Ozone Holes Notice

[RMH999]

(be away from my usual lurking a few weeks and it's amazing what you miss...)
How about this... the reason that the Ozone hole is a current non-issue is that it IS a current non-issue?
The issue as stated is that the Ozone Hole has continued to grow after the banning of CFCs in the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
A couple of factors concerning this
1) It was never stated that banning the CFCs would immediately cause it to repair itself - there is a reservoir of CFCs and other chemicals in the upper atmosphere that will continue to destroy ozone for years to come. That reservoir needs to be exhausted before true recovery can occur. The average according to a couple of sites was about 30 years to completely get rid of current atmospheric CFCs... so, if CFCs had been completely banned in 1987, we'd still have CFCs in the atmosphere until 2017.
2) The Montreal Treaty didn't completely ban CFC's. There have been exemptions for differing chemicals granted to nations or an outright ignoring of treaty. Methyl bromide is still widely used as a pesticide - it was supposed to be banned by 2005, and it's still being used at about 40% of 1991 levels in the US.
3) There is a CFC black market. CFCs are less expensive and often work better than replacements - of course people are going to keep making and using them.
4) Global Warming (yes, an odd factor, but a factor non-the-less). Some of the models predict increased cold temperatures over central Antarctica, which have been observed. Increased ozone breakdown occurs the colder it gets.
5) Masking factors. CFCs were/are believed to be among the greatest causes of ozone breakdown. With them in the way, research to determine what other factors were also affecting ozone breakdown (volcanoes, sun) are much more difficult. Now that the CFC release is going down, it's easier to see what other factors might be involved - they may have had a larger effect than thought, but they were masked.
6) Repositories: Nations have bigger than expected stockpiles of CFC/CFC-like chemicals than thought. Those chemicals will leak/be released unless properly disposed of.
7) Time: People don't take the long view. Nasa models
EXPECT the Ozone Hole to show no signs of recovery at all until AT LEAST 2010. After 2010, if there's no signs of recovery, THEN I'd expect to see the ozone hole returning to public attention.
Finally...
As I've said on other boards - I really wish someone would send me my Secret Decoder Ring so I can join at least ONE of the great Science Conspiracies... I mean, there's Global Warming, Evolution, Men to the Moon, and all the others... *sniff* nobody wants me...
RMH
(For clarification: I am a molecular biologist, NOT a climate scientist. Therefore my opinions are just that, my opinions)
***
Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.

[Ayiekie]

---

So, uh, right.

---

That was ECSNorway, though, not Necratoid. For whatever else I might think of his posts, I don't think I've seen any wild conspiracy theories from Necratoid.

[Epsilon]

---

That was ECSNorway, though, not Necratoid. For whatever else I might think of his posts, I don't think I've seen any wild conspiracy theories from Necratoid.

---

You're right. I apologize Necratoid.
--------------------
Epsilon

[Necratoid]

---

1) It was never stated that banning the CFCs would immediately cause it to repair itself

---

I never said it was. That it takes longer than they said it would means they left some factors out of the equation or at least nerfed the extent that those factors effect the models used to calculate the holes and their projected features at any given point.

---

7) Time: People don't take the long view. Nasa (yadda yadda edit) models LEAST 2010. After 2010, if there's no signs of recovery, THEN I'd expect to see the ozone hole returning to public attention.

---

Lovely... except I blatantly showed that NASA already retconned the date to 2018, in 2006. Shortly after another paper I found (see first thread post) stated that other natural factors had expanded the hole in the past 11 years at least. I'm leery of the timing. Its probably a response to the other report that took place a few months before hand. The 2018 date is NASAs new guess your link failed for me so I couldnt check it to see if NASA did change by 8 years over 2 years. If what I got from your statement is truth and not a misread on my part. NASA added 8 years to their model after the other report pointed out factors stalling the recovery of the Ozone layer. I'm leery of anytime that a due date for something to show progress suddenly gets pushed back, by a decade or five. It screams this isn't working, we better do something before we get caught BSing through something we half know, yet are the authorities on. Basically to me it screamsMARVEL RETCON!!! FOR SCIENCE!!! Much covering of body parts ensues. Yes reevaluating data and publishing new conclusions is a form retconning. Not all retconning is bad (like the Bohr atom model being tossed aside as realistic and the electron cloud taking its place) Marvel Retconning on the other hand is.
The reason I say recovery in quotes is that in order for us to know if the Ozone Layer has reconverted, we have to have a predamaged Ozone Layer model to compare with the current on to reach this ideal state of Ozone Layer goodness, that was before man screwed it up. In other words, for the Ozone Layer to recover from the damage man caused to it we have to know to what extent man damaged it. In order to know the extent that man damaged it wed have to know what it was like before man damaged it. Meaning what the ozone layer was like before man damaged it. Which is something we fail to have solid data on.
12 Minutes after they developed the first pictures of the Ozone Layer, they found that in winter it has holes in it. The public reaction that swept some people and formed the movement was that these holes are all man's fault, these terrible holes of terror didn't exist before evil, evil mankind caused them to exist, We are all going to die!!! Unless we do this (insert plan involving CFCs here)'. Yes, 12 minutes is an arbitrary number, however that doesn't change the rush to judgement on the issue or the political movement that followed.
The idea that man caused them entirely is something I don't believe at all. We, mankind, don't actually have proof that they didn't exist at any other point in history. Nor do we have proof that they did exist at any other point in history... minus after the first photos we took that this last century. Declaring them entirely man's fault or even not at all man's fault is bad science. It is realistically impossible to prove one way or the other, as we would have to be comparing the size of the holes without mans interference with the size of the holes in the Ozone Layer after mans interference. Never mind the extent of the damage being calculated we dont have this pre-interference data or data on what it would be like without man influencing the system at all.
We have no control data here. We don't know what the Ozone Layer looked like a hundred/thousand/million years ago. We don't know what it will look like a hundred/thousand/million years from now. There is so much speculation on an issue that you can't honestly prove one way or the other. Barring time traveling orbitals or a FTL ship going far enough away to take pictures of the Earth's Ozone Layer at various points in history, we simply can't prove whether man caused the holes or not. To say we know either way is bad science or at the least speculation.
Note, I'm not commenting on whether man contributed to the size of the holes in the Ozone Layer, in the above. Personally, I believe that CFCs probably did break down some Ozone... however the percentage or the size of the increase in the holes as a result of this is up in the air for me. It takes too much math and crunching of raw data to hazard a real guess on my part... and in the end the guess is speculation. Speculation that is unprovable for decades if not centuries after I'm dead, if ever.
Unless I fubarred the explanation that should explain my evaluation process here. Id like to know If I have a logic hole here, its easier to continue explaining if I have a starting point, that would start a forum bar fight.

