maintaining objectivism (when all about are losing their's) ... 2

[rb1957]

i found this an interesting read ...

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html

i liked the way he illuminated the alarmist claims and hyperbole on both sides of the issue and stayed with the "facts". What I took from the article was ...
1) there was no ozone hole (but a naturally occurring thinning) and there was no threat of increased skin cancers,
2) CFCs do add atomic Chlorine to the upper stratosphere (which doesn't sound like a good thing), and
3) the economic disaster predicted by the CFC manufacturers didn't happen.

i think there's a similar story playing out with the climate change debate. I think it is irrelevent that the climate hasn't warmed or cooled significantly over the last decade ... the timescale is too short for any change to be relevent.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Maui]

I think your title should have been "Maintaining Objectivity (when all others are losing theirs)". Unless of course you're a fan of Ayn Rand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[rb1957]

true enough ... i only noticed the site's links to Ayn Rand when i started looking at other pages

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TenPenny]

Based on the contents of these threads, the subject of this subforum is 'Where is Engineering Going?', and I've have to say, 'into the garbage can'.

 

[rb1957]

@10p,

don't you think that both sides in the ozone debate made outragious claims ... outragiously +ve supporting their case, outragiously -ve attacking the other side ? do you think the truth is somewhere else ?

don't you think something similar is happening with the climate debate ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TheTick]

Don't mistake objectivism for objectivity.

Ayn Rand didn't come up with anything new. It's called "science", repackaged and regurgitated and decorated in a manner appealing to a certain mindset.

 

[rb1957]

ok ... i mistyped

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Brad1979]

The real lesson to be learned from CFC depletion of ozone is that conservatives like Reagan used to accept science and they saw the need for government regulation to protect the environment.

 

[cranky108]

Accept Science, OK. Accept the opinions of scientests, not OK.

Can we see the results of the testing done by the EPA on the many products they have banned? Probally not. A secreative goverment is the playground of people with an agenda, not a belivable protection of the public.
There is proof that DDT can safely protect lives in places with minimal enveromental damage, however the UN still bans it's use. That children are dying so we can protect the enviroment is a shame.

I think the bigger problem is excessive waste that happens when a product is allowed. Where a product is restricted there is much less waste.
With CFC's they were allowed, and expencive enough, that contractors would vent it so they could latter charge the customer to replace it. This was a different problem then the use of CFC's as a propelent for antipersperent. However banning CFCs solve the second problem, but shifted the second to another type of theft by contracters.

To me the problem isen't just inappropiate use, but graft by contractors. And worse these industries are regulated, by an inept goverment agency.

Not that I have a solution, but outlining a problem is the first step in developing a solution.

 

[rb1957]

sorry, i read it differently.

the ozone hole lobbyists put out a message that resonated with the general public that then drove the law making process.

the ozone hole "deniers" tried to fight the bad science being presented with (IMHO) bad science of their own.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

One analogy that I could take away from this presentation is that the ozone scare was really about skin cancers caused by increased UV from reduced stratospheric ozone (the so-called ozone-holes). Fair enough - as the author of that piece said - so measure the darn UV. Well, apparently it went down, and not up. So, real problem (CFC's cause ozone depletion in specific regions under specific conditions), but the follow-on consequence was not actually observed. Good deductive reasoning, but because it lacked a crucial observation, led to a scientifically-incorrect outcome.

Carry that to the climate debate (CAGW). The first premise of this debate is that the earth is warming. The second is that the primary cause is man-made - through CO2 emissions. The third premise is that warming is bad. And the fourth is that the magnitude of warming will result in catastrophe.

Some people argue the first premise. We do spend a lot of time arguing the second premise - with likely some bad science on both sides (I'm thinking here of the Slaying the Sky Dragons folks, for example, and Al Gore's "experiments", too). But, we lose focus on the third and fourth premise. That's where the ultimate truth lies.

Although I may disagree with brad1979, I think that he is on to something and not even realize it. Whether warming is bad and whether the projected warming will result in catastrophe is less about hard science and more about value judgements - which is a socio-political function. And that leads to all sorts of secondary and tertiary issues that may be completely divorced from the matter at hand. Such as: who's more important, Canadians/Russians freezing their butts off less (and being able to grow more food), or Bangladeshis being inundated with rising sea levels, or Chinese peasants who could electricity for the first time, etc?

 

[cranky108]

No one has explained why we need to reduce ozone emissions from cars if we don't have enough ozone in the air. Oh yea, Ozone is heaver than air so it naturally sinks, not rises to join it brothers.

I'm still missing something here.

 

[KENAT]

Isn't excessive ground level ozone linked to health concerns cranky108?

I realize it's an EPA site so some of you will dismiss it out of hand but it's the first one that came up

http://www.epa.gov/apti/ozonehealth/population.html

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Brad1979]

"...not even realize it."

TGS4,

I realize it. I really haven't said anything about 3 or 4. I honestly don't have a big problem with people who say the temp is rising but it won't rise the 3 degrees that most scientists say. I mean, 1 deg is still within the tolerance of the models (I think it is unlikely but not impossible). That's where the political debate should be and I fully admit there is no right answer.

The whole reason I even spoke up in the original "can of worms" post was because zdas04 had no clue what he was talking about when he said stuff about the greenhouse effect:

"The Greenhouse Effect is a hypotheses "supported" by a computer model designed expressly to show the [cataclysmic] outcome of the hypotheses. I look at the temperature gradient in a physical "greenhouse" and find a maximum temperature near the glass wall, with decreasing temperature a function of distance from the glass. I watched the guy in the balloon on Sunday and the temperatures that were displayed on the screen looked very different from the greenhouse model. All of the elevation vs. temperature measurements that I've ever seen have matched what I saw from the guy in the balloon. None of them look anything like a greenhouse."

I'd like to believe this is just ignorance but its pretty basic physics and even if you were ignorant, any engineer should be able to take an hour or so to read up on how the greenhouse effect works. But when that doesn't happen the explanation has to move from simple ignorance to willful disbelief. And I know there are skeptics like yourself that know better than that. I mean, the greenhouse effect has been known since the 1860's and is widely accepted by most skeptics (Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, etc) yet he acts like there's some reason to doubt it.

 

[Hurricanes]

Ozone hole - try hanging out in the sun in Australia or New Zealand without sunscreen on.

 

[GregLocock]

What does that prove?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Hurricanes]

There's increased UVB levels due to the lack of ozone compared to countries with full ozone coverage.

 

[GregLocock]

Is that in dispute?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Hurricanes]

Um, is that not what that piece from 1994 is saying?

"Even so, the bottom line is not CFCs, chlorine, or even ozone levels. From a health and environmental standpoint, the only worry is UV levels. And guess what? The only actual measurements of UV penetrating to the ground show that UV levels have been going DOWN, not up." etc.

 

[GregLocock]

Perhaps my brain is working rather slowly today, but I don't quite see how the single point observation that whitish people in the Antipodes currently tend to get skin cancer if they don't wear sunscreen and hats says anything useful at all about science, history, CFCs or ozone. If you are attempting to point out that UV is still important to antipodeans even though (or even if...) it is declining, yes I agree, but nobody said it isn't, and if that is your point then you are making it in a most perverse fashion. I can assure you whiteish people were getting skin cancer in Oz before CFCs were used, if they lived long enough.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?