Brit's Scare Kids with Global Warming!

[amicus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDn5Xq-hVEo

keyword search: british bedtime story youtube global warming



LAWRENCE SOLOMON

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4173&linkbox=true&position=10

The British are for turning on climate change by Lawrence Solomon
Tuesday, October 13th 2009, 2:22 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Great Britain has been the world's biggest booster of man-made climate change since the 1980s, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher decided climate change would be a convenient club with which to beat back the coal unions while promoting nuclear power. Her Labour Party successors, Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown, have pursued climate change policies with even greater zeal: It was the Treasury Department under Labour that produced the Stern Review, the first official analysis to predict economic Armageddon from climate change.

No country, in fact, has more earnestly turned climate change dreams into deliverables: Climate change taxes have been proudly imbedded in energy rates, climate change education has permeated the British school system, climate change theories have been presented as undeniable truths by the British media.

But now, the country is for turning. Polls show that the public no longer buys the decades of unrelenting warnings of catastrophe, both official and unofficial, that it has grown up with. According to a surprising survey released Friday by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, most Britons do not fear harm from climate change.

~~~

For those of you 'true believers', this will be water off a duck's back, I know. But, for the rational among us, who know that the Global Warming Hoax is a political scam, I ask you to consider the impact on our children that the so called educational community has imposed.

This should be classified as 'cruel and unusual punishment'; that poor little girl, I feel sorry for her and her school friends subjected to such heinous propaganda.

Amicus

 

[penandpaper]

Watership Down style pictures there. I was always a fan of the Lost City of Atlantis too. With global warming, they'll be hundreds I can search through with my SCUBA gear. Now, if I can only find a way to live long enough...

 

[penandpaper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDn5Xq-hVEo

keyword search: british bedtime story youtube global warming



LAWRENCE SOLOMON

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4173&linkbox=true&position=10



~~~

For those of you 'true believers', this will be water off a duck's back, I know. But, for the rational among us, who know that the Global Warming Hoax is a political scam, I ask you to consider the impact on our children that the so called educational community has imposed.

This should be classified as 'cruel and unusual punishment'; that poor little girl, I feel sorry for her and her school friends subjected to such heinous propaganda.

Amicus

If you happened to notice, the main point in the commercial was to limit one's use of power. That is a good thing whether global warming exists or not. Turn off the lights if you aren't in the room. That's bone chillingly evil!!!! To quote one egg headed boy, "Good grief!"

 

[TE999]

One needs but to both experience and observe the forces of nature at their apex to dismiss the actions of man influencing it as utter folly. It's the ultimate in human conceit to imagine that we have any say-so in the workings of Mother Earth. We may do damage from time to time, but Nature heals the wounds and goes on oblivious of our scrabblings in the dirt.

Man has existed in an eyeblink of observeable time, and has exerted comparitively less influence on the environment than the doomsayers would have us think. Computer models of climate change are inherently flawed as the data entered into them is primarily speculative and deals in straight line scenarios with no natural variables considered.

One solar flare, volcanic eruption or earthquake can exert more influence on the environment than all of man's supposed impacts put together.

Depriving ourselves of life's basic necessities, discarding human progress and reverting to an 18th Century style of living to 'Save The Planet' is a fruitless and unecessary exercise and should be abandoned.

All the scare tactics and enviropropaganda are wearing thin as evidenced in this article. When Chicken Little is finally convinced the sky isn't falling, he will play outside without a helmet.

 

[penandpaper]

One needs but to both experience and observe the forces of nature at their apex to dismiss the actions of man influencing it as utter folly. It's the ultimate in human conceit to imagine that we have any say-so in the workings of Mother Earth. We may do damage from time to time, but Nature heals the wounds and goes on oblivious of our scrabblings in the dirt.

Man has existed in an eyeblink of observeable time, and has exerted comparitively less influence on the environment than the doomsayers would have us think. Computer models of climate change are inherently flawed as the data entered into them is primarily speculative and deals in straight line scenarios with no natural variables considered.

One solar flare, volcanic eruption or earthquake can exert more influence on the environment than all of man's supposed impacts put together.

Depriving ourselves of life's basic necessities, discarding human progress and reverting to an 18th Century style of living to 'Save The Planet' is a fruitless and unecessary exercise and should be abandoned.

All the scare tactics and enviropropaganda are wearing thin as evidenced in this article. When Chicken Little is finally convinced the sky isn't falling, he will play outside without a helmet.

You are right...

