Wow! Trees, Ozone bad!
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Tue May 11, 2004 11:29 am
Actually I was referring to Hi Altitude Ozone production over North America. It in fact doubled between the original studies that talked about the "horrors" of ozone depletion and the early nineties. I will try to find a link to some articles. Sorry if I was clear enough on that.
My entire purpose was to blast junk science. Talk to any non-polarized scientist who studies the environment and they will tell you "We just don't know enough to know"
A lot of junk science likes to talk about the CFC's causing the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. What they never mention is that sunlight is an integral part of ozone production and guess what happens at the south pole during the winter? No sunlight!:D They like to state how they have detected increased chlorine levels at the south pole. Implying this chlorine is a byproduct of the breakdown of CFC's that is destroying the ozone What they fail to mention is that these readings were taken downwind of Mt Erubus, an active volcano, thats pumps 200 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere daily.
Ironically those satellite pictures that NASA supplied the media with where done at a time when NASA faced serious funding issues. No blatant self interest there.
Too many people today treat "environmentalism" as a religion and thats just plain wrong.
I think RCGlider has pretty much called it right in his posts here. Science by consensus or belief isn't science.
My entire purpose was to blast junk science. Talk to any non-polarized scientist who studies the environment and they will tell you "We just don't know enough to know"
A lot of junk science likes to talk about the CFC's causing the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. What they never mention is that sunlight is an integral part of ozone production and guess what happens at the south pole during the winter? No sunlight!:D They like to state how they have detected increased chlorine levels at the south pole. Implying this chlorine is a byproduct of the breakdown of CFC's that is destroying the ozone What they fail to mention is that these readings were taken downwind of Mt Erubus, an active volcano, thats pumps 200 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere daily.
Ironically those satellite pictures that NASA supplied the media with where done at a time when NASA faced serious funding issues. No blatant self interest there.
Too many people today treat "environmentalism" as a religion and thats just plain wrong.
I think RCGlider has pretty much called it right in his posts here. Science by consensus or belief isn't science.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
by -HaVoC- » Tue May 11, 2004 11:44 am
Once again common sense could solve the worlds problems but we all flounder in a verbal shit storm.
-
"Now, if things look bad, and it looks like your not going to make it, then you've got to get mean, I mean plum mad dog mean, 'cause if you lose your head and give up then you neither live nor win, and that's just the way it is."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales -
put me on the team that Harry aint on....I sure miss shooting him and if im on the same team as HaVoC...OMFG we will stomp a mudhole in you and walk it dry.
- YaDad -
"Now, if things look bad, and it looks like your not going to make it, then you've got to get mean, I mean plum mad dog mean, 'cause if you lose your head and give up then you neither live nor win, and that's just the way it is."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales -
put me on the team that Harry aint on....I sure miss shooting him and if im on the same team as HaVoC...OMFG we will stomp a mudhole in you and walk it dry.
- YaDad -
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Tue May 11, 2004 1:13 pm
Here's some science:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/vortex.html
Interesting Facts About the
Antarctic Polar Vortex
by Eduardo Ferreyra,
President of FAEC
One of the most important things to note about the so-called Antarctic ozone hole is that some of the most complex and least-understood atmospheric chemical reactions occur during the four-to-six-week duration of the ozone hole. The Polar Vorex seals the Antarctic atmosphere during this period, creating what is essentially an extraordinary chemical reaction vessel. As we can see in the next figure, very dramatic changes occur in the chemical composition of the stratosphere as one flies from outside the vortex to the vessel inside. The concentrations of many chemicals drop dramatically, including water vapor, nitrogen oxides, and ozone. At the same time, the concentrations of other chemicals, like chlorine monoxide, increase dramatically.
The boundaries for these extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations is the wall of the Polar Vortex. Think of it as a sealed chemical reactor vessel inside which there is a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole, and an ozone hole - all occurring simultaneously. This chemical conditions exists nowhere else on Earth, except perhaps the short-lived Arctic polar vortex. The graph above was common at scientific meetings, but seldom at public forums or in the news media. Why don't those who fret about the ozone hole also worry about the nitrogen oxide hole, and so on?
Explaining this complex chemistry has been a major problem for the proponents of the ozone depletion theory. From their standpoint, the "discovery" of the hole in 1985 was both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because it revived their sagging fortunes; a curse because F. Sherwood Rowland's theory could not possibly account for the depletion.The latest version of Rowland and Molina theory predicted a 5 percent depletion of ozone over 100 years. In Antarctica, scientists were observing depletions of 50 percent in a few weeks!. Then, a few weeks later, the ozone level was back to "normal" again.
It took two years for the ozone depletion propagandists to come up with an explanation for this anomalous situation. The "depletion gang" were not disturbed by their own contradictory pronouncements. An article by Martyn Chipperfield in Nature, Jan. 24, 1991, for example, triumphally proclaimed: "It is now beyond doubt that stratospheric ozone is being destroyed by chlorine derived from man-made CFCs". In the next paragraph, however, Chipperfield warns that "... many quantitative details of the Antarctic ozone depletion remain unexplained..."
Mario Molina devised and unbelievably complex chemical theory called "heterogeneous" or "dimer" chemistry (Molina and Molina, 1987). the theory requires very cold temperatures, below -78ºC, which occur in the Antarctic atmosphere only a few weeks of the year. It also requires the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, which are made up of nitric acid, instead of the water that makes up normal clouds. Finally, Molina's new theory requires sunlight at just the right time.
