Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Your Thoughts on the Great Ozone Debate?

Cliff posted about 9 years ago | from the environmentally-unsound dept.

The Media 719

Hrodvitnir asks: "Yesterday the BBC reported that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the largest on record. Today CNN says that it is recovering, or at least stabilized. Do we really know what's going on? Is this more bad science/false studies, or are they both partially right?"

cancel ×

719 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We can't even agree on global warming (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about 9 years ago | (#13456363)

This is not likely to be any easier for science

Re:We can't even agree on global warming (4, Insightful)

B'Trey (111263) | about 9 years ago | (#13456448)

Well, in this case, it's pretty easy. Both stories say exactly the same thing - the rate of damage has slowed but the damage hasn't halted, and it's projected to be around 50 years before the damage is completely halted and the ozone recovers to pre-industrial status.

Re:We can't even agree on global warming (4, Funny)

Botia (855350) | about 9 years ago | (#13456563)

Who wants ozone anyways? That stuff is poisonous!

Herb (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 9 years ago | (#13456604)

I keep a can of it in my car, helps kill the "herb" aroma when the coppers pull me over...

Re:We can't even agree on global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456513)

Slashdotters might not agree on it, but the scientific community basically does.

Re:We can't even agree on global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456665)

Science? Hah! The hole is caused by god peering through from heaven.

Easy (2, Insightful)

Freexe (717562) | about 9 years ago | (#13456364)

They're both partially.

Re:Easy (1)

Freexe (717562) | about 9 years ago | (#13456438)

right*, doh!

Re:Easy (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 9 years ago | (#13456487)

Dang! I said "wrong". After all, I had a 50% chance of being right ;-)

Re:Easy (1)

syphax (189065) | about 9 years ago | (#13456588)

Atmospheric ozone chemistry is really dynamic and variable. It's not necessarily inconsistent to observe that we may see a record-setting hole this year, but in general, the trend for global ozone is improving. If you RBFA you'll see that they are not entirely in conflict.

BBC:
Two years ago researchers produced the first evidence that damage to the ozone layer is slowing down; globally, they showed, destruction continues, but at a slower rate than before.

That is down to the Montreal Protocol, established in 1987, which has limited production and use of CFCs and related substances.

But the indications are that the ozone layer will not be back to its pre-industrial condition for at least another 50 years.

CNN:
The ozone layer has stopped shrinking but it will take decades to start recovering, U.S. scientists reported on Tuesday. ...

An analysis of satellite records and surface monitoring instruments shows the ozone layer has grown a bit thicker in some parts of the world, but is still well below normal levels, the scientists report in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Well, sort of (4, Informative)

mcc (14761) | about 9 years ago | (#13456636)

The articles linked are both right in some sense, the article submission is wrong... the slashdot summary here says the 2005 hole is the "the largest on record", the BBC article it links says it is the largest on record since 2000, which was the actual all-time record...

Re:Easy (4, Informative)

lightyear4 (852813) | about 9 years ago | (#13456677)

Both are completely right. An elaboration: Wheras the CNN article discusses the stabilization of ozone depletion, the BBC article discusses the size of the Antarctic ozone hole. The BBC piece says, in not so many words, that the size of the ozone depleted region was largest in 2000 and 2003, owing to biennial-ish seasonal fluctuations and weather conditions. The hole might be of similar size THIS year as well for the same reasons. However, to quote from the very same BBC article:

  • Two years ago researchers produced the first evidence that damage to the ozone layer is slowing down; globally, they showed, destruction continues, but at a slower rate than before.
    That is down to the Montreal Protocol, established in 1987, which has limited production and use of CFCs and related substances.
    But the indications are that the ozone layer will not be back to its pre-industrial condition for at least another 50 years.

So then, both articles do indeed agree. They were not referring to separate conclusions on the same issue, but instead to different facets of the same phenomenon.

get out the book (1)

cloudkiller (877302) | about 9 years ago | (#13456368)

someone call guiness, i want this verified.

Re:get out the book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456530)

Guiness??? Why? Isn't Budwiser?

What I've always wondered (2, Interesting)

suso (153703) | about 9 years ago | (#13456369)

Does the hole over the antarctic have anything to do with the fact that there is no or very little plan vegetation down there? I guess if so the same hole might be over the arctic. But still, why does the hole end up over a magnetic pole?

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | about 9 years ago | (#13456414)

There is a hole over the arctic, its been known and monitored for at least as long as the antarctic one. The antarctic one gets press since it was fluctuating a lot back in the early 90s, and everyone was pointing the finger at CFC emissions.

No idea why they end up over magnetic poles, unless it just happens to coincide with the lack of vegetation... I don't really know anything about that stuff.

Re:What I've always wondered (4, Funny)

RealityMogul (663835) | about 9 years ago | (#13456429)

Its because oxygen is heavier that ozone, so it falls to the bottom of the earth and displaces the ozone.

Re:What I've always wondered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456458)

I'm sorry, but that is the most stupid thing I've ever read. Please please tell me that was supposed to be sarcastic

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

psyjoniz (909608) | about 9 years ago | (#13456587)

HAHAHAHA... thats hysterical

Re:What I've always wondered (4, Informative)

mOoZik (698544) | about 9 years ago | (#13456440)

The reason they end up over the poles is because that's where the offending particles end up. To read about why this is so, visit here: Ozone Hole [coolantarctica.com] .

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

DarthTaco (687646) | about 9 years ago | (#13456464)

"But still, why does the hole end up over a magnetic pole?" I thought the general theory was centripetal action.

