Very interesting article in Slate (of all places!) about the political views of American scientists. The bottom line -- 55% of them claim to be Democrats, and 6% claim to be Republicans.  :o

Wow.

Read the full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

When you think about it, many of these aren't in what is known as Hard Science.
Take for example, environmental science, many young people enter the field straight out of indoctrination, to enter gov paid positions.

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2010, 09:29:24 AM
When you think about it, many of these aren't in what is known as Hard Science.
Take for example, environmental science, many young people enter the field straight out of indoctrination, to enter gov paid positions.

LOL could you see someone getting a gov paid job saying there is no G/W.  :o

Another meaningless poll with too many variables to make it legitimate. 

What "scientists" were polled?  What was the criteria used to determine the basic definition of a "scientist"?  How many of those polled worked for the federal government?  How many of those polled were involved in the environmental field?

I am a "scientist".  A real one.  A lab rat.  Nuclear power plants.  Radiochemist.  Chemical control.  Health Physics.  I can tell you, from personal experience, that of the HUNDREDS of people that I worked with over the years, at LEAST 80% of those people were CONSERVATIVES. 

Quote from: walkstall on December 12, 2010, 09:32:46 AM
LOL could you see someone getting a gov paid job saying there is no G/W.  :o

Bingo!!!
They were not awarding grants to disprove AGW, only to prove it's existence.
Much like the Spotted Owl research, these scientists would never find work outside of the Gov.
Way too many specialized fields that have no business on the tax payer dole.

Years ago, I read an article about "junk" science with regard to CFC's and ozone depletion. (I've tried to find the original article, but can't seem to locate it...) The gist of it was that our federal government (USEPA) funded eleven separate studies, all done by university environmental science departments, into the effects of CFC's on the ozone layer. As I remember it, ten of the studies said there is no correlation, and one study said that there wasn't enough information to say one way or the other. Within weeks, USEPA had issued proposed regulations phasing out R-12 based on that one study. The very day the regulations were published, my local auto parts store raised the price on those little cans of R-12 from around two bucks to $5.99.  >:(

I'll try to dig up the article. It was a lo-o-ong time ago...

Quote from: tbone0106 on December 12, 2010, 10:23:31 AM
Years ago, I read an article about "junk" science with regard to CFC's and ozone depletion. (I've tried to find the original article, but can't seem to locate it...) The gist of it was that our federal government (USEPA) funded eleven separate studies, all done by university environmental science departments, into the effects of CFC's on the ozone layer. As I remember it, ten of the studies said there is no correlation, and one study said that there wasn't enough information to say one way or the other. Within weeks, USEPA had issued proposed regulations phasing out R-12 based on that one study. The very day the regulations were published, my local auto parts store raised the price on those little cans of R-12 from around two bucks to $5.99.  >:(

I'll try to dig up the article. It was a lo-o-ong time ago...

It would have been back in the mid-90s, if memory serves me correctly.  Another reason why the EPA needs to be stripped of it's powers until they can be convinced that they are NOT a political action committee.

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 12, 2010, 11:23:41 AM
It would have been back in the mid-90s, if memory serves me correctly.  Another reason why the EPA needs to be stripped of it's powers until they can be convinced that they are NOT a political action committee.

Yep, and "stripped of its powers" can be easily accomplished through the simple mechanism of seeing that the USEPA is "stripped of its funding." Once that happens, I guarantee that the greenies will be scrambling over the fence.

Sorry Tbone but you're wrong. The chemistry of accelerated ozone decay by CFC's is rock-solid. If you've got some ozone it'll decay to molecular oxygen much more rapidly in the presence of CFC's then in their absence. That's what all that "ozone hole" stuff was about. The assumption that the CFC's that were being released by rusting refrigerators and air conditioners was releasing CFC's and those CFC's were causing the ozone hole.

Of course in science you don't assume. The history of science is filled with the names of people who assumed and got bitch-slapped by Mother Nature. So real scientists don't assume, they look.

