Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 13, 2010, 10:48:36 AM
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. 

I have to wonder if I am typing my posts in ENGLISH, but they are appearing on this forum in Swahili or something.  I already explained the whole CFC nonsense, but it seems as though NOBODY acknowledged it.  Oh well, carry on debating about it.  What the hell do I know about anything. 

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 14, 2010, 09:20:09 AM
I have to wonder if I am typing my posts in ENGLISH, but they are appearing on this forum in Swahili or something.  I already explained the whole CFC nonsense, but it seems as though NOBODY acknowledged it.  Oh well, carry on debating about it.  What the hell do I know about anything.

Don't be offended when people keep discussing the topic, AF.

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 14, 2010, 09:20:09 AM
I have to wonder if I am typing my posts in ENGLISH, but they are appearing on this forum in Swahili or something.  I already explained the whole CFC nonsense, but it seems as though NOBODY acknowledged it.  Oh well, carry on debating about it.  What the hell do I know about anything.

Sorry, Flyer, I can't read Swahili...   :P :P :P :P

I read  it and I agree! It's one of those classic political arguments. "Man makes CFC's. CFC's break down and release chlorine. Chlorine eats ozone. Ozone is a critical component of Earth's atmosphere. There is a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone is killing the planet. THEREFORE, man is killing the planet." There's no effort to connect it all up! It's a chain of argument that isn't a chain at all, just a collection of loose links.

Quote from: arpad on December 14, 2010, 09:14:23 AM
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.

Oh I understand the concept, I just failed at finishing my point.
They never made the connection as to how the molecules congregated specifically over the pole.
Much like their claim of Co2, it too is dispersed throughout the atmosphere and above, but when one views their evidence, one can see that it tends to concentrate over certain land masses, then is not only dispersed in virtually undetected amounts, but it's not in the concentrations in the troposphere as they claim it is, it is far lower in the atmosphere where it plays virtually no part in heating of the Earth.

Sorry I lost my "composure".  Of course tbone and solar are correct in their comments about the magical ability of CFC constituents to reform in the atmosphere in sufficient concentration to cause holes in the ozone layers in specific part of the world.  It's all nonsense, of course. 

There is so much in the "scientific community" that is nothing more than politically motivated, and profit motivated, JUNK science that angers and frustrates REAL scientists, who take their craft seriously.  Once a scientist, always a scientist.  The analytical "mindset", the requirement to be consistently "objective", and the high level of integrity and honesty required to be a REAL scientist, never goes away, even long after one has left the profession.

There are things I could tell you all that would cause you to re-think a lot of things that have been passed off as facts, simply because the initial LIE has been told often enough.  Here are a couple of examples:

Secondary cigarette smoke?  Virtually a MYTH.  I saw studies, and I participated in laboratory controlled experiments, that EASILY proved that the effects of secondary cigarette smoke are almost immeasurable.

Change your motor oil every 3,000 miles?  Another JOKE, and another LIE.  How many of you know that you can safely go 10,000 miles between oil changes?  Today's non-synthetic motor oils are extremely durable and advanced because of the additives that are used, but do you think the oil companies or the car manufacturers are going to share that information with you?

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 14, 2010, 03:37:25 PM

Secondary cigarette smoke?  Virtually a MYTH.  I saw studies, and I participated in laboratory controlled experiments, that EASILY proved that the effects of secondary cigarette smoke are almost immeasurable.

I think this one is a no brainer.

QuoteChange your motor oil every 3,000 miles?  Another JOKE, and another LIE.  How many of you know that you can safely go 10,000 miles between oil changes?  Today's non-synthetic motor oils are extremely durable and advanced because of the additives that are used, but do you think the oil companies or the car manufacturers are going to share that information with you?

I bought a new Toyota Corolla in 1980 and the hand book suggested changing the oil every 7500 miles.
I found it interesting that it "suggested" not demanded.
I asked the dealer and he said 10,000 was fine and wouldn't effect the warranty.
My Dodge truck says 7500, but I've got a maintenance plan, so it isn't of issue.
Normally I never buy those, but I figured at 12 quarts a pop, and who knows how much oil will cost in 5 years, I thought it might be a good idea.

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on December 14, 2010, 03:37:25 PM
Sorry I lost my "composure".  Of course tbone and solar are correct in their comments about the magical ability of CFC constituents to reform in the atmosphere in sufficient concentration to cause holes in the ozone layers in specific part of the world.  It's all nonsense, of course. 

There is so much in the "scientific community" that is nothing more than politically motivated, and profit motivated, JUNK science that angers and frustrates REAL scientists, who take their craft seriously.  Once a scientist, always a scientist.  The analytical "mindset", the requirement to be consistently "objective", and the high level of integrity and honesty required to be a REAL scientist, never goes away, even long after one has left the profession.

There are things I could tell you all that would cause you to re-think a lot of things that have been passed off as facts, simply because the initial LIE has been told often enough.  Here are a couple of examples:

Secondary cigarette smoke?  Virtually a MYTH.  I saw studies, and I participated in laboratory controlled experiments, that EASILY proved that the effects of secondary cigarette smoke are almost immeasurable.

Change your motor oil every 3,000 miles?  Another JOKE, and another LIE.  How many of you know that you can safely go 10,000 miles between oil changes?  Today's non-synthetic motor oils are extremely durable and advanced because of the additives that are used, but do you think the oil companies or the car manufacturers are going to share that information with you?

He he... If I was one of those pesky CFC molecules, I'd just do what I was designed to do... I'd head for the South Pole, of course! When I get there, I'll pal up with my buddies and see how much ozone I can eat -- in 2085.

The best science I can find sez that CFCs take somewhere between 50 and 100 years to break down into their core components -- chlorine, fluorine, and carbon. Assuming the very shortest conversion time, it's hard to imagine that the hole in the ozone layer was affected by people before, say, 1996. fifty years after the end of WWII and the beginning of the modern consumer age. Before then, air conditioning was practically unheard of, in buildings or in cars, and refrigeration was in its infancy.

I routinely run my truck 10,000 miles on a change of oil. I don't care what my dashboard monitor says! ("CHANGE ENGINE OIL" "CHECK ENGINE OIL LEVEL") Of course it's the oil companies promulgating this crap, and the car companies, who really do believe that you're too stupid to change the oil in your car, are right in there with them.