These conditions can occur in Antarctica only after three to four months of complete darkness enable the stratosphere to cool own to -78ºC. Then, at the very moment that spring returns and sunlight strikes Antarctica, at that moment, all conditions being right, the stratosphere being primed, the sunlgiht supposedely sets off a series of very complex reactions that break apart the molecules in which chlorine is bound, freeing individual chlorine atoms to wander about and destroy the ozone layer.
Molina's chemical formulas are as follows:
(1) ClONO2 + HCl ice> Cl2 + HNO3
(2) Cl2 + hv –> 2 Cl
(3) Cl + O3 –> ClO + O2
(4) ClO + ClO + M –> Cl2O2 + M
(5) Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl + ClOO
(6) ClOO + M –> Cl + O2 + M
(M) is a "collisional chaperone" (a hard surface) for N2 and O2, as put by Molina.
The net result of this series of complex chemical reactions is two ozone molecules (O3) will be turned into three oxygen molecules (O2). This is the heart of the explanation that CFCs are depleting ozone in Antarctica. The so-called "chloro-catalytic process" that has scared the hell out the common people.
Please note that CFCs are not involved at all in Molina's chemical reactions. The chlorine comes instead from two "reservoirs" ClONO2 and HCl, natural atmospheric compounds.
Second, ice (a hard surface) is needed to begin the reaction, which is why the polar stratospheric clouds are required. The ice is found only when temperatures are colder than –78ºC and an altitude of between 12 and 20 km.
Third, without sunlight (hv stands for a photon of UV radiation) this reaction could not occur. Let us concentrate on reaction (5). This crucial equation says that when a molecule Cl2O2 (chlorine peroxide) is struck by UV radiation, it will break up into a Cl atom, which goes on to destroy ozone molecules, and ClOO.
The ClOO (sometimes known as OClO) is then presumed to undergo a molecular collision against an ice crystal to give up molecular oxygen and a free chlorine atom. The crucial thing is: Given that the theoretical mechanism has never been definitely established in the laboratory, does the chemistry work like this in the stratosphere?
"NO", says Igor J. Eberstein of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in May 1990, Eberstein demonstrates that the most likely path of chlorine peroxide photodissociation is into two ClO radicals; that is, back to the monomer. A secondary path of dissociation is Cl2 and atomic oxgen. If this is getting too technical, please forgive me, but there is no layman explanation for these complex reactions. On the other hand, if someone does not undestand this chemical reactions, he/she shouldn't be into ozone layer discussions defending something he/she does not fully understand.
The ozone depletion theorists conveniently ignore these least-energy pathways, a fundamental law of thermodynamics, with no exceptions whatsoever. They claim that the chemical reactions goes this way:
Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl + ClOO
Eberstein shows that the reaction actually follows one of these two most prebable leasr energy pathways:
Path 1: Cl2O2 + H becomes 2 ClO or,
Path 2: Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl2O + O
According to Eberstein, "There is no proven chemical mechanism to account for the creation of the ozone hole. This is a very serious failure. If you have a theory, you should be able to provide a definitive mechanism. Otherwise is pure speculation. This Antarctic ozone depletion issue has to be put on a more solid scientific basis."
But Eberstein is not alone in criticizing the chemical hocus pocus. Writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, on Oct. 20, 1990, G.W. Lawrence and his associates demolish a popular version of Molina's Equation (6) and the presumed gas-phase photodissociation of chlorine oxide to free up chorine. After a sreies of very complex experiments in the laboratory, Lawrence, Clemitshaw, and Apkarian (1990) conclude:
In the spectral range in which it has been recently reported that OClO undergoes unimolecular dissociation to produce Cl + O2 ... we have conducted studies to establish that if indeed such a photodissociation channel exists, then its quantum yield is less than 5 x 10 –4, Such a small quantum yield process would render the photochemistry of OClO irrelevant to the destruction of stratospheric ozone." (p. 595).
Sunlight is another requisite element in Molina's "dimer" chemistry. Sunlight is the "trigger" for the chemical reaction that destroy ozone molecules; this is why the ozoe hole appears only at the beginning of the Antarctic spring, although the chlorine molecules have been there all throughout the winter darkness.
Again, reality intrudes. The National and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) anounced on September 1990 that its polar satellites were detecting the development of the ozone hole a full month before the appearance of sunlight. In other words, the hole is well developed before sunlight strikes Antactica, exactly the opposite of what Molina heterogeneous chemistry theory claims. If chemical reactions are creating the hole, these reactions are occirring in the darkness, which invalidates the theory.
Not surpisingly, the news media ignored the importance of the NOAA discovery in refutig Molina's dimer chemistry. Instead, the press played the news to another scare story, reporting that the NOAA satellites data showed Antarctica ozone depletion to be more serious than originally thought, because the hole was - unexpectedly - appearing early.
Molina got the Noble Prize in chemistry in 1995, along with his teacher, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen, not for their scientic work by itself, but for the "political implications that saved mankind from an impeding catastrophe", breaking away from Nobel's basic conditions for awarding the Prize: "For outstanding achievements on sciences, that lead to industrial progress and the benefit of mankind".
