'Climate Change' - Facts and Fictions [Archive]

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 08:30 AM

keilj

05-12-2010, 08:37 AM

Musicology, I totally agree with the information presented. It seems to me that Climate Change has been a total fabrication in the face of truth. Someone has something to gain from advocating a change in climate. Back in the eighties we heard so much about the hole in the ozone, but why don't we hear about it now? Ten years ago the new BUZZ word was Global Warming, but after recent scandals of tampering with data we now hear...not "global warming" but "Climate Change" (since the truth is that we are experiencing "cooling"). Just as the example of the lady being interviewed, people will blindly believe the media hype that we are "destroying the world", but they will be skeptical of real facts.

Thank you for posting these videos.

I would sincerely encourage you to only get your information direct from scientist and researchers. There are climatologist who have dedicated 20 years, or more, or their whole lives to studying climate and weather. Don't get your info from politicians, or news anchors - get it straight from the source. (this is true of anything, not just climate change. If I want to know about the health care system, I would first be interested in hearing from nurses - not from TV pundits, or even self-appointed "experts")

I have lived in darkness unto now. . . . these youtube videos have lit for me the torch of wisdom so that the true workings of earth and humanity are revealed in full. I will now go spread the Word of this truth.

:iagree::thumbsup:

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 08:50 AM

I would sincerely encourage you to only get your information direct from scientist and researchers. There are climatologist who have dedicated 20 years, or more, or their whole lives to studying climate and weather. Don't get your info from politicians, or news anchors - get it straight from the source. (this is true of anything, not just climate change. If I want to know about the health care system, I would first be interested in hearing from nurses - not from TV pundits, or even self-appointed "experts")

John Coleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM) is a scientist who has been studying the weather for decades. Shall we listen to these scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc)? Shall we consider what the 30,000 scientists that are with John Coleman have to say about this scam?

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 09:03 AM

I think world environmental policy should be dictated by what someone says on youtube.

Regards,

Istvan

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 09:15 AM

I think world environmental policy should be dictated by what someone says on youtube.

Regards,

Istvan

Youtube is merely a venue for that which has already been broadcast on many reputable sources. If one wants to question the content, then that would be more appropriate. If one has other quotes of reputable sources (no matter where they are broadcast), then please share.

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 09:26 AM

Youtube is merely a venue for that which has already been broadcast on many reputable sources. If one wants to question the content, then that would be more appropriate. If one has other quotes of reputable sources (no matter where they are broadcast), then please share.You found a youtube video of someone telling you what you want to hear. Therefore, regardless of how qualified you are to assess what he says, you accept what he says as fact.

Congratulations.

Regards,

Istvan

keilj

05-12-2010, 09:40 AM

John Coleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM) is a scientist who has been studying the weather for decades. Shall we listen to these scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc)? Shall we consider what the 30,000 scientists that are with John Coleman have to say about this scam?

John Coleman is a TV weatherman and a TV executive.

I was talking about guys who have lived in Antarctica for 20 years - research scientists who have had their feet on the ground for decades

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 09:47 AM

John Coleman is a TV weatherman and a TV executive.

I was talking about guys who have lived in Antarctica for 20 years - research scientists who have had their feet on the ground for decades

John Coleman is a meteorologist, along with the 30,000 other meteorologists that have signed in agreement. One may ask the question though concerning those collecting the data. Do these "scientists" have a vested interested in perpetuating a reason to continue studies of the polar ice and global temperatures? If they report that there are no issues at hand, that their findings show that the temperature fluctuations are due to natural climate cycles, then they lose their funding to continue. One may also ask, have any of these scientists been caught manipulating the data? The answer is an undeniable, Yes!

So where does that leave advocates of the current 'climate change' industry? Dumbfounded...

OrphanPip

05-12-2010, 09:51 AM

I'm sick of hearing about the climategate thing from people who never bothered to look into it. Phil Jones has been cleared of any wrongdoing by two independent reviews, the Associated Press also conducted a review of the emails and document and concluded there was no wrongdoing.

In fact, Phil Jones didn't step down, as the youtube video suggests, but stepped aside temporarily so that the review could be conducted.

The criticism has been based entirely on quote mining from 4-5 emails out of 1000 emails and 2000 documents stolen from his computer. It's complete misrepresentation to manufacture controversy where there is none.

Edit: As to John Coleman, although he was a weatherman, all I can find of his credentials is a degree in journalism.

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 10:20 AM

There are other experts that are questioning the anthropogenic climate change. To dismiss these individuals is to be completely biased and blind.

D’Aleo’s organization, ICECAP, is one of 33 groups co-sponsoring The Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10. D’Aleo also appeared on Dobbs’ program on Jan. 5 and said that a lot of the research promoting the theory of anthropogenic or manmade climate change is too short-sighted.

More from this article (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx).

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 10:31 AM

There are other experts that are questioning the anthropogenic climate change. To dismiss these individuals is to be completely biased and blind.
But it's okay to dismiss all the experts who affirm the validity of ACC? Your grasp of this issue is purely self-serving.

:rolleyes5:

Regards,

Istvan

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 10:50 AM

But it's okay to dismiss all the experts who affirm the validity of ACC? Your grasp of this issue is purely self-serving.

:rolleyes5:

Regards,

Istvan

I never said that I dismissed anyone. I have looked at both sides and have drawn educated conclusions. The evidence that there is an imminent danger of destroying our climate is sketchy at best. If you want to discuss the matter at hand, please do so. Don't make this about my personal viewpoint.

Scheherazade

05-12-2010, 11:00 AM

~

W a r n i n g

I would have thought that everyone engaged in this discussion would be quite familiar with the Forum Rules already but, much to my chagrin, that does not seem to be the case.

So, once again:

Please DO NOT personalise your arguments.

Post containing personal remarks will be removed without further warning as well as earning infraction points for those who are involved.

(No, I kid you not.)

~

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 11:25 AM

I never said that I dismissed anyone. I have looked at both sides and have drawn educated conclusions.
Basically, you're dismissing the vast, vast majority of scientists who have opinions on the issue. Dozens of recognized scientific associations worldwide affirm the impact of human activity in climate change.

Not ONE recognized scientific body officially rejects the basic notion that human activity has influenced recent climate change. Individual scientists have every right to dissent from the consensus opinion of the scientific community as a whole. However, if an amateur touts the opinion of one of these scientists, he does so in the knowledge that he's handwaving away the expert opinion of thousands upon thousands of equally qualified scientists.

Regards,

Istvan

Manalive

05-12-2010, 11:57 AM

I hardly think dissent is something the Scientific community tolerates on global warming.

Michael Crichton Aliens caused Global Warming (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)

We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Somehow the global warming issue has rapidly gone from "We KNOW it's true and you're not allowed to discuss whether it's true or not!" to "Who knows if it's true? But we have to act like it's true JUST IN CASE!" Truth just doesn't matter to this cult, because it's all about faith. Man made global warming is not science, it is a religion.

I don't see how anyone can trust these environmentalists to tell the truth with the recent Climategate fiasco. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-climategate-virus/

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 12:03 PM

Basically, you're dismissing the vast, vast majority of scientists who have opinions on the issue. Dozens of recognized scientific associations worldwide affirm the impact of human activity in climate change.

Not ONE recognized scientific body officially rejects the basic notion that human activity has influenced recent climate change. Individual scientists have every right to dissent from the consensus opinion of the scientific community as a whole. However, if an amateur touts the opinion of one of these scientists, he does so in the knowledge that he's handwaving away the expert opinion of thousands upon thousands of equally qualified scientists.

Regards,

Istvan

I do not agree with your statements. I have posted several opponents that studied meteorology that have the backing of thousands of other meteorologists. I presented a quote from Joseph D’Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project who has questioned the data methods used. Maybe your statement is true that "Not one recognized scientific body" has "officially" rejected these notions, but to try to make it sound like these notions have gone unopposed by knowledgeable critics is absolutely false. There is currently an overwhelming amount of educated critics armed with real facts that even if there have been fluctuations in global temperatures that they have been fluctuating for centuries and that the current trend is a decline in temperature.