The dodo would agree with you, along with the cod in the North Atlantic, and certainly rhinos and elephants are way too big to be bothered by man's tiny existence.

I understadn your point. Nature is grand, in more ways than one. It takes a lot, and her natural influences far exceed that of ours. But, to dismiss us, is also sheer folly.

 

[amicus]

Well, good golly Ms. Molly, a real, dyed in the wool true believer, imagine that! And a 'conservationist' too, almost too good to be true.

I luv ya, kid, but...way back when..during the early 70's energy crisis, the dimwitten town I lived in said we should conserve energy by not showing outdoor Christmas lights one year or perhaps forever.

Being the obedient citizen I was, (and am), I promptly went out and bought 5,000 Christmas lights and strung them around my property.

"Oh, that terrible, terrible man!" I can hear you saying and visualize your reddened face as emotion overwhelms you.

Somewhere along the way you and many others were brainwashed and otherwise corrupted to worship the 'we' of society; those who believe and advocate it is 'our' environment, 'our' natural resources, 'our' institutions that must be protected against evil individual wants and desires and freedoms.

I hasten to advise you, that here, in America, it is the 'rights of the individual', that are protected by our chosen government, the rights of the individual, not the group, not the society, not the nation.

That British clip, made by the British Government's Energy and Climate Change agency, should be viewed as a government backing fundamentalist Christians, 'Hell and Brimfire' theology, and show pictures of children breaking the Ten Commandments and then burning in Hell forever.

You won't understand a word of this and I understand that, but some may retain a faint vestige of individual values and begin to doubt the authority of government at any time and at any place, to indoctrinate its' citizens ala Stalin style, to obey the common cause of the 'greater good', as determined by the most recent crop of elected or appointed officials.

Conserve if you wish, believe in whatever you wish, but have a little humility, keep it to yourself and practice your beliefs only in dark, dank places where they belong.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

You are right...

The dodo would agree with you, along with the cod in the North Atlantic, and certainly rhinos and elephants are way too big to be bothered by man's tiny existence.

I understadn your point. Nature is grand, in more ways than one. It takes a lot, and her natural influences far exceed that of ours. But, to dismiss us, is also sheer folly.

Depredation of a given species and influencing climate change are two entirely different things. Our Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ancestors hunted many species to extinction without harming the environment unduly. 'Modern' man has done the same with the same inconsequential effect, although it may be distressing to some. Nature both eliminates species and gins up new ones all the time...we haven't existed long enough to fully observe it.

One volcanic eruption can influence the environment more than a million Beijing smogs. I still say the extent of our influence on the environment is a human conceit.

 

[ottohauser1977]

You do know that the polar ice caps are melting, right? You don't think that is a leftist ruse, do you?

 

[amicus]

You do know that the polar ice caps are melting, right? You don't think that is a leftist ruse, do you?[/QUOTE]

~~~

With respect to Trysail, I direct you to his thread concerning Climate Change, where, at your own leisure, you can read how the Polar Ice Caps are actually increasing in mass, as are the Glaciers.

Or does truth frighten you?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

You do know that the polar ice caps are melting, right? You don't think that is a leftist ruse, do you?

The polar ice caps have melted and refrozen constantly for millions of years, we've just been around for a few cycles. Several times in the earth's existence, the caps were much smaller and several times they almost covered half the planet.

Did I mention anything about Leftist ruses? Those are your words, not mine.

 

[Handley_Page]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDn5Xq-hVEo

keyword search: british bedtime story youtube global warming

LAWRENCE SOLOMON

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4173&linkbox=true&position=10



~~~

For those of you 'true believers', this will be water off a duck's back, I know. But, for the rational among us, who know that the Global Warming Hoax is a political scam, I ask you to consider the impact on our children that the so called educational community has imposed.

This should be classified as 'cruel and unusual punishment'; that poor little girl, I feel sorry for her and her school friends subjected to such heinous propaganda.

Amicus

What's peeving a lot of us is that after all the dire warnings and plans for this & that, our energy companies want Government money to pay for the alternatives to Carbon-based fuels, and we cannot afford it; so we'll wait - and wait.

To my mind, it is more than fair to say "Hey, lets spew less crap into the atmosphere", and give Nature a chance to catch up.
But there seems little chance of preventing some knot-headed spiv cutting down miles of the amazon (and other) forests.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The polar ice caps have melted and refrozen constantly for millions of years, we've just been around for a few cycles. Several times in the earth's existence, the caps were much smaller and several times they almost covered half the planet.