[rmthorn]

---

It is realistically impossible to prove one way or the other, as we would have to be comparing the size of the holes without mans interference with the size of the holes in the Ozone Layer after mans interference. Never mind the extent of the damage being calculated we dont have this pre-interference data or data on what it would be like without man influencing the system at all.

---

Except that chemical interactions would (I assume, not being a chemist myself) be one of the easier things to test for: Put chemical A and chemical B in close proximity to each other, under the same conditions as are up in the stratosphere, and document what happens.
Various scientists have done this, and come up with the following results:
EPA List of Ozone Depleting Substances - Class 1
EPA List of Ozone Depleting Substances - Class 2
I'm puzzled why some people seem to think that just because humans aren't the sole cause of ozone depletion (or global warming, as per the other thread), that we should just do nothing about it.

[RMH999]

The problem is that the models are not complete were talking about the all the factors that can affect the upper atmosphere of a planet. If youre expecting the models to work perfectly from the get-go and get the prediction exactly right from the first, its not going to happen.
Whats taken is the variables that ARE known and can be calculated for, and those are used to run a model. If reality behaves the same as the model, then they got it right and all the power to them. Unfortunately, the models never run exactly the same as reality, because of those hidden/unknown variables. If the model varies from real life (say the hole is bigger than that model predicts), you start looking for the hidden variables, say volcano effects on the hole. Once you find out what the volcanoes do, you can then plug that data into the model and refine the predictions.
The original models for the Ozone Hole were going to be cruder than what we have now thats a given. Now that technology can run better models and research has identified some of the hidden variables, the models can change. Its not deliberate by any means its operating on insufficient data to get an exact prediction.
And if youre unhappy with retconning in science be expected to be really unhappy. As one of Werner Von Brauns quotes go If we knew what we were doing, it wouldnt be called research, would it? Models are made on current understandings of how things are, on what we believe the physical laws are at the time. Sometimes, we dont know enough and mistaken interpretations are made (epicycles or noxious vapour theory of disease) other times it comes out right/mostly right from the beginning (antibiotics). But thats what science does is that it learns from those mistakes and tries to correct the errors of what went before. When at the edge of science, mistakes will be made until further data is gathered its not with the intention to mislead the public or panic people or grab money its the nature of the beast.
I found some documents your link is the more recent, so the shift in time to 2018 is the accurate one for the start of recovery. This is the prediction of the most current model, with data that the other ones didnt have as I said, its a refinement of the technology/research, not an attempt at misleading.
Also, it wasnt an immediate oh god were to blame for ozone it was a daaamn thats a big hole there. Whats going on? Oh CFCs are at much higher levels in those areas that the rest of the world? Why? And research continued for several years to identify specifically what was going on, that CFCs do break down ozone and that there were large amounts at that level of the atmosphere, and since CFCs have only existed since we made them, thats a strong correlation.
And yes, the ozone may be a natural event that CFCs have just exacerbated the hole may have always been there. But there would have likely been effects if it had UV light can cause plant damage (Antarctica has a fair number of lichens and other things), animals would have effects (UV causes cataracts and melanomas), and could kill aquatic life (weve reduced the primary krill feeders (whales) to less than a third what they were 100 years ago but the krill is about 1/5 of what it was then). Iniut and others that live in the high latitudes should have historically higher cases of cataracts and skin cancers if ozone depletion occurred more often historically.
However can we take the chance that the ozone hole is a natural cycle or do we take efforts to protect what we can while studying it further to clarify what is actually happening? Quite frankly, Im willing to ban CFCs because we DO NOT KNOW 100%. Is the potential planetary damage worth it if we didnt ban CFCs and just said well study it for a hundred years and see if its a natural cycle, then do something. Skin cancer and cataract rates in the higher latitudes have already gone up, believed to be from ozone hole depletion.
There are some things worth taking a chance on, and some things that are not worth taking a chance on, in my opinion.

RMH
***
Abram's Advice
When eati ng an elephant, take 1 bite at a time

[Morganite]

Hmmm. I don't know, the process described in that third article sounds like a perfectly reasonable bit of building better tools. Even if we can't be certain what the ozone layer looked like, say, 80 years ago, predicting the progress of reversal of damage that we've actually observed should be possible. (I'm not sure it'd even be a factor, really.) Whether this set of predictions will be right... well, time will tell.
(On to rmthorn's post!)
Alas, that's the easy part. Figuring out what things would look like without these chemicals around is a much more difficult problem. And one more difficult to prove than any on ozone recovery - for that we just have to wait.
Back to that third article in the opening post...

---

"The Antarctic ozone hole is the poster child of ozone loss in our atmosphere," said author Paul Newman, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. And lead author of the study. "Over areas that are farther from the poles like Africa or the U.S., the levels of ozone are only three to six percent below natural levels. Over Antarctica, ozone levels are 70 percent lower in the spring. This new method allows us to more accurately estimate ozone-depleting gases over Antarctica, and how they will decrease over time, reducing the ozone hole area."

---

... Okay. Why is there so much less depletion over the US, where we presumably have been releasing all sorts of CFCs and things? I can't believe someone hasn't come up with an answer.
And while I'm asking questions. Hey, Necratoid, do you think reducing the use of CFCs is a bad idea?
-Morgan, thinks whoever came up with 0.01% drop rates for items in Ragnarok Online needs to have their ass kicked."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[rmthorn]

---

... Okay. Why is there so much less depletion over the US, where we presumably have been releasing all sorts of CFCs and things? I can't believe someone hasn't come up with an answer.

---

There was a page on that in that EPA site I linked to earlier. Obviously, I'm not a scientist and I can't verify how accurate the information is, but it seems to make sense. It seems mainly to do with the cold.
Here you go:
www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/whyant.html

[Morganite]

Interesting. Thank you.
The part about homgenous chemistry made me think of something in the first article in the OP...

---

The hole in the ozone layer could grow significantly over the next few years, reigniting fears over skin cancer, cataracts and damage to vulnerable plant life.