Please present something with your argument if there is such a strong agreement that vast, vast majority of scientists that have such overwhelming evidence. I do not think that the evidence merits the immediate and drastic response that some are calling for. If these temperatures have been rising and falling for centuries, then maybe our studies should continue for decades to come before we implement knee-jerking reactions.

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 12:15 PM

Truth just doesn't matter to this cult, because it's all about faith. Man made global warming is not science, it is a religion.All about faith, is it? Well, in that case, it's odd that there's no recognized scientific body anywhere on Earth that denies man made global warming. Feel free to turn this into a moral crusade of brave dissenters against the big bad scientific establishment, but there doesn't seem to be any real dispute in the mainstream scientific community about the issue.

I do not agree with your statements. I have posted several opponents that studied meteorology that have the backing of thousands of other meteorologists. I presented a quote from Joseph D’Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project who has questioned the data methods used.
I never claimed that there was no dissent on the issue, just that the vast majority of scientists affirm the impact of human activity on global warming. Not ONE recognized scientific association rejects the hypothesis of man-made global warming. I'm not talking about Al Gore, environmental groups, activists, or corporate think tanks.

If some amateur rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, that's swell. But it's not scientific, and it's not relevant.

Regards,

Istvan

The Comedian

05-12-2010, 12:19 PM

I find a lot of the climate change "conspiracy" arguments to be similar to the old Y2K conspiracy arguments:

Conspiracy Y2K argument: "See! Nothing happened! The computers were fine! We've been had! Conspiracy!"

Okay, but a lot of work went into preventing systemic computer issues. . . maybe they worked?

The truth of the matter is that we don't know if the measures taken to prevent Y2K related issues worked or if the danger wasn't as severe as we thought it was. But the end result was that people became more aware about how computers affect every aspect of our lives, and in general, I think that design of computers after Y2K got more intelligent and more nimble to change. I'm no expert in this matter, however.

Same goes for climate change debate: I'm no expert, but I bet most scientists truly don't "know" the effects of human activity on climate; they're making educated guesses. ("Climate" as opposed to "weather" is calculated in years and averages. Not an occasional dry or wet spell). But, as responsible human beings, they feel the need to prepare for the worst, should the worst come.

We all do that. Or at least we should. I pay for life insurance. Should I die, my family will be well off. I'm not expecting to die anytime soon, however.

Climate change is such a large issue -- political rhetoric will oversimplify it to make it seem like an either/or issue rather than a matter of subtle degree and a myriad of interconnected causes.

And, like the Y2K example, I wonder how preparing for climate change or trying to prevent it is harmful, even if it doesn't exist: developing alternatives to fossil fuels, conservation of existing resources, developing greater efficiencies within existing technologies. . . .whether this affects climate change or not, I cannot see how these are "bad": Heck, modern economies thrive on development of new technologies.

I think of my writing students: I tell them that they'll need clear writing skills in the future, but truthfully, I don't know that for sure. I'm just guessing. What I do know is this: having these skills won't hurt them. I've never known anyone who wished that they were a worsewriter, that they could communicate less effectively. . . .I don't know what their futures hold or whether they will choose to employ the skills that they learned or not. My job is only to prepare them for the vast array of contingencies they may face.

And insofar as climate change is a possibility, in whatever degree it may or may not transpire, I'm okay with people trying to make our world cleaner and more efficient in preparation for that (real or unreal) possibility.

I'll probably bow out of this thread now. . . :seeya:

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 12:23 PM

I wonder how preparing for climate change or trying to prevent it is harmful, even if it doesn't exist: developing alternatives to fossil fuels, conservation of existing resources, developing greater efficiencies within existing technologies. . . .whether this affects climate change or not, I cannot see how these are "bad": Heck, modern economies thrive on development of new technologies.
This is correct.

The global warming debate is pretty futile, because whether or not human activity has any bearing on climate change, there are still many other reasons to take the kind of action you mention.