That's entirely true. And during the last big melt they formed the Great Lakes and flooded the coastlines of every continent in the world. Of course, there were no cities around then, or property, or agriculture, or 7 billion people living under complex and delicate economic systems.

You know, Hurricane Katrina didn't bother me one whit up here. My life went on as usual. I understand it was a little different for the people down in New Orleans, but so what? That's their tough luck. Just like it'll be the tough luck for the 70% of the world's population that live on coastlines today if the oceans start rising.

Like the people in England, I don't believe there'll be a doomsday catastrophe from global warming, nothing like in the movies, with the Statue of Liberty underwater and ocean liners stranded on fifth Avenue. But I don't know of any reputable scientists who are saying that either. Rather what there'll be is a slow abandonment of the coastal cities and subsequent loss in property and wealth, changes in the weather system; food riots in the developing world; mass migrations that will overwhelm host countries; maybe the loss of the US's position as the world's foremost food-producer; encroaching desert on what's now farmland; things like that. Nothing we can't handle.

But why should we have to handle it at all?

Oh, right. Because we didn't do anything about it now, while we still can.

Well, look, a giant volcano could appear tomorrow and spew all sorts of shit into the atmosphere, so what's the sense in trying to control our CO2? We could get hit by a giant meteor, too. Wiped out like the dinosaurs. Why don't we all just get drunk and screw and forget about it? Life is short and change is hard and scary.

 

[TE999]

That's entirely true. And during the last big melt they formed the Great Lakes and flooded the coastlines of every continent in the world. Of course, there were no cities around then, or property, or agriculture, or 7 billion people living under complex and delicate economic systems.

You know, Hurricane Katrina didn't bother me one whit up here. My life went on as usual. I understand it was a little different for the people down in New Orleans, but so what? That's their tough luck. Just like it'll be the tough luck for the 70% of the world's population that live on coastlines today if the oceans start rising.

Like the people in England, I don't believe there'll be a doomsday catastrophe from global warming, nothing like in the movies, with the Statue of Liberty underwater and ocean liners stranded on fifth Avenue. But I don't know of any reputable scientists who are saying that either. Rather what there'll be is a slow abandonment of the coastal cities and subsequent loss in property and wealth, changes in the weather system; food riots in the developing world; mass migrations that will overwhelm host countries; maybe the loss of the US's position as the world's foremost food-producer; encroaching desert on what's now farmland; things like that. Nothing we can't handle.

But why should we have to handle it at all?

Oh, right. Because we didn't do anything about it now, while we still can.

Well, look, a giant volcano could appear tomorrow and spew all sorts of shit into the atmosphere, so what's the sense in trying to control our CO2? We could get hit by a giant meteor, too. Wiped out like the dinosaurs. Why don't we all just get drunk and screw and forget about it? Life is short and change is hard and scary.

What you've described is so much speculation. The 'scientific data' to support such claims is a result of short range observations and doomsday rationales. It's more the scripts of disaster movies than fact. We don't know what's to happen in the next five minutes, much less in a hundred years.

Mathus' claims that the human race would outgrow it's food supplies and perish were once accepted as the gospel, now they've been proven incorrect. Dire theories about the future of humanity abound in history and all have been proven wrong.

Environmentalisim has assumed all the aspects of a fundamentalist religion, complete with a god, intolerance of opposing views, hideous punishments for unbelievers, slavish acceptance of it's fundamental precepts and an obscession to convert others based on unverifiable knowledge.

I have faith in the planets ability to shrug off man's pinpricks, which is exactly what our puny efforts are. We can be more careful in how we conduct our civilizations, but not to extremes that will compromise our lifestyles to a ridiculous extent. Man proposes, nature disposes.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What you've described is so much speculation. The 'scientific data' to support such claims is a result of short range observations and doomsday rationales. It's more the scripts of disaster movies than fact. We don't know what's to happen in the next five minutes, much less in a hundred years.

Mathus' claims that the human race would outgrow it's food supplies and perish were once accepted as the gospel, now they've been proven incorrect. Dire theories about the future of humanity abound in history and all have been proven wrong.

Environmentalisim has assumed all the aspects of a fundamentalist religion, complete with a god, intolerance of opposing views, hideous punishments for unbelievers, slavish acceptance of it's fundamental precepts and an obscession to convert others based on unverifiable knowledge.

I have faith in the planets ability to shrug off man's pinpricks, which is exactly what our puny efforts are. We can be more careful in how we conduct our civilizations, but not to extremes that will compromise our lifestyles to a ridiculous extent. Man proposes, nature disposes.