That's where things fall apart. The work that's been done to determine the cause of the ozone hole, and determine what it means, is far from complete and doesn't implicate CFC's. Maybe that's what you read but the chemistry of CFC's makes it clear that, in the laboratory, CFC's degrade ozone.

But that whole episode may be part of the reason why global warming's had a much tougher time of it. The CFC debacle may have sensitized scientists to the political ramifications of what they do making them understand that their responsibilities extend beyond their scientific work and causing climate scientists who hadn't drunk the Kool Aid to push back harder then they otherwise might have.

Quote from: arpad on December 13, 2010, 05:12:48 AM
Sorry Tbone but you're wrong. The chemistry of accelerated ozone decay by CFC's is rock-solid. If you've got some ozone it'll decay to molecular oxygen much more rapidly in the presence of CFC's then in their absence. That's what all that "ozone hole" stuff was about. The assumption that the CFC's that were being released by rusting refrigerators and air conditioners was releasing CFC's and those CFC's were causing the ozone hole.

Of course in science you don't assume. The history of science is filled with the names of people who assumed and got bitch-slapped by Mother Nature. So real scientists don't assume, they look.

That's where things fall apart. The work that's been done to determine the cause of the ozone hole, and determine what it means, is far from complete and doesn't implicate CFC's. Maybe that's what you read but the chemistry of CFC's makes it clear that, in the laboratory, CFC's degrade ozone.

But that whole episode may be part of the reason why global warming's had a much tougher time of it. The CFC debacle may have sensitized scientists to the political ramifications of what they do making them understand that their responsibilities extend beyond their scientific work and causing climate scientists who hadn't drunk the Kool Aid to push back harder then they otherwise might have.

The whole CFC "craze" in regards to damage to the ozone layer is absolute NONSENSE.  Why?  Because the CONCENTRATION of CFCs required in the atmosphere to "damage" the ozone layer is simply impossible to attain.  Why, you may ask?  Because the evaporation rate of CFCs is extremely high, and therefore the dispersal and dillution of CFCs into the atmosphere is extremely fast, almost instantaneous.

This simple fact of "science" follows the same principle that is used in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and thousands of other applications that we are exposed to in our lives.  It's all about the CONCENTRATION level.  It's all very simple, and the EPA and the scientific community in-general all assume (and rightly so) that the majority of people are pretty damn simple-minded.

This is a PERFECT example of JUNK science perpetrated by environmental nazis who know that all they have to do is SAY it's so, and the ignorant politicians and ignorant general public will buy into it.

Just for the record, I didn't have to consult "Wikipedia" or some other website for my information.  I am using firsthand knowledge, based on scientific journals that I had access to on a regular basis, and that the general public does NOT have access to, and based on my own laboratory experience. 

 

There's one simple fact that we all need to understand, accept and act upon. As long as we have an EPA, we will ALWAYS, every minute of every day of every week of every year, have an impending environmental catastrophe on our hands. The EPA's continued existence literally depends on it.

Quote from: arpad on December 13, 2010, 05:12:48 AM
Sorry Tbone but you're wrong. The chemistry of accelerated ozone decay by CFC's is rock-solid. If you've got some ozone it'll decay to molecular oxygen much more rapidly in the presence of CFC's then in their absence. That's what all that "ozone hole" stuff was about. The assumption that the CFC's that were being released by rusting refrigerators and air conditioners was releasing CFC's and those CFC's were causing the ozone hole.

Of course in science you don't assume. The history of science is filled with the names of people who assumed and got bitch-slapped by Mother Nature. So real scientists don't assume, they look.

That's where things fall apart. The work that's been done to determine the cause of the ozone hole, and determine what it means, is far from complete and doesn't implicate CFC's. Maybe that's what you read but the chemistry of CFC's makes it clear that, in the laboratory, CFC's degrade ozone.