A blatant example of how science has been politically abused, clearing the ground for more junk and fraudulent science, and for absurd international treaties of tremendous effects on global economies - and none on the rise of CO2 and amelioration of poverty and hunger in the world.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/vortex.html
Interesting Facts About the
Antarctic Polar Vortex
by Eduardo Ferreyra,
President of FAEC
One of the most important things to note about the so-called Antarctic ozone hole is that some of the most complex and least-understood atmospheric chemical reactions occur during the four-to-six-week duration of the ozone hole. The Polar Vorex seals the Antarctic atmosphere during this period, creating what is essentially an extraordinary chemical reaction vessel. As we can see in the next figure, very dramatic changes occur in the chemical composition of the stratosphere as one flies from outside the vortex to the vessel inside. The concentrations of many chemicals drop dramatically, including water vapor, nitrogen oxides, and ozone. At the same time, the concentrations of other chemicals, like chlorine monoxide, increase dramatically.
The boundaries for these extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations is the wall of the Polar Vortex. Think of it as a sealed chemical reactor vessel inside which there is a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole, and an ozone hole - all occurring simultaneously. This chemical conditions exists nowhere else on Earth, except perhaps the short-lived Arctic polar vortex. The graph above was common at scientific meetings, but seldom at public forums or in the news media. Why don't those who fret about the ozone hole also worry about the nitrogen oxide hole, and so on?
Explaining this complex chemistry has been a major problem for the proponents of the ozone depletion theory. From their standpoint, the "discovery" of the hole in 1985 was both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because it revived their sagging fortunes; a curse because F. Sherwood Rowland's theory could not possibly account for the depletion.The latest version of Rowland and Molina theory predicted a 5 percent depletion of ozone over 100 years. In Antarctica, scientists were observing depletions of 50 percent in a few weeks!. Then, a few weeks later, the ozone level was back to "normal" again.
It took two years for the ozone depletion propagandists to come up with an explanation for this anomalous situation. The "depletion gang" were not disturbed by their own contradictory pronouncements. An article by Martyn Chipperfield in Nature, Jan. 24, 1991, for example, triumphally proclaimed: "It is now beyond doubt that stratospheric ozone is being destroyed by chlorine derived from man-made CFCs". In the next paragraph, however, Chipperfield warns that "... many quantitative details of the Antarctic ozone depletion remain unexplained..."
Mario Molina devised and unbelievably complex chemical theory called "heterogeneous" or "dimer" chemistry (Molina and Molina, 1987). the theory requires very cold temperatures, below -78ºC, which occur in the Antarctic atmosphere only a few weeks of the year. It also requires the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, which are made up of nitric acid, instead of the water that makes up normal clouds. Finally, Molina's new theory requires sunlight at just the right time.
These conditions can occur in Antarctica only after three to four months of complete darkness enable the stratosphere to cool own to -78ºC. Then, at the very moment that spring returns and sunlight strikes Antarctica, at that moment, all conditions being right, the stratosphere being primed, the sunlgiht supposedely sets off a series of very complex reactions that break apart the molecules in which chlorine is bound, freeing individual chlorine atoms to wander about and destroy the ozone layer.
Molina's chemical formulas are as follows:
(1) ClONO2 + HCl ice> Cl2 + HNO3
(2) Cl2 + hv –> 2 Cl
(3) Cl + O3 –> ClO + O2
(4) ClO + ClO + M –> Cl2O2 + M
(5) Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl + ClOO
(6) ClOO + M –> Cl + O2 + M
(M) is a "collisional chaperone" (a hard surface) for N2 and O2, as put by Molina.
The net result of this series of complex chemical reactions is two ozone molecules (O3) will be turned into three oxygen molecules (O2). This is the heart of the explanation that CFCs are depleting ozone in Antarctica. The so-called "chloro-catalytic process" that has scared the hell out the common people.
Please note that CFCs are not involved at all in Molina's chemical reactions. The chlorine comes instead from two "reservoirs" ClONO2 and HCl, natural atmospheric compounds.
Second, ice (a hard surface) is needed to begin the reaction, which is why the polar stratospheric clouds are required. The ice is found only when temperatures are colder than –78ºC and an altitude of between 12 and 20 km.
Third, without sunlight (hv stands for a photon of UV radiation) this reaction could not occur. Let us concentrate on reaction (5). This crucial equation says that when a molecule Cl2O2 (chlorine peroxide) is struck by UV radiation, it will break up into a Cl atom, which goes on to destroy ozone molecules, and ClOO.
The ClOO (sometimes known as OClO) is then presumed to undergo a molecular collision against an ice crystal to give up molecular oxygen and a free chlorine atom. The crucial thing is: Given that the theoretical mechanism has never been definitely established in the laboratory, does the chemistry work like this in the stratosphere?
"NO", says Igor J. Eberstein of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in May 1990, Eberstein demonstrates that the most likely path of chlorine peroxide photodissociation is into two ClO radicals; that is, back to the monomer. A secondary path of dissociation is Cl2 and atomic oxgen. If this is getting too technical, please forgive me, but there is no layman explanation for these complex reactions. On the other hand, if someone does not undestand this chemical reactions, he/she shouldn't be into ozone layer discussions defending something he/she does not fully understand.