Regards,

Istvan

TheFifthElement

05-12-2010, 01:23 PM

Emil Miller

05-12-2010, 01:26 PM

I have been around long enough to know that the key question in this kind of debate is...WHO BENEFITS? There is a colossal amount of money being made out of the idea of man made global warming; maybe that's incidental to the argument but I don't think so. It is ironic that the greatest producer of carbon dioxide is China which is also the geatest producer of solar cells used in solar panels. One thing not in dispute is that cleaning up the environment must surely be worth the effort.

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 01:41 PM

I find a lot of the climate change "conspiracy" arguments to be similar to the old Y2K conspiracy arguments:
I think they sound more like the same old conspiracy theories dealing with psi or the moon landing. The notion of a vast, insidious conspiracy of scientists is just the sort of fantasy that fuels people's weird paranoia.

If thousands of scientists from various countries, from all sorts of institutions, and across the entire discipline of climatology are essentially in agreement about the human influence on climate change, it's more likely that there's some truth to the matter than that they're all involved in a massive cover-up. But hey, believe whatever you want.

Regards,

Istvan

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 01:58 PM

Very nicely said Comedian. Regardless of whether climate change is real or not it surely must be a good thing to try and live sustainably: reduce waste, pollute less, seek sources of renewable energy, improve efficiency. I love finding new ways to waste less and save more, especially if it also saves money. And it can make you feel good too. The problem is where it gets used as an 'excuse' to tax people more, or to charge more for the same thing. People don't like to feel scammed and that's when people start getting upset about it. And then the message gets lost, sadly.

:iagree:
Protecting a clean environment is very important to me. Reusing items that still have life left in them, recycling those products that can be recycled (not using non-recyclable materials if possible), and reducing wastes are a number of areas that we can keep our living areas clean. In times past, flour was packaged in sacks that were reused to make clothing. Coffee cans, jars, and other containers with food products were used for various households purposes instead of just throwing them away.

My favorite vehicle is my 2004 Pontiac Vibe that can get up to 40 mpg (great gas mileage) instead of a huge gas guzzling Suburban. I do not understand why one person needs a huge vehicle to get from one place to another. If a large truck is needed for hauling or pulling a trailer, then it is put to good use, but too many people are in the business of consuming and polluting. That being said...there should not be some pseudoscience posing manipulated facts and figures to send fear throughout the populations.

Many of the corporations that are selling their "green" products to the world are funding the global warming propaganda. Taxes are being increased to "protect" us. Where is the money going? "Green" means dollar signs to some, and they are profiteers. I'm not making capitalism the enemy here. It is not wrong for companies to make an honest profit. The guilt lies in dishonest gain, not capitalism.

If thousands of scientists from various countries, from all sorts of institutions, and across the entire discipline of climatology are essentially in agreement about the human influence on climate change, it's more likely that there's some truth to the matter than that they're all involved in a massive cover-up. But hey, believe whatever you want.

But there are thousands of scientists from various countries and institutions that are NOT in agreement. You have offered no documentation for any of your claims. Consider the article (http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/210408Yahoo.htm) pointing out the manner in which the global warming argument is presented. The people who are proponents to global warming indeed have something to gain. Just because one can find a large majority of people in agreement, that does not automatically make it true.

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 02:03 PM

Many of the corporations that are selling their "green" products to the world are funding the global warming propaganda. Taxes are being increased to "protect" us. Where is the money going? "Green" means dollar signs to some, and they are profiteers. I'm not making capitalism the enemy here. It is not wrong for companies to make an honest profit. The guilt lies in dishonest gain, not capitalism.
And there aren't corporations like ExxonMobil and Philip Morris who have a vested interest in portraying global climate change as nothing but Chicken Little hysteria? Let's at least admit that global warming skeptics may not be solely motivated by the search for Truth. Okay?

Regards,

Istvan

keilj

05-12-2010, 02:12 PM

........................

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 02:14 PM

Let's at least admit that global warming skeptics may not be solely motivated by the search for Truth. Okay?