Malthus is a great case in point, because that was the last real doomsday scenario I remember where a number of scientists predicted a disaster that never happened. So let's look at that for a minute to see what happened.

Well, there was the Ozone layer scare too, but the nations of the world came together to ban CFC's and now the ozone layer is repairing itself. Danger averted. That was an even tinier pinprick than greenhouse emissions too, the chlorofluorocarbons from aerosol spray cans! What a joke! No one wanted to listen to those goofy scientists then either. How can my spray-on Rightguard be fucking up this huge atmosphere? Get real!

Surprise, surprise, it was, and they were.

But on to Thomas Malthus, the economist and prophet of doom who took exception to the Enlightenment's rosy notion of perpetual progress through science and pointed out in the early 19th century that, since populations increased geometrically while food supply only increased linearly, it was inevitable that one day the population would outstrip the food supply and there would be mass famine.

His theories were picked up by a host of scientists (Barry Commoner comes to mind) in the late 60's and sparked much concern for maybe another decade or so, until it became clear that the famine would never happen.

What had gone wrong? Were all these scientists wrong? Deluded? Just in it for the money? Trying to advance their sorry careers?

No. The scientists were right. The numbers are correct. What changed was the technology of food production. Modern agricultural research had developed ways to get much higher yields out of the land available, yields that Malthus could never have imagined.

Disaster averted. People had seen the writing on the wall soon enough to develop the technology that prevented planet-wide disaster.

Now let's compare that situation to the one we find ourselves in today.

Is anyone taking the scientists' numbers seriously today? Not the deniers. They say it could never happen because it seems like it could never happen. It's just so hard to imagine, like the ozone problem was hard to imagine. That's not a very scientific argument, but it does have a certain gut appeal to laymen. It was hard to see how the gas in spray cans could make any difference either.

So has technology swung into action to avert the greenhouse gas disaster as it did to prevent the Malthusian food disaster?

Well, no. It hasn't. Why not? Too much denial, not enough economic interest, people opposing public research, threads like this one, pushed by people with an agenda. This time there won't be a miracle technological cure unless we start looking for it yesterday, and we haven't.

As Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. We can look back on Malthus and the Ozone crisis and form our own opinions.

ETA: We're still paying the price for the ozone layer disaster, by the way. Skin cancers are up I don't know how many percent, and the level of UVB radiation reaching the ground has increased over the last 2 decades and is just starting to level off. There are some who blame the world-wide epidemics of asthma, lupus, and even autism and ADHD on the increased amount of UVB radiation we're exposed to by depletion of the the ozone layer. It's no longer safe to go out in the sun without protection, and it won't be for the best 75 tp 150 years while the layer repairs itself.

But disaster??? Hell, there never was any ozone layer disaster, was there?

By the way, the scientists' computer models of what would happen to the ozone layer as a consequence of CFC use turned out to be 78% accurate. Not bad for guys who can't predict the weather two days down the road.

You can read about the ozone layer, including a list of popular misconceptions ("The atmosphere is too huge to be affected by the gas from spray cans") in this Wiki entry

 

[amicus]

Dr. Mab writes with passion and sincerity and one is reassured that his opinion is an honest one. One can parse Mab's style and understand he is skilled at wordsmithing and further that he can well navigate the Web and support his contentions easily.

So what went wrong with Mab? Where did his search for information go wrong? Is it by error or intent?

~~~

The only thing causing the ozone hole to get "bigger" is exaggerated reporting of a phenomenon that has likely been occuring for hundreds of millions of years.

Ozone is created by sunlight hitting oxygen atoms in our atmosphere. The ozone hole over the Antarctic gets bigger during Antarctic winter, when the sun is not shining on the atmosphere there. Wow...that's exactly what you would expect for this sun-driven phenomenon. Imagine that.

The other two thirds of the equation the fearmongers don't tell you is that: One, the "ozone layer" actually has several layers...and only the lowest layer actually develops a hole; and Two, because sunlight hits Antarctica at such a low angle, the amount of solar radiation that gets through the "hole" is stll far less than what gets through the perfectly normal ozone layer over tropical regions of the Earth.

Sometime in the next century or two, scientists will finally discover, and possibly even admit, that the cyclic nature of the ozone hole is perfectly normal and nothing at all to worry about.

Of course, I'm just waiting for the day when we go we go to that utopian vision of energy from hydrogen...and then people realize that hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store without leaking and that hydrogen actually destroys ozone. Now, I'm not saying that we'll destroy the ozone layer if we go to hydrogen...I'm just saying that people are going to eventually freak out over it and demonize hydrogen just like they now demonize oil.

***

The fabricated argument that a depletion of the ozone layer would result in a shower of ``cancer-causing'' ultraviolet rays onto the Earth became one of the most powerful weapons in the antitechnology arsenal. This weapon was wielded without mercy against America's economy through the 1970s and 1980s, in a series of battles that has become known as ``The Ozone Wars.'' The casualties of these wars include the SST project, the Dynasoar, and CFCs, some of the most benign and useful chemicals ever created by man, now banned from use.

The Ozone Wars included mass media propaganda campaigns to convince the public and America's law-makers of the following unproven theories:


That the ozone layer would be depleted by the operation in the stratosphere or mesosphere of supersonic aircraft that exhaust water. When that theory was disproven, nitrogen oxides (NOx) replaced water as the ozone destroyers.

That the detonation of nuclear devices whose debris clouds can produce or carry NOx into the stratosphere or mesosphere will deplete the ozone layer.

That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by addition of fixed nitrogen to the biosphere whether through nitrogen fertilizers, animal wastes, combustion-produced NOx, expanded growth of legumes, infection of nonleguminous plants with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, or by green mulching.

That the Space Shuttle would deplete the ozone layer through the release of chlorine from its rocket boosters.

That the ozone layer would be depleted by the atmospheric release of stable chlorine-containing compounds such as chlorocarbons in general and chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) in particular, which can penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing.

That the ozone layer would be wiped out by the atmospheric release of stable bromine-containing compounds like CH3Br, now used as a soil fumigant, which can allegedly penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing. The same claim was made in regard to brominated chlorocarbons, known as halons, used in fire-fighting equipment.

That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by denitrifying bacteria through increased acidity of precipitation from atmospheric release of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. This theory claimed that the famous ``acid rain'' in the northern part of the United States would destroy the ozone layer indirectly, through bacteria in the soils....
If several--and in some cases only one--of these claims were true, the atmosphere's ozone layer would have been destroyed several times over by today. Yet, as we shall see in the chapters to come, there is no scientific evidence of any ozone depletion.

~~~

Billions of dollars wasted replacing refrigerants and spray can gases, all based on what? Mab's opinion? The Left? The Environmentalists? If so; why?

Think on the 'why' of it and then, once the Ozone Hoax was exposed, along comes Global Warming Hysteria. Why? Climate Change scientists, the real ones, not the IPCC 'pop' scientists, have offered proof that Climate change is cyclical, just like the Ozone layer.

Why would Mab make an inaccurate case? For what reason or purpose would he, and others, mislead you? What is his/their motive?

For the proponents of Ozone Depletion and man caused Global Warming, to indoctrinate not just those here, but children, as you can see depicted by the YouTube piece I linked in another thread, indeed the whole of society, with inaccurate, misleading opinion is despicable, and again, one must ask the motive?

It is really an anti-industrial revolution by the ecolgocial Left? Some twit in Washington, D.C. just yesterday said we ought to let people die early because there are too many people on the earth already; do you believe that? Would you support that?

What kind of people are you; really?

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I've lived long enough to know that some issues come alive like Frankenstein's monster and must die a horrible death before we're rid of them. Global Warming is on such issue. At the very least its confounded beyond assortment into any coherent explanation.

Twenty years ago Satanism was popular in the middle schools. Everything was decorated with pentagrams and satanic secret codes; maybe a dozen kids were actively involved in cults but it didnt stop our sheriff from inciting every adult about the epidemic of devil worshipers in our midst....and more money would be nice, thank you. He milked it for every soundbite and tax dollar.

The perfessers do the same when they hole up inside Fort Gore and cry for money and programs and media attention.

 

[penandpaper]

Well, good golly Ms. Molly, a real, dyed in the wool true believer, imagine that! And a 'conservationist' too, almost too good to be true.

I luv ya, kid, but...way back when..during the early 70's energy crisis, the dimwitten town I lived in said we should conserve energy by not showing outdoor Christmas lights one year or perhaps forever.

Being the obedient citizen I was, (and am), I promptly went out and bought 5,000 Christmas lights and strung them around my property.

"Oh, that terrible, terrible man!" I can hear you saying and visualize your reddened face as emotion overwhelms you.

Somewhere along the way you and many others were brainwashed and otherwise corrupted to worship the 'we' of society; those who believe and advocate it is 'our' environment, 'our' natural resources, 'our' institutions that must be protected against evil individual wants and desires and freedoms.