The ozone depletion theorists conveniently ignore these least-energy pathways, a fundamental law of thermodynamics, with no exceptions whatsoever. They claim that the chemical reactions goes this way:
Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl + ClOO
Eberstein shows that the reaction actually follows one of these two most prebable leasr energy pathways:
Path 1: Cl2O2 + H becomes 2 ClO or,
Path 2: Cl2O2 + hv –> Cl2O + O
According to Eberstein, "There is no proven chemical mechanism to account for the creation of the ozone hole. This is a very serious failure. If you have a theory, you should be able to provide a definitive mechanism. Otherwise is pure speculation. This Antarctic ozone depletion issue has to be put on a more solid scientific basis."
But Eberstein is not alone in criticizing the chemical hocus pocus. Writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, on Oct. 20, 1990, G.W. Lawrence and his associates demolish a popular version of Molina's Equation (6) and the presumed gas-phase photodissociation of chlorine oxide to free up chorine. After a sreies of very complex experiments in the laboratory, Lawrence, Clemitshaw, and Apkarian (1990) conclude:
In the spectral range in which it has been recently reported that OClO undergoes unimolecular dissociation to produce Cl + O2 ... we have conducted studies to establish that if indeed such a photodissociation channel exists, then its quantum yield is less than 5 x 10 –4, Such a small quantum yield process would render the photochemistry of OClO irrelevant to the destruction of stratospheric ozone." (p. 595).
Sunlight is another requisite element in Molina's "dimer" chemistry. Sunlight is the "trigger" for the chemical reaction that destroy ozone molecules; this is why the ozoe hole appears only at the beginning of the Antarctic spring, although the chlorine molecules have been there all throughout the winter darkness.
Again, reality intrudes. The National and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) anounced on September 1990 that its polar satellites were detecting the development of the ozone hole a full month before the appearance of sunlight. In other words, the hole is well developed before sunlight strikes Antactica, exactly the opposite of what Molina heterogeneous chemistry theory claims. If chemical reactions are creating the hole, these reactions are occirring in the darkness, which invalidates the theory.
Not surpisingly, the news media ignored the importance of the NOAA discovery in refutig Molina's dimer chemistry. Instead, the press played the news to another scare story, reporting that the NOAA satellites data showed Antarctica ozone depletion to be more serious than originally thought, because the hole was - unexpectedly - appearing early.
Molina got the Noble Prize in chemistry in 1995, along with his teacher, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen, not for their scientic work by itself, but for the "political implications that saved mankind from an impeding catastrophe", breaking away from Nobel's basic conditions for awarding the Prize: "For outstanding achievements on sciences, that lead to industrial progress and the benefit of mankind".
A blatant example of how science has been politically abused, clearing the ground for more junk and fraudulent science, and for absurd international treaties of tremendous effects on global economies - and none on the rise of CO2 and amelioration of poverty and hunger in the world.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
- SavageParrot
-
- Posts: 10599
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:42 pm
- Location: Cheltenham, England
by SavageParrot » Tue May 11, 2004 2:19 pm
My god you are having fun with enormous posts today, do you really think anyone is gonna read them? You have way too much faith in your fellow man!
I wonder how many people are thinking of trying to pass this off as a piece of extra credit research though. Nice post Ingus.
I wonder how many people are thinking of trying to pass this off as a piece of extra credit research though. Nice post Ingus.
- Colonel Savage
by Colonel Savage » Tue May 11, 2004 2:48 pm
Well, I believe congratulations are in order, Ingus - you have successfully discovered a right-wing, anti-environmentalist piece of editorializing in order to accuse people of left-wing, pro-environmentalist editorializing.
And a quick quote from your earlier post:
[My entire purpose was to blast junk science. Talk to any non-polarized scientist who studies the environment and they will tell you "We just don't know enough to know"]
The absolute truth of it all is that we don't know enough about ANYTHING to 'know' - everything we accept as scientific 'proof' is based solely on tools and systems and methods that we ourselves created. So the fact that any given scientist would say that is moot, because when it comes right down to it, none of them know enough.
Despite this, there are a few generally accepted ideas out there that allow us to function in our daily lives - water is wet, fire burns, and pollution is BAD. Argue the details all you want, I don't think you'll find a single person on the planet, scientist or otherwise, who will suppor t the idea that humanity's affect on the natural world over the last century has been anything other than harmful.
I don't know where you get this 'too many people treat environmentalism as a religion' idea from, either. Certainly there are crackpots out there who subscribe to all manner of theories and self-envisioned 'religions' but they represent the fringes of society, not the majority (or even a sizable minority).
And a quick quote from your earlier post:
[My entire purpose was to blast junk science. Talk to any non-polarized scientist who studies the environment and they will tell you "We just don't know enough to know"]
The absolute truth of it all is that we don't know enough about ANYTHING to 'know' - everything we accept as scientific 'proof' is based solely on tools and systems and methods that we ourselves created. So the fact that any given scientist would say that is moot, because when it comes right down to it, none of them know enough.
Despite this, there are a few generally accepted ideas out there that allow us to function in our daily lives - water is wet, fire burns, and pollution is BAD. Argue the details all you want, I don't think you'll find a single person on the planet, scientist or otherwise, who will suppor t the idea that humanity's affect on the natural world over the last century has been anything other than harmful.
I don't know where you get this 'too many people treat environmentalism as a religion' idea from, either. Certainly there are crackpots out there who subscribe to all manner of theories and self-envisioned 'religions' but they represent the fringes of society, not the majority (or even a sizable minority).