Sure...I agree with that. I have an interest because I don't want to pay higher taxes for something that is a farce. Let's focus our energies to have a clean environment and a thriving economy that offers jobs. I'd love to be able to buy a light bulb that uses less energy and lasts longer, but what I have found is that the bulbs claiming to be able to help save the world--don't. They don't last any longer, they don't save that much more energy (in comparison to the things that really take the energy). We should keep studying the climate and when (and even if) there is ever enough concrete evidence to suggest such things, then we can make some educated decisions. Meanwhile, let's keep our backyards clean and tidy.

The Atheist

05-12-2010, 03:05 PM

Back in the eighties we heard so much about the hole in the ozone, but why don't we hear about it now?

You are surely not suggesting the ozone hole doesn't exist?

The hundreds of people dying needlessly from skin cancer caused by it say otherwise.

The reason you haven't heard about it is because it's over Antarctica - which means it extends its outer limits over New Zealand and Australia. As neither of those are in USA, it doesn't make your news.

I can be somewhat forgiving on people who cannot understand science enough to realise that the warming of the planet is factual, but claiming the ozone hole is anything other than fact is a disgrace.

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 03:57 PM

You are surely not suggesting the ozone hole doesn't exist?

The hundreds of people dying needlessly from skin cancer caused by it say otherwise.

The reason you haven't heard about it is because it's over Antarctica - which means it extends its outer limits over New Zealand and Australia. As neither of those are in USA, it doesn't make your news.

I can be somewhat forgiving on people who cannot understand science enough to realise that the warming of the planet is factual, but claiming the ozone hole is anything other than fact is a disgrace.

I never suggested that the Ozone "hole" didn't exist. I only suggested that it isn't the BUZZ that the media once made it. The hole is not actually a hole at all. It is a thinner layer of ozone that appears over the poles. Ozone is created when ultraviolet light enters the atmosphere. So it would make sense that the two places that get six months of night (give or take) would have a diminished level of ozone. If the ozone holes were manmade also, one would logically expect that the holes would appear in proximity to the location where the causing agent was used. There are no holes over heavily populated areas.

The high levels of skin cancer may more logically be attributed to the many people who overindulge in sun worshiping and the abuse of tanning beds.

However, this thread is not to refute the ozone hole (nor am I going to suggest that one be made). My point that relates the ozone fiasco to this topic is that in twenty to thirty years, global warming will be forgotten and the media frenzy will be something else.

keilj

05-12-2010, 04:07 PM

I never suggested that the Ozone "hole" didn't exist. I only suggested that it isn't the BUZZ that the media once made it.

The "buzz" in the media helped get a lot of the aerosols banned, so that the hole at least stopped growing. It helped get the attention needed for the legislation to force people to change. The hole is still there and as big as ever - but at least it is not growing anymore

Emil Miller

05-12-2010, 04:17 PM

:iagree:
Protecting a clean environment is very important to me. Reusing items that still have life left in them, recycling those products that can be recycled (not using non-recyclable materials if possible), and reducing wastes are a number of areas that we can keep our living areas clean. In times past, flour was packaged in sacks that were reused to make clothing. Coffee cans, jars, and other containers with food products were used for various households purposes instead of just throwing them away.

This is obviously common sense but we appear to be dealing with human stupidity here. We were told that with the advent of the computer there would be "the paperless office" when, in fact, more paper than ever is used in offices today; at least it was in those that I have worked in. Why is there a need for hard copies when everything can be stored on the computer anyway. It is ridiculous storing paper files in cabinets when everyone is sitting at a computer. The amount of junk mail coming through the UK's letterboxes is horrendous. Multi-paged utility bills are accompanied by adverts and offers of holidays etc that have nothing to do with the company concerned. Sometimes I feel that I am drowning in paper and virtually all of it is unnecessary. Packaging on foodstuffs has reached lunatic proportions and quite often makes it difficult to actually get at the contents.
Until governments start initiating serious recycling with penalties for transgressors the mountains of waste will continue to grow.

