Al Bore Blather

[barfo]

Cheap mathematical trick. Look what happens when you look at -4 degrees to +4 degrees.

Cheap rhetorical trick. You didn't expand the y-axis (temperature), you expanded the x-axis (time). Your graph shows the last 450,000 years, rather than the last 1000 years.

I don't think anyone (except maybe our Christian fundamentalist friends) denies the ice ages happened, or that the climate changes without human intervention. That does not rule out the possibility that the climate might also change with our intervention.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Cheap rhetorical trick. You didn't expand the y-axis (temperature), you expanded the x-axis (time). Your graph shows the last 450,000 years, rather than the last 1000 years.

I don't think anyone (except maybe our Christian fundamentalist friends) denies the ice ages happened, or that the climate changes without human intervention. That does not rule out the possibility that the climate might also change with our intervention.

barfo

"My" graph also shows that global warming and cooling is cyclical and has occurred several times, and also that we're below the most recent peak; probably cooling over the long haul, not warming.

You could pick a any spot on the graph where there's been warming and zoom in on it and play chicken little.

 

[barfo]

"My" graph also shows that global warming and cooling is cyclical and has occurred several times, and also that we're below the most recent peak;

It's not clear to me on that graph whether we've reached the peak of our current warming cycle or not. It is true that over the long term, we are headed for another ice age. However, in the long term, we are all dead, including many generations of our decendants. Your graph has a very long timescale.

You could pick a any spot on the graph where there's been warming and zoom in on it and play chicken little.

Not really, since for any other spot on the graph, the future is known. Ours is the only spot on the graph where we don't have future data.

And 1000 years is not exactly zooming in. 1000 years is a pretty big deal for humans. Not such a big deal for the earth. What happens on the timescale of 1000 years matters.

barfo

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

People who use your tactics are trying to squash the truth or at least healthy scientific skepticism. Oddly, you bash religion and you fail to see that science is turning into a religion, complete with beliefs in the unseen and unmeasurable.

Oh the typical propaganda of the born agains. Christians hate science and spew this ignorance. Science is turning into a religion? You don't even know what that means or what you're saying. In fact saying it is stupid. The scientific method has not changed, unlike your continuously changing and morphing religion. If Christianity didn't change, Christianity would be illegal. You're just regurgitating something you heard from another ignorant fool, who heard it from another ignorant fool. Denny's post is a prime example of why Christians and Christianity and ultimately should not be part of humanity. They do nothing but spew regurgitated hate, ignorance, lies, misinformation, and bigotry.

Do you even know what science is or what the scientific method is? Funny how you dismiss science, YET ARE BASING YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING ARUMENT ON SCIECNE!!! ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID? "Hi my name is Denny, I don't believe in the religion of science or global warming and to prove it I'm going to post some science image that I don't really understand, but am going to take in faith as proving by personal beliefs?!?!?!?!"

YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL!

You don't even know why you're against global warming. You're just brainwashed. Like pretty much all people who choose to believe in a fairy tale god instead of reality, YOU have lost your ability to think for yourself. You've chosen slavery, but not to god like you'd think, to other men who control you. You pay them and believe their words without question.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

Environmentalism is bad for the economy

This is essentially the truth and the sole reason there is an anti-global warming movement.

 

[rocketeer]

Oh the typical propaganda of the born agains. Christians hate science and spew this ignorance. Science is turning into a religion? You don't even know what that means or what you're saying. In fact saying it is stupid. The scientific method has not changed, unlike your continuously changing and morphing religion. If Christianity didn't change, Christianity would be illegal. You're just regurgitating something you heard from another ignorant fool, who heard it from another ignorant fool. Denny's post is a prime example of why Christians and Christianity and ultimately should not be part of humanity. They do nothing but spew regurgitated hate, ignorance, lies, misinformation, and bigotry.

Do you even know what science is or what the scientific method is? Funny how you dismiss science, YET ARE BASING YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING ARUMENT ON SCIECNE!!! ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID? "Hi my name is Denny, I don't believe in the religion of science or global warming and to prove it I'm going to post some science image that I don't really understand, but am going to take in faith as proving by personal beliefs?!?!?!?!"

YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL!