I hasten to advise you, that here, in America, it is the 'rights of the individual', that are protected by our chosen government, the rights of the individual, not the group, not the society, not the nation.

That British clip, made by the British Government's Energy and Climate Change agency, should be viewed as a government backing fundamentalist Christians, 'Hell and Brimfire' theology, and show pictures of children breaking the Ten Commandments and then burning in Hell forever.

You won't understand a word of this and I understand that, but some may retain a faint vestige of individual values and begin to doubt the authority of government at any time and at any place, to indoctrinate its' citizens ala Stalin style, to obey the common cause of the 'greater good', as determined by the most recent crop of elected or appointed officials.

Conserve if you wish, believe in whatever you wish, but have a little humility, keep it to yourself and practice your beliefs only in dark, dank places where they belong.

Amicus

Yawn. Ami, I conserve to save money. My father, brother and I bought a nice cabin that is now off the grid. A generator every now and then, but as long as the wind's blowin' and the sun's shinin' - we're good. (It's 2,000 square feet too with a good well. Nice up in the hills of the Ozarks.) Too bad it's a thousand miles away and I don't get to work on it very often.
The difference is you waste just to get a reaction; like a spoiled only child who has always gotten his way, he can't take mommy or daddy telling him to do something that's good for other people. Because it's mine! Mine! MINE! A shame, someone who is so adamant about things can't pour their energy into helping others.

 

[amicus]

What!? You have access to a 2000sq cabin in the woods and I am the ostentatious one?

gimme a break, girl...

ami

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Amicus,

(a) the ozone hole and the damage to the ozone layer are two different problems. They're not the same thing. The author of your paper doesn't seem to realize this.

(b) Nowhere in your screed does the author cast any doubt on the basic science of ozone depletion by CFC's. He just pisses and moans.

Why doesn't he offer any contradictory evidence? Because there isn't any. The science is real, the damage is real: minor points he neglects to mention.

(c) How about providing a reference so we can check on the author's credentials? I'd like to see where he got his PhD and who's funding him.

Remember that one article you published decrying global warming that turned out to have been written by some MD working at a think tank funded by The Coal Board? We certainly wouldn't want to be taken in by some other charlatan on a matter of this importance.

And by the way... How many thousands of jobs were lost by the banning of CFC's? How many chemists starved to death in the streets when there was no need for their services? How much did the industrial output of the United States drop as the spray-can and air-conditioning industries were forced to retool? How prohibitively expensive did our Cheese-Whiz and room fresheners become because of this nefarious ban? It was truly a wrenching economic catastrophe, wasn't it? A regular second depression. Oh, woe! Oh, doom!

What utter bullshit.

 

[amicus]

Ah, Mabeuse, et al, it is amusing, at times, to see the ideological connection between all the Liberal causes you support...from socialized medicine, to Ozone & Global Warming fantasy's & hoaxes...all directed against the individual and pro the collective...

I quote from my earlier Post: "...there is no scientific evidence of any ozone depletion."

Now, unless you took a jet plane and flew up over the South Pole and saw the ragged edges of the torn ozone layer and can refute the combined knowledge of atmospheric science, then I would suggest you keep pushing your faith on the willing, for I am not one of the believers.

I don't know why an entire generation and more detests the works of man, be it oil rigs, pipelines, gas stations, cars, urban sprawl, smokestacks, factories of shopping Malls...but Lord, the hatred just reeks of ignorance and faith.

Do you really want to lead your followers into another Dark Age? If so, Why?

Amicus

 

[freshface]

\
Now, unless you took a jet plane and flew up over the South Pole and saw the ragged edges of the torn ozone layer and can refute the combined knowledge of atmospheric science, then I would suggest you keep pushing your faith on the willing, for I am not one of the believers.


Amicus

The fact that you believe that the ozone hole is visible to the naked eye or that the average jet could fly up to it explains a great deal about the level of your scientific knowledge.

I know you don't accept the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as scientific, but here's their website devoted to ozone depletion.


http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/polar.shtml

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ah, Mabeuse, et al, it is amusing, at times, to see the ideological connection between all the Liberal causes you support...from socialized medicine, to Ozone & Global Warming fantasy's & hoaxes...all directed against the individual and pro the collective...

I quote from my earlier Post: "...there is no scientific evidence of any ozone depletion."