---

Except those things would all be things to worry about primarily because of decreases of the global ozone levels, not because of the hole in particular. (Unless I'm really missing something, wouldn't you have to be *in* antarctica to get increased chances of skin cancer due to the ozone hole there?)
I wonder if there's any difference in the effect of solar variation on the different kinds of chemistry the epa page talks about. I'm not certain what they're referring to all the time in that first article.
(I think I'd been misreading that article all along; I thought they were saying increased solar output would cause further damage, but upon rereading it seems to be the opposite. Lucky for me, the comment I made relating to that means the same thing either way. '.' )
Sometimes the media makes it hard to understand what's going on. '.'
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Necratoid]

By reading the article rmthorn suggested on the EPA sight I learned that in order to slow down the decomposition of the Ozone layer we should be dropping laughing gas (NOx) and not ozone up/down there during certain times of year. The sun does break down the Ozone it provides the UV light that is used to make chlorine oxide, which causes the seasonal holes. More sun light, more UV, faster break down. Chlorofluorocarbon are CFCs. Though it lists other chemicals and says bromine is 40 times more dangerous to the Ozone Layer. Which is something you never hear about. Which was my original point in starting this thread.
Your quote above this Marganni is also directly related to this it is irrelevant what is going on its a matter of what people think is going on. If people think what is going on is they are going to get skin cancer and go blind, because the Ozone Layer is depleting. They will panic, as they want to avoid their blind, cancerous doom. They will follow anyone that says they can help avoid this Charisma trumps logic as a motivator/ Which is what happened in the first place.
As a kid, I lived through the panic driven environmentalist movement that for me culminated with the creation of Captain Planet and the Planeteers. At which point people stopped and stared. When you jump the shark.. the shark shouldnt be lecturing you about industrial waste being dumped in the oceans while you do it. Robocop movies are another example the Ozone Layer was gone in those. They made a joke of it, but that was what people were proclaiming would happen. I remember a commercial in one movie that claimed if you went outside without 2000 spf sunscreen your going to be charcoal in 10 seconds.
If you remember I was commenting on the media not bothering to pick up the ever-growing ozone holes on this in the first place, as my main point of this thread. Though I swear the EPA sight said there is only one now, I may have misread that.

---

And while I'm asking questions. Hey, Necratoid, do you think reducing the use of CFCs is a bad idea?

---

*Blink* I thought Id answered that, more than once To what end do you want me the answer that?
Okay... most of the issues stated about my previous post are flat out not reading what I actually wrote, or only reading my last post as a lone statement. Please reread my previous post for the answers to the following question and/or comments.

---

Declaring them entirely man's fault or even not at all man's fault is bad science.

---

Note this statement, rmthorn. It immediately precedes your quote of me. I'm not arguing against CFCs breaking down Ozone that is chemistry... I'm questioning how much of an effect man has actually had on this size (current, percent increase, or percent decrease) of the Ozone holes. I dont think Ive seen that explained.
That NASA, the apparent authority on the Ozone holes, keeps Marvel Retconning is something I find trying on my suspension of disbelief (not in the holes, but in the people at NASA understanding what they are doing on this). Now perhaps your not actually aware of what a Marvel Retcon is and how it differs from a regular retcon. A regular retcon, I'll quote myself on from the above post of mine:

---

Yes reevaluating data and publishing new conclusions is a form retconning. Not all retconning is bad (like the Bohr atom model being tossed aside as realistic and the electron cloud taking its place)

---

Marvel Retcon is named after one of Marvel Comics bad habits from the 1990s. When they changed something retroactively, because the made a misprint... they then changed the timeline so that the misprint is now cannon and the old reality, from previous comics, is no longer what happened. This made it rather hard to keep up... it got so bad they had to restart entire series multiple times, because no one knew what happened anymore. They literally made things that confusing.
So when I say that NASA pulled a MARVEL RETCON... I mean they just keep revising the model, to cover themselves. This serves the purpose of making them look like they know what they are doing... even if they don't. NASA making a new model saying 2010 was the 'recovery' start in 2005 (article from a post above my last one I couldn't get the link to work). Then in 2006 remaking the model so it has the 'recovery' start time is in 2018 shows this.
To me this looks like they are moving the date for the sole reason of keeping the blame off them for getting it wrong. NASA scientists don't appear to have a tangible idea when the 'recovery' is going to take place. They don't have a baseline (as I described in the last post), so they can't actually tell us when the 'recovery' will start... because they don't know how to even tell such a thing and they aren't going to admit it. That would kill their authority status on the subject.
If anyone has info on what the official level of damage mankind caused to the Ozone Layer, now would be a great time to post it.

---

I'm puzzled why some people seem to think that just because humans aren't the sole cause of ozone depletion (or global warming, as per the other thread), that we should just do nothing about it.

---

That is a basic misunderstanding of the viewpoint of those people. Im going to risk a pointless trollfest and try to explain. Do not try to counter this section of the post. This is explanatory. First off, On MGW I can answer that easy enough. It is not that they think man isnt the sole cause, so we should ignore it and do nothing about it. Its that they don't think man caused it in the first place. It is a manufactured crisis that is made specifically for political gain and vengeance against the industrial West for being better off than other parts of the world.
Manmade Global Warming is unproven and the way people try to prove it is with major leaps of logic or flubbing things to make these models work. (Or not work in the other thread it was stated one of the models gave out the same result regardless of input.) We are not going to change our way of life just so you left-wing environmentalist nutballs feel better, or more powerful for influencing the West to do as you want.
In some cases its also stated, man cant cause global warming anyway,, so why should we listen towards those left-wing environmentalist wacko loons and downgrade our lifestyle to make them happy, it won't make the happy anyway just hungry for more changes to validate their power. What increase in temperature there has been is totally within normal limits and has historical precedent anyway... so stop trying to force the West to bend towards your will. Trying to stop what we arent doing in the first place is stupid.
Its not that they wont take changes to things. Its not that they wont do some of the things that the other side is commanded changed. Its that taking responsibility for something we didnt do in the first place and isnt happening is stupid. That and so many things are blamed on MGW (even blatantly conflicting things) that having something caused by MGW is basically become the equivalent of saying a wizard did it and it has become a hand wave explanation.
A good parody of this is a recent Sluggy Freelance where people asked what how a volcano could talk and excepted Global Warming as an answer. This kind of stuff happened before with the Ozone Holes. As I said Im most interested in the hype factor of this.
I think I explained that correctly.. if I mess that up a bit I blame tiredness.

[rmthorn]

---

Note this statement, rmthorn. It immediately precedes your quote of me.

---

Is this whole "rebuttal" aimed at me? If so, the only statement of mine that you quoted is the last one. I suspect you might be confused about who you're replying to.

---

I mean they just keep revising the model, to cover themselves. This serves the purpose of making them look like they know what they are doing... even if they don't.

---

Of course they revise what they're doing, but not for that reason. Scientists are learning more about how the world works every day. We know more than we did five years ago, ten years ago, etc. Therefore, any projected models about how the world works will change over time.
Would you prefer that scientists kept using the old model that they came up with 20 years ago, even if it is out of date?

