Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

CFC does not kill people. That is the reason for its use in the first place. It is a wonderful inert substance.

The only problem is CFC kills Ozone and that will remove the UV shield that ozone provides and then people and most all other living things will die from radiation exposure.

My boss, an avid mountain climber contracted skin cancer after climbing in Alaska while the ozone hole was at maximum.
Irony is that he was the manager of our spray paint division which itself was using CFC as propellant.

A month after this incident the company switched to air pressure for its spray paints.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok..back later

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe other members would like to hazard a guess as to what I am going to post later regarding Bells post...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Google: alternative gasses to HFC's for a clue...

 

Stop feeding or at least ask about the African swollow

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and your refutations has been explained as being inadequate...but yet you still consider then to be addressed.
for example:
I say 1+1=2
You say no it doesn't.
I Give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you why it doesn't.
You say because it equals 3
I explain using simple logic that 1+1 in this context equals 2
You arrogantly claim that the issue has been addressed.
No further discussion allowed .
Accuse me of trolling.
Solicit support from other members who are sadistically enjoying your attempt to humiliate.
Abusive people and abusive forum. Has been for many years now.

Sorry Bells but that is simply not good enough.

• Hypothetically Ammonia would indeed make a good alternative to HFC's. A little research would have informed you of this fact. HFC's are being phased out as planned to a gas yet to be determined. Including Ammonia, Co2 and a few others.
  
• Human science HAS enabled AGW.
• The hypothetical loss of the Amazon and Siberian Forests would indeed cause serious problems for oxygen levels in our atmosphere sometime into the future. A well known fact.
  
• The hypothetical loss of the Amazon and Siberian forests can be in part attributed to AGW. And human science has indeed enabled AGW. ( You failed to consider in your refutation that the A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic for a reason, which is incredibly daft IMO)
• CRIPR gene editing will most likely lead to a disaster when considering mismatching of edited persons.

Not a single one of your refutations have been adequate. All except the most absurd have been countered.

I entered this thread hoping to offer a rational behind the anti-science movement and all I have achieved is pages and pages of failed attempts to humiliate me. All that has happened is 15 pages of some members including you Bells, humiliating them selves.

Science has an enormous credibility problem IMO.
Of course it is not the "science" per see but the scientists to be more precise.
Science has yet to own up to the disaster of Climate change, micro plastic pollution and other massive issues. for without science we would not have these problems. Of course we would not have the luxuriant albeit temporary lifestyle we have either...
But in the consumers mind science has created these problems and hopefully science will fix them...

In the religious mind, science has been playing God and doing it really badly...

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?

• Ozone depletion = science.
• Climate change = science.
• GMO = science.
• Cancer = science.
• Cold war (nukes) = science
• Mass shootings = science
• Mass surveillance = science
• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
• just about any thing = science.

is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...

but this thread is not about the failure or success of science, it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong. Pro-science and anti science both share the same issue. IMO​

Not a single post has refuted any of what I have posted above.

I hope you are all proud of yourselves...

 

Am I the only one who finds this thread to have turned ironic, and not in an Alanis Morissette sort of way?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. That graph you showed supports my numbers. Hundreds die per year.

And why is it only hundreds and not tens of thousands? Because those evil, greedy, short-sighted scientists you complain about replaced CFC's with HFC's. You can thank them if you don't get skin cancer.

You telling me to do some research is like Trump telling me to be kinder to women. It means I'm on the right track.

 

We evolved with and adapted to UV radiation. You gonna therefore be OK with the loss of the ozone layer? After all, UVB is "natural."
We evolved with and adapted to arsenic in our water. You gonna therefore be OK with lots of arsenic in our water? After all, arsenic is "natural."

Thank God we don't have many scientists with your . . . . qualifications.

 

Don't you think?

 

another foolish post...
have another look at the graph from the WHO.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Try 10% of global population by 2050. cases of skin cancer. PER YEAR!!!
10% of an estimated 10 billion people equals how many per year?
Include cataracts, genetic mutations, green house gas emissions ( yes HFC's are a green house gas) and what have you got?
Ammonia as a substitute would never had led to such a catastrophe.
Again mad scientists doing crazy things.

How do you know that I don't have UVR generated skin cancer and going blind as well?
Who would I have to thank for that outcome...?