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Tue May 11, 2004 4:43 pm
Actually Savage there are scientists out there that believe industrialization and pollution has kept the earth from sliding into another glaciation period. That could be a good thing.
By blasting junk science your attitude is exactly what I am referring to
Where did you get this information? I see theories that say this could be happening accepted as fact and that is what I a problem with. You yourself said we don't know "enough" about anything. Has the effect been overall good or overall bad? The jury is still out on that. I am not advocating going out and dumping toxic wastes into the streams. I am saying lets really understand a situation before making drastic changes and establishing policies we aren't even sure what we are talking about and if what we are proposing is a good thing.
Quick question for you and answer honestly
Is radiation bad for you?
Actually its been found that in areas with a steady level of radon there are less occurences of cancers than areas that have lower levels of radon. Obviously too much is a bad thing but its almost like there is a need for a recommended daily allowance.
I think its pretty callous of you to just dismiss that review as
[edit]
some back up for my raditation statement.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1026.html
By blasting junk science your attitude is exactly what I am referring to
Argue the details all you want, I don't think you'll find a single person on the planet, scientist or otherwise, who will suppor t the idea that humanity's affect on the natural world over the last century has been anything other than harmful.
Where did you get this information? I see theories that say this could be happening accepted as fact and that is what I a problem with. You yourself said we don't know "enough" about anything. Has the effect been overall good or overall bad? The jury is still out on that. I am not advocating going out and dumping toxic wastes into the streams. I am saying lets really understand a situation before making drastic changes and establishing policies we aren't even sure what we are talking about and if what we are proposing is a good thing.
Quick question for you and answer honestly
Is radiation bad for you?
Actually its been found that in areas with a steady level of radon there are less occurences of cancers than areas that have lower levels of radon. Obviously too much is a bad thing but its almost like there is a need for a recommended daily allowance.
I think its pretty callous of you to just dismiss that review as
. Because it doesn't fit your political notions it should be dismissed out of hand? Can you refute the science stated there? If it doesn't agree with what you want to believe it is wrong?a right-wing, anti-environmentalist piece of editorializing
[edit]
some back up for my raditation statement.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1026.html
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
- Colonel Savage
by Colonel Savage » Tue May 11, 2004 6:55 pm
QUOTE]Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Because it doesn't fit your political notions it should be dismissed out of hand? Can you refute the science stated there? If it doesn't agree with what you want to believe it is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Look at the flipside of that. Just because the person(s) in that article is a scientist, and you took the time to post it here, I have to accept it as being right? I've read several papers to the contrary, all by reputable people in various fields. You'll excuse me if I don't hunt down every journal and study on the subject. I don't expect to convince you, anyway. For every piece of science one side of this argument can muster, there are an equal number of scientists willing to take up a contrary stance based on their own research. It's like bringing in experts to testify at a trial. Do enough digging and you can find any number of knowledgeable people to swear to whatever interpretation of the data benefits them most. But I for one would rather err on the side that is least likely to ruin the planet for future generations.
And no, I'm not satisfied with the above article. The science inside is limited in scope, yet is being applied broadly. And it's rife with personal opinion and name-calling. It is clear that its purpose is to make the data fit the author’s views.
Furthermore, before you set in stone your thoughts on what belief system I may or may not have, let me tell you that I don't subscribe to the hippie-commune environmentalist dogma. If anything, I'm a technologist. Bring forth the genetically enhanced food and hydrogen fuel cells, sez I!
But don't bury your head in the sand and try to convince me that our current way of life isn't having an impact on the planet. I've seen first hand too many of the negative effects of it. Have you ever visited a strip mine? Or seen a cyanide poisoned stream? Or walked among the ruins of a clear-cut forest? The idea that we as rational thinking beings could do that to the only planet capable of sustaining life (that we can reach) is frightening. Do you know that when I was a child, I could stand at the top of the little hill near my house and see all the way across Lake Ontario to Toronto? It's a distance of about 60 kilometers. Now all I see from that same spot is an ugly brown haze where the skyline should be. People are BREATHING that shit in every day. Just down the road in Hamilton, the Stelco plant has been pumping out so much crap into the atmosphere that all the buildings, streets and sidewalks have a layer of grime on them no amount of scrubbing will remove. Satellite based radar imaging can't penetrate the cloud of pollutants hovering over the area. The entire lower Great Lakes system has been made unfit for either drinking or swimming in. Christ almighty, the Cuyahoga River caught fire once because it was so polluted. This evidence is tangible, and doesn't require a mathematical model to prove it exists.
And for the record, you started this little debate in a sardonic (and yes, callous) attack on environmentalists so don't be surprised when people react in a similar fashion.
Now I've made this post entirely too long, and I doubt anyone but you will read it until the end. So when you get to this point, let me just say that in no way is any of it meant as a personal attack. Sometimes that gets lost in a heated debate.
Insert your counterpoints here, but I don't want to argue with you anymore.
