Just trying to get more information on what Denny actually believes. He said we were harming the environment, just trying to see if he really believes that we aren't now.
If we are doing something to drown new york i think we should continue until we finish the job. Now if we could just speed up making california the next atlantis...
You spend more time worrying about who likes what post. Have you thought about running for mayor of Bandon? You could count the votes as likes.
You says stupid things and want to attribute them to me. We can harm the environment. Fuck the scientists, they have agendas. How about the science? The science says CFCs deplete ozone, which may not be bad in itself in small quantities - but the reaction is one that is like a chain reaction, where a little CFCs destroy a massive amount of ozone. Chemistry is chemistry, no matter how someone tries to spin it, the rules don't change. https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html This long lifetime allows some of the CFCs to eventually reach the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, ultraviolet light breaks the bond holding chlorine atoms (Cl) to the CFC molecule. A free chlorine atom goes on to participate in a series of chemical reactions that both destroy ozone and return the free chlorine atom to the atmosphere unchanged, where it can destroy more and more ozone molecules CFCs are poison. CO2 is not. If you care about CO2, stop breathing. Seriously.
No, I'm just trying figure out where you really stand and what you really believe. You're one of the smartest people on here but you will quote things you know is not right or accurate just to argue. It's strange.
NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity. Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument? Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t. Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts. None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.
http://issues.org/32-2/my-climate-change/ He writes the Doe Earth Blog for the New York Times, a climate reporter for decades.
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Just you saying: Means you don't understand basic biology and chemistry. And I know you do. Seriously Denny, read through this thread. When backed into a corner you finally admit that humans can have a harmful impact on the environment. But then you say the only harm we can do is CFC. That is silly and sad.
I enjoy talking with some of the one's learning their trade these days. It's really fun listening to their answers to question. Had a chat with three resent grads from the Marine Biology lab in Charleston a few years back. I asked about the problems of Hatchery raised Salmon. Genetically inferior. How so? Too many generation of inbreeding and the weak surviving.... . How did this happen so quickly? I didn't happen quickly, it happen over many generations. Really! Geez I think I caught the first of the Native fish to be spawned to raise the first crop at the Marion forks Hatcher. Wasn't that the first of the Salmon Hatcheries in Oregon? When was this? 1952. Three young Scientist looking at each other... It seems they learned the jargon, perhaps not the history. By the way, the State paid minimum wage for the work, 75 cents and hour as I recall.