Ozone Holes Notice

[Necratoid]

---

"We do not believe a sustained reversal of ozone depletion started in the late 1990s. A recovery is only pretended."

---

www.guardian.co.uk/scienc...57,00.html
Now, I mentioned that MGW ate the money for research on The Ozone Holes.... and got the response that it stopped growing so was considered healing. Apparently, that was actually a lie. Turns out that the Sun is having increased activity is eating the layer away... but it is apparently not important/edgy/popular enough to get the press coverage.
Also, note the response in article at the end is that some of the chemicals that replaced CFCs are doing the same exact thing... so apparently the ban the CFCs movement accomplish little. So
It also mentioned Volcanoes depleting the Ozone layer. That can be found here:
www.geog.cam.ac.uk/resear...ts/lve.pdf
Apparently, volcanoes obliterate the Ozone layer directly above it and then the hole sucks in ozone from elsewhere to fill the gap...
Granted these are both new studies... which came in the wake of the money getting sucked out of the 'Manmade Apocalypse of the Ozone Layer Holes' and into the 'Manmade Apocalypse of Global Warming' movement. However when the political money getting sucked out of a movement results in studies showing that it was hype... that is a sign of the previous studies being heavily influenced by money and politics.
So apparently, we were lied to about the Ozone layer depletion having stopped and apparently the alternate not mans fault causes are getting ignored by the political movements.. All we hear about are the popular ecological nightmares... that are MANMADE!!! Therefore mans FAULT!!! So feel GUILTY, and pay us you punish man for its transgressions. Currently, this is MGW.
www.sciencedaily.com/rele...095235.htm
Just so you don't thing I stopped there and ignored anything else... that is an article that is basically a rebuttal from a few months later. Sense the current models have now been updated so that instead of the recovery of the Ozone Layer starting a decade ago... it will start a decade from now. So I guess the problem with the Ozone KLayeer is solved again... I guess in 2020 we'll see if the date for the hole to start healing is magically one starting in 2028 or so.
Got to love it when all the positive effects of a movement take place a decade(s) from the present day.

[Morganite]

That first article sounds to me as though they are still putting the blame for the hole existing in the first place squarely on mankind. Solar activity is just being cited as a factor reducing the rate of recovery.
There's something else I'd comment on, but I'd rather do a little research first, and I'd rather do that when I don't have a headache.
-Morgan.

[Necratoid]

Just to be clear, the main point I was making is that they didn't actually shrink like we all got told they did. This is intended as a splinter from a different thread that would just cause more intertangled plot lines in the same thread. The Ozone layer holes were declared dealt with and went away when a politically better declarable manmade Apoc of the world came along (MGW).
Whether or not man helped enlarge it is a different discussion point. Whether or not it existed before man at all is also a different point. Whether or not weve accomplished anything with the CFC ban or anyother action is a different point.

---

Solar activity is just being cited as a factor reducing the rate of recovery.

---

The holes are currently expanding, its not just that the shrinking recovery speed that was being hampered. The sun and volcanoes are directly being blamed as major contributors to this increase... again other factors may or may not be relevant to this increase. We can argue that point.
Its mainly the cast away when a politically better Manmade Apoc (MGW) came along that I'm specifically interested in. I note that nothing new is being done (or suggested to be done) that I found during my search. The response was 'Eh, move the time table out a few years'. I'm not stating 'Ha! Look we totally didn't effect that at all!' or anything.
Feel free to add new information or comments on what man is doing right/wrong.

[Epsilon]

Necratoid, this is not an occassion that marks that you should be laughing and celebrating. If this is true, this should be a "holy shit" moment. Because if this is true weve caused an irreversible amount of damage to a critical part of Earth's ecology.
Look at it like this:
You are smoking for years and years. The doctors inform you they have detected a worrying growth in your lung. You stop smoking. Then, the next day, someone discover you are HIV positive.. Holy shit! You have AIDS! You forget all about the "worrying growth" because you need heavy drugs to stay alive...
Except a few years later, you discover that "worrying growth" has not gone away and that it is, in fact, growing.
In other words: This is a "holy shit" moment (if true, I'll have to check up on it later).
-----------------
Epsilon

[Necratoid]

---

Because if this is true weve caused an irreversible amount of damage to a critical part of Earth's ecology.

---

Or it means that it was a natural phenomenon and it was taken for a political ride. I've stated before that I'm dubious about man creating the holes in the first place. They were there in the first photos... so we have no proof they aren't normal. Size is a different issue.
Also, this isn't quite your analogy. The lung cancer part is more skin cancer (the Ozone layer is a protective skin of Ozone, for sake of the analog). Its that the 'you have AIDS' part is bad. I'd say its like your doctor decided to declare your skin cancer is cured, solely because he stopped getting financial incentives to proscribe your medication for the cancer. Instead he is getting bonuses for proscribing medication for a (insert politically popular malady here).
Whether its a blown out of proportion natural thing (influenced by man or not) or caused by man entirely is irrelevant to my point, MGW coverage pushed it a side so MGW could take the stage. I'll agree with your general response. Seems funny/freaky/completely wrong that the only response seems to be 'Eh, talk to us again in a decade'.
NASA gave awards and rewards for the new time table (its listed on NASA's sight on the section about the Ozone holes and other atmospheric conditions), so they fully acknowledge the holes are still there and growing. So check away. It won't change that they seem completely unworried now that the political pressure is off them. Take that response of theirs as you will.

[Morganite]

---

Because if this is true weve caused an irreversible amount of damage to a critical part of Earth's ecology.

---

Point of pointing, this article doesn't suggest anything is irreversible. They just say that it's going to take a good long time.
-Morgan.
"I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me."
---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya"
-----(Not really)

[Epsilon]

---

Whether its a blown out of proportion natural thing (influenced by man or not) or caused by man entirely is irrelevant to my point, MGW coverage pushed it a side so MGW could take the stage. I'll agree with your general response. Seems funny/freaky/completely wrong that the only response seems to be 'Eh, talk to us again in a decade'.

---

Research into this problem is ongoing (as you yourself just pointed out).
I think its more a point of "there isn't anythign else we can do" at this stage. We've cut CFC emitions and are continuing to do so. Unless you have some way of repairing the hole then... what do you suggest we do?
In fact, I would wager that if we managed to cut CO2 emitions by 99% over the next decade, that people would stop saying we have to cut CO2 emitions due to global warming. Imagine that!
------------------
Epsilon

[Necratoid]

---

In fact, I would wager that if we managed to cut CO2 emitions by 99% over the next decade, that people would stop saying we have to cut CO2 emitions due to global warming. Imagine that!

---

Of course we would... that would involve killing off most to the human race and the animals we raise and stopping all industry, down to cooking fires. That whole breathing and decomposition thing makes CO2. Of course the damage would be considered 'unfixable', as the big fix proved useless. However lacking any means to check it it would be irrelevant anyway.
The other side is that it could be clear proof that CFCs were either not the problem or that the problem is people jumping the gun on conclusions. As I have said repeatedly, it was 12 minutes after people looked at the first orbital photos that the holes in the Ozone were mankinds fault. I believe the previous Manmade environmental Apoc was Global cooling at that point.
If I entertain the possession that this was a manmade Ozone Holes, my solution is simple. If making Ozone destroying chemicals caused the problem... the solution is to make the opposite happen.
If this means creating factories that suck in air and make Ozone out of CO2 and water vapor, we do that and we kill two problems at the same time. Make Blimps into these factories, that we can send to the trouble spots. Alternately, if we can make chemicals that cause Ozone to be created in the atmosphere, we do that.
Though those chemicals seem to add up to smog. CA has Ozone alerts from smog making Ozone. Which means the issue is that we are destroying the Ozone Layer not with CFCs. The solution then is we need to repeal the air pollution laws as they are causing the Ozone Holes to get worse at this point and only keeping more people alive to screw up the environment.
This has been the main problem I have with environmentalists... they want to punish people/nations/companies yet fail to have solutions to the problems. Problems that are usually proven with fuzzy math and bizarre or convoluted explanations, that come down to finger pointing and punishments without solutions.
That I can come up with a possible solution and they can't is even worse. More research is needed... but into what? This kind of thing is why I feel there are two types of people that deal specifically with the environment. Environmentalists and Environmental scientists. One makes laws and the other knows what they are talking about.
Basically, if we are running out of Ozone for the Ozone layer make more.