Because it doesn't fit your political notions it should be dismissed out of hand? Can you refute the science stated there? If it doesn't agree with what you want to believe it is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Look at the flipside of that. Just because the person(s) in that article is a scientist, and you took the time to post it here, I have to accept it as being right? I've read several papers to the contrary, all by reputable people in various fields. You'll excuse me if I don't hunt down every journal and study on the subject. I don't expect to convince you, anyway. For every piece of science one side of this argument can muster, there are an equal number of scientists willing to take up a contrary stance based on their own research. It's like bringing in experts to testify at a trial. Do enough digging and you can find any number of knowledgeable people to swear to whatever interpretation of the data benefits them most. But I for one would rather err on the side that is least likely to ruin the planet for future generations.
And no, I'm not satisfied with the above article. The science inside is limited in scope, yet is being applied broadly. And it's rife with personal opinion and name-calling. It is clear that its purpose is to make the data fit the author’s views.
Furthermore, before you set in stone your thoughts on what belief system I may or may not have, let me tell you that I don't subscribe to the hippie-commune environmentalist dogma. If anything, I'm a technologist. Bring forth the genetically enhanced food and hydrogen fuel cells, sez I!
But don't bury your head in the sand and try to convince me that our current way of life isn't having an impact on the planet. I've seen first hand too many of the negative effects of it. Have you ever visited a strip mine? Or seen a cyanide poisoned stream? Or walked among the ruins of a clear-cut forest? The idea that we as rational thinking beings could do that to the only planet capable of sustaining life (that we can reach) is frightening. Do you know that when I was a child, I could stand at the top of the little hill near my house and see all the way across Lake Ontario to Toronto? It's a distance of about 60 kilometers. Now all I see from that same spot is an ugly brown haze where the skyline should be. People are BREATHING that shit in every day. Just down the road in Hamilton, the Stelco plant has been pumping out so much crap into the atmosphere that all the buildings, streets and sidewalks have a layer of grime on them no amount of scrubbing will remove. Satellite based radar imaging can't penetrate the cloud of pollutants hovering over the area. The entire lower Great Lakes system has been made unfit for either drinking or swimming in. Christ almighty, the Cuyahoga River caught fire once because it was so polluted. This evidence is tangible, and doesn't require a mathematical model to prove it exists.
And for the record, you started this little debate in a sardonic (and yes, callous) attack on environmentalists so don't be surprised when people react in a similar fashion.
Now I've made this post entirely too long, and I doubt anyone but you will read it until the end. So when you get to this point, let me just say that in no way is any of it meant as a personal attack. Sometimes that gets lost in a heated debate.
Insert your counterpoints here, but I don't want to argue with you anymore.
by RCglider » Tue May 11, 2004 8:12 pm
One volcanic eruption is more than the entire industrial age.
Solar flares have immediate and long term effects, measured by known standards, not hypothesis and computer models.
There was more pollution in the 1930's than today.
Old growth forests are not healthy for the evironment.
Kyota is just another scheme to steal money and sovereignty from the U.S.
There was more pollution in the 1940's, 50's, 60's and 70's than today.
Radical environmentalism hurts society more than it helps. Case and point: California fires. Another example: requiring all older cars taken off the road.....quite an oxymoron considering recycling is pushed so hard, plus the amount of pollution created to build a newer "efficient" vehicle. Spiking trees, shutting down highway construction, preventing new power plant construction, etc. etc. etc.
There are more trees today than 200 years ago. Trees are a renewable resource, so is leather.
More wealth creation equals higher technology= better living conditions, less pollution, more food, etc. etc.
The average human lifespan has increased nearly 30 years since 1900. All that happening during the evil rich polluting Capitalist Industrialization era.
Myths and Facts about U.S. Forests
MYTH:The early U.S. forest was a carpet of trees that extended from coast to coast.
FACT:The preColumbian forest of 1600 covered less than half of the present day United States.
MYTH:We only have 5% of the original ancient forests left that once covered the Pacific Northwest in the preEuropean settlement era.
FACT:This figure wrongly assumes that the coastal Northwest was covered with old trees before the arrival of settlers from the East. According to U.S. government studies, no more than a third of the region's forest was covered with oldgrowth trees at any time. Natural wildfires, and fires set by native Americans, routinely cleared vast swaths of old forests.
MYTH:Congress authorized salvage logging on federal lands of dead and dying timber that ignores environmental safeguards.
FACT:Salvage logging cannot proceed without an approved Environment Assessment as required under the National Environmental Policy Act and a Biological Evaluation as required under the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, a salvage sale can be stopped at any time by a district ranger up to the Secretary until the point that the sale is advertised.
MYTH:We're running out of trees.
FACT:We have more trees today than we had in 1970, on the first Earth Day even more than we had 70 years ago. In the middle of the last century, for example, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut were about 35% forested; today they are 59%.
MYTH:We're cutting more than we're growing for future generations.
FACT:Forest growth has exceeded harvests since the 1940s.
MYTH:We're running out of old growth trees in our ancient forests.
FACT:In the U.S. today there are 13.2 million acres of old growth, i.e. large trees 200 years of age or older. The vast majority of these trees comprising an area the size of New Jersey and Massachusetts combined will remain in their natural condition and will never be harvested due to legal and regulatory prohibitions on logging, road building and even fire fighting.
MYTH:We're running out of wilderness.
FACT:The U.S. has permanently protected 104 million acres of land, much of it forested, in the Wilderness Preservation System. It's part of a larger total of 270 million acres that is off limits to all commercial activity, including logging, mining and grazing.
MYTH:Clear cutting, the practice of harvesting most trees in a given area, destroys the forest.
FACT:Clear cutting is a sound practice that benefits future forests. By mimicking natural wildfires, clear cutting is widely recognized by forest scientists and even by conservation groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, American Forests, the Society of American Foresters as an ecologically sound technique for reforesting many softwood species. That's because, for their survival, conifer seedlings typically require direct sunlight and cannot survive in shade.
MYTH:A natural forest supports more ecological diversity than a managed forest.
FACT:Managed forests, even those with some clearcutting, often produce more biodiversity than completely natural forests, according to U.S. Forest Service studies in the Lake States and New England. Even tree farm plantations contain a rich mosaic of plant and animal life.
MYTH:Forest management harms fragile wetlands.
FACT:In fact, good forest management is the environmentally preferred land use for wetlands, as confirmed by the National Wetlands Policy Forum sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MYTH:Forest management harms all wildlife.
FACT:Forest management can help wildlife. Forest management creates openings that stimulate the growth of food sources which is the prime reason why forest species such as elk, deer, turkey and antelope are far more plentiful today than earlier in the century. Sustainable Forestry guidelines promulgated by the American Forest & Paper Association require the promotion of habitat diversity and the conservation of plant and animal populations on members' forest land.
MYTH:More paper recycling will prevent the use of "virgin" wood from harvested trees.
FACT:Even if we could recycle 100% of our used paper, we would still need "virgin" fiber to replace wornout recycled fiber and meet the increasing demand for paper products. Recycling extends the use of virgin fiber, but it will not replace it. Even so, today well over half of all fiber used in paper products comes from recycled paper and from wood waste from sawmills. Recycled wood is another promising source of fiber.
If you want to go back to the good ole days, suit yourself. If anything I would consider myself a conservationist, but never an "evironmentalist" by today's definition.
some good reads:
https://www.sharetrails.org/store/mistore/index.cfm?&do=catalog&catid=44
Solar flares have immediate and long term effects, measured by known standards, not hypothesis and computer models.
There was more pollution in the 1930's than today.
Old growth forests are not healthy for the evironment.
Kyota is just another scheme to steal money and sovereignty from the U.S.
There was more pollution in the 1940's, 50's, 60's and 70's than today.
Radical environmentalism hurts society more than it helps. Case and point: California fires. Another example: requiring all older cars taken off the road.....quite an oxymoron considering recycling is pushed so hard, plus the amount of pollution created to build a newer "efficient" vehicle. Spiking trees, shutting down highway construction, preventing new power plant construction, etc. etc. etc.
There are more trees today than 200 years ago. Trees are a renewable resource, so is leather.
More wealth creation equals higher technology= better living conditions, less pollution, more food, etc. etc.
The average human lifespan has increased nearly 30 years since 1900. All that happening during the evil rich polluting Capitalist Industrialization era.
Myths and Facts about U.S. Forests
MYTH:The early U.S. forest was a carpet of trees that extended from coast to coast.
FACT:The preColumbian forest of 1600 covered less than half of the present day United States.
MYTH:We only have 5% of the original ancient forests left that once covered the Pacific Northwest in the preEuropean settlement era.
FACT:This figure wrongly assumes that the coastal Northwest was covered with old trees before the arrival of settlers from the East. According to U.S. government studies, no more than a third of the region's forest was covered with oldgrowth trees at any time. Natural wildfires, and fires set by native Americans, routinely cleared vast swaths of old forests.
MYTH:Congress authorized salvage logging on federal lands of dead and dying timber that ignores environmental safeguards.
FACT:Salvage logging cannot proceed without an approved Environment Assessment as required under the National Environmental Policy Act and a Biological Evaluation as required under the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, a salvage sale can be stopped at any time by a district ranger up to the Secretary until the point that the sale is advertised.
MYTH:We're running out of trees.
FACT:We have more trees today than we had in 1970, on the first Earth Day even more than we had 70 years ago. In the middle of the last century, for example, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut were about 35% forested; today they are 59%.
MYTH:We're cutting more than we're growing for future generations.
FACT:Forest growth has exceeded harvests since the 1940s.
MYTH:We're running out of old growth trees in our ancient forests.
FACT:In the U.S. today there are 13.2 million acres of old growth, i.e. large trees 200 years of age or older. The vast majority of these trees comprising an area the size of New Jersey and Massachusetts combined will remain in their natural condition and will never be harvested due to legal and regulatory prohibitions on logging, road building and even fire fighting.
MYTH:We're running out of wilderness.
FACT:The U.S. has permanently protected 104 million acres of land, much of it forested, in the Wilderness Preservation System. It's part of a larger total of 270 million acres that is off limits to all commercial activity, including logging, mining and grazing.
MYTH:Clear cutting, the practice of harvesting most trees in a given area, destroys the forest.
FACT:Clear cutting is a sound practice that benefits future forests. By mimicking natural wildfires, clear cutting is widely recognized by forest scientists and even by conservation groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, American Forests, the Society of American Foresters as an ecologically sound technique for reforesting many softwood species. That's because, for their survival, conifer seedlings typically require direct sunlight and cannot survive in shade.
MYTH:A natural forest supports more ecological diversity than a managed forest.
FACT:Managed forests, even those with some clearcutting, often produce more biodiversity than completely natural forests, according to U.S. Forest Service studies in the Lake States and New England. Even tree farm plantations contain a rich mosaic of plant and animal life.