You don't even know why you're against global warming. You're just brainwashed. Like pretty much all people who choose to believe in a fairy tale god instead of reality, YOU have lost your ability to think for yourself. You've chosen slavery, but not to god like you'd think, to other men who control you. You pay them and believe their words without question.

why do you insist that science and religion(you single out christianity) are against each other?

they aren't. they can easily coexist without contradiction.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh the typical propaganda of the born agains. Christians hate science and spew this ignorance. Science is turning into a religion? You don't even know what that means or what you're saying. In fact saying it is stupid. The scientific method has not changed, unlike your continuously changing and morphing religion. If Christianity didn't change, Christianity would be illegal. You're just regurgitating something you heard from another ignorant fool, who heard it from another ignorant fool. Denny's post is a prime example of why Christians and Christianity and ultimately should not be part of humanity. They do nothing but spew regurgitated hate, ignorance, lies, misinformation, and bigotry.

Do you even know what science is or what the scientific method is? Funny how you dismiss science, YET ARE BASING YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING ARUMENT ON SCIECNE!!! ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID? "Hi my name is Denny, I don't believe in the religion of science or global warming and to prove it I'm going to post some science image that I don't really understand, but am going to take in faith as proving by personal beliefs?!?!?!?!"

YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL! YOU FAIL!

You don't even know why you're against global warming. You're just brainwashed. Like pretty much all people who choose to believe in a fairy tale god instead of reality, YOU have lost your ability to think for yourself. You've chosen slavery, but not to god like you'd think, to other men who control you. You pay them and believe their words without question.

I'm not in the least a religious person. So this latest attempt to stifle scientific skepticism is lost on me.

What is the scientific method? When you have scientists saying "I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe" then it is a belief and not based on the scientific method. No scientific observation by man or machine shows that there is life elsewhere (hint: that's the "conclusion" bit of the scientific method).

Or maybe you think science has evolved to the point where consensus means anything scientifically. But hey, that's both a belief system (in the consensus without fact), and outright politics (consensus implies some sort of actual vote).

String theory is a good one, too. Lots of math, not a single observation.

Or maybe you think science is all about peer pressure.

Or maybe you think science is about getting grants. Those are awarded based upon politics more than the value of the science anymore.

Science is failing, dude. It is supposed to be cold and clinical and based upon measurement of things that actually exist, and with a healthy dose of skepticism.

So why is it that anyone who goes against the establishment is accused of being a heretic? Sounds like a religion to me.

 

[barfo]

I'm not in the least a religious person. So this latest attempt to stifle scientific skepticism is lost on me.

Being skeptical is all good. However, being wrong is not the same as being skeptical.

What is the scientific method? When you have scientists saying "I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe" then it is a belief and not based on the scientific method.

Similarly, a scientist saying "I believe I'll have another beer" is not based on the scientific method. So what?

No scientific observation by man or machine shows that there is life elsewhere (hint: that's the "conclusion" bit of the scientific method).

That's true. So what? If a scientist said "there is life on other planets, here's the evidence", then you'd have a case. But as far as I know no one has said that. I'd guess that someone argued that there is a statistical probability of life on other planets?

Or maybe you think science has evolved to the point where consensus means anything scientifically. But hey, that's both a belief system (in the consensus without fact), and outright politics (consensus implies some sort of actual vote).

I take it we are back to global warming now? Scientific consensus just means that scientists are, by and large, convinced by the evidence presented. Not that they hold a vote. Every accepted scientific theory is a consensus, and no one is taking votes, nor does the consensus imply a lack of scientific evidence. Quite the opposite.

String theory is a good one, too. Lots of math, not a single observation.

Wow. Do you realize that many, many scientific theories that are now experimentally well established were created prior to the experiments? In fact, scientists frequently design experiments to prove or disprove theories. The fact that a theory exists without experimental evidence is hardly an indictment of the science or the scientists.

Or maybe you think science is all about peer pressure.

Or maybe you do, from the sounds of it.

Or maybe you think science is about getting grants. Those are awarded based upon politics more than the value of the science anymore.

There is an element of politics in everything humans do, and scientists are humans. [No, I cannot prove the latter statement]. But you are exaggerating the political aspect greatly.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, testing it, analyzing the results of those tests, and reporting factually what the results were. Science is no longer doing those things when they're denying the results of those tests and reporting that the hypothesis must be true, we only need to find data to fit it.