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 04:36 PM

The "buzz" in the media helped get a lot of the aerosols banned, so that the hole at least stopped growing. It helped get the attention needed for the legislation to force people to change. The hole is still there and as big as ever - but at least it is not growing anymore

There was never any evidence that it ever grew. It changed shape, but it has been with us since we first discovered it in the 1950s. Therefore, I presume that it will still be with us in generations to come (aerosols or not). If, in fact, the aerosols were harmful in any other way, it may be good that they are banned, but no evidence has been presented that show that the banning of the aerosols had any effect on the ozone depletion.

This is obviously common sense but we appear to be dealing with human stupidity here. We were told that with the advent of the computer there would be "the paperless office" when, in fact, more paper than ever is used in offices today; at least it was in those that I have worked in. Why is there a need for hard copies when everything can be stored on the computer anyway. It is ridiculous storing paper files in cabinets when everyone is sitting at a computer. The amount of junk mail coming through the UK's letterboxes is horrendous. Multi-paged utility bills are accompanied by adverts and offers of holidays etc that have nothing to do with the company concerned. Sometimes I feel that I am drowning in paper and virtually all of it is unnecessary. Packaging on foodstuffs has reached lunatic proportions and quite often makes it difficult to actually get at the contents.
Until governments start initiating serious recycling with penalties for transgressors the mountains of waste will continue to grow.

While I do agree that something needs to be done to curb waste, I am dreadfully concerned with handing that proposition over to governments. Legislating these kinds of changes and establishing regulations can often be disturbed by corruption and radicalism. Such is not much different than trying to legislate morality. Who is to say how much paper that one is allowed to use?

keilj

05-12-2010, 04:43 PM

There was never any evidence that it ever grew. It changed shape, but it has been with us since we first discovered it in the 1950s. Therefore, I presume that it will still be with us in generations to come (aerosols or not). If, in fact, the aerosols were harmful in any other way, it may be good that they are banned, but no evidence has been presented that show that the banning of the aerosols had any effect on the ozone depletion.

Wow - There's skepticism, and then there's burying your head in the sand.

BienvenuJDC

05-12-2010, 04:49 PM

Wow - There's skepticism, and then there's burying your head in the sand.

Was there evidence? Then please present it. I doubt that the media frenzy was much more than that, but if there was some real evidence that aerosol use in the heavily populated areas caused diminished ozone in non-populated areas. If we consider the evidence and facts, then how is one burying their head in the sand. I am willing to check out what the evidence is.

The Atheist

05-12-2010, 04:51 PM

Very well-timed article on the subject here. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/epa-stubborn-environment-refusing-to-meet-civiliza,17418/)

Babbalanja

05-12-2010, 05:06 PM

TheFifthElement

05-12-2010, 05:08 PM

There's some information about the size of the ozone hole here http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/ozone_layer.htm

According to this data the ozone hole was at its biggest in October 2006 and it will probably continue to grow for the next few years due to chlorine and bromide levels still present in the troposphere. The website also explains how CFCs are shown to affect ozone and why the hole is largest over the Antarctic. I remember learning about this in chemistry at school. Ozone is O3 and the Interaction of ozone depleting substances strips the ozone of one O molocule, basically turning it into oxygen (O2). Or something like that anyway. It was a long time ago ;)

*edit* my chemistry teacher wasn't mad. Here's some nice chemistry which explains how CFCs strip O from ozone and why depletion continues although CFCs have been banned. Basically the bromide isn't burnt out yet http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407/hw/ozone_kinetics.pdf

The Atheist

05-12-2010, 06:57 PM

Not as funny as the Onion story, but this article from the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full)outlines the methodology used to conclude that anthropogenic global warming isn't just a myth.

I find AGW denial to be one of the more fascinating subjects, because it marries together the barking mad with people who really ought to know better. Dyed-in-the-wool CTists stand alongside staunch conservatives in playing Nelson on the subject.

I have two acquaintances who have nothing whatsoever in common - one is an "astrologer" who talks to dead people while the other a scientifically-inclined conservative. They can sit for hours and discuss the conspiracy around AGW while completely disagreeing with the means of "disproving" it.

There seem to be several main reasons for the attractiveness of denial:

We've bred a consumer society dedicated to instant gratification and because the results of AGW aren't immediately apparent to people, it becomes hard for them to take it seriously.