[Epsilon]

Okay. I'm going to try one more time to explain this to you. After that, I'm going to assume you are being deliberatly obtuse and stop reading anything you have to say on the subject.
Necratoid = some guy on the internet.
People who think CFCs are/were a problem = sceintists who have studied atmospheric conditions for decades, who have far more data and far more understanding of this problem then you.
Who are you? Are you Stephen Hawking? Are you Bruce Wayne? Are you secretly the smartest man on Earth? Do you honestly presume to know more about this situation than hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to this problem and who are all much smarter than you? Honestly? If so, what are you on and where can I get some?
To address you other points:
Pumping more ozone into the atmosphere? Haha. HAHAHAHA! Do you know anything about the atmosphere? Like, at all?
Oh, let's just make some chemical that will fix it! Because that's how chemisty works. All those episodes of Star Trek I watched can't be wrong. Whenever there's a problem, our magic sceince gusy can just sort of... fix it. Poof!
And if they can't fix it, then why do they bother telling us about it. I mean, if we can't FIX a problem, why bnother pointing it out!
Fuck, why should people bother pointing out diseases exist until we have cures for them? Why should we warn people about volcanos and earthquakes if we can't stop them? Why should we put poison labels on chemicals there is no cure for?
Holy fuck man.
Just, holy fuck.
Are you seriously this dense?
------------------
Epsilon

[Morganite]

Okay, this is an argument that is starting to seriously get on my nerves.
*Everyone on this forum* is some guy on the internet. (Or some girl on the internet, depending on genetic factors.)
The fact that you agree with someone who isn't a guy on the internet is fundamentally meaningless. Pointing out who is and who isn't a guy on the internet adds precisely nothing to your argument. You do not necessarily know everything there is to know about a subject either, no matter who you agree with.
... Okay, on to actual content.
Obviously unchecked ozone production around cities is a bad idea. (And that really sounded like sarcasm to me anyway.)
But the question of "why can't we go to where more ozone is needed and make some?" I think deserves to be looked at seriously. It's probably already been answered, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
My completely unresearched guess would be that producing ozone in the necessary quantities is not technologically feasible. This doesn't to my knowledge weaken any arguments on CFCs. (IE, it doesn't say "If we can't make enough ozone to fix the hole, we surely couldn't have made enough CFCs to *make* a hole.") This is because, if I'm remembering the description I read of the chemistry properly, CFCs aren't consumed by the reaction that breaks down ozone. So a smaller quantity is required to produce a significant effect.
Whether or not ozone holes of a certain size could be a normal part of the system, I have no idea. Maybe if the holes are still around in 2060, we'll be able to come to some conclusions.
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Ayiekie]

---

The fact that you agree with someone who isn't a guy on the internet is fundamentally meaningless.

---

Yeah, there's no difference at all between basing your arguments on the beliefs of qualified trained professionals (or thousands upon thousands of qualified trained professionals, in the case of the subject under discussion) versus basing your beliefs on things you want to believe but are not at all qualified to talk about.
The idea that some people know more than other people, and that science that takes years or decades to research cannot be easily grasped and debunked by some random layman, why, that's just fundamentally meaningless.
Because sure as hell we don't live in a world where ignorant laymen presume they know more than people who've studied, researched and worked in a field; because if we did, there'd be places where creationism was taught in schools, and that would be just plain silly.

[Necratoid]

---

Do you honestly presume to know more about this situation than hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to this problem and who are all much smarter than you?

---

This is an attempt to 'win' an argument on the basis that only a certain type of person is allowed to comment. The 'Until your a cannibal you have no right to have an opinion about cannibalism' type argument.. mocking and not actually helpful, Providing complaints and no solutions, only punishments. Which is pretty much the environmentalist movement as a whole. Note I say 'environmentalist', because as I mentioned environmental scientists actually add something besides panic, hate, and whining. That my short list of things we could try, taking the 'its mankinds fault' view point get met with what amounts to trollish doesn't help your case. That and basically you made the argument of the Borg for why I should be assimilated willingly because its less effort for you to win that way.
Morganni, thanks for noticing the sarcasm of the 'more air pollution is good for the Ozone layer' thing, sometimes I worry that I need stage notes in my posts. That he is operating under the assumption that I'm for a toxic Earth, because I don't fully agree with whatever the environmentalists say is still quite disturbing to me.
Ive mostly encountered CFCs in my life in two places... that annoying hairspray in spray cans thing during the 1980s and refrigerators (which didn't escape in the first place unless broken). That the general product type of CFCs was banned isn't my concern really... it was over before I was old enough to vote.
If you remember, or scroll up, it was my stated main point that the Holes in the Ozone layer went away (as far as the general public was concerned) when MGW ate up the money... and now no one appears to care. That they have apparently gotten bigger is only icing.

---

My completely unresearched guess would be that producing ozone in the necessary quantities is not technologically feasible.

---

Didn't say it really was... and I'm not sure what flooding the global system with Ozone would really do (barring starving all plant life at Ozone flood Apoc levels). It was a conjecture argument. The thing about the holes is that they are only there part of the year.
Making CFC destroying hunter-killer suicide attack chemicals for the CFCs comes to mind as another route.
Okay, Im stopping this post now, because I to distracted by the idea someone tried to DQ for the discussion by telling me Im not Batman.
Edit:

---

because if we did, there'd be places where creationism was taught in schools, and that would be just plain silly.