Now, unless you took a jet plane and flew up over the South Pole and saw the ragged edges of the torn ozone layer and can refute the combined knowledge of atmospheric science, then I would suggest you keep pushing your faith on the willing, for I am not one of the believers.

I don't know why an entire generation and more detests the works of man, be it oil rigs, pipelines, gas stations, cars, urban sprawl, smokestacks, factories of shopping Malls...but Lord, the hatred just reeks of ignorance and faith.

Do you really want to lead your followers into another Dark Age? If so, Why?

Amicus

Time to go ad hominem, is it Amicus? Yeah. It figures. You can't dispute the figures so you attack the messenger. Par for the course.

Oh, and I see you forgot to provide a citation for that quote you posted "debunking" ozone depletion. Must have been an oversight on your part. Take care of it, would you, because I'd really like to know.

Here's a little something for you to digest, from the Wikipedis article on ozone depletion, My emphasis if you just want to skim. The taste of crow is so unpleasant, I know.

The Antarctic ozone hole is an area of the Antarctic stratosphere in which the recent ozone levels have dropped to as low as 33% of their pre-1975 values. The ozone hole occurs during the Antarctic spring, from September to early December, as strong westerly winds start to circulate around the continent and create an atmospheric container. Within this polar vortex, over 50% of the lower stratospheric ozone is destroyed during the Antarctic spring.[17]

As explained above, the primary cause of ozone depletion was the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs).[18]

These polar stratospheric clouds form during winter, in the extreme cold. Polar winters are dark, consisting of 3 months without solar radiation (sunlight). The lack of sunlight contributes to a decrease in temperature and the polar vortex traps and chills air. Temperatures hover around or below -80 °C. These low temperatures form cloud particles and are composed of either nitric acid (Type I PSC) or ice (Type II PSC). Both types provide surfaces for chemical reactions that lead to ozone destruction.[citation needed]

The photochemical processes involved are complex but well understood. The key observation is that, ordinarily, most of the chlorine in the stratosphere resides in stable "reservoir" compounds, primarily hydrochloric acid (HCl) and chlorine nitrate (ClONO2). During the Antarctic winter and spring, however, reactions on the surface of the polar stratospheric cloud particles convert these "reservoir" compounds into reactive free radicals (Cl and ClO). The clouds can also remove NO2 from the atmosphere by converting it to nitric acid, which prevents the newly formed ClO from being converted back into ClONO2.

The role of sunlight in ozone depletion is the reason why the Antarctic ozone depletion is greatest during spring. During winter, even though PSCs are at their most abundant, there is no light over the pole to drive the chemical reactions. During the spring, however, the sun comes out, providing energy to drive photochemical reactions, and melt the polar stratospheric clouds, releasing the trapped compounds.[citation needed]

Most of the ozone that is destroyed is in the lower stratosphere, in contrast to the much smaller ozone depletion through homogeneous gas phase reactions, which occurs primarily in the upper stratosphere.[citation needed]

Warming temperatures near the end of spring break up the vortex around mid-December. As warm, ozone-rich air flows in from lower latitudes, the PSCs are destroyed, the ozone depletion process shuts down, and the ozone hole closes.[citation needed]

Okay. Tell me this. What kind of proof would I have to give you to convince that the depletion of the ozone layer by CFC's was a real and present danger? What would it take to convince you? What is your criteria for falsifying your believe that it's all nonsense? You want to see the data on atmospheric measurements of O3 concentrations? You want to see the lab-verified results of experiments? What? What would it take?

The fact is, there's nothing anyone could say or show you, because your mind is already made up. It was made up before any data even came in.

It's interesting that you accuse me of having some political agenda. It's human to understand other people in terms of ourselves, and because you're so in thrall to your own political agenda, you of course assume that I and everyone else operates the same way. That I must be anti-progress and anti-materialist. Well, I'm not and I don't operate that way. Just because everything you say is propaganda doesn't mean it's the same for me.

If you're fair and impartial about this, there must be a level of proof you'll accept. I want to know what it is. Otherwise you're operating on nothing but faith and prejudice and abject ignorance.

Because I'll tell you what my criteria for falsifying my believe that it's real is. Just show me one good solid paper by reputable researchers in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that supports the contention that it's all a sham and I'll come over to your side. I'll even apologize for my gullibility. I'll be convinced.

Until that day, you can print all the made-up bullshit you want in bold italics and it doesn't mean squat. You can attack me and make up all the crap you want, and it still doesn't change the facts.

And the facts are: you're wrong and you're full of it. And that's not an attack; that's just the truth.