When acceptance insists that action must be taken which will impact on one's discretionary spending, denying it becomes a valid option.

The subject is enormously complicated and most people cannot understand the distinction between weather "Gosh, it's so cold, how is the planet warming?" and climatic change, which may take centuries or millennia to become apparent.

We're basically asking people to forgo pleasure in their life to ensure the survival of the species.

Very hard to accomplish.

JuniperWoolf

05-12-2010, 07:41 PM

{edit}

I find a lot of the climate change "conspiracy" arguments to be similar to the old Y2K conspiracy arguments:

Conspiracy Y2K argument: "See! Nothing happened! The computers were fine! We've been had! Conspiracy!"

Okay, but a lot of work went into preventing systemic computer issues. . . maybe they worked?

Haha, I have a conspiracy theorist friend who's anti-vaccination.

Her: They still vaccinate our babies against smallpox. Have you ever known someone with smallpox? No, no one even gets that disease anymore! What are they really giving us?
Me: Wouldn't the fact that no one has smallpox anymore indicate that the vaccine is working?
Her: *blank stare*

She's also pretty sure that man has never been on the moon.

The Atheist

05-12-2010, 10:07 PM

Haha, I have a conspiracy theorist friend who's anti-vaccination.

Her: They still vaccinate our babies against smallpox. Have you ever known someone with smallpox? No, no one even gets that disease anymore! What are they really giving us?
Me: Wouldn't the fact that no one has smallpox anymore indicate that the vaccine is working?
Her: *blank stare*

She's also pretty sure that man has never been on the moon.

Antivaxers make me extremely angry.

When someone's illogical and irrational fears manifest themselves in CT which can affect every child on the planet, I can get a bit worked up and have been known to bring down physical violence upon them.

I doubt if even another polio epidemic would change the minds of those sickos.

I can happily leave moon hoaxers to Buzz Aldrin.

:D

(I'm also pretty sure the smallpox business is completely incorrect as nobody is vaccinated against it nowadays as the disease was eradicated through concerted vaccination quite some years ago.)

JuniperWoolf

05-13-2010, 01:31 AM

I'm also pretty sure the smallpox business is completely incorrect as nobody is vaccinated against it nowadays as the disease was eradicated through concerted vaccination quite some years ago.

I thought so too. I vaguely remember something from highschool biology about cowpox pus being used to get rid of smallpox over a century ago, but I wasn't going to bring that into the conversation. According to Lydia, the answer to everything is "Big Pharma did it."

OrphanPip

05-13-2010, 01:56 AM

I thought so too. I vaguely remember something from highschool biology about cowpox pus being used to get rid of smallpox over a century ago, but I wasn't going to bring that into the conversation. According to Lydia, the answer to everything is "Big Pharma did it."

God damn Edward Jenner, that's where we get the word vaccine from, vaccinae is Latin for cow. Jenner tested his vaccine (basically cowpox pus) on some street kids he gathered up, then he deliberately tried to infect them with smallpox.

Jenner developed the first vaccine but he pretty much had no idea what he was doing. The first modern vaccine was Pasteur's rabies vaccine, now he was a genius.

Most vaccines are very safe, although the yellow fever one is pretty nasty, it causes yellow fever in 1/10000 people vaccinated.

I'm really in love with Merck's Gardisil vaccine, these VLP vaccines blow my mind. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on HPV and the gardisil vaccine.

Edit: Totally off topic, but I had a bit of a nerdgasm at the mention of vaccines.

Musicology

05-14-2010, 07:20 AM

The dirty world of corporate lies and misinformation on 'global climate change'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OM9f74n0xs&feature=related

Babbalanja

05-14-2010, 07:48 AM

The dirty world of corporate lies and misinformation on 'global climate change'.

21st century logical fallacy: "Argument from You Tube."

Isn't this about science, not rhetoric? Please let us know exactly where the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full) is wrong in its model of climate change. Please let us know where the International Panel on Climate Change is wrong in its peer-reviewed conclusions about global warming. Please let us know exactly why there's not a recognized scientific body anywhere on Earth which rejects the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

Regards,

Istvan