MYTH:Forest management harms fragile wetlands.
FACT:In fact, good forest management is the environmentally preferred land use for wetlands, as confirmed by the National Wetlands Policy Forum sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MYTH:Forest management harms all wildlife.
FACT:Forest management can help wildlife. Forest management creates openings that stimulate the growth of food sources which is the prime reason why forest species such as elk, deer, turkey and antelope are far more plentiful today than earlier in the century. Sustainable Forestry guidelines promulgated by the American Forest & Paper Association require the promotion of habitat diversity and the conservation of plant and animal populations on members' forest land.
MYTH:More paper recycling will prevent the use of "virgin" wood from harvested trees.
FACT:Even if we could recycle 100% of our used paper, we would still need "virgin" fiber to replace wornout recycled fiber and meet the increasing demand for paper products. Recycling extends the use of virgin fiber, but it will not replace it. Even so, today well over half of all fiber used in paper products comes from recycled paper and from wood waste from sawmills. Recycled wood is another promising source of fiber.
If you want to go back to the good ole days, suit yourself. If anything I would consider myself a conservationist, but never an "evironmentalist" by today's definition.
some good reads:
https://www.sharetrails.org/store/mistore/index.cfm?&do=catalog&catid=44
by Chacal » Tue May 11, 2004 9:37 pm
We're having an argument, Evan. It's normal, and healthy.
I believe radicalism is bad either way. Scientific research is hard as it is (I know, I got a BS in biochemistry before turning bad) without political pressure and fools trying to pervert scientific evidence into fitting their agendas. In that respect, Colonel Ingus first post made sense.
But, this goes BOTH ways. You can't completely dismiss, say, the ozone depletion theory because it's not entirely proven. It's not been disproven to the scientific community's satisfaction either. I'm talking chemists and biochemists here, not environmentalists, and not industrialists.
Scientists are all aware those theories are all just that, theories, because we lack the means and funding to actually go up there and take long-term, meaningful measurements, nor can we afford to build labs in order to rigorously test these theories in life-like conditions.
If one, just one, proof is presented and verified, that disproves any theory, it will be quickly dropped by the scientific community.
Some theories are even harder to verify, especially when taken individually. The effects of logging, mining, burning fossile fuels, dumping waste, and other industrial activities, taken individually, can be hard to measure. But we all know that if we do all these things, and never clean up, nature won't be able to cope.
When in doubt, personally, I prefer the risk of erring on the environmentalist side because the error is reversible. If we're wrong, we can always catch up on our polluting later.
I believe radicalism is bad either way. Scientific research is hard as it is (I know, I got a BS in biochemistry before turning bad) without political pressure and fools trying to pervert scientific evidence into fitting their agendas. In that respect, Colonel Ingus first post made sense.
But, this goes BOTH ways. You can't completely dismiss, say, the ozone depletion theory because it's not entirely proven. It's not been disproven to the scientific community's satisfaction either. I'm talking chemists and biochemists here, not environmentalists, and not industrialists.
Scientists are all aware those theories are all just that, theories, because we lack the means and funding to actually go up there and take long-term, meaningful measurements, nor can we afford to build labs in order to rigorously test these theories in life-like conditions.
If one, just one, proof is presented and verified, that disproves any theory, it will be quickly dropped by the scientific community.
Some theories are even harder to verify, especially when taken individually. The effects of logging, mining, burning fossile fuels, dumping waste, and other industrial activities, taken individually, can be hard to measure. But we all know that if we do all these things, and never clean up, nature won't be able to cope.
When in doubt, personally, I prefer the risk of erring on the environmentalist side because the error is reversible. If we're wrong, we can always catch up on our polluting later.
Chacal
[SIZE="1"][color="LightBlue"]Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a great idea."[/color][/SIZE]
[SIZE="1"][color="LightBlue"]Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a great idea."[/color][/SIZE]
by Evan » Tue May 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
We're having an argument, Evan. It's normal, and healthy.
I believe radicalism is bad either way. Scientific research is hard as it is (I know, I got a BS in biochemistry before turning bad) without political pressure and fools trying to pervert scientific evidence into fitting their agendas. In that respect, Colonel Ingus first post made sense.
But, this goes BOTH ways. You can't completely dismiss, say, the ozone depletion theory because it's not entirely proven. It's not been disproven to the scientific community's satisfaction either. I'm talking chemists and biochemists here, not environmentalists, and not industrialists.
Scientists are all aware those theories are all just that, theories, because we lack the means and funding to actually go up there and take long-term, meaningful measurements, nor can we afford to build labs in order to rigorously test these theories in life-like conditions.
If one, just one, proof is presented and verified, that disproves any theory, it will be quickly dropped by the scientific community.
Some theories are even harder to verify, especially when taken individually. The effects of logging, mining, burning fossile fuels, dumping waste, and other industrial activities, taken individually, can be hard to measure. But we all know that if we do all these things, and never clean up, nature won't be able to cope.
When in doubt, personally, I prefer the risk of erring on the environmentalist side because the error is reversible. If we're wrong, we can always catch up on our polluting later.
I know, but I also know how nasty each of you can get
.- SavageParrot
-
- Posts: 10599
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:42 pm
- Location: Cheltenham, England
by SavageParrot » Wed May 12, 2004 3:13 am
What about south America, are there more trees there as well? I think not.
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests