Is Satan the author of the Global Warming lie?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Coggins7 wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:But you don't just "disbelieve" it. You hate it with a rabid passion. Seems an awfully benign thing to hate, don't you think? (Especially since, as you yourself pointed out, via your sources, some things are not agreed upon by the scientists.)


These are your words, not mine. I disbelieve the theory of catastrophic AGW. I do despise the political ideology that is behind the relentless propagandizing of this idea, I'll admit. But its a hateful ideology.


Ah, so now you are conceding that it is not an outright "hoax." Good man. As for your latter remarks, just what, exactly, is "hateful" about a movement concerned with the natural environment?
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

No Scratch. its a hoax, as far as the interpretation of the scientific evidence by the political Left is concerned. Its "up in the air" as far as the scientific evidence is concerned per se. However, as no empirical evidence or observation within the disciplines of Climatology or Paleoclimatology have supported AGW over the lifespan of the theory, the claims within the media and the envrnomental movement that AGW is real, that it is "here" and that a "consensus" of scientists support it is a hoax.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Coggins7 wrote:No Scratch. its a hoax, as far as the interpretation of the scientific evidence by the political Left is concerned. Its "up in the air" as far as the scientific evidence is concerned per se. However, as no empirical evidence or observation within the disciplines of Climatology or Paleoclimatology have supported AGW over the lifespan of the theory, the claims within the media and the envrnomental movement that AGW is real, that it is "here" and that a "consensus" of scientists support it is a hoax.


By that logic, we would have to label the historicity of the Book of Mormon a hoax. Sure, it is "up in the air" as far as certain TBM scientists and apologists are concerned, however, no empirical evidence within the disciplines of archaeology or history have supported the historicity of the Book of Mormon over the lifespan of its translation into English. Know what I mean?
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Coggins7 wrote:
No Scratch. its a hoax, as far as the interpretation of the scientific evidence by the political Left is concerned. Its "up in the air" as far as the scientific evidence is concerned per se. However, as no empirical evidence or observation within the disciplines of Climatology or Paleoclimatology have supported AGW over the lifespan of the theory, the claims within the media and the envrnomental movement that AGW is real, that it is "here" and that a "consensus" of scientists support it is a hoax.



By that logic, we would have to label the historicity of the Book of Mormon a hoax. Sure, it is "up in the air" as far as certain TBM scientists and apologists are concerned, however, no empirical evidence within the disciplines of archaeology or history have supported the historicity of the Book of Mormon over the lifespan of its translation into English. Know what I mean?



I'm sorry but, not only is this irrelevant to the subject at hand, but the analogy is a false one. I see no obvious methedological connection between the humanities disciplines of Archeology and history and a natural science such as Climatology or Paleoclimatology in which hypothosis and theory can be checked against nature throuth observation and experiment. Claiming that there is no historicity to the Book of Mormon is much like claiming that Troy and Ebla didn't exist...that is, until we found out that they did. This is much different than claiming that unusual global heating is taking place, claiming that human influecene is responsible, and then failing to find any empirical evidence for it, as has been the case.


Loran
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Coggins7 wrote:Coggins7 wrote:
No Scratch. its a hoax, as far as the interpretation of the scientific evidence by the political Left is concerned.


Right. Just like historicity of the Book of Mormon is a hoax as far as interpretation of the scientific evidence by TBMs is concerned.

Its "up in the air" as far as the scientific evidence is concerned per se. However, as no empirical evidence or observation within the disciplines of Climatology or Paleoclimatology have supported AGW over the lifespan of the theory, the claims within the media and the envrnomental movement that AGW is real, that it is "here" and that a "consensus" of scientists support it is a hoax.

By that logic, we would have to label the historicity of the Book of Mormon a hoax. Sure, it is "up in the air" as far as certain TBM scientists and apologists are concerned, however, no empirical evidence within the disciplines of archaeology or history have supported the historicity of the Book of Mormon over the lifespan of its translation into English. Know what I mean?


I'm sorry but, not only is this irrelevant to the subject at hand, but the analogy is a false one. I see no obvious methedological connection between the humanities disciplines of Archeology and history and a natural science such as Climatology or Paleoclimatology in which hypothosis and theory can be checked against nature throuth observation and experiment.


The connection is not "methedological"; it is logical.

Claiming that there is no historicity to the Book of Mormon is much like claiming that Troy and Ebla didn't exist...that is, until we found out that they did. This is much different than claiming that unusual global heating is taking place, claiming that human influecene is responsible, and then failing to find any empirical evidence for it, as has been the case.

