I need a WWII photo with contrails.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d

 If a scientist is so right, why aren't his ideas making money for someone in the private sector where any idia survives on its merits?
 Why are they pushing ideas through government politics?

[/b]
Umm...if we take the greenhouse effect as one example, maybe its because
a) the big auto/fuel corporations see it as a gigantic threat, making everything in their power to reduce the publics awareness of it. After all, its no fun to be big auto or big oil if science shows that cars and the burning of fossile fuel is killing the environment...bad for business you know...

b) how do, as a scientist, make money on the discovery that CO2 emissions cause global warming?

 We are told that the "ozone hole" over Antarctic is caused by global warming while the incidences of that hole correspond to unusial coolings in the area.

[/b]
No, we are actually told that the hole in the ozon layer comes from the escape of freons into the atmosphere. We can also physically prove that freons eat/kill/destroy ozone.

Then we are told that the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and other emissions that are released into the atmosphere. These cause global warming, because they trap the earths heat inside the atmosphere. The heat that would otherwise dissapear into space is reflected by the contaminations in the atmosphere.

 Academic scientists are notably ignorant in economics

[[/b]
As they should be...hence the difference between economics and science.

- which causes them discard some ideas. They would demand that humanity reduce our numbers to a fraction living in squalor when a simple and cheap solution would be to deal with the consequences rather than prevent them.

[/b]
I disagree and I am truly afraid of people who argue like you.

I want my kids to grow up under a blue sky just like me, filled with birds and insects, where the seasons come and go, where there are plenty of wildlife in the forrests. I dont want to capitulate to the greenhouse effect or whatever just because some people are too dumb or too lazy to realize that sometimes we as humans need to adopt to our enviroment, its not the other way around.

So we let the environment die, but make science save us through some technology where we live underground or whatever?

"deal with the consequences instead of prevent them"
I pray to God that people like you will never be put in charge of anything.

[miko2d]

Hortlund: because a) the big auto/fuel corporations see it as a gigantic threat, making everything in their power to reduce the publics awareness of it. After all, its no fun to be big auto or big oil if science shows that cars and the burning of fossile fuel is killing the environment...bad for business you know...

 Auto corporations sell cars, not fuel. The car that is more fuel-efficient can be sold at the same or greater profit-margins as the history of japanese vs. US competition clearly indicates.
 Auto corporations are not in trall to fuel corporations and have more political swing - due to having more workers and retirees.
 Fuel corporations can make as much money per selling less expensive gasoline as more cheap one.

b) how do, as a scientist, make money on the discovery that CO2 emissions cause global warming?

 I was carefull to say that a scientist does not necessarily would make money on a discovery - but that the idea would make money for someone.

 In particular case if the global warming science is worth anything, the scientist would make a killing on the futures market.

We can also physically prove that freons eat/kill/destroy ozone.

 True. They just forget to add that it happens on a scale that is insignificant in terms of constant ozone replacement sycle and other much greater factors.
 Or that the concentration of ozone drops by 10% when travelling 6 miles towards the pole from the equator or that it changes by much more than 10% in different seasons or even days.
 In view of that making drastic expensive changes in our equipment to address a less than 10% change on ozone level - even if true and could be detected - could hardly be worth cost efficient - in tersm of money and human lives.
 
...CO2 and other emissions that are released into the atmosphere.

 Which are miniscule compared to the massive amounts produced yearly by volcanic activity and absorbed by the oceans.

As they should be...hence the difference between economics and science.

 But they do not pass their findings to economists to make a calculation on the most efficient ways to deal with the perceived problems. Rather, they make and campaign for specific measures.
 After all, only economics is the science about means towards specific ends.
 It may be cheaper in terms of money and lives to build 3-feet concrete dyke around the whole world shoreline than drastically cripple the world economy - and then possibly find out that human activity had nothing to do with it and the global warming is happening anyway.

I want my kids to grow up under a blue sky just like me, filled with birds and insects, where the seasons come and go, where there are plenty of wildlife in the forrests.

 What does diversity of species and blue sky have to do with with imaginary increase of temperature by a couple of degrees? Jungle is much warmer than moderate latitudes and there is plenty of birds and beetles living there. In fact, warmer climate may increase the bio-diversity of sub-Sweden quite a bit.

I disagree and I am truly afraid of people who argue like you.
 I am truly disgusted by by people who argue like you - taking a simple argument about increase in temperature due to plane-induced formation of clouds from naturally-present athmospheric water (or even human CO2 emissions) and mis-representing me as a proponent of poisoning the envoronment and reducing bio-diversity.