---

Yes, it is pretty silly that schools teach that mankind created so many problems last century. I mean some people actually beleive that not instantly agreeing with things just because some random guy slapped a swarm of statistics together and declared it so. Its not like statistics can be manipulated and man could ever be entirely blamed for causing the end of the world. Silly little religious fanatics.

[Ayiekie]

The fact you directly compared creationism with the scientific consensus on global climate change, Necratoid, is a concise summation of everything you stand for.

[Rev Dark]

Necrotoid thus splurted.

---

Yes, it is pretty silly that schools teach that mankind created so many problems last century. I mean some people actually believe that not instantly agreeing with things just because some random guy slapped a swarm of statistics together and declared it so. Its not like statistics can be manipulated and man could ever be entirely blamed for causing the end of the world. Silly little religious fanatics.

---

Necratoid, if you are going to play in the realm of science, you first have to understand how it works. The above passage rather eloquently demonstrates a contempt and paranoia of science and the scientific method. It is not some guy. The nutbar on the sidewalk screeching that aliens are putting smurfs in his pecker has statistics; but peer review quickly dismissed his theory in favor of something that can actually be proven. The presence of mental illness and crabs. It is a whole bunch of 'guys' or more specifically (and less chauvinistically) scientists. Scientists from different fields and disciplines. Scientists who submit their research to review. Scientists who argue vociferously with each other over experiments, results and emerging theories, in order that the most accurate explanation (not the most popular) emerges above the others.
I hate to burst your bubble, but your hyperbole about the Manmade Apocalypse of Global warming eating away/hiding/reducing funding for the research on Manmade Ozone destruction is utterly and thoroughly uninformed.
Research on Ozone depletion and recovery in ongoing. Science doesn't stop. What has happened is that you have not heard about it. The peer reviewed papers have been flowing since the 70's; they continue to this day. The ignorance is on your part. Perhaps you were too busy in the Bat-cave, ironing your tights, perhaps masturbation causes ozone research blindness and the recent injury of your hands and right foot has caused a lapse in symptoms; perhaps you just didn't care because it wasn't being waved under your nose. I think the last reason is probably the most valid.

---

Now, I mentioned that MGW ate the money for research on The Ozone Holes.... and got the response that it stopped growing so was considered healing. Apparently, that was actually a lie.

---

No. The chemical elements in the atmosphere (stratospheric chlorine) peaked in 1998 and are no longer increasing. This situation allows the ozone layer to begin healing. There is a reason that the timeline is so long and a reason that recovery is measured in decades (2065ish).
Now you include in volcanic and solar activity and the impact on the ozone layers. Both have impacts, but both of those impacts have very difference characteristics, and the recovery from those characteristics have different timelines. Solar activity estimates on a three to five year recovery. The articles covering this were posted earlier on this board.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance; go get yourself some education on the subject.
Shayne

[jpub]

Uh, guys?
Maybe I'm missing something here.
Ozone, being O3, is heavier than O2 and N2, and when produced at ground level tends to stay there. Hence ground ozone being pollution.
You can't just generate some ozone and pump it up there - we're talking a layer of air about 20-30km up in the atmosphere, with a few parts of ozone per million - not a lot, but more than at ground level. I don't even know if it'd be possible, let alone worthwhile, to try and pump ozone-rich air up there.

--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Morganite]

---

Yeah, there's no difference at all between basing your arguments on the beliefs of qualified trained professionals (or thousands upon thousands of qualified trained professionals, in the case of the subject under discussion) versus basing your beliefs on things you want to believe but are not at all qualified to talk about.

---

The point here is that, unless there's something you're not telling us, you are not a trained professional either. If only trained professionals can participate in this discussion, then there's not going to be a discussion.
If you disagree with what Necratoid or anyone else is saying, fine. Present your evidence. An argument that boils down to "You're wrong because you aren't a professional" is about as useful and significantly less amusing than the average personal attack.
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Epsilon]

---

If you disagree with what Necratoid or anyone else is saying, fine. Present your evidence. An argument that boils down to "You're wrong because you aren't a professional" is about as useful and significantly less amusing than the average personal attack.