Loran


How is it "much different"? Belief in the Book of Mormon is an ostensibly "positive" thing, right? Is not belief in AGW also "positive," as it fosters better caretaking vis-a-vis the earth and the environment? Seriously: what is the principle difference? At heart, I mean?
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

This is clearly about as far as your going to go Scratch, on this thread. History and Archeology are not natural or hard science. What may or may not as yet have been confirmed (and very much has, by the way) of Book of Mormon historicity has little to do with the kind of empirical verification of hypothesis and theory in the natural sciences. You analogy is not logical, but commits the fallacy of false analogy because the kind of evidence and the relative difficulties of the interpretation of data in humanities disciplines and the natural sciences can be quite different. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is ultimately historical is a very different question and raises very different questions of just what may count as evidence of such than real world empirical measurements and observations needed to demonstrate whether or not their is human influence in the current minor warming that has occurred.

Try to stay on the subject Scratch and, oh, by the way, I thought you were a Mormon, indeed, as you said to me once, as much of a Mormon as I am. But you don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon? But the Book of Mormon is the core of our religion, modern scripture aimed precisely at the Gentiles in the Latter Days. So, if you reject it, are your, in any substantive sense, anything other than a cultural Mormon?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Coggins7 wrote:This is clearly about as far as your going to go Scratch, on this thread. History and Archeology are not natural or hard science. What may or may not as yet have been confirmed (and very much has, by the way) of Book of Mormon historicity has little to do with the kind of empirical verification of hypothesis and theory in the natural sciences. You analogy is not logical, but commits the fallacy of false analogy because the kind of evidence and the relative difficulties of the interpretation of data in humanities disciplines and the natural sciences can be quite different. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is ultimately historical is a very different question and raises very different questions of just what may count as evidence of such than real world empirical measurements and observations needed to demonstrate whether or not their is human influence in the current minor warming that has occurred.

Try to stay on the subject Scratch and, oh, by the way, I thought you were a Mormon, indeed, as you said to me once, as much of a Mormon as I am. But you don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon? But the Book of Mormon is the core of our religion, modern scripture aimed precisely at the Gentiles in the Latter Days. So, if you reject it, are your, in any substantive sense, anything other than a cultural Mormon?


Okay, back on track. Here is a very thoughtful post, from Celestial Kingdom, which you have not yet responded to:

CaliforniaKid wrote:Dear Coggins,

Rather than swapping accusations of Leftist/Rightist bias, let's talk about something of substance. My position is that 1) CO2 levels are rising rapidly, largely as a result of human greenhouse emissions, 2) historic CO2 levels and historic ocean temperature levels correlate, 3) the causal relationship here is bidirectional, resulting in positive feedback, 4) since CO2 levels have increased dramatically and continue to increase, we should also expect ocean temperature levels to increase (though not in proportion to CO2 levels), and 5) that this could result in potentially disasterous environmental consequences including substantial rising of ocean levels, leaving a number of heavily populated areas under water.

My position, of course, could break down at any one of these points, and indeed the skeptics have attacked virtually every one of them, while sometimes affirming the others. I am not extremely well-read on the subject, so I cannot say with any great certainty that their objections are without merit. I am interested in exploring said objections, although you must bear with me as I will be able to post only infrequently. I would like to know, first of all, which point or points in the above hypothesis is invalid, and why. For example, if you think that the so-called "hockey stick graph" is inaccurate, let's discuss the reasons you think this.

Thanks,

-CK


So, what do you think, Loran?
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

My position is that 1) CO2 levels are rising rapidly, largely as a result of human greenhouse emissions, 2) historic CO2 levels and historic ocean temperature levels correlate, 3) the causal relationship here is bidirectional, resulting in positive feedback, 4) since CO2 levels have increased dramatically and continue to increase, we should also expect ocean temperature levels to increase (though not in proportion to CO2 levels), and 5) that this could result in potentially disasterous environmental consequences including substantial rising of ocean levels, leaving a number of heavily populated areas under water.



Here are some of the problems one would encounter in maintaining the above positions: Let's take the frist claim first, that "CO2 levels are rising rapidly, largely as a result of human greenhouse emissions."

CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz
Volume 2, Number 7: 1 April 1999

In a recent news release, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies declared 1998 to be "a record temperature year," the warmest ever recorded during the period of instrumental temperature assessment. Likewise, in a new analysis of proxy temperature data, Mann et al. (1999) suggest that the past decade may well have been the warmest of the past millennium. And once again (see our Vol. 1, No. 1 editorial: Much Ado About Tiny Temperature Trends), we have the Goddard Institute for Space Studies' James Hansen being quoted as stating that "there should no longer be an issue about whether global warming is occurring, but what is the rate of warming, what is its practical significance, and what should be done about it."

In truth, there is no issue about whether the globe has warmed over the past century or so. Everyone accepts that it has warmed significantly, as the planet has recovered from the global chill of the Little Ice Age. There is also beginning to be a consensus about the practical significance of the warming. Growing seasons have lengthened and plant biomass formation has increased, as a result of both the warming and the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. So what should be done about it?

We suspect that very few people would want to turn back the climatic clock to the conditions that spelled the doom of the Viking colonists on Greenland and created extreme hardship in Northern Europe and elsewhere. Likewise, not many people have a problem with longer growing seasons and increased biomass production. So what's all the fuss about?

It's pretty much a tempest in a computerized teapot. For many years climate modelers have predicted that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will intensify earth's natural greenhouse effect and boost surface air temperatures to levels that will create all sorts of planetary havoc, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels, flooding some parts of the globe while turning others to deserts, reducing agricultural productivity, and on and on ad infinitum. And now the likes of James Hanson would have us believe that because atmospheric CO2 and global temperature have both been rising over the past century or so, the rise in atmospheric CO2 must be driving the warming that is asserted to be sure to bring on the worst of the apocalyptic predictions.

In assessing such claims, it is important to remember that correlation does not prove causation, and that causation, if it does exist, may well operate in reverse fashion from what one may have originally thought. Hence, it is important to have as much data as possible when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters; and the last few weeks have given us a wealth of new data of just the type needed to determine if there is indeed any relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface air temperature.

Perhaps the most exciting new data come from Fischer et al. (1999), who examined records of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores that extended back in time across a quarter of a million years. Over this immense time span, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each and every one of these tremendous global warmings, earth's air temperature rose well before there was any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.

Clearly, increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger these massive climate changes. In addition, there was a 15,000-year period following the second of the glacial terminations when the air's CO2 content was essentially constant but air temperatures dropped all the way down to values characteristic of glacial times. Hence, just as increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger any of the major global warmings that lead to the demise of the last three ice ages, neither was the induction of the most recent ice age driven by a decrease in CO2. And when the air's CO2 content finally did begin to drop after the last ice age was fully established, air temperatures either remained fairly constant or actually rose, doing just the opposite of what the climate models suggest should have happened if changes in atmospheric CO2 drive climate change.

In much the same vein, Indermuhle et al. (1999) determined that after the termination of the last great ice age, the CO2 content of the air gradually rose by approximately 25 ppm in almost linear fashion between 8,200 and 1,200 years ago, over a period of time that saw a slow but steady decline in global air temperature, which is once again just the opposite of what would be expected if changes in atmospheric CO2 affect climate in the way affirmed by the popular CO2-greenhouse effect theory.

So who leads who? In the geophysical dance of carbon dioxide and temperature, which repeats itself every hundred thousand or so years, it is definitely not CO2. Sometimes the two parameters are totally out of sync with each other, as when one rises and the other falls. Sometimes one is in transit to a higher or lower level, while the other is in stasis. And even when they do move in harmony, temperature seems to take the lead.

Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to any global warming, much less the catastrophic type that is predicted to produce the apocalyptic consequences that are driving fear-ridden governments to abandon all sense of rationality in the current hysteria over "what should be done about" the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

We need to get real about this issue. We need to look at real phenomena that have actually occurred in the real world. And in spite of all the computer simulations to the contrary, we have got to realize what these real data are really telling us. When this is done, the answer comes very simply, as simply as mastering the old-time waltz that the planet has been playing for a quarter million years or more. The key is in the interaction of the participants; when you know who leads, you can avoid a lot of missteps.
Dr. Craig D. Idso
President Dr. Keith E. Idso
Vice President

References
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126.

Mann, M. 1999. Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 1759-1762.


Persistent Millennial-Scale Climate Oscillations of the Past Million-Plus Years Reference

Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus, J. 1998. Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene epoch. Nature 392: 699-702.

What was done

The authors studied various physical and chemical characteristics of an ocean sediment core obtained from a water depth of nearly 2,000 meters at a site south of Iceland.

What was learned

It was found that millennial-scale oscillations in climate were occurring well over one million years ago in a region of the North Atlantic that has been shown to strongly influence circum-Atlantic, and possibly global, climate. These oscillations appeared to be similar in character and timing to the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles of the most recent glacial epoch.

What it means

Because the climate of the early Pleistocene was too warm to support the growth and development of large 100,000-year ice sheets characteristic of the late Pleistocene, and because similar millennial-scale climate oscillations are evident in both time periods, the authors conclude that millennial-scale climate oscillations "may be a pervasive and long-term characteristic of Earth's climate, rather than just a feature of the strong glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 800,000 years." Consequently, since neither the glacial nor the independent millennial-scale climate oscillations of the past million-plus years have been attributed to variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and since the air's CO2 content has varied significantly over this time period, there would appear to be little reason to attribute the observed warming of the past century or so to the concurrent increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration or to expect that any further rise in the air's CO2 content would trigger any significant warming in the future.


Warmer Temperatures at Lower CO2 Concentrations Reference

Cheddadi, R., Lamb, H.F., Guiot, J. and van der Kaars, S. 1998. Holocene climatic change in Morocco: a quantitative reconstruction from pollen data. Climate Dynamics 14: 883-890.

What was done

The authors of this paper provide quantitative estimates of Holocene climate change using proxy data from a lake-sediment core in the Middle Atlas of Morocco. Specifically, they reconstructed January and July temperature and annual precipitation values over the past 10,000 years.

What was learned

Three main climate intervals were apparent in the data: (1) a warm and dry phase from 6.5 to 10 thousand years ago, where January and July temperatures were found to be about 4°C higher than present, (2) an intermediate phase characterized by relatively high mean January temperatures, and (3) a cooler and moist most recent phase. In addition, the authors note that "superimposed on the longer-term trends are short-term variations in all three climatic parameters," lasting in some cases a century or more.

What it means

This paper adds to a growing body of research that clearly shows that over a period in earth's climatic history when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration varied but little and was approximately 100 ppm less than today's value, mean annual temperatures in some locations were as much as "4°C warmer than the present." Therefore, even major future warming would not be proof of the claim that it is CO2-induced. History often repeats itself; and climatic history is no exception.

For relevant studies on ocean temperature vis a vis CO2 content, go to

www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2 ... N50/C2.jsp

As to sea level rise, sea level has been rising for centuries, and has continued right to the end of the 20the century. A confluence of ideology and nature? Precisely.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Parting green clouds
by S. Fred Singer
Washington Times, January 10, 1999

As is our custom, here is the year-end Environmental Myth Report of the Science &Environmental Policy Project, our modest contribution to the edification of the public:

· El Nino and global warming: Any connection? It's been a hot year, thanks to El Nino. (According to weather satellite data, the first half of 1998 ranked well above the average of the last two decades; 1999 though is likely to be quite cold.) Much to the frustration of environmental activists, however, responsible climate scientists have steadfastly refused to blame the unusually strong El Nino on manmade greenhouse gases. They have also denied any relationship between global warming and hurricanes, putting the lie to politicians who were quick to blame Hurricane Mitch and other weather disasters on the greenhouse effect.

Lots of environmental scares exist without any scientific foundation, but global warming must take the cake when it comes to hype. The late Aaron Wildavsky referred to it as the "mother of all environmental scares." It certainly is the most expensive--potentially. If the Kyoto Protocol for cutting CO2 emissions and energy use were ever ratified by the U.S. Senate and enforced by the United Nations, there go jobs and prosperity--all because of the feverish imagination of environmental activists and some computer printouts that don't relate to what's really happening in the atmosphere.

· The climate-aerosol debacle: The U.N. science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has a big credibility problem. Its 1996 report, the basis for Kyoto, had to admit that the rapid warming predicted by computer models was not occurring. So they hit on an explanation to account for the discrepancy: Sulfate aerosols, particles created from the burning of coal and other sulfur-containing substances, were supposed to reflect incident sunlight and create an offsetting cooling--forcing an agreement with the observations that show no warming trend. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the details don't match. The Southern Hemisphere, containing fewer aerosols, should be warming more rapidly-but it isn't.

The final blow has just been dealt to the IPCC house-of-cards by NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, an IPCC stalwart (who revived the global warming scare a decade ago when he blamed the 1988 U.S. drought on the greenhouse effect.) Now, he's back, writing in the Proceedings of the august National Academy of Sciences: "The forcings that drive long-term climate change [aerosols, clouds, land-use patterns] are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." Why then should one trust the predictions of climate models?

· The carbon dioxide-warming connection: cause and effect? It has become an article of faith that CO2 increases are the cause of the warmings marking the end of the ice ages observed in the climate record in the past million years. Now comes news from precise Antarctic ice-core data that while warmings and CO2 increases are indeed correlated, the CO2 increases lag the warmings by about 1,000 years. So much for the cause-effect relationship so dear to the hearts of global-warming promoters.

· Sea level Rise from global warming? Don't believe it: First of all, sea level has been rising at average rate of about 7 inches per century for several centuries, and nobody quite knows why. But it is certainly not due to climate changes or any human influences.