 As for you children - I read you loud and clear. You do not intend to reduce you level of living - youa re just opposed to people living in squalor to increase theirs to your level.

"deal with the consequences instead of prevent them"
I pray to God that people like you will never be put in charge of anything.

 That's just rabid nonsence. How do you know what consequences I am talking about in so general statements? For that matter, you did not even present consequences you wanted to achieve besides your children enjoying life among misery of others.

 miko

[ra]

Here's a speech by Michael Crichton  comparing environmentalism to Christianity.  He makes some interesting points.

ra

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d

 Auto corporations sell cars, not fuel. The car that is more fuel-efficient can be sold at the same or greater profit-margins as the history of japanese vs. US competition clearly indicates.
 Auto corporations are not in trall to fuel corporations and have more political swing - due to having more workers and retirees.
 Fuel corporations can make as much money per selling less expensive gasoline as more cheap one.

[/b]
Nice theoretic argument... However the world is much more complex, and much more simple than that -at the same time.

Car companies sell cars -that run on fuel. Sure they can make cars that run on less fuel. But can they make cars that run on no fuel? Sure...so can they make cars just as good as the ones we have now that run on something other than fuel? No.. So can they make cars that run on something other than fuel using the existing technology in their factories? No.

=> Huge costs for auto industry to shift from fuel driven cars to non-fuel driven cars.

Note, when I say fuel I am referring to fossilized fuel like gasoline and diesel etc.
 
Big oil is in panic mode already because the world's oil reserves are dry in 20-30 years.

 True. They just forget to add that it happens on a scale that is insignificant in terms of constant ozone replacement sycle and other much greater factors.
 Or that the concentration of ozone drops by 10% when travelling 6 miles towards the pole from the equator or that it changes by much more than 10% in different seasons or even days.
 In view of that making drastic expensive changes in our equipment to address a less than 10% change on ozone level - even if true and could be detected - could hardly be worth cost efficient - in tersm of money and human lives.

[/b]
Here is the danger:

CCl2F + u.v radiation ----> CCl2F + Cl

These chlorine atoms destroy the ozone layer

Cl + O3   ---> ClO + O2

There are significant numbers of oxygen atoms in the stratosphere (since ozone undergoes a natural photochemical decomposition producing oxygen atoms and molecules) which leads to the regeneration of chlorine atoms in the stratosphere.
So,
 
ClO + O ----> O2 + Cl


Do you see what Im getting at? Do you understand why it is so dangerous?
 

 Which are miniscule compared to the massive amounts produced yearly by volcanic activity and absorbed by the oceans.

[/b]
But that doesnt really change the fact that CO2 and other contaminations causes the greenhouse effect does it? Sure it gets worse when volcanos have eruptions, and sure the oceans and forrests absorb some..but that does in no way change what I said.  

 What does diversity of species and blue sky have to do with with imaginary increase of temperature by a couple of degrees? Jungle is much warmer than moderate latitudes and there is plenty of birds and beetles living there. In fact, warmer climate may increase the bio-diversity of sub-Sweden quite a bit.

[/b]
I honestly believe that you are acting dumb here to rant a bit. But by all means, I can play along. What does diversity of species and blue sky have to do with an increase in temperature by a couple of degrees? It kills them. Increase average temperature with less than one degree and larg parts of the polar ice caps melt, causing the oceans to rise. This will flood certain areas of the world, cange the composition of the great currents in the oceans and it will change weather patterns. That is stuff that kills animals you know.

If you dont understand how, let me give an example. Change the flow of a current like the Golf current. Causes a drop in sea temperature in the Atlantic off Norway, leading to more ice and less microscopical food to be available on the Norwegian coast, causes fish to die of starvation, causes birds to die of starvation.

 I am truly disgusted by by people who argue like you - taking a simple argument about increase in temperature due to plane-induced formation of clouds from naturally-present athmospheric water (or even human CO2 emissions) and mis-representing me as a proponent of poisoning the envoronment and reducing bio-diversity.

[/b]
Your words not mine was that science should deal with the consequences instead of prevent them. If we take global warming as an example, you might have science construct some sort of artificial food and sunlight we could live of, but what about the wildlife?

 As for you children - I read you loud and clear. You do not intend to reduce you level of living - youa re just opposed to people living in squalor to increase theirs to your level.

[/b]
Oh, look a strawman.

 That's just rabid nonsence. How do you know what consequences I am talking about in so general statements?

"when a simple and cheap solution would be to deal with the consequences rather than prevent them. "

Its right there.

[miko2d]

Hortlund: Huge costs for auto industry to shift from fuel driven cars to non-fuel driven cars.

 True. But there are huge savings that can be made on reducing the fuel consumption of the conventional engines before it becomes necessary to abandon the fossil fuels altogether. It's not all-or-nothing.
 The simple raise in oil prices drastically changed the average fuel consumption of the cars driven by americans - without any change if technology.

These chlorine atoms destroy the ozone layer

 Absolutely - but only when they are catalyzed by condensed water droplets or ice crystals in clouds. Fortunately at the altitude where ozone is present, there are no ice clouds present - except over Antarctica in some rare periods of unusually cold temperatures.
 So this only matter at some rare periods and only in Antarctica - where natural ground UV level is thousand times lower than in moderate latitudes, where almost nobody lives and those who do wear clothes consealing skin. Nowhere else is that significant.
 Besides, the amount of chlorine produced by human activity is extremely small compared to the massive amounts of chlorine atomised by the wind from the tops of ocean waves, let alone the chlorine spewed up by the volcanoes.
 There are good reasons to believe that the human-produced fluoro-chloro-carbons produce no discernible effect on ozone layer at all.

  On the other hand, replacement of cheap, non-poisonous and efficient materials with expensive, inefficient and poisonous/corrosive ones in various kind of equipment causes many unnecessary human deaths due to spoiled food, less effective climate control, accidents, etc.

But that doesnt really change the fact that CO2 and other contaminations causes the greenhouse effect does it?

 If we contribute about 0.000% towards highly-variable natural process that is amply handled by the natural feedback-mechanisms, that means totally eliminating human CO2 will have no discernible effect on climate but will destroy our civilisation.

 Now, contamination is a different thing altogether. I do not want mercury in my tuna but I would be content with coal-burning plants cleaning it from their exaust rather than closing them by decree.

What does diversity of species and blue sky have to do with an increase in temperature by a couple of degrees? It kills them.

 I saw scientific predictions that warming would help biodiversity more than it would hurt it. So it's just your word against theirs.

causing the oceans to rise

 Great - the low-depth ocean floor is the most bio-diverse environment imaginable - as the rapid increases in numbers of evloved species during such periods illustrate. So we would have more of it. Shouldn't you be rejoycing?
 If not, we can always build 3-feet concrete dykes and protect that land from flooding.

will change weather patterns. That is stuff that kills animals you know.

 Kills some, makes others migrate slightly, helps others. Earth experiences much more drastic changes in climate than the measly few degrees we are scared with.

If you dont understand how, let me give an example. Change the flow of a current like the Golf current. Causes a drop in sea temperature in the Atlantic off Norway, leading to more ice and less microscopical food to be available on the Norwegian coast, causes fish to die of starvation, causes birds to die of starvation.

 The periodic disruption and restart of the Gulfstream is a natural cyclical phenomenon that does not have anything to do with global warming.
 Gulfstream brings heat that melts surface glaciers and polar icecaps. The cold fresh water covers the warm salt water of gulfstream and prevents it from releasing heat and sinking. The gulfstream stops suddenly - or rather is diverted towards Africa, bringing rain and life to Sahara. The climate of Europe becomes similar to the one in Canada. The Polar Cap and land claciers accumulate while the layer of fresh water on top of the ocean dissipates. The process starts again. Nothing we can do to help it or hurt it.

Your words not mine was that science should deal with the consequences instead of prevent them.

 Never said that. I said that science should consider and weight ways of dealing with consequences, not just just prevention.

 I imagine you would be offended if I claimed that you endorce abortion of children somehow damaged rather than dealing with consequences by madical treatment, prosthetic limbs, etc. How would that be diverent from your all-around accusations?


"when a simple and cheap solution would be to deal with the consequences rather than prevent them. "
Its right there.

 What is there? You are reading an "if" part of my statement, conveniently forget about the "else" part and make all kinds of ridiculous conclusions. Do you know what the word "when" means in a conditional statement? Like WHEN A, then B (otherwise something else)...

 If we have a simple and cheap way to deal with consequences, why would we elect to waste resources on unreliable and expensive method that may not even work and would cost human lives even if it did?

 When there is no simple and cheap solution, sure - we should consider prevention. Why not?

 People have changed the envirinment drastically even before they abandoned hunting-gathering and settled to agriculture. Your country looks nothing like it used to before people started farming there - and the wild places unsuitable for farming are not likely to be affected anyway.

 So what snapshot of the "nature" do you arbitrarily wish to freese in time for you children - even though such stable state has never existed in nature since the Earth has been created. And is not reacheable no matter what we do.

 miko

[JBA]

Thought these were cool.

[JBA]

this may help you.