Now put up or shut up.



Oh, and by the way: about my plans to lead us back into the dark ages. I guess I screwed up big time on the CFC ban because that doesn't seem to have hurt us at all. In fact, the new technology needed in the wake of the CFC ban spawned a whole new industry employing thousands of people that's doing quite well today. There's a lesson there for the global-warming-is-nonsense crowd, but they'll never see it. Meanwhile, I guess me and my Luddite scientist friends will just have to find some other way to take everyone back to the stone age.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Problem? What problem?

Found this while researching the Ozone issue:

Ozone Depletion Reduces Ocean Carbon Uptake

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2009) — The Southern Ocean plays an important role in mitigating climate change because it acts as a sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Most current models predict that the strength of the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink should increase as atmospheric carbon dioxide rises, but observations show that this has not been the case.

To help resolve this discrepancy, Lenton et al. consider the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, which most previous studies had not included. They compare coupled carbon-climate models with and without ozone depletion and find that including ozone depletion produced a significant reduction in Southern Ocean carbon uptake, in good agreement with observed trends.

The simulations show that ozone depletion, combined with increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, drives stronger winds above the Southern Ocean. These stronger winds bring more carbon-rich deep water to the surface, which reduces the ocean's ability to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The authors also find that ozone depletion increases ocean acidification. They suggest that future climate models should take stratospheric ozone into account.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141716.htm

 

[Handley_Page]

I saw an advert on TV this evening.
It featured a Daddy reading to his little daughter from a book which illustrated the terrible effects of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
All to remind folks that "40% of this gas is caused by people" leaving things on, like lights.

I think it might have been better to point out the reduction in your Electricity Bill.

 

[amicus]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4606f18f53f36b284c519cc6658c0e35

Abstract

Scientists face increasing pressure to demonstrate how their work contributes to societal objectives. Likewise, policy makers proposing environmental policies are often asked to provide the scientific basis on which their proposals are based. These twin pressures are forcing a closer connection between science and policy. In our virw, policy-for-science-for-policy is a recursive process of defining societal goals, using those goals to identify questions to be addressed by science, then relating the findings of science back to the original goals, and if necessary, revisiting the goals themselves.

Any policy analysis that focuses solely on policy-for-science or on science-for-policy tells only part of the story. To illustrate the need for and utility of a more integrative framework we critique a recent study of science and policy in the case stratospheric ozone depletion provided by W.H. Lambright in the September 1995 issue of Research Policy and in the process offer an alternative analysis.

We find that the primary lesson of the ozone experience, supported in the case of acid rain, lies not in the conduct of research by government agencies or in the efforts of research managers to provide entrepreneurial leadership, but in the establishment of a healthy policy process —a policy-for-science-for-policy— that connected scientists and decision makers in pursuit of a common goal.

Author Keywords: Ozone depletion; Acid rain; Policy relevance; Policy-for-science-for-policy
http://www.enotes.com/state-fear

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/

http://www.computare.org/Support documents/Letters/Letters 2005/Suzuki Long 05_03.htm

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 166.

In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.
If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):
 1900—47.3 years
 1920—53 years
 1940—60 years
 1968—70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.[/QUOTE]

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 276.

Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears . . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 277.

Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In “nature,” the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a man’s energy and spirit; it is a losing struggle—the winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.) To work only for bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.

It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one.

The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy, and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred—many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end.

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 280.

If, after the failure of such accusations as “Capitalism leads you to the poorhouse” and “Capitalism leads you to war,” the New Left is left with nothing better than: “Capitalism defiles the beauty of your countryside,” one may justifiably conclude that, as an intellectual power, the collectivist movement is through.

~~~~~

The High Priests of the Environmentalist Movement

I wish to propose consideration of a comparison of the ‘Book, Chapter and Verse’ Litany of Catholics and Christians in defense of ‘the faith’, against those ‘doubters and Deniers’ who insisted that reason and rationality found flaws in the ‘chapter and verse’ congregation of the faithful, the ‘true believers’, and amounts to a huge conspiracy of ‘ignorance’ imposed upon the masses.

There was a time when only ‘Priests’, were educated, could read and write. The invention of the ‘printing press’, changed that and ‘book burning’ soon followed as the faithful did not wish the ‘reformists’ to have access to knowledge....

I was interrupted during the search and thought process and the above was just note-taking from which I was going to prepare a response.

If I were to just file this when I close down the computer, other things will fill my mind and it would serve no purpose...so, for what my notes may offer...

Amicus