The climate did warm sharply between 1900 and 1940, recovering from the previous cold centuries of the "Little Ice Age"; can we trace the effect of this warming on sea level? Many glaciers are still melting as a result of the higher temperatures compared to 100 years ago. Also, ocean water expanded, as most substances do when their temperature is raised. But the sea-level data taken during this period suggest that both of these effects were overcome by an increased evaporation from the ocean surface, followed by more rain--which turned to ice over the polar regions and increased ice accumulation there. The net result: a transfer of water from the ocean to the polar ice caps, and a slowing down of the ongoing sea level rise.

There is a lesson to be learned here. Should the climate warm again for any reason--it is likely to further depress sea-level rise.

· The bugs are coming: Really?: Activists allege that climate warming promotes the spread of mosquitoes carrying frightful tropical diseases; but rapid and widespread air travel is a likely dominating factor. Now they've been trumped by Professor Peter McEwen of the University of Wales who predicts an invasion of cockroaches and other pasties that will inundate Great Britain, "steal our food and suck our blood."

At the Kyoto conference (December 1997) everything bad was blamed on global warming--even though it is not happening. The prize goes to the Japan Environmental Times ("All the Earth News Without Fear or Favor") report that deadly Australian "red-back" spiders were found by a factory worker in Osaka (which boasts an international airport). "Scientists attribute the first discovery of the species in Japan to the warmer climate." (Comment: Maybe the little beasts swim faster when the ocean is warmer. It's a thought.)

· Health effects from pollutants: The good news: Some good news for a change: Judge Samuel C. Poynter of the U.S. District Court in Alabama appointed a panel of independent scientists to investigate and report on the health effects of breast implants; they found none worth mentioning. In North Carolina, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Osteen threw out the EPA claim "secondhand" cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Smoke may be irritating and obnoxious, but that's not quite the same as evidence for lung cancer: the correlation is "not statistically significant." Meanwhile, the American Council on Science and Health has published Facts vs. Fears, a review of the greatest unfounded health scares of recent times they range from the 1959 "Cranberry Scare" to DDT, Love Canal, asbestos in schools, and cellular phones causing brain tumors.

Other good news: There finally may be a detection technique to measure directly the damage to DNA, the genetic material in human cells, from minute quantities of chemicals or radiation. The first experiments, published in Science in 1998, indicate the existence of a "threshold," below which any damage is repaired by the cell's own repair mechanism. Too bad that this result didn't appear earlier; a lot of laboratory rats had to die after being exposed to megadoses of suspected carcinogens.

· The ozone layer revisited: Where are. the casualties? And some more good news--sort of: The 1987 Montreal Protocol that led to the ban on chlorofluorocarbons ("Freons") was based on studies that predicted dire health consequences (to the tune of $32 trillion(!)), according to the EPA-- from even a 5 percent depletion in the stratospheric ozone layer. Well, the ozone layer has now thinned by about that amount, but where are the feared consequences--the millions of skin cancers, cataracts and impaired immune systems leading to uncontrollable epidemics? Could it be that the: Environmental Protection Agency exaggerated just a tiny little bit in order to promote the CFC ban? Far be it for me to suggest that EPA would engage in such a dastardly scheme or even intimate that AIDS is spread by ozone depletion.

There's so much more to tell; but there is no space left. Better explore the web at www.sepp.org.

S. Fred Singer is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.

Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

I can't believe I'm contributing to this silly thread, but here goes:

· The ozone layer revisited: Where are. the casualties? And some more good news--sort of: The 1987 Montreal Protocol that led to the ban on chlorofluorocarbons ("Freons") was based on studies that predicted dire health consequences (to the tune of $32 trillion(!)), according to the EPA-- from even a 5 percent depletion in the stratospheric ozone layer. Well, the ozone layer has now thinned by about that amount, but where are the feared consequences--the millions of skin cancers, cataracts and impaired immune systems leading to uncontrollable epidemics? Could it be that the: Environmental Protection Agency exaggerated just a tiny little bit in order to promote the CFC ban? Far be it for me to suggest that EPA would engage in such a dastardly scheme or even intimate that AIDS is spread by ozone depletion.


I'd like everyone to note that this Ozone problem and lock-down on freon occured around the same time that Duponts patent on freon was running out, so now this simple chemical needed to be controlled and was now a danger to the entire earth! Some Air conditioning repairmen were fined thousands of dollars for simply releaseing the freon in an air conditioner to the outside enviorment.

Someone should call NASA that they are killing us all with those rocket launchs where everything is hosed down with freon.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Post Reply