---

Actually its called an "Appeal to Authority" and it occurs all the time. For example, lets say we were lawyers in a murder trail. There is a large amount of forensic evidence, critical to the outcome of the case. However that evidence is beyond either you or I to understand. So... somebody calls a forensic expert as a witness. He then outlines the case.
The opposition (you) can call a rebutal witness. But first this witness has to establish his credential, just like any other expert testimony.
In this case, we obviously don't have any climate scientists on the board. Therefore our side has cited the global consensus of the vast majority of the sceintific community as our witness.
I haven't tried to fight you on the exact specifics of a lot of the articles posted because I don't know much more than you do. The difference between me and you? I admit it.
And yes, this means that we can't have much of a talk about what is actually going on. Frankly, we aren't qualified. I would no more presume that I knew more about global climate change than the sceintists who studied it then I would presume I knew more about brain chemistry than a doctor or that I knew more about string theory than a particle physicist. Anything we layman say is, by its nature, uninformed and half-assed.
Now, what we can debate about is, "Who is a reputable authority figure to appeal to?" Which has been the thrust of my argument.
My argument (and the arguments of a few others here) is that when 99.9% of sceintists agree on something that makes them a reputible source. My evidence is the progress of sceince, its resistance to political or peer pressure and how, in the end, the actual truth has always dominated sceintific study.
Necratoid's argument is that this is some vast left-wing hippie environmentalist conspiracy designed solely for the purpose of punishing American businesses. His evidence is...
Uh, I'm not certain. Right wing blogs? Articles from journals taken out of context? Ann Coulter?
Oh yes, and his argument is also that because he doesn't understand statistic and the sceince involved and can't be assed to actual learn anything, that he should have just as much voice as those who do.
So, to sum up.
Yes, I do not know very much about global climate change. Neither do you. Yes, we should shut up. This debate is being handled by people far more erudite and informed than we. And in those circles, the debate is already over.
So, it comes down to this:
Do you presume that YOU are smarter than thousands of sceintists who are specialist in the field?
------------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

What laymen can do is educate themselves on how science works; the process behind it.
You can also educate yourself on a particular aspect of science. You do not have to be university trained, you can be an autodidact. If fact, I would heartily encourage it; however should you choose this, be aware of the sources that you study, the basis for their work, the papers that they have published, and the peer review that those papers have received.
Shayne

[Ayiekie]

---

If you disagree with what Necratoid or anyone else is saying, fine. Present your evidence. An argument that boils down to "You're wrong because you aren't a professional" is about as useful and significantly less amusing than the average personal attack.