I'm skeptical of life elsewhere in the universe - not because I think we're blessed by some god or anything like that - but rather that there are an enormous number of things that appear to be unique to our situation on earth. Things like some combination of a magnetic field, a large planet like Jupiter where it is to protect the earth, the large size of our moon (which is unique among all the planets we know of), that the Earth is also in the temperate zone (where H2O exists as liquid, not ice, not gas), and so on. Then of course, there's Enrico Fermi (he's a real scientist, you know) who asked "where are they?" which is such a simple question that no scientist has answered. In fact, given what we know of life and evolution, once it is established anywhere, it should evolve into billions of species (as it has on Earth alone) and the sky should be filled with all sorts of signs that it exists.

If I argue these simple observable truths, the typical "science as religion" argument used against me is something like "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - which could equally argued about God; and is why I believe in neither.

Moses, I mean Al Gore, came down from the mountain after talking to God and to bring us the great oracle and laws, so we should follow! I mean, the guy is a certified scientific expert. No wait, he's not. He's a politician and not a very bright person in general.

And no, I wasn't particularly arguing about peer pressure regarding Al Gore's crusade against economics, but rather in general. I've brought up the case of the first humans in North America:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html

Since the 1930s, archaeologists generally believed North America was settled by hunters following large game over the land bridge about 13,000 years ago.


"That had been repeated so many times in textbooks and lectures it became part of the common lore," said Dennis Stanford, curator of archeology at the Smithsonian Institution. "People forgot it was only an unproven hypothesis."

Yet when anthropologists found human artifacts (tools, fire pits, etc.) dated up to 16,000 years ago and presented their findings, they were treated like those 65,000 scientists who think man made global warming is a hoax. So again, it sounds like the Church burying scientific findings that went against its dogma...

And you can't have a consensus without a vote. If you call it one and refuse to have the vote, then you're scared your hoax will be uncovered. It's also not very scientific, as I already wrote.

 

[barfo]

There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, testing it, analyzing the results of those tests, and reporting factually what the results were. Science is no longer doing those things when they're denying the results of those tests and reporting that the hypothesis must be true, we only need to find data to fit it.

I disagree that science is not doing that. Science is all about doing that.

I'm skeptical of life elsewhere in the universe - not because I think we're blessed by some god or anything like that - but rather that there are an enormous number of things that appear to be unique to our situation on earth. Things like some combination of a magnetic field, a large planet like Jupiter where it is to protect the earth, the large size of our moon (which is unique among all the planets we know of), that the Earth is also in the temperate zone (where H2O exists as liquid, not ice, not gas), and so on. Then of course, there's Enrico Fermi (he's a real scientist, you know) who asked "where are they?" which is such a simple question that no scientist has answered. In fact, given what we know of life and evolution, once it is established anywhere, it should evolve into billions of species (as it has on Earth alone) and the sky should be filled with all sorts of signs that it exists.

All of that is perfectly reasonable, and it makes sense to be skeptical that life exists elsewhere. I certainly am. However, that's no indictment of science at all. Science isn't insisting that life does exist elsewhere.

As for Fermi, he's been dead 50 years now, but the fact that we haven't observed other life doesn't prove it doesn't exist. We may still be looking in the wrong places.

If I argue these simple observable truths, the typical "science as religion" argument used against me is something like "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - which could equally argued about God; and is why I believe in neither.

Who is asking you to believe in God or extraterrestrial life? Science certainly isn't.

Moses, I mean Al Gore, came down from the mountain after talking to God and to bring us the great oracle and laws, so we should follow! I mean, the guy is a certified scientific expert. No wait, he's not. He's a politician and not a very bright person in general.

Oh, please. He's reasonably bright. He is a politician and not a scientist, you are right about that. But you can't attack science and hold up Al Gore's lack of scientific credentials as a reason. That doesn't make any sense.

And no, I wasn't particularly arguing about peer pressure regarding Al Gore's crusade against economics, but rather in general. I've brought up the case of the first humans in North America:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html

Yet when anthropologists found human artifacts (tools, fire pits, etc.) dated up to 16,000 years ago and presented their findings, they were treated like those 65,000 scientists who think man made global warming is a hoax. So again, it sounds like the Church burying scientific findings that went against its dogma...