---

It is a manufactured crisis that is made specifically for political gain and vengeance against the industrial West for being better off than other parts of the world.

---

Wow. This might make sense if the whole global warming / cfc issue was being pushed by 3rd world countries, but it isn't. I assume you have evidence?
There are scientists all over the world with qualifications covering multiple fields that agree on this. I'm a little curious how many doctorates you have (and in what scientific fields) that makes you so sure that they are all wrong.

---

Im going to risk a pointless trollfest

---

You won't get a trollfest from me. I love reading other people's opinions, especially if they are contradictory to mine. And even more so if they can actually back up their opinions with evidence.

[Epsilon]

---

It is a manufactured crisis that is made specifically for political gain and vengeance against the industrial West for being better off than other parts of the world.

---

Yup. All us Third World sceintists, out to break the West!
I officially take back my apology, Necratoid.
But hey, take heart, because of your overwhelmingly paranoid and suspicious nature and your unwillingness to either a) learn th first thing about how sceintific research is conducted or b) listen to even simple logic you have won!
I will NEVER talk to you, read anything posted by you or otherwise interact with you again. You are the first person on the internet to ever get the honour of being so insane that I simply refuse to listen to you anymore. Rejoice!
----------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

Epsilon,
Now while Nectratoid might be getting measurements taken for a tin-foil suit, or gluing his buttocks together to thwart the machinations of aliens intent on learning one more interesting fact about human rectums, he is not particularly high on the bug-fuck insane scale. Maybe a three out of ten.
You want BFI indexes that climb into the stratosphere, you have to move away from pseudo science and towards religion.
Check out these smashing goits, whose imaginary friend musings go well past the bog standard crazy and onto the gibbering whilst drawing pretty pictures with ones own excrement crazy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0
youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
The last one is particularly funny. If the banana (the one resulting from years of selective breeding) is the atheist nightmare; then the durian, the pineapple and the coconut are proof that their imaginary friend is not only a poor designer, but a malicious twat to boot - as if their holy book - pick whichever one you want - doesn't already make the point.
Shayne

[Morganite]

---

*Blink* I thought Id answered that, more than once To what end do you want me the answer that?

---

Because I couldn't find anything I thought was answering that in particular, and I was expecting you to say that no, you didn't think it was a bad idea.
It was really to make a point about this:

---

I'm puzzled why some people seem to think that just because humans aren't the sole cause of ozone depletion (or global warming, as per the other thread), that we should just do nothing about it.

---

Because I think there are very few people who think we should do *nothing*. Dispute about certain implications and certain actions, but not think that anything needs done at all?

---

Wow. This might make sense if the whole global warming / cfc issue was being pushed by 3rd world countries, but it isn't. I assume you have evidence?

---

He never said he thought it was 3rd world countries who were doing it.
The most common version (in fact, I think the only version) of this idea I regularly hear is that it is certain groups within the US who think the US is too prosperous and wish to punish them. I've heard some things that make me believe that people really do exist with that desire (and scary people they are, too), but not enough to be sure they're more than yet another insignificant group of lunatics.
As for the idea of adding NOx to the atmosphere, producing enough to make a significant effect might still be impossible, and it might just get removed by the same process that removes the naturally occuring stuff anyway. Besides, the way they describe it, it's just an inhibitor. A chemical solution would probably have to be something that binds up the loose chlorine into some form that doesn't get broken down easily. Pity I don't know what would do that, I could probably make a fortune. ^_-
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Necratoid]

---

Wow. This might make sense if the whole global warming / cfc issue was being pushed by 3rd world countries, but it isn't. I assume you have evidence?

---

Ignoring those now officially being trolls to this thread calling themselves Epsilon and Rev Dark, who totally missed I wrote this:

---

Im going to risk a pointless trollfest and try to explain. Do not try to counter this section of the post. This is explanatory

---

I mean seriously... what is wrong with you people? I didn't even say I was my view point (which to a large extent its not). I checked and I didn't say it was my view point anyway. Most of the crazy nerf the US stuff tends to come from the UN. My problems with the UN, is a separate thread entirely.
Anyway, what I said was I was 'leery' of NASA and its retcon of the ozone hole projection model. The reason is that they built a new 'cannon' model apparently off the article I posted... which said they needed more research and this was based on one volcano. So the model will be retconned again once more info is available... which will probably mean more awards for someone. I question the speed of the new model popping up and that it was declared the official model. The new model is about keeping themselves relevant and current... Yes, it does take into account new info, but the speed at which it came out looks like a rush to judgement.
I'd really like to see if they did this model retroactively to see how much of an effect say, Mount Saint Helens had on the Ozone Layer that year. Or even what effect that exploding island of Krakatowa had on the Ozone layer, according to the NASA model.
As for CFCs themselves? Don't care about the chemicals by themselves. However, some of the replacements are apparently coming back as worse than the chemicals they replaced. Thus the 'cure' is worse than the disease and doing the opposite of its intended purpose. Some like the foam they use on space shuttles is so much worse, that it managed to damage a space shuttle lethally. (Yes, other factors are involved, but the kill shot was a rock like chunk of the non-CFC foam damaging the tile.) That the foam isn't a CFC based one doesn't bug me... its the crumblely feature of the new stuff that does.
What the NOx does is slow down the Ozone break down for most of the year. So the Ozone consumption rate is closer to the Ozone creation rate. Then a weird vortex isolates the pole and it consumes all the inhibitor and the UV radiation gets through (which is hampered by the angel of the Earth most of the year) and the Ozone is consumed in the isolated zone... then it sucks in Ozone to fill the gap and that is what causes the decrease in total Ozone.
The spraying NOx thing was in part, because I thought is was funny that Ozone Layer was depleting, in large part, because the pole isn't getting enough laughing gas. Which is an extension of earlier parts of this discussion.
Getting back to other matters, for one of the factors in why I actually think that MGW is a tool issue for politics is summed up as the Kyoto Protocol. Which tries to reduce Greenhouse gasses lowering the rate of increase for various countries. However the way it does it is some kind of chart thing that ignores almost everything else in favor of percent graphs. The end of the Wiki article covers most my complaints about it. When the punishment for not compiling with blanket model is give cash to random 3rd world nations (which is why they signed it, Free money!) and literally over half the worlds population is given a pass (China, India, Russia for example), its hard for me not to see it as a tool of politics.
Not that in general I think that less random stuff in the air is a bad thing. However, its the method of going about it, as used in the Kyoto Protocol, is something I question severely. The US, Australia, and I agree with the general idea, which is why it is acknowledged and the specifics ignored. It the actual way of going about it is wrong.
Id like to note here that one of the gases it aims for less of is NOx which means that to mitigate the effects of global warming, we have to deplete the Ozone layer by making less inhibitors. So because countries are fighting MGW the Ozone Layer hole will get bigger by default.
One of the stories that comes to mind for setting people off is this one. This could be a matter of bad survey methods... however Al Gore's last movie is now repeated being shown to young kids and told to them as gospel truth. I've also heard of at least one case in Florida where kids are required to have their parents attend the Al Gore movie or the kids grades suffer. My own vast issues with Al Gore aside that is pretty messed up.

[Morganite]

---

I mean seriously... what is wrong with you people? I didn't even say I was my view point (which to a large extent its not).

---

As someone who doesn't always disagree with everything you say, I must say that that's not really obvious or clear from your post. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying you think on any of what you wrote there.

---

Yes, it does take into account new info, but the speed at which it came out looks like a rush to judgement.

---

I kind of understand your point here, but I don't really agree with your conclusions. This model almost certainly wasn't the work of just a few months. New things may have been integrated in those few months, but that isn't the only thing that happened. Nor is there any sign that they're claming to have the ULTIMATE FINAL MODEL. Just that it's better than what they had before. Also, there's this:

---

The model accurately reproduces the ozone hole area in the Antarctic stratosphere over the past 27 years. Using the model, the researchers predict that the ozone hole will recover in 2068, not in 2050 as currently believed.

---

So, yeah, retroactive modelling seems to be covered. Overall, I don't see anything that convinces me this model isn't a legitimate result of the progress of science. That doesn't automatically make it *right*, it just looks to me like they're actually trying to do their jobs.

---

Some like the foam they use on space shuttles is so much worse, that it managed to damage a space shuttle lethally. (Yes, other factors are involved, but the kill shot was a rock like chunk of the non-CFC foam damaging the tile.)

---

Question here would be, how significant are those other factors? I remember poor quality control being mentioned in the other thread... that can be deadly no matter what the material is.

---

What the NOx does is slow down the Ozone break down for most of the year. So the Ozone consumption rate is closer to the Ozone creation rate. Then a weird vortex isolates the pole and it consumes all the inhibitor and the UV radiation gets through (which is hampered by the angel of the Earth most of the year) and the Ozone is consumed in the isolated zone... then it sucks in Ozone to fill the gap and that is what causes the decrease in total Ozone.
The spraying NOx thing was in part, because I thought is was funny that Ozone Layer was depleting, in large part, because the pole isn't getting enough laughing gas. Which is an extension of earlier parts of this discussion.

---

---

Id like to note here that one of the gases it aims for less of is NOx which means that to mitigate the effects of global warming, we have to deplete the Ozone layer by making less inhibitors. So because countries are fighting MGW the Ozone Layer hole will get bigger by default.

---

Describing it as "not enough laughing gas" is kind of funny, but some poking around in wikipedia suggests that you're completely wrong here. To be fair, there's some easily-confused terms here.
The article about antarctica talks about nitrogen oxides, a term which actually covers a number of chemicals - three stable and three unstable. The ones of interest to this discussion are N20 (nitrous oxide), NO (nitric oxide), and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).
N2O, accordign to it's wikipedia article is both a greenhouse gas and an ozone antagonist, thus not only does it contribute to global warming (thus it's presence in the Kyoto protocol), it actually hurts the ozone layer.
NO and NO2 are the ones involved in ozone formation, as described here. According to it's article:

---

Nitrogen dioxide is toxic by inhalation. Symptoms of poisoning (lung edema) tend to appear several hours after one has inhaled a low but potentially fatal dose. Also, low concentrations (4 ppm) will anesthetize the nose, thus creating a potential for overexposure.

---

NO is also stated to be toxic (though I haven't found details on how), and ozone itself is a respiratory irritant. So it's quite reasonable to want none of these chemicals anywhere near people. And N20 isn't really helpful at all.
On the Kyoto Protocol in general... yeah, there seem to be an issue here. China is building a new coal power plant every week? o.O

---

I've also heard of at least one case in Florida where kids are required to have their parents attend the Al Gore movie or the kids grades suffer.

---

I've heard this mentioned also, and if that's really an accurate description of the situation, it is disturbing in it's own right. Leaving aside entirely *what* was being shown... the idea of a child's grades being determined by a factor not under their control in this way is highly dubious.
Just the movie being shown in schools... doesn't feel much like news to me. When I was in school they showed all kinds of things to me. Different agendas (particularly during the time when I, despite not being catholic, was in a catholic school), same methods. It'll get displaced by something else later on. But the part I talked about above, that's new.
I suppose I should have wrote those paragraphs in the opposite order. But I didn't, it's late and I'm tired, and I need to be going to bed instead of continuing to write this post. So, if there's anything else I want to comment on, I'll comment on it tomorrow. If I remember it. '.'
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[Ayiekie]

---

I've also heard of at least one case in Florida where kids are required to have their parents attend the Al Gore movie or the kids grades suffer.

---

Yeah, right.
Kindly cite from a reliable neutral source, or kindly do not rumourmonger sensationalistic bullshit.

[Rev Dark]

Necratoid spoke as Zarathustra

---

Some like the foam they use on space shuttles is so much worse, that it managed to damage a space shuttle lethally. (Yes, other factors are involved, but the kill shot was a rock like chunk of the non-CFC foam damaging the tile.) That the foam isn't a CFC based one doesn't bug me... its the crumblely feature of the new stuff that does.

---

Troll my hairy Canadian arse. Necratoid if you are going to keep trotting out bullshit you are going to get called on it.
I hate to break your little conspiracy driven world that the new stuff (CFC free) is the problem; but the first fifty flights of the shuttle noted tile damage from foam debris on liftoff (25 tiles damaged on the average). In the 112 flights of the shuttle program, foam was shed in 70 of them, and tiles were damaged every single time. The new stuff was not problem free either, and after issues in 1997, the formula was altered and is still being fine tuned. Tiles on the shuttle were damaged by foam breakaway before the switch and after the switch, it is an operational constant of the shuttle program.
During the Second World War, the boffins in aviation went to great lengths to examine planes that returned; being quite clever, their research was not into what was hit, but what wasnt. Planes that get hit in certain areas but made it back tell you quite a bit about essential and non-essential damage. In the case of the shuttle the danger of tile damage varies depending on what was hit, and where. If you have tile failure in a critical location during re-entry, it will destroy the shuttle. This is the operational reality and it has been the operational reality since the program began. Thus the recommendations of the panel into the recent shuttle disaster recommended that several new procedures to mitigate the known risk be undertaken better observation of the shuttle during liftoff and while in orbit, better testing for wing panels, and an inspection and repair plan for astronauts in orbit.
Shayne
PS. Either put up of shut up about your recent claim concerning Florida, Al Gore and the parental requirement to see and Inconvenient Truth; sounds like your usual bouquet of bullshit, and smells like it too.

[Morganite]

---

Either put up of shut up about your recent claim concerning Florida, Al Gore and the parental requirement to see and Inconvenient Truth

---

Maybe he can find a source for it, but I've had no luck so far.
Still, if someone's making the whole thing up, it's not him. It's been mentioned on radio news programs here several times, and I doubt Necratoid has the ability to control those.
(Hmmm... maybe if I remembered which one it was on, I could contact them and they could tell me...)
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"

[ECSNorway]

Mmm. the only things I've found that support it so far are a journalism professor's op-ed in the Seattle Times saying that it should be required, and this from the Washington Post:

---

At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.
The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.
The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.
In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.

---

--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

Hmm. Okay, checked some more, this from the CBC:

---

U.K. Environment Minister David Miliband said An Inconvenient Truth would be sent to every school as part of an educational pack about climate change aimed at British teens.

---

And this from The Ridgefield Press, Ridgefield, Connecticut:

---

Some voices of protest are challenging the use of An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gores movie on global warming, as part of an interdisciplinary project assigned to freshmen at Ridgefield High School.
In a telephone call to The Press, longtime Ridgefielder Dorothy Williams said freshmen had been sequestered in the auditorium and shown Gores film with no alternative.
Ms. Williams said shed heard school staff were not receptive to students who questioned or were critical of the movie.
When the kids challenged it, they were ignored, Ms. Williams said.
...
In a letter being forwarded around, Alex Karsanidi made similar points.
It was brought to my attention that the administration and science department at the Ridgefield High School took it upon itself to hold a mandatory attendance viewing this past Wednesday by the entire freshman class of the Al Gore fictional documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, he wrote.
In addition, Im told during the question and answer period that followed, students who asked or wanted to ask questions obviously anti the film did not receive a warm reception.
...
High School Principal Jeff Jaslow confirmed that Mr. Gores movie had been shown to freshmen, but he disputed the notion that students werent allowed to challenge its viewpoint.
It was established as an interdisciplinary activity, so there were some classroom activities as a follow-up, Mr. Jaslow said.
Some students, for instance, were asked to do some research on their own families energy use in their homes.
The program took place during the CAP testing Connecticut Academic Performance Tests, required of all sophomores and some upperclassmen who havent passed them yet.
During the morning when the sophomores were being tested, the freshmen viewed the movie, Mr. Jaslow said.
Immediately following the movie there was a panel discussion led by science teachers at which alternative and opposing viewpoints and perspectives were presented and entertained, Mr. Jaslow said.

---

--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Necratoid]

