Printable View
It's before my time but it's kinda refreshing that in the seventies an ice-age was going to kill us all. If we don't act right now. All the elements are there, impending doom, manmade apocalypse, flaggalance.
Yep, it's a religion. I lived through the acid rain-hoax, the whole in the ozon-layer scare, and I am currently living in the global warming-hoax, but this is a new one to me.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...rmism.html?m=1
DEATH BY ICE
If we do not act right now
Amen
That link explains quite a lot...
We did act in the seventies and we did act about the ozone layer, how is that a reason to become stupid now and do nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The new ice age theory was outnumbered by those talking about global warming in the seventies. The evidence for global warming during that time was less than it is now.
And you still ramble about the ozon layer and acid rain. By ignoring the severe regulations that decreased the emissions enough for the situations to be manageable.
You're mixing up the media hysteria with the actual science. One of the reasons media hysteria is dangerous.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 70's?
Quote:
The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."
Quote:
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
None of them were hoaxes. Strong regulation improved the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Are you going to deny China's smog problem soon?
That would be a kinda of a silly thing to do. But yeah they are all hoaxes. There was never any acid rain, the whole in the ozon layer might be there but it isn't going to kill us all, and global warming simply doesn't exist. The green religion is just that, a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Fragony can actually be used as some sort of guide through life's many hard questions...
Just take the opposite stance to him, and you will generally be right.
So you're saying if we had not stopped polluting the air with chemicals that reduced the ozone layer, the hole up there would be as small as it is now? Can you prove that? Do you even realize how little sense your argument makes? Was the Cuban missile crisis a hoax because it didn't kill us all? Was Hitler a hoax because he didn't kill us all? Surely you would have advised the allies to do nothing about him because after all WW1 was a hoax and didn't kill us all. That's the kind of argument you're making and it's really not a good argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So are you saying that anything we did here is of any effect somewhere else? There is such a thing as winds, air moves. It takes only a very little glance at how the air travels to call bull on the whole acid rain thingie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I am sure you are varelse at times, Frags!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
How is the decrease in .ph due to air pollution from old industry and old-traffic (ie: Acid rain) disproven by wind/air movement ? It was a major concern, this is why exhaust fumes have to go through filters, it is why all cars are fitted with catalyst converters. We did a big overhaul with t echnology to help stabilise and prevent environmental conditions getting worse. Saying that it is a 'hoax' as we put in solutions to remedy the main contributions is rather silly.
It was simply never there. There has never been such a thing such as acid rain. It's a hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Please tell us then. Why did marble sculptures made by Greeks (or any onther marble sculptures) degrade much faster 1870-1970 than they did the two previous millenia combined? Kids playing around with sulphuric acid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why did lakes become more acidic?
They didn't. If you are refering to the Swedish lakes, there was a dunnoenglishword blauwalg outbreakQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
lolwhat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Educate thyself: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Acid_rain
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/201...cid-rain-scam/
Hoax. Just go to a church, a mosque or a synagogue if you are religious, they do actually exist and are open if religion is your thing.
Ho-hum, that article fails already in the first paragraph! The guy who wrote it must be a genius. The offending statement from your linky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
....And rationalwiki comes to the rescue(from the link I gave earlier) to explain what that report actually concluded with:Quote:
After a ten year study, National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program reported that there wasn’t much of a problem with acid rain.
So, a report which concluded that acid rain is a concern is warped into a report saying the opposite by your looniesource.Quote:
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was commissioned to produce a report on acid rain by 1984. Reagan administration insiders managed to get general purpose denialist S. Fred Singer onto the OSTP's acid rain peer review panel. The OSTP report outlined a number of the uncertainties in the research (e.g., rate of acid deposition, the area over which acid deposition would spread, etc.). Singer attempted to play up these uncertainties and slip political statements into the report (the report was intended to conclude whether or not policy was necessary, not to recommend a specific policy). The final draft of the report in 1984 found that the problem posed by acid rain was sufficient to warrant policy action and Singer's nonsense had been confined to an appendix at the end of the report. The appendix flogged the uncertainty tactic, essentially saying "it's not that bad, and if it is, it's too expensive to do anything about it anyway."
I like how you give articles I can debunk by only reading two sentences. Makes things go a lot faster, keep this up!
You take wiki over official scientific studies, that's rich. Again, no such thing as acid rain, water is naturally acidious. Like the current great scare it's all bull. Flaggalanties just have to blame humanity for something. Clever businessmen get rich with it.
A famous quote from a Dutch bishop, 'if you keep them poor I'll keep them stupid'
I'm not able to get the 1990's report since I don't have my jstore login here. However, I did manage to find their 2005 report. Their summary(p.73):Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sounds like they still believe acid rain is rather dangerous, doesn't it?Quote:
Title IV has been quite successful at
effectively reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx
from power generation to the levels set
by Congress. In fact, by 2020 emissions
from power plants are expected to be less
than half of the total SO2 emissions in the
U.S. As a result of these emission reductions,
some acid-sensitive areas are already beginning to show signs of recovery.
Full implementation of Title IV, and the pas-
sage of time needed for affected
ecosystems to respond to the new
environmental conditions, are expected to al-
low more areas to recover. However, several
scientific studies indicate that the emission
reductions achieved by Title IV are not suffi-
cient to allow recovery of acid-sensitive
ecosystems. Estimates from the literature of
the scope of additional emission reductions
that are necessary in order to protect acid-
sensitive ecosystems range from
approximately 40–80% beyond full
implementation of Title IV, with the most re-
cent studies focusing on the largest reduc-
tions. This report analyzes the impacts of a
range of levels that would achieve fuller en-
vironmental recovery from acid rain and
greater avoidance of the adverse ecological
effects associated with acid deposition.
The results of the modeling presented in
this Report to Congress indicate that
broader recovery is not predicted without
additional emission reductions.
Elimination of all SO2
emissions from power plants, how-
ever, will not fully protect all acid-sensitive
ecosystems affected by acid deposition; re-
ductions from other source categories would
be needed.
The information requested by
Congress and presented here represents
part of what is needed when determining
appropriate future actions; other information
includes the costs and other impacts of
emission reductions and
the value the public
places on further improvements to the envi-
ronment and human health.
And since you value scientific reports over wiki's, I assume you also value them over loonieblogs. Thus, you are now forced to conclude that acid rain is, in fact, a fact.
And the reduction had no effect on phd levels whatsoever, so it was a whole lot of nothing. It just says that the emission was reduced. Serious scientists without any ties to the green movements and clever businessmen saw no reduction of the phd-levels at all. There is simply no connection.
Cyanobacteria or blue-green algae has a notable pattern of a massive blooming, poisoning the lake at first, then breaking it down costs all the oxygen in the bottom water, causing anaerobic bacterias to continue the breakdown, while they create funny stuff like H2S. It's a big issue in the Baltic sea, way less so in lakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Acid lakes simply die. Or at least some species in it. The water gets notable clearer, while algae blooming creates something more like a soup.
Over 100.000 tons of lime is used every year for it, but the number is diminishing because its less needed. And sulphur reduction is about 90% since the 70-ties.
I didn't know it was meant as an academic reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony