatures that halogenate their own hydrocarbons--part of the weird metabolism of deep ocean volcanic creatures that live happily in "toxic sulpher fumes." Meaning it's no more possible to eliminate environmental CFCs than it is to eliminate environmental radiation.
DAGS on "Sustainabilty of Human Progress" for MANY pages of actual data and actual calculations. You need not agree with his conclusions, but you must understand his thought process.
We have temperature readings dating back to Galleleo. But for most of the Earth, no readings exist prior to WWII when the weather became important to some folks as a means to an end to prosecuting said WW.
The fact that some people "remember" cooler weather has nothing to do with whether the worldwide pattern of weather has in fact changed, and even less to do with what, if anything should be done in the event that it DOES prove to be a problem.
Environmentalism has in some quarters become a religion, with all that implies. It is the one heresy of which it remains fashionable to accuse another in Western liberal cultures.
But religions arguments do not make for good policy, regardless of whether your religion identifies a particular diety.
"Who's 'we', white man?" -- Tonto
Unexpected results in one's data collection are correctly suspected of being faulty, until the results can be replicated.
False. The cause was anthropogenic CFCs.
False. It is possible to eliminate artificial CFCs. The debate (it's over, by the way) was not a "fashion." Researchers gathered data, and learned something new. The consequences were easy to predict. After a period of peer-review, the results and conclusions are accepted by everyone except loonies.
The 016/018 delta ratio is a reliable indicator of global temperature. Ice cores provide the samples; the data go back thousands of years. The ice core samples can provide measurements of naturally-occuring chlorine compounds, too.
True, but irrelevant. Cooler or warmer weather has little or nothing to do with erosion of upper-atmosphere ozone.
False. Your second sentence makes no sense, either.
True, but irrelevant when the topic is reality.
P.S. I had a brain fart in an earlier post. I do know that 1 - 10 = -9, but my fingers apparently forgot.
And more to the point, fridges release far more than fire extinguishers need to. Lets control CFCs by all means, but extinguisher panic is excessive.
Oh, and U-CDK_CHARLES - you're a clueless idiot, go read some science.
Gadzooks! Common sense! Thread over, man.
(I can't call it a debate because only one side (the fellow with a name, Charles) has provided any citations (a professor at stanford, iirc), while the anonymous poster (AS) just states "True", "False" as if one were to take his word for it).
Cite? What makes you (AS) more authoritative than Charles?
I see, change the terminology to fit. "Environmental CFCs becomes artificial CFCs".
Ah. Ad hominem attack.
Per Professor John McCarthy (whom few would genuinely consider looney):
"The theory that the ozone layer is being damaged by chlorofluorocarbons has widespread acceptance, but there are many scientifically respectable dissenters"
Cite Please? (on the reliability of O-16/o-18 delta ratios for historic global temperature (vice the local core area))
scott
I can see it coming in 20 or 50 years. Some volcanic eruption or excessive cow farts will injure the atmosphere and scientists will be releasing CFCs to make more oxygen from the ozone layer.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:33:46 GMT, mac davis calmly ranted:
Check the stats again. It is THEORIZED but has never proven that the released chlorine destroys the ozone layer.
Yes, and recycle stuff, buy bulk when possible, etc.
Ayup. Whatever it takes.
Thought for the Day:
To change one's self is sufficient. It's the idiots who want to change the world who are causing all the trouble --Anonymous
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:41:37 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" calmly ranted:
the global reduction of CFC use. Is anything newer out there?
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:17:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis calmly ranted:
I expect you to use nothing but waterborne finishes, cook nothing on the BBQ, use electric home heat, and drive an electric car so you don't pollute the air, Scoby baby.
(Oops, electricity is coal-powered so the damage is sone anyway. No heat for you. BTW, is your shop totally Neander-based yet?)
Sigh. In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis which, while still subject to disproof, has so far passed all experimental tests. "Theory" is as good as it gets. Gravitation is a "theory." Golly, look, you just started to drift off the floor! After all, it's only a "theory." Cheez.
C'mon people, this is Jr. High level stuff; ya know, the "Scientific Method," and all that. It's not just Mr. Blathermeister droning on about forces and atoms. It's reality. Get a grip on it.
You trolls should be ashamed of yourselves. Go read a damn book and stop cluttering the bandwidth with your asinine, willfully ignorant drivel.
False. I live in a technologically advanced society. Please stop trying to impress us with your contrived straw men. I neander for the fun of it. I drive, but combine trips. I don't drive too fast, but still stay with the flow of traffic. I enjoy a charcoal grill-out now and then. I am, in short, nothing at all like the insulting portrait you wish to paint. So much for the ad hominem.
Why is it that my reporting of scientifically peer-reviewed public knowledge causes you so much fear? What are you afraid of? Yes, your world view might have to change to fit reality, and that may frighten and confuse you. However, many other people have mastered that challenge, and have come through as better people.
I am sorry Mr. Jacques. I had previously scored your posts high, because of the quality of woodworking advice you presented here. I'm sorry to have to rescore your posts. Your postings on this topic have revealed an inability to perform critical thought and sound reasoning. I cannot expect that your woodworking advice is any more sound. Because it is possible that you do indeed have some small ability with wood, or are able to repeat sound advice presented to you by your betters, your ww posts may contain a nugget of value here and there. Thus, no "plonk." Regretably, I suspect that your vitriolic response will be to kill the messenger. Do try to rise above that base emotion, you'll be a better, more mature person for it.
Regards, Robert Lane
Love the siglines. Is that from his "Memoirs of a Superflous Man" book?
Sorry, but wrong. I can see the jump in spam even when my email is disguised ("remove something" type). The ISP from which I post filters most, not all. I also like my nick, because it is clever and humorous. Before you quibble with me about my choice of nicks, why don't you go beat up on Keith? Hmm?
If I say, "There was a full Moon last night," it doesn't matter what my nick is, or if I even say it. The Moon was full last night. No amount of quibbling changes the fact. So, don't look at my finger. Look where I'm pointing.
(BTW, were you the one at the Greek Denny's who wanted a saw handle?)
Sorry, but it may be _one of the reasons_, but it's clearly not the _only_ reason.
My direct personal experience, experimenting with email addresses and aliases, differs from yours.
Nope, didn't get to the rummage sale. I assume that was the one on highway
100? Both events that I've known about so far (other than the one that Paul and I went to at the wrong Balestrari's) have been on bad days.HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.