First off, I specifically said I've heard of one case. It was a caller into the Rush Limbaugh show (knows dismissal coming for that reference). The female caller stated that her female friend had to attend a showing of the Al Gore movie or her kid lost grade points of some level (she wouldnt have watched it otherwise). When the woman came back from the movie she was in a panic about the coming apocalypse and would not calm down for days. She called in for help on how to get the woman to stop panicking. (In case I somehow gets it into there heads, I never said Al Gore was forcing kids to watch his movie personally, I said that teachers were showing it to kids.)
The movie itself is in the same line as 'Captain Planet and the Planeteers'. By this I mean that it is designed to show things from the environmentalist view point and make things as scary as possible, to scare people into doing what ever it is the movie/show tells you to do. It is a movie talking about doomsday scenarios.
So what we have is young children (who mostly believe that whatever the teachers are telling them is the Gospel truth) being shown a movie about how man is bringing about the end of the world. This movie sends adults into panic. Now small children are being shown the movie... as something to learn in school.
When you start showing small children political movies and telling the kids these movies are fact, I remember something. In Cuba, after Castro took over, he had section of class that did the following. First, the kids are told to pray to God for candy, while they had their heads down on the desks. Predictably nothing happened. Next the kids repeated the same steps, only they prayed to Castro. Magically candy rained down from the ceiling (aided by the people who moved the ceiling panels and threw it into the holes, then closed them before the kids could look up), proving Castro was the source of great things.
As for Al Gore himself... First time I clearly remember Al Gore was during Clinton's first swearing in speech. I was watching Comedy Central and they kept the camera on him the entire time... he wasn't moving. He blinked like 5 times during two hours and only moved when it was time to stand up and clap. He stood up, clapped for the duration required, and sat down and didn't move again till he needed to clap again. He didn't fidget, he didn't move his feet, he just sat their unmoving, with the same flat expression on his face. This was creepy.
The next thing he did that stuck in my mind was the ranting about the spotted owls. How they couldn't adapt and would die if the logging industry touched certain trees. Trees they would replace... it was all about the evil loggers. Then the owls decided that they could just move in elsewhere... including into a stores sign. This killed the issue for the most part, though they made a kids about standing in front of bulldozers, to save the ground owls, movie a few years ago. Which flopped. I know it was painted as logs verses jobs issue, but for me it was moment in Gore history combined with owls ignoring the self proclaimed protectors and moving on with their lives.
Besides random championing of environmentalist causes, I remember him during the 2000 election. Mainly because he did this stunt. I used the page as it has the clearest example of him doing something so two-faced. If you can't tell I mean the photo op bit with the kayak.
I had a hardcore Democrat professor, when I say that I mean to the point of asking for people to come down and provide bodies so he could be one of official people that casts the vote to pick Kerry as the 2004 democratic candidate (at the end of the primaries) in class. He wasn't a bad guy and he always made sure to literally shout things, with cupped hands, like 'My opinion, my opinion, don't fire me Mitt {Romney}' when he was speaking politics. He told us one day that he thought the Supreme Court's dissuasion of the 2000 election was on the level of bad decisions with Jim Crow. Which prompted me to see what exactly this decision entailed... which turned out to be that in Florida they literally kept changing the law to get new ways to recount the votes... so the SC ruling was that all law changes made after such and such a time, only effect the next vote. In short Al Gore let people try to repeatedly rewrite the law to make him win an election. He never did win a recount, but his willingness to let that kind of thing go on for his personal benefit amazed me. Then he disappeared for a while and came back with the 'rugged, bearded, mountain man' look.
AL Gore is also a proponent of things that have many names, but I'll go with 'pollution credits'. What these are is you pay a certain amount of cash to buy the right to pollute from someone who didn't pollute as much as these credits say they could. So what you do when you buy a pollution credit is pay someone else to get rid of sin of polluting X amount, by buying a portion of their non-polluting goodness. I use the word 'sin' because I've heard of this being used before... when the Catholic Church was selling indulgences. Indulgences were markers that absolved sins in exchange for monetary contributions to the Church. So Al Gore is promoting the idea that you can be eco-friendly if you just pay enough money out, regardless of how much you pollute/sin. Which is just like the Kyoto Protocols punishment pay outs, in both practice and in that you dont have to stop sinning/polluting only have to pay out enough cash to be forgiven.
So when I see Al Gore, I see a creepy, two-faced weasel... that is promoting the revival of one of the single most screwed up things the Catholic Church ever did. Something so screwed up that it literally created the Protestant religions (Well that and selling endless pieces of the true cross and thousands of pairs of Jesus' sandals).
When I see a panic inducing movie, hosted by someone like Al Gore, shown to kids, as a teaching aid... I don't care if its on extreme pong, why you shouldn't lick the electric fence, or driving safety tips, I don't want to it shown. Now add in that its a politically motivate film and it loses more points. Then we get to it being shown by teachers, on their own without being ordered. Almost any teacher who chooses this film on their own, thinks it is a good movie. If not for content, then for example as one of a series of movies with the intention comparing said movies, or studying the movie in a sociology/film class. The problem is when I say kids, I mean grade schoolers are being shown this movie.
That they rolled a 1 on the d20 of fate for the shuttle is irrelevant to me, it still happened. The 70 of 120 statistic is great, however how many flights in did they change the foam to what? How much foam fell off, during each mission? Which foam fell off at what rate? Factors like these change things and in truth are mostly irrelevant to my main point, about alternatives not being good no the sole virtue of being alternatives. Which is related to why I decided your being trolls.
You come into the thread, then start with the venom filled, shunning attacks. By this I mean your seem far more interested in invalidating/insulting (hating) other people, than adding to the conversation. Your comments are laden with person attacks, mocking, and missing the main point to latch onto minor points, as a means of discrediting other posters. I typed in a narrow viewpoint that someone specifically asked for an explanation of, with a note that is what I was doing. Then for the second time this thread I got declared a tin-foil hat wearing madman and conspiracy theorist (the first time was so out of context, that someone usually agreeing with you countered it). Its to the point if I dont constantly make specific comments every three lines as to what Im doing, you take whatever I say wildly out of context. At which point you start with the attacking mostly by declaring me a moron and a madman for soething blown far out of proportion.
On the first page, you can see where I was told that because I dont have like 9 degrees in climatology I cant comment and should shut up and go away. Which is part of the method of You havent experienced X personally, therefore have no right to comment strategy employed by left leaning people (at least that is where I have seen it exclusively). Then came taking my out of context and posting a mocking post that added to nothing, but more mocking. Look back, these things are a matter of written record.
No I dont consider generally questioning what Im saying, or asking for clarification as trolling. However taking things out of context to the point you two are is either trolling or a sign that your ill capable of thinking coherently Epsilon at least Hybrid Theory to disprove that excuse.
Anyway, it brings up entirely different issues, why is NASA being so haphazard with their maintenance of the shuttles in the first place. They are pumping out updates on their Ozone Hole stats, but not bothering to do there main PR/none pure research job. Some things seems off in NASA, which adds to my leeriness of them.
Lastly, does anyone know if there are statistics on how much effect ice breaker ships mowing their way around the world are having on the ice shelves? That Russia has for a few decades been mulching ice so they can use boats year round instead of only 2 or 3 months a year. Other countries are doing the same thing and research ships are carving their way all over the ice caps. I saw this thing on icebreakers ships and got curios.

[Ayiekie]

---

The movie itself is in the same line as 'Captain Planet and the Planeteers'. By this I mean that it is designed to show things from the environmentalist view point and make things as scary as possible, to scare people into doing what ever it is the movie/show tells you to do. It is a movie talking about doomsday scenarios.

---

Yeah, see, let me iterate some of the differences.
1) One's a cartoon, one's a documentary.
2) One presents the notion that polluting the earth is bad, and gives specific tips on how to pollute less. It also says magic rice can cause you to repeatedly clone yourself and eat all the food of your village. The other tells you that a specific thing we are doing to the earth is putting the ecosystem in great danger, and provides scientific data, graphs, and photographs to make its case that the danger caused by this is real and already affecting us.
3) One's doomsday scenario involves a man called Galm killing the spirit of the earth and throwing the planet into the sun. One involves polar ice caps melting.
I'm not certain why you compared a cartoon of an ecological theme to a documentary that is supported by scientific evidence. I think it is perhaps because you, personally, are a cartoon.

---

When you start showing small children political movies and telling the kids these movies are fact, I remember something. In Cuba, after Castro took over, he had section of class that did the following. First, the kids are told to pray to God for candy, while they had their heads down on the desks. Predictably nothing happened. Next the kids repeated the same steps, only they prayed to Castro. Magically candy rained down from the ceiling (aided by the people who moved the ceiling panels and threw it into the holes, then closed them before the kids could look up), proving Castro was the source of great things.

---

Yes, I too have heard of "If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do". Nice to see you repeating it verbatim, thus proving that it did exactly what it was supposed to do, I guess. Do you also expect the Communist invasion of America to occur at any moment? If not, you better watch it again. Remember, if you believe in Jesus, the Communists will stab you in ear with a stick, causing you to puke up glue. It's TRUE!

---

Trees they would replace... it was all about the evil loggers.

---

There's no difference between old growth forest and new growth, kids. None at all.

---

Besides random championing of environmentalist causes, I remember him during the 2000 election. Mainly because he did this stunt. I used the page as it has the clearest example of him doing something so two-faced. If you can't tell I mean the photo op bit with the kayak.

---

You'll no doubt be horrified to know that that was a malicious lie, spread by rags like the Washington Times and parroted by the "liberal" mainstream press (not to mention people like you) who swallowed it wholesale and without any questioning.
It's not nice to tell lies about other people, Necratoid. You should stop. Also, you should probably stop reading websites like that, or at least attempt to remember that maybe everything you read on a vicious Al-Gore-bashing page is not 100% true.
Now let's examine the differences between the medieval Catholic church selling indulgences and pollution credits:
1) One is paying money to sin with a clean conscience.
2) One is paying money so an industry that for whatever reason cannot reduce its pollutions yet, will therefore pay a penalty in exchange for a difference industry which is polluting even less than it is allowed to, thus balancing the needs of industry against the needs of an overall pollution reduction for an entire nation.
An actual analogy would be if you could only pay for an indulgence if you could find a man who had confessed but never actually commited any sins. Of course, this obviously wasn't the case, because the two things aren't fricking comparable.