---

Perhaps you missed the part, Morganni, where when asked I presented the conclusions and reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Joint Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the Geological Society of America, who all unequivocally declared that climate change exists and has man-made causes.
Perhaps you missed, also, that I posted the fact that there was not a single published scientific extract between 1993 and 2003 on the subject of climate change that didn't either prove man-made climate change, work off of models based on man-made climate change, or be dealing with subjects neutral to the questions.
I'm not certain how you missed it, though, since you posted directly after it.
(Though I didn't post it, perhaps you also missed the reference made to the Steve Project. Look it up, it's a hoot.)
Where exactly is your wild outrage that ECSNorway and Necratoid have never, not even once, directly addressed or adequetely countered the point that they are on the opposite side of this issue virtually every relevent association of science on earth? Do you think "Why the hell do you think you know better than thousands of people who do this for a living?" is a question that doesn't even deserve an answer? You're certainly incredibly defensive of their right not to answer why 99% of people who know they're talking about think they're wrong. Whereas, for instance, ECSNorway's assertions that, quote:
"Given that the Antarctic temperature is actually dropping and the ice cap there growing, I think you need to actually look at the scientific evidence rather than the deliberately and maliciously manipulated crap that you normally look for."
or
"It is my firm belief that Kyoto is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to strangle the economy of Western nations and set a precedent for a global taxation authority."
or
"Politicians in the early 21st century compare anyone who dares to question "Global Warming" to Holocaust-Denying Nazi fucktards."
...have never merited so much as a single peep from you. You're quite willing to speak up when you think I've said something outside the bounds of polite debate; do you think those above comments were within those bounds? If not, why exactly were you so damn quick to jump to their defence, but so resolutely silent when they get the same treatment they give?
But truthfully, I don't give a damn if you're tired of it.
It's a question that deserves to be answered, and will never get a better answer from them than rambling about conspiracies and wild God-of-the-gaps speculation. This is exactly what's wrong with this sort of debate, and you said it yourself in the first place: "it's too politicised".
No shit.
It's "too politicised" because for certain people, ideology trumps facts. Certainly it's hypothetically possible that the entire scientific community might be incorrect on a basic assumption, but they are not acting like they seriously are trying to prove this. Nowhere will you find an acknowledgement from them that the vast weight of scientific opinion against them means anything significant. It's dismissed - a bothersome detail that means virtually nothing, whereas the comment of any one single scientist that disagrees with the orthodox belief is instantly held up to be the gospel truth.
Why is it if one guy says global climate change data is falsified, that's incredibly meaningful, but if 5000 say it isn't, that's easy for them to disbelieve? Why is it if one person argues that Mars is warming because of increased solar output, that's a blow to the very foundations of the global warming belief and "very interesting and worth considering", but when it's immediately replied "No, that isn't the case" by a hell of a lot more people, that's dismissed without question?
Why is it the mainstream media presents there as being a debate in the scientific community about the matter, when the simple fact is that there's not? Hell, why is it that there's new stories every six months about "the smoking gun for global warming", when the vast majority of all researchers and qualified professionals in the field have acknowledged it and been doing research based on it for decades?
The reason this point keeps getting raised is because people like Necratoid and ECSNorway are fundamentally dishonest on subjects like this, and their dishonesty misleads others. The reason there is stickers in textbooks in Atlanta informing students that evolution "may not be factual" is because of people with the exact same belief - that the overwhelming weight of evidence and belief by trained professionals is entirely meaningless next to ideological convictions.
"It is my firm belief that Kyoto is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to strangle the economy of Western nations and set a precedent for a global taxation authority."
Of course it's his firm belief. Politics in North America has become a team sport. Despite the fact people from every political stripe have been convinced by the mountains of evidence supporting man-made climate change, it's an environmental issue, and that means it's "left". And because that makes it a "leftist belief", certain people are determined to oppose it regardless of the evidence. Of
course Western countries got together to create an accord to strangle the economy of Western countries and set a precedent for a global taxation authority. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but it's close enough to a hideous caricature of what "the left" wants, and that's good enough.
To hell with that. The computer you're typing on is an incredibly intricate machine, incorporating materials, knowledge and research from all over the world. It allows you to communicate with people from thousands of miles away. The reason it works is because the orthodox scientific beliefs about how it ought to work - and there are thousands, probably millions of scientific theories that come together to produce an Internet capable computer - bear out in reality.
The reason your computer works, the reason man has stepped on the moon, the reason we've altered plants at their genetic core - and why we know they have one to alter, the reason we've exploded atomic bombs?
All because the scientific community was right. The modern scientific community is very rarely NOT right when it adopts a theory - a theory, by the way, being the closest thing to "fact" science acknowledges... gravity and evolution are both "theories" - is in large part because they have a far more rigorous system for making sure ideologically-motivated bullshit doesn't get in the system than public debate does.
The fact is, even when it's "wrong", it's almost invariably more accurate to say "They were right about most of it, but there was an incomplete picture". The reasons many - NOT ALL - scientists believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible were based largely on sound scientific principles that in most cases are still taken into account today. Where there was debate - and there was in fact debate - was whether other principles counteracted that, which is why there was a science of aeronautics and researchers like Otto Lilienthal that the Wright Brothers learned from before making their own breakthrough (to say nothing of breakthroughs in lighter, more powerful engines that made what they did possible). It is in fact absurdly incorrect and misleading to present that as a situation where "orthodox science said it was impossible but two non-scientists proved them all wrong!", but that misleading and incorrect conclusion suits certain people, so they like to present it that way.
Some people in these threads would like to pretend that the weight of scientific belief is essentially meaningless, that it's believable and common for the entire scientific community to just be wrong. It's not. They'd also like to pretend there is actually a debate in the scientific community about the matter; this, too, is a misleading falsehood. The very fact that both points are argued by the same people is a telling sign - what difference does it make if there's a debate in the scientific community if the scientific community's opinion doesn't mean anything conclusive?
You're not willing to call them on their bullshit, Morganni, so other people had to. I'm sorry that offends you, but maybe next time ECSNorway holds up a single dissenting scientist (or guy complaining about his university thesis) as the shining light of truth and dismisses the carefully considered research of 5000 other scientists, you can find a way more acceptable to you to point out what a hypocrite he is.

[Necratoid]

---

Maybe I'm missing something here.

---

Basically, I was told to come up with a solution to the Ozone Holes. So I tossed off a few random ideas, from the perspective that I except its mans fault for the holes entirely... and got the response I'm not Batman so I must be wrong for disagreeing with them. If it doesn't work because the O3 atoms are to heavy then the idea won't work. I did suggest a blimp factory as a possible idea or spraying Ozone above the cloud line. The idea wasn't really that serious... just a solution that popped into my head.
The Ozone Factory model thing was a mental exercise. A show I could come up with a possible solution with little effort if it doesn't work... it doesn't work. I made other suggestions to contemplate, I wasnt making declarations of absolute truth and real comprehensive solutions.

---

I hate to burst your bubble, but your hyperbole about the Manmade Apocalypse of Global warming eating away/hiding/reducing funding for the research on Manmade Ozone destruction is utterly and thoroughly uninformed.

---

Uninformed is completely subjective, for instance I found out the holes are still increasing in size and that they never stopped growing as was reported. The holes have only gotten bigger and I haven't heard anything about this. So I reported this here. The Ozone holes have stabilized story came out when Al Gore ran for president on MGW.... then continued for the year of and the year after the election is provable. That we havent heard about it again in any real capacity is demonstrable
The 3 year ozone holes stop growing story is false. The Ozone Holes problem being solved stories are false. That the holes have been increasing in size and no one is commenting is true. Whether this means that the money dried up, because of MGW coverage and studies is an opinion. What is yours?
So tell me. I got 3 of you ranting about how I'm a dunderhead for not agreeing with you 3 and your crowd. Okay... so explain to me why the continuos expanding of the ozone holes and the apparent failure to stop it hasnt been in the news at all? Epsilon panicked when I told him that the holes were still growing so he obviously didnt know.
That the chemicals level peeked so the problem stopped is demonstrablely false (stopped part the focus here). The holes havent stopped expanding. If they just keep expanding even after the problem was solved, that means: 1) That wasnt the point of the ban CFCs movement (which is why this isnt news, the Ozone Layer is irrelevant to the movement (whether or not the Ozone Layer is depleted by CFCs is basically meaningless to the movement)). 2) CFCs didnt do anything like was advertised in the first place and the Ozone Layer holes are irrelevant to the cause, of banning CFCs, For Great Justice. 3) That there are other chemicals that do the same exact thing that are being ignored for some reason (which is stated in one of the article I posted), such as MGW coverage doesnt need the distraction. Or 4) Its too late and we are all dead anyway so attention is being diverted elsewhere to avoid panic.
If there is another reason for the ever expanding holes being ignored as the Ozone Layer going to fix itself anyway or wont be an issue till those in NASA are dead of old age, so the dont care. Stop promoting your favorite group of scientists and actually answer the question of why we havent heard anything about this ever increasing holes business. If its not a funds/political focus issue then why?
Oh and Norway hasnt actually participated in this thread to making comments against him only shows that your attacking a nonparticipant. Please stop it doesnt help your case when you appear to be unable to be to stop attacking people elsewhere.

[Ayiekie]

---

Uninformed is completely subjective

---

No it isn't. It's in fact completely objective.

---

Okay... so explain to me why the continuos expanding of the ozone holes and the apparent failure to stop it hasnt been in the news at all?

---

Because the news is a shitty place to look for accurate scientific reporting?

---

Oh and Norway hasnt actually participated in this thread to making comments against him only shows that your attacking a nonparticipant.

---

How funny that you say that when I bring that up, but when Morganni brings up stuff from the exact same other thread to make a point ("Okay, this is an argument that is starting to seriously get on my nerves."), you are silent.
I was responding to her point in general - where I had not even made a post in this thread before her comment. Therefore I suggest you direct your complaints to the person who brought up stuff from the other thread first.

[Epsilon]

Necratoid, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

---

Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.
There is a slight caveat to this, however. Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear; ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions. But at the moment this is not clear.

---

Relevant section bolded.
Significant link.
Do your research.
------------
Epsilon

[Morganite]

(This could take a while...)
(Starting with Epsilon's post.)

---

Now, what we can debate about is, "Who is a reputable authority figure to appeal to?" Which has been the thrust of my argument.

---

Okay, I see what you're getting at here.
It seems to me, though, that that would be a really boring and pointless debate. I'd much rather spend my time actually looking at information on specific issues. Sure, none of us have any idea what we're doing, but if we look at enough stuff we might actually learn a thing or two. Who knows, maybe someone will even manage to *convince* someone else of something. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I'm sure it'll never happen if the only thing we argue about is who is and isn't an authority on something.

---

Necratoid's argument is that this is some vast left-wing hippie environmentalist conspiracy designed solely for the purpose of punishing American businesses.

---

That doesn't seem to me to be the point he's driving at at all in this thread. Part of the point seems to be "The ozone layer problem hasn't gone away, but no one's talking about it" where "no one" refers to the media coverage, not the scientific community. Which seems like a fair point to me. It's been *years* since I've heard a news report talking about the ozone layer. I'm not just interested in the scientific background on this issue. The mass media portrayal and the political implications are just as interesting.

---

Yes, I do not know very much about global climate change. Neither do you. Yes, we should shut up.

---

Really though, I want you to not shut up! Whenever anyone discusses the actual issues here, it's interesting. Maybe we don't know a lot about global climate change, but we certainly won't improve that condition by shutting up.
(On to Ayiekie...)

---

Perhaps you missed the part, Morganni, where when asked I presented the conclusions and reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Joint Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the Geological Society of America, who all unequivocally declared that climate change exists and has man-made causes.

---

I don't really feel this is particularly useful, since it doesn't really provide a rebuttal to any specific argument about an issue. *I* have posted links to articles rebutting certain arguments that I believe you'd be opposed to. (Well, at least once anyway. '.' ) I don't feel I'm asking anything excessive in thinking you'd do the same, because that's how one gets a useful debate.

---

Do you think "Why the hell do you think you know better than thousands of people who do this for a living?" is a question that doesn't even deserve an answer?

---

To be blunt, no, I don't. I thought my previous statements would have made that obvious. I don't find anything that's not directly related to an actual issue to be particularly worthwhile. For this purpose, those three quotes cause me no particular distress, because they're actually expressing an opinion about an issue.
(Now, that second quote, I'd really like to see an actual rebuttal of this. Because the whole emissions trading thing confuses the hell out of me, and maybe if I heard a few more discussions of it I'd be able to figure out what was going on.)

---

Why is it if one person argues that Mars is warming because of increased solar output, that's a blow to the very foundations of the global warming belief and "very interesting and worth considering", but when it's immediately replied "No, that isn't the case" by a hell of a lot more people, that's dismissed without question?

---

So, increased solar output isn't interesting? I think it's interesting. I was expecting and hoping for someone to say "Yeah, but the climate model already factors it in, and it's not that important." Which I didn't exactly get, but Rev Dark posted an article that probably leads to a similar result. (The relavent part I'd summarize as "Mars is affected more by TSI variations than Earth is.")

---

Why is it the mainstream media presents there as being a debate in the scientific community about the matter, when the simple fact is that there's not?

---

Now, this gets into a subject that I find very interesting. Because most people who oppose the scientific consensus on global warming that I've heard seem to think that the mainstream media is firmly opposed to them and doesn't suggest that there's any debate at all. On other issues I've also found that both sides think the mainstream is opposed to them, regardless of the other details. Perhaps it's a question of what one considers mainstream. I bet an interesting psychology (or would it be sociology?) paper could be written on it.

---

You're not willing to call them on their bullshit, Morganni, so other people had to.

---

I most of the time have no interest in calling anyone on their bullshit. In a lot of cases other people have done a better job of it than I could have anyway.
I simply believe that the line of argument that I'm complaining about here isn't doing the job. It comes across as an attack on the person, rather than their statements. It creates noise that distracts from more interesting parts of the conversation. It causes me to spend over a half hour writing this post, when I could have been writing a much more interesting post about things like this. It causes me to give up even trying to respond to half of the things I find worthy of comment. And I really find your attitude on it confusing, because I think stopping it would make your arguments more effective overall, which I would think you'd want.
-Morgan really hates Chronicle 20 in Soul Calibur III.

"This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Ayiekie]

---

I don't really feel this is particularly useful, since it doesn't really provide a rebuttal to any specific argument about an issue.

---

Except, you know, for the fact that Necratoid, ECSNorway, and hmelton (possibly others, I can't recall) think that man-made climate change is an unproven myth. Which is the crucial element of everything that was talked about - the rest being little more than window dressing.

---

To be blunt, no, I don't.

---

Then I'm afraid there's little else we have to discuss. Because when it boils right down to it, if a layman can't answer that question to any reasonable degree of satisfaction, not a single other thing they have to say on the topic is worth the time it takes to read it.
Listening to a bum on the street ramble about the moon rocket he's building might well be entertaining, but should I be called upon to actually go there, I'll turn instead to the people at NASA. For exactly the same reason, I'll continue to trust the opinion of virtually every trained professional in the field before I trust the contrary opinion of Necratoid.

---

I don't find anything that's not directly related to an actual issue to be particularly worthwhile.

---

That you think it's not directly related literally boggles me. But c'est la vie.

[Epsilon]

---

Necratoid's argument is that this is some vast left-wing hippie environmentalist conspiracy designed solely for the purpose of punishing American businesses.

---

---

That doesn't seem to me to be the point he's driving at at all in this thread.

---

---

"It is my firm belief that Kyoto is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to strangle the economy of Western nations and set a precedent for a global taxation authority."

---

So, uh, right.
-------------------
Epsilon