I don't see where you get that from that article. It seems to me that science in that case is working as it should: new evidence is discovered, and it's meaning is debated among scientists. What would the alternative be?

Archaeologists will meet in October of 2005 for a conference in Columbia, South Carolina, to discuss the earliest inhabitants of North America, including a visit to the Topper Site.

Doesn't sound like the scientific community was burying the findings or casting out the heretics. I think you've seriously misinterpreted that article, if you think so.

And you can't have a consensus without a vote. If you call it one and refuse to have the vote, then you're scared your hoax will be uncovered. It's also not very scientific, as I already wrote.

Consensus
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord.

I don't see anything there about voting. There is a consensus on the blazer board that Frye has sucked this year. There wasn't a vote. But there is general agreement that he's sucked. We made our observations, we discussed it amongst ourselves, and we came to a consensus.

barfo

 

[ly_yng]

Cheap mathematical trick. Look what happens when you look at -4 degrees to +4 degrees.

And note, I do believe in global warming. It's obviously warmed since the last ice age, which would be the right most bottom point on the above graph. Must be from all the fossil fuels we burned starting 10,000 years ago.

You might notice the red line (CO2 level) trails the temperature (it is to the right of the blue line), hence it sure doesn't look like a cause of temperature change.

I don't know what you see in this graph, but I see a climate that, in modern times, is stabilizing around modern values. We seem to have dampened the wild swings and caused a bit of a stasis. Now, if we're causing that stasis to increase by a half a degree a year, or whatever it is that we're claiming, then that will be absolutely disastrous for human civilization.

Now, I can say for sure that this graph shows that, in geological terms, the temperature of the earth has swung wildly. But we, as humans, have a LOT more control over the temperature of the earth than any living being has had before, and thus it's not really intelligent to use the last 500,000 years of geological history to predict what will happen next.

I agree that rising temperatures have probably had an effect on CO2 emissions. But this doesn't mean that CO2 emissions don't have an effect on rising temperatures. If anything, we have a positive feedback loop, making it even MORE imperative that we cut down on CO2 emissions and start to reverse them.

 

[Denny Crane]

I disagree that science is not doing that. Science is all about doing that.



All of that is perfectly reasonable, and it makes sense to be skeptical that life exists elsewhere. I certainly am. However, that's no indictment of science at all. Science isn't insisting that life does exist elsewhere.

As for Fermi, he's been dead 50 years now, but the fact that we haven't observed other life doesn't prove it doesn't exist. We may still be looking in the wrong places.



Who is asking you to believe in God or extraterrestrial life? Science certainly isn't.



Oh, please. He's reasonably bright. He is a politician and not a scientist, you are right about that. But you can't attack science and hold up Al Gore's lack of scientific credentials as a reason. That doesn't make any sense.



I don't see where you get that from that article. It seems to me that science in that case is working as it should: new evidence is discovered, and it's meaning is debated among scientists. What would the alternative be?



Doesn't sound like the scientific community was burying the findings or casting out the heretics. I think you've seriously misinterpreted that article, if you think so.




Consensus
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord.

I don't see anything there about voting. There is a consensus on the blazer board that Frye has sucked this year. There wasn't a vote. But there is general agreement that he's sucked. We made our observations, we discussed it amongst ourselves, and we came to a consensus.

barfo

Some scientists do actual science. But when you have a political committee like the IPCC voting on things and editing scientists' work, it's no longer science. When you have scientists no longer following the scientific method and insisting things are a certain way, it's no longer the scientific method at play. What it is resembles religion.

In fact, scientists predicting the future regarding climate is like astrology and not like science. They can't even predict the weather 3 weeks out and we're to assume their predictions are close to accurate decades or centuries out? Their computer models don't even predict the past. Their predictions about hurricane activity and tornadoes over the past few years have been miserably off. Their data are highly suspect in other respects though they ignore the things that make them suspect, to make them fit the "hypothesis" (it isn't a hypothesis, really) or to come to their desired outcome.

Science truly has become a religion. People who point to science as what should dictate behavior are no different than religions that do the same thing. Right down to the burn in hell (due to the planet being too warm!) if you don't do what they say.

Al Gore is a joke. His Nobel Prize proves the prize isn't based on anything but popularity anymore.