Trump is a classic a case of what happens when you generate anti science sentiment in an electorate. Anti vaxxer, anti EPA, anti any non-military science...
USA Voted an anti science nut job in as POTUS, why?

Very funny image but....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the joke's on you...

 

Why would I include other injuries and greenhouse gas emissions in one scenario but not yours? Looks like you are trying to get your thumb on the scale there.

(BTW ammonia currently accounts for 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions. What do you think would happen if you vastly increased its usage?)

Spoken like a chemist who was positive that the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal could never lead to a big catastrophe. I mean, what's the worst that can happen if you release a lot of toxic gas?

Because of people like you.

 

The whole issue of CFC to HFC's under the Montreal Protocol is actually quite interesting. Science doing some good under an extreme self created emergency situation.
for surely without any doubt this extreme emergency was enabled by science coupled with the sort of arrogance displayed by this thread.

The scientist know that the temporary replacement of CFC's with HFC's will promote global warming. Every intention to remove HFC's by 2050 and use a substitute were ever possible.

However, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phase-out of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs. Since the CFCs themselves are equally powerful greenhouse gases, the mere substitution of HFCs for CFCs does not significantly increase the rate of anthropogenic climate change, but over time a steady increase in their use could increase the danger that human activity will change the climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol​

so HFC's that were used to replace CFC's have since been found to be 10,000 times more potent green house gas than CO2. Go figure!!

What alternative gases can replace HFCs? Several alternatives with no or very low global warming potential (GWP) are available in Australia, which may be appropriate for use in the same applications as HFCs. These gases are not regulated under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management legislation unless they are in a blend containing a HFC. They include refrigerants such as ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons (sometimes called ‘natural refrigerants’), as well as hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs).
https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/hfc-phase-down/hfc-phase-down-faqs​

So your ignorant complaints about Ammonia being a possible replacement Gas, is refuted by numerous government web sites...
Take your naive arguments up with them not me...

 

Is that not a little unfair? The same argument can be used for nuclear power. Are you against nuclear power? Chernobyl was not the first and only disaster. Most plants (the ones that have not been shut down) are humming along just fine. I remember the absolute guarantees that nuclear power provides "safe" and "clean" electricity. Until the next accident or natural disaster.
Then potentially, tens of thousands people may suffer years of agony before dying from radiation exposure.

 

and water vapor up to 65% imagine using too much water.... duh!

 

One of the key problems is that the population of this planet have a perception that the ozone depletion issue is resolved. HFC's is all we need to solve it. Trusting science. As demonstrated in this thread, that ignorance and misplaced trust leads to complacency.
It is far from resolved. Fact.
So we replace a ozone depleting gas (CFC) to protect billions from skin cancer and other issues with a gas that accelerates AGW (HFC) with intention of removing that gas with a more environmentally benign substitute.
An "economically" viable phase out that most nations agreed to.
China is still producing CFC's that could undermine every thing the Montreal Protocol attempted to achieve.

So... we could end up with a situation that not only leads to further ozone depletion due to Chinese stupidity but also an increase in green house gas emissions due to the rational phase out planned.

The Western world's ability to negotiate with China is right now rapidly disappearing due to the naive, arrogant and fundamentally anti science attitude s of a USA elected POTUS and administration.

And guess what?
All of it was and is enabled by unwise human science.
POTUS and the science of social media technology and marketing... bah! What a twit...ter
Am I wrong?

 

please explain your hateful comment?

 

Of course. You need to make good decisions at all phases of the process.

The big mistake of Chernobyl was made very early on - to design a reactor with a positive void coefficient. That set the stage for this disaster. The best thing to do would be to learn from that mistake, not to say "well, the obvious problem is that uranium is bad! Switch to plutonium and all will be well."

Science isn't easy - but ignorance is. So we must guard against it, lest people who know almost nothing but think they know a lot end up making the decisions.

 

Not a hateful comment. Indeed, it is a comment you made yourself - that people who can't even admit that they don't know what the results will be often make poor snap decisions based on emotional arguments (like "ammonia is NATURAL!") rather than an informed analysis of the pluses and minuses of the new technology.

We solved the ozone hole problem without creating a new, even worse hazard. That's because the people who worked on the Montreal Protocol had a good grounding in science, and were informed by analysis, not emotion.

 

And did not act from profit motive......that ever present demon.