Mad Scientist - Global Warming

[primetime]

Just released - elimination of CFCs which eroded the ozone layer were replaced by other chemicals that wouldn't eroded the ozone layer. Turns out these chemicals instead doubled or tripled the contribution to global warming that CFCs did.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_sc/ozone_global_warming

Oh yeah that is right, I am not convinced that global warming really exists. It is interesting to read this article and wonder if the same thing will happen when man takes its next move to reduce global warming.

[eagle]

As man experiments there is much goes wrong ! We will have to wait see for ourselfs I am afraid :twisted:

[eagle]

HAHA...this is exactly like my year 11 maths teacher, he drew an exponential graph to show the rise of people contracting HIV/AIDS. "The graph shows that by the year 2000 (or something) everyone on earth will be infected."

I laughed.

And he was like. "Abi, this is not something to be laughing about."

I know its not funny, but seriously, as if everyone on the planet is going to contract the virus.

if it is contracted while people are global warming together then you are on topic

[Loburt]

That's why he was a math teacher for 11th graders and not an epidemiologist working on the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Not much different from a high school soccer coach theorizing on the latest techniques for heart surgery.

[zeusbheld]

the link doesn't work.

reminds me of a bad joke i'd heard though:

"the black boxes on airplanes are made from an indestructible material. stupid sicentists! if they were smart, they'd make the whole airplane from it."

well... that material is titanium. it's not indestructible, but moreso than aluminum. it's also heavier. while indestructible airplanes would be great, i think we'd also like them to get off the ground?

in regard to the news article with the non-working link: science, in general, gets stuff wrong sometimes. unlike absolutely everything else that human beings do, science has built-in mechanisms for TESTING claims and eventually weeding out the bullshit. it's a messy process, but a lot more reliable than anything else humans do for finding out what is most likely to be true. that doesn't mean that the public ever get much accurate or useful scientific information, or that we'd know what to do with it if we did. the public on the average are utterly scientifically illiterate, and even scientists can't keep up with stuff outside their own discipline (no one is a 'scientist' as such they all specialize in something). seems to me it would be more productive to do more research when faced with a question, rather than go out dig until you finally find a news article that proves your'e right, and that the vast majority of scientists all have their head up their ass.

yeah. stupid scientists.

whereas we, the TF peanut gallery, OBVIOUSLY know better. after all, we've seen news articles! :roll:

PS: today's semi-useless trivia: black boxes are orange. i say semi-useless, because in the unlikely event you find yourself sifting through airliner wreckage it may be useful.

[primetime]

to get the link to work you need to replace the xxxx's with that famous email mail site y*h*o

[zeusbheld]

to get the link to work you need to replace the xxxx's with that famous email mail site y*h*o

aha thanks.

[zeusbheld]

is it this article?

hit the quote button on this post to see how links are formatted FYI.

as for the article itself ti does seem a case of hasty fixes beget unintended conseqences.

SHORT VERSION: i think the artcle tells more about the pitfalls of policymaking than the inaccuracy of the science involved.

LONG VERSION:

the monreal treaty on cfcs shows a typical pitfall of policymaking in general--unrealistic quotas were drawn up, technology was not really existant at the time to replace cfcs cleanly, so by fixing one thing another falls apart.

i havent followed the CFC thing closely because even if refrigeration and airconditioning are dooming us to extinction, i'm keeping mine.

while in reviewing the scientific literature it seems vey, very very likely that global warming is in fact accelerated by human activity, what to do about it is another question entirely. i'm not at all convinced that something like kyoto wouldn't cause more problems than it solves, the way the montreal treaty did.

<<as for whether global warming is accelerated by human activity, the article that vbroker linked to in the global warming thread, which he hoped to use to support his claim that "just as many experts" don't believe it iis affected by human activity, actually shows that most do in fact believe it is, some are more lukewarm (so to speak) than others. so the people who study this sort of thing generally agree it's happening, they don't agree on what to do about it>>

as a quick fix for global warming there are 'mad scientist' plans like injecting sulphur into the atmosphere, which would block some incoming solar radiation. this sort of thing hopefully will be saved for a last resort; who knows what unintended consequences THAT would have.

this sort of tinkering can be dangerous; at los alamos, when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite all the hydrogen in the atmosphere in a chain reaction (enrico fermi had a side bet that it would).

[primetime]

Check this out. Who knows if global warming is true or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/sc_nm/environment_ozone_dc

again if you see xxx's it is that famous email site that begins with a "Y".

[Loburt]

There's no doubt that global warming is true. Even George Bush says it's true.

Oh, wait a minute, that must mean it's not.

The questions are what is causing it, how fast is it happening, do we need to try and do something about it and what can be done?

Don't just post a link. At least summarize what it says and post the link.

[zeusbheld]

Check this out. Who knows if global warming is true or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/sc_nm/environment_ozone_dc

again if you see xxx's it is that famous email site that begins with a "Y".

if you can explain the connection between the article you posted and your statement:

Check this out. Who knows if global warming is true or not.

please do. otherwise it just looks like you don't actually read the articles you post, as they don't support what you say. i mean really, even as a windup, that's incredibly weak and flaccid.

how can you expect to know if global warming is true or not when you apparently don't even know what the ******* questions are?