And you can't know at all if there's a consensus, reached by a group as a whole, without a vote. Otherwise it's like what science has become - assertions without evidence or measurements.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know what you see in this graph, but I see a climate that, in modern times, is stabilizing around modern values. We seem to have dampened the wild swings and caused a bit of a stasis. Now, if we're causing that stasis to increase by a half a degree a year, or whatever it is that we're claiming, then that will be absolutely disastrous for human civilization.

Your analysis is like seeing a dead tree in the forest and concluding all the trees in the forest are dead too.

What I see is that recent years are no different than other times of peak temperatures. Given the huge time scales in the graph, you can see that temperature change is not a straight line. Any ups/downs in the graph, especially looked at with the small temperature range your graph provides are only useful to scare people for no good reason.

Now, I can say for sure that this graph shows that, in geological terms, the temperature of the earth has swung wildly. But we, as humans, have a LOT more control over the temperature of the earth than any living being has had before, and thus it's not really intelligent to use the last 500,000 years of geological history to predict what will happen next.

There are numerous other explanations for why the earth gets warmer, and there's absolutely no reason to think that 350 parts per million of CO2 has anything to do with anything.

The correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is more convincing. Glacier melt under the ozone hole isn't convincing at all.

I agree that rising temperatures have probably had an effect on CO2 emissions. But this doesn't mean that CO2 emissions don't have an effect on rising temperatures. If anything, we have a positive feedback loop, making it even MORE imperative that we cut down on CO2 emissions and start to reverse them.

It's imperative that we spend our resources and efforts trying to figure out how to maintain the shorelines or move the cities inland, because no matter what we do, the oceans are going to rise (as they have been long before fossil fuels).

Otherwise, we're going to waste our time and a huge amount of money trying to figure out how to not live like cavemen - cold during the winter, in the dark at night, not able to travel very far from where you live. While we're still going to need to figure out (hopefully not too late) how to save the cities.

 

[ly_yng]

There are numerous other explanations for why the earth gets warmer, and there's absolutely no reason to think that 350 parts per million of CO2 has anything to do with anything.

"There's absolutely no reason"? Really?

I mean, here's a reason. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and currently contributes between 9 and 24% to the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

It's a completely logical statement to say that as CO2 percentages rise, so will the greenhouse effect and, thus, Earth's temperature. So, that's a reason.

You may argue that other factors are more important (I think the water vapor one is intriguing, actually), but don't go off like there's no scientific basis to the theory that CO2 levels can effect the Earth's temperature.

 

[Denny Crane]

"There's absolutely no reason"? Really?

I mean, here's a reason. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and currently contributes between 9 and 24% to the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

It's a completely logical statement to say that as CO2 percentages rise, so will the greenhouse effect and, thus, Earth's temperature. So, that's a reason.

You may argue that other factors are more important (I think the water vapor one is intriguing, actually), but don't go off like there's no scientific basis to the theory that CO2 levels can effect the Earth's temperature.

Look at the concentration of CO2. 350 parts per million = .000350. That aside, CO2 is a good thing, necessary for life to exist (we exhale it, plants "inhale" it).

I don't argue that man isn't reshaping the planet. We're damming rivers and flooding plains that aren't naturally flooded - this changes where the water vapor in the air is. We've clear cut vast areas of the amazon rain forest, which means far fewer trees and plants to convert CO2 back to O2. The CFCs in aerosol sprays really did kill a big chunk of the ozone layer.

There are natural effects that we can do nothing about that lead to warming. The glaciers have receded from the point where they used to cover the great lakes. The albedo of the planet has changed considerably as the ice receded. What used to be white and reflected light and heat back into space is now dark and absorbs light and heat. That is a feedback mechanism - the less white the more heat absorbed, the more heat absorbed the more ice melts...

 

[barfo]

Some scientists do actual science. But when you have a political committee like the IPCC voting on things and editing scientists' work, it's no longer science. When you have scientists no longer following the scientific method and insisting things are a certain way, it's no longer the scientific method at play. What it is resembles religion.

Politics is politics. Science is science. The fact that politics exists doesn't invalidate science.