---

So when I see Al Gore, I see a creepy, two-faced weasel...

---

On the other hand, to his credit, he never went on the Internet and told lies about you. So that's one thing he's got over you, huh?

---

On the first page, you can see where I was told that because I dont have like 9 degrees in climatology I cant comment and should shut up and go away.

---

Actually, you were told that if you couldn't find backing by a reputable and unbiased group of scientists, your opinion is worth jack because you don't know what you're talking about.
There is therefore a degree of separation here that you're ignoring: if there was any reputable scientific groups that agreed with you, you'd be totally welcome in an discussion about climate change. It's just the fact that there isn't that makes your opinon largely worthless.
Tell me, Necratoid - do YOU think you could build a rocketship better than a degreed engineer who's worked on them at NASA can? If so, why exactly? If not, why do you feel you're qualified to argue with thousands of similarly experienced and qualified scientists about climate change?
That's the question which underlies the whole thing. I know you'll never answer it, because you are far more interested in ideology than facts, but kindly stop misrrepresenting what was said to you.

[rmthorn]

---

Lastly, does anyone know if there are statistics on how much effect ice breaker ships mowing their way around the world are having on the ice shelves? That Russia has for a few decades been mulching ice so they can use boats year round instead of only 2 or 3 months a year. Other countries are doing the same thing and research ships are carving their way all over the ice caps. I saw this thing on icebreakers ships and got curios.

---

Not a lot would be my guess. Sea level rising is only really an issue when land ice is melted (e.g. Antarctica, the glaciers on Iceland).

[Rev Dark]

---

First off, I specifically said I've heard of one case. It was a caller into the Rush Limbaugh show (knows dismissal coming for that reference). The female caller stated that her female friend had to attend a showing of the Al Gore movie or her kid lost grade points of some level (she wouldnt have watched it otherwise). When the woman came back from the movie she was in a panic about the coming apocalypse and would not calm down for days. She called in for help on how to get the woman to stop panicking. (In case I somehow gets it into there heads, I never said Al Gore was forcing kids to watch his movie personally, I said that teachers were showing it to kids.)

---

No you recounted an anecdote about an enforcement mechanism; childrens parents being forced through educational blackmail to see the movie. An anecdote with no basis in fact other than a friend told a friend, who called Rush Limbaugh for advice. Probably not the best source or advice. If you wanted to score some oxy or fuck your blue-pill powered pecker off while on vacation (and espousing family values), by all means call Rush - if you want the straight skinny on science, go to New Scientist of similar publications.
Naughty little fact checks

---

Which prompted me to see what exactly this decision entailed... which turned out to be that in Florida they literally kept changing the law to get new ways to recount the votes... so the SC ruling was that all law changes made after such and such a time, only effect the next vote. In short Al Gore let people try to repeatedly rewrite the law to make him win an election. He never did win a recount, but his willingness to let that kind of thing go on for his personal be

---

Bullshit. I hear Schoolhouse Rock is now available on DVD, perhaps you should re-watch the civics sections.
jurist.law.pitt.edu/elect...ontime.htm
You will also note that his opponent did exactly the same thing but I am sure that his willingness to let that 'kind of thing go on' was for the benefit of his country; and oh what a benefit it has been.

---

That they rolled a 1 on the d20 of fate for the shuttle is irrelevant to me, it still happened. The 70 of 120 statistic is great, however how many flights in did they change the foam to what? How much foam fell off, during each mission? Which foam fell off at what rate? Factors like these change things and in truth are mostly irrelevant to my main point, about alternatives not being good no the sole virtue of being alternatives. Which is related to why I decided your being trolls.

---

There was tile damage on the first fifty shuttle flights, as I noted above. You can also check out Nasa itself for a more comprehensive look at the foam; fascinating reading.
As to your point 'alternatives' not being good on the sole virtue of being alternative.' The foam formula both chemically and in application to the tank (a critical issue) was in a state of 'alternative' from the start. Issues were noted, changes were suggested, testing was done and after risk analysis was undertaken, changes were made in production. This was a constant through all of the flights; they didn't just do it once ad consider the job done.
You still really don't have a grasp on the scientific method and it colours damn near everything that you write. If you are going to comment on the world of science, you better have a pretty firm grounding in how science works and the methods that it employs.
Oh, I loved this line. You should write for Rush, you have his natural empathy.

---

That they rolled a 1 on the d20 of fate for the shuttle is irrelevant to me, it still happened.

---

I am sure that it was not irrelevant to the people who died. They went up in the full knowledge that there was risk involved (residual risk is the technical term - the known risk that is accepted as part of an operational model). The numbers involved are much smaller than the 5% you use as a callous example; but they were taken into account. Every time you cross the street you take precautions (look both ways, cross with the lights, hold mommys hand, etc) but there is still a residual risk in the process. The question is, do you still want to cross the street?
I did find this funny.

---

Lastly, does anyone know if there are statistics on how much effect ice breaker ships mowing their way around the world are having on the ice shelves? That Russia has for a few decades been mulching ice so they can use boats year round instead of only 2 or 3 months a year. Other countries are doing the same thing and research ships are carving their way all over the ice caps. I saw this thing on icebreakers ships

---

Ice shelves, as opposed to surface ice, are 100 to 1000 meters thick. Ergo there are very few ice breakers going through them. Icebreakers deal with ice that is between 50cm and 200cm thick; while you can go outside this envelope, performance never reaches 100 meters.
But that is just me being pedantic. It happens. You are probably more curious about the effect of going through non-shelf ice on ice shelves. Picture about a 100 square kilometres of pristine wilderness. Put a footpath stretching through it. There is an element of scale and rational reflection that you are missing.
By the way, don't think of this as trolling, think of it as an intervention to your dogged pursuit of misinformation. When your 'main point' is being buttressed by reams of false crap, you dig out the crap and the point, such as it is, collapses.

---

Which is part of the method of You havent experienced X personally, therefore have no right to comment strategy employed by left leaning people

---

Actually that method is most commonly used by people who have found Jesus- the classic argument from personal experience. You might note that the arguments against your position are not based on personal experience, but peer reviewed research. That is a huge difference.
The Reverend Shayne 'Oh look they have a cave troll' Dark