But that whole episode may be part of the reason why global warming's had a much tougher time of it. The CFC debacle may have sensitized scientists to the political ramifications of what they do making them understand that their responsibilities extend beyond their scientific work and causing climate scientists who hadn't drunk the Kool Aid to push back harder then they otherwise might have.

Maybe you read something into what I said that I didn't say... It happens. I do it all the time!!!  :)) :)) :))

I didn't dispute the fact that CFC's kill ozone. They do -- over time, as they degrade and release chlorine.

What I don't see -- and what science has never explained -- is how all those degrading CFC's get collected in that one big spot over Antarctica, as is claimed.

Frankly, I don't think that happens at all. Yeah, there's a hole in the ozone there, but it's been there for a LONG time. Sometimes it's big, sometimes it's small... but it's always there.

One thing that strikes me is the 50-100 year lag time between the release of a molecule of CFC and its breakdown, which means the release of chlorine, which eats ozone. Another thing that strikes me is the dismal record we have of keeping track of the size of that ozone hole, and of its effects.

I don't dispute that chlorine eats ozone. But I dispute this ridiculous fairy tale about all the CFC's in the world migrating to Antarctica and conspiring to blow a hole in our ozone layer. That's just silliness.

Quote from: tbone0106 on December 14, 2010, 01:12:57 AM
Maybe you read something into what I said that I didn't say... It happens. I do it all the time!!!  :)) :)) :))

I didn't dispute the fact that CFC's kill ozone. They do -- over time, as they degrade and release chlorine.

What I don't see -- and what science has never explained -- is how all those degrading CFC's get collected in that one big spot over Antarctica, as is claimed.

Frankly, I don't think that happens at all. Yeah, there's a hole in the ozone there, but it's been there for a LONG time. Sometimes it's big, sometimes it's small... but it's always there.

One thing that strikes me is the 50-100 year lag time between the release of a molecule of CFC and its breakdown, which means the release of chlorine, which eats ozone. Another thing that strikes me is the dismal record we have of keeping track of the size of that ozone hole, and of its effects.

I don't dispute that chlorine eats ozone. But I dispute this ridiculous fairy tale about all the CFC's in the world migrating to Antarctica and conspiring to blow a hole in our ozone layer. That's just silliness.

That's just it, it may, or may not be a fairy tale. No one knows because no one's gone and looked. The Montreal Accord that banned CFC's wasn't based on the preponderance of scientific evidence but on the desire of lefties to impose their will on their inferiors.

As a natural phenomenon the ozone hole isn't any more urgent a scientific priority then many other phenomenon so the actual dynamics of the ozone hole, and what if any complicity CFC's have in its development, enlargement, whatever-ment, also isn't well understood. How could it be? Understanding comes with study and we're not studying the ozone hole as an important priority.

If I were to offer an opinion on the subject, I'd say that the concentration of CFC's in the atmosphere isn't within a couple of orders of magnitude of being enough to effect the ozone.

First, the atmosphere is big. Most people think millions of tons of CFC's is a big deal but against the size of the atmosphere it's microscopic.

Second, I'd be shocked if there weren't "sinks" for CFC's. Phenomena that either absorb CFC's making them unavailable to do their supposed mischief in the ozone layer and phenomenon that break down CFC's so they never reach the ozone layer.

It's always been beyond me, as to how a component that is heavier than air, could wind up at the highest altitudes, unless it is breaking the laws of Nature, that is.

Funny, but science failed this very question back when this whole bull shit story broke, but facts just get in the way of a good emotional fight by the leftists.

Surface area to volume ratio.

Take a glass block, the kind you use to let light in and keep bad people out. There's no way it'll float around the sky. But take that glass block and break it into particles a millionth of an inch across and while it'll eventually come back to earth most of it will spend a long time just floating in the air being jostled around by the random movements of air molecules.

Carbon dioxide will pour like a liquid but only in quite still air. A bit of a breeze and the small difference in weight won't be enough to keep the CO2 from being swept away and thoroughly mixed with the air. And molecules, like of CO2, are much smaller then volcanic ash.