In fact, scientists predicting the future regarding climate is like astrology and not like science. They can't even predict the weather 3 weeks out and we're to assume their predictions are close to accurate decades or centuries out? Their computer models don't even predict the past. Their predictions about hurricane activity and tornadoes over the past few years have been miserably off. Their data are highly suspect in other respects though they ignore the things that make them suspect, to make them fit the "hypothesis" (it isn't a hypothesis, really) or to come to their desired outcome.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Certainly, climate science has a long long way to go. It is a tough problem. We certainly don't know all the answers.

But what you are advocating for, apparently, is just ignoring it all since it isn't complete and guaranteed. That's not a very useful approach.

Science truly has become a religion.

That may be your perception, but I think your perceptions of science are quite flawed. Your suggestion that science wasn't working correctly in the article about archeology you quoted is evidence of that.

People who point to science as what should dictate behavior are no different than religions that do the same thing. Right down to the burn in hell (due to the planet being too warm!) if you don't do what they say.

Well, that is a cute parallel, but do you really want to say that science should not dictate behavior? Maybe you should jump off a tall building onto the pavement. Science says that you'll hurt yourself, but if you want to believe that isn't true, that it's just a bunch of political lies, hey, be my guest.

Al Gore is a joke. His Nobel Prize proves the prize isn't based on anything but popularity anymore.

What is your fixation on Al Gore? As we've already both agreed, he's not a scientist. So his actions, or lack thereof, do not reflect upon science. As for the Nobel Peace Prize, how would you go about awarding that in a an objective manner? Of course it is, at some level, a popularity contest. Always has been.

And you can't know at all if there's a consensus, reached by a group as a whole, without a vote. Otherwise it's like what science has become - assertions without evidence or measurements.

Nonsense. I already provided you with the definition of the word. It doesn't include a requirement for voting, your religious belief that it does.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Barfo,

What I've advocated in this thread is this:

It's imperative that we spend our resources and efforts trying to figure out how to maintain the shorelines or move the cities inland, because no matter what we do, the oceans are going to rise (as they have been long before fossil fuels).

Otherwise, we're going to waste our time and a huge amount of money trying to figure out how to not live like cavemen - cold during the winter, in the dark at night, not able to travel very far from where you live. While we're still going to need to figure out (hopefully not too late) how to save the cities.

 

[barfo]

The CFCs in aerosol sprays really did kill a big chunk of the ozone layer.

How do you know? Did some scientists tell you that? Those guys can't be trusted.

Seriously, since you don't believe in science, why do you believe in that? You certainly didn't observe the ozone damage yourself, right?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How do you know? Did some scientists tell you that? Those guys can't be trusted.

Seriously, since you don't believe in science, why do you believe in that? You certainly didn't observe the ozone damage yourself, right?

barfo

The damage to the ozone is understandable, provable, and truly observable. I do believe in science, I don't believe in it as a religion.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When ultraviolet light waves (UV) strike CFC* (CFCl[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]) molecules in the upper atmosphere, a carbon-chlorine bond breaks, producing a chlorine (Cl) atom. The chlorine atom then reacts with an ozone (O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]) molecule breaking it apart and so destroying the ozone. This forms an ordinary oxygen molecule(O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]) and a chlorine monoxide (ClO) molecule. Then a free oxygen** atom breaks up the chlorine monoxide. The chlorine is free to repeat the process of destroying more ozone molecules. A single CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]* CFC - chlorofluorocarbon: it contains chlorine, fluorine and carbon atoms.
** UV radiation breaks oxygen molecules (O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]) into single oxygen atoms.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chemical equation[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CFCl[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] + UV Light ==> CFCl[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] + Cl
Cl + O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] ==> ClO + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
ClO + O ==> Cl + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The free chlorine atom is then free to attack another ozone molecule[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cl + O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] ==> ClO + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
ClO + O ==> Cl + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and again ... [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cl + O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] ==> ClO + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
ClO + O ==> Cl + O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and again... for thousands of times.[/FONT]​

 

[MARIS61]

There are numerous other explanations for why the earth gets warmer, and there's absolutely no reason to think that 350 parts per million of CO2 has anything to do with anything.

The correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is more convincing. Glacier melt under the ozone hole isn't convincing at all.

I cried because I had no hat until I met a man who had no brain.

 

[barfo]

The damage to the ozone is understandable, provable, and truly observable.

Sure. But have you understood it, proved it, and observed it yourself? If not, how are you not just believing in it "as a religion"? What makes the climate scientists who study ozone right, and the climate scientists who study global warming wrong?

It can't be that you know more about climate science than they do, right? So you are choosing to believe in one set of results, and not another. Your claim is that the latter group is not doing science, but is practicing politics. But that just seems like another religious belief to me. Certainly it could be true - just like extraterrestrial life could exist - but in the absence of evidence, why make that assumption?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Google "Maunder Minimum" and get a hat

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure. But have you understood it, proved it, and observed it yourself? If not, how are you not just believing in it "as a religion"? What makes the climate scientists who study ozone right, and the climate scientists who study global warming wrong?

It can't be that you know more about climate science than they do, right? So you are choosing to believe in one set of results, and not another. Your claim is that the latter group is not doing science, but is practicing politics. But that just seems like another religious belief to me. Certainly it could be true - just like extraterrestrial life could exist - but in the absence of evidence, why make that assumption?

barfo

I'm satisfied that chemists all over the world agree that chemistry is what chemistry is, and the chemical formula is a scientific FACT.

I know more about climate science than Al Gore does, and certainly more than people who fall for the global warming hoax. But that's not saying much.

 

[barfo]

I know more about climate science than Al Gore does, and certainly more than people who fall for the global warming hoax. But that's not saying much.

So, basically you are saying that you know more about climate science than the climate scientists.

I'm skeptical. Feel free to prove it to me, scientifically.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, basically you are saying that you know more about climate science than the climate scientists.

I'm skeptical.

barfo

I don't think climate scientists who claim there's man made global warming are falling for anything. They know where their grants come from is all.

Let me give you something to be skeptical of. Computer models are one of the main sources of the claim of man made global warming. Forget that those models can't predict the past, given all the data they can shovel into them. You should be skeptical because Detroit doesn't use computer models to determine the safety of their vehicles - they actually crash cars into walls at great expense instead. Why on earth would they do that if a much simpler (than geologic time frame climate models) computer model could be used instead?

 

[Minstrel]

I'm satisfied that chemists all over the world agree that chemistry is what chemistry is

Why, did they take a vote? If not, your belief in consensus on chemistry is just a religious faith on your part.

Without a vote, assertions of consensus are just political claims with no basis, right?

 

[Denny Crane]

Why, did they take a vote? If not, your belief in consensus on chemistry is just a religious faith on your part.

Without a vote, assertions of consensus are just political claims with no basis. Why do you perpetuate the chemistry hoax?

The chemistry of CFCs and Ozone is a fact. It is not in question. The chemistry can be and has been repeated in labs everywhere with the same results.

Not true of the global warming hoax. Find me a scientist who refutes the chemistry.

 

[barfo]

I don't think climate scientists who claim there's man made global warming are falling for anything. They know where their grants come from is all.

Ah, so they are liars. I see. And you base this belief on what, exactly?

Let me give you something to be skeptical of. Computer models are one of the main sources of the claim of man made global warming. Forget that those models can't predict the past, given all the data they can shovel into them. You should be skeptical because Detroit doesn't use computer models to determine the safety of their vehicles - they actually crash cars into walls at great expense instead. Why on earth would they do that if a much simpler (than geologic time frame climate models) computer model could be used instead?

Federal crash test requirements, I'd guess.

Edit: And seriously, I'm to be skeptical of something because Detroit doesn't do it? Like everything they've done over the past 40 years has been so brilliant? Maybe I should be skeptical of fuel-efficient cars?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

"We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. . . . Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

-- Stephen Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist who headed one of the leading climate modeling teams in the United States, Discover Magazine October 1989, page 47

 

[Minstrel]

The chemistry of CFCs and Ozone is a fact. It is not in question. The chemistry can be and has been repeated in labs everywhere with the same results.

The science behind global warming (greenhouse gases that trap heat) is straightforward chemistry. The data detailing the global rising temperatures over the past century is straightforward also.

The only argument that generally comes up is that if you look over many thousands of years, you see a cycling. Yes, that's true, but a bit irrelevant. If we cause temperatures to rise to deadly levels, I'm sure the Earth will cycle back down someday. But a few thousand years of temperatures too high to sustain human life hurts, even if temperatures come down again after that.