Re:What I've always wondered (2, Informative)

Afecks (899057) | about 9 years ago | (#13456468)

Does the hole over the antarctic have anything to do with the fact that there is no or very little plan vegetation down there? I guess if so the same hole might be over the arctic. But still, why does the hole end up over a magnetic pole? No it doesn't. The ozone is created by the sun's rays hitting the earth's atmosphere. During this time of year there are fewer rays hitting the South Pole. Less rays, less ozone. No big deal.

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

suso (153703) | about 9 years ago | (#13456583)

Right, but the process of making ozone uses oxygen, which is generated from photosynthesis [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 years ago | (#13456511)

But still, why does the hole end up over a magnetic pole?

Its not a matter of magnetism, but sunlight. Ozone forms in the upper atmosphere as a result of sunlight striking oxygen in the air. The atmosphere north of the arctic and south of the antarctic circles is largely blocked from sunlight during the winter.

Ozone's not a very stable molecule, so without the energy input from sunlight to form ozone, ozone tends to break down and become ordinary O2 again.

-jcr

No (2, Informative)

vlad_petric (94134) | about 9 years ago | (#13456527)

The ozone layer actually has nothing to do with plants. It is continually produced by solar radiation and oxygen, and it is also continually "consumed". O3 is heavier than air, so it falls down in the lower atmosphere. However, things like CFCs are very effective at catalytically breaking down ozone into regular oxygen (1 molecule of CFC will break thousands of ozone molecules). The stratospheric clouds during the polar winter just happen to have a higher concentration of CFCs.

BTW, did you know that because of the huge ozone hole, Chileans from the extreme south have to wear sunscreen all the time ?

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456678)

If only Bush would stop catering to big business and get serious about the environment, this would all stop and the world would be livable once again.

Re:What I've always wondered (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | about 9 years ago | (#13456597)

*over simplified explanation*

To put it simply, it has a lot to do with the Van Allen (sp?) radiation belts / which are essentially tied to the Earth's magnetic field.

Since the magnetic field radiates out from the poles, surrounding the planet, to end at the opposing pole, the ends end up being close to a donut shape. Where that hole is, is where more radiation can get in, causing the ozone to break down.

According to scientists, there's always been, and always will be a hole at the poles, however, our CFC production/release as well as changes in green house gas production have affected the cycles of growth / shrinkage normally associated with the holes.

I will explain something to you (0)

zardo (829127) | about 9 years ago | (#13456628)

The parent has demonstrated the fact that most people have no idea what ozone is and how it's produced. Politicians and environmentalists really harp on this for effect, because they can say things that people can't immediately tell are false.

Almost all the ozone in the atmosphere is produced from the sun. Ozone has a very short half-life, it quickly decays into oxygen. Sending a CFC balloon into the atmosphere (I saw that on an episode of GI Joe as a kid) may destroy a quantity of ozone, but it would probably regenerate to its previous levels within a few hours. The only thing humans can do to reduce ozone is to steal all the oxygen, or convert it to solid matter (metal oxides and what not). Fact is concentrations of CO2 and O2 change very, very little.

So to answer your question poster, I speculate the reason for the hole over the antarctic is because it doesn't get enough direct sunlight, you can actually see the sunlight coming in at the Aurora Borealis, it never makes it to the upper region of the poles because it is traveling at a more acute angle, penetrating much longer distances of atmosphere as it comes in. I bet the concentrations of ozone in the aurora are very high because of this.

yes...? (1)

z3r0w8 (664036) | about 9 years ago | (#13456370)

I am quite sure it is.

Well... (5, Funny)

slavemowgli (585321) | about 9 years ago | (#13456375)

Let's see who we have:

The BBC: one of the most highly-respected independent news organisations in the world.

CNN: an outlet for political propaganda, thanks to Ted Turner.

Who are you going to believe?

Easy... (5, Funny)

benhocking (724439) | about 9 years ago | (#13456410)

Fox! After all, they're fair and balanced!

Re:Easy... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456492)

Ahhh, good old Fox. The news channel that decided to give me a good 5 minute long update on the movie filming that had to stop in New Orleans rather than let me know about what was really happening there...

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456432)

> Who are you going to believe?

Depends on how it's 'launched' or how often it's repeated.

Dude, what are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456445)

Ted Turner doesn't work for CNN anymore, and the BBC is definitely not politically neutral. The BBC is accountable to the government, and their news agency was recently threatened to lose their funding, then had to back down, because they were running stories critical of the Iraq War.

Re:Well... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456446)

BBC: Most LIBERIAL news machine ever built.

CNN: BBC wanna be's

Who am I going to believe - myself. These people have no f-in clue what their talking about.

Re:Well... (1)

fusionsquared (865008) | about 9 years ago | (#13456449)

BBC is the outlet for Chicken Little. Isn't that what you meant to say?

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

Solr_Flare (844465) | about 9 years ago | (#13456465)

I've yet to find a single media source that isn't biased. And yes, the BBC is very biased, so is CNN, Fox News, and yup even slashdot. That's why intelligent viewers look deeper into the stories presented to them, or use multiple sources of information(something they teach you in grade school..or at least did when I was growing up).

Re:Well... (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 9 years ago | (#13456473)

Check out the christian science monitor... about as unbiased as it gets for international news.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456482)

The BBC: one of the most highly-respected independent news organisations in the world.

With a blatant and adamently unacknowledged liberal bent.

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | about 9 years ago | (#13456537)

CNN: an outlet for political propaganda, thanks to Ted Turner.

You've got several problems with that.

1) Turner is notably liberal and, if you are right with your stereotypical thinking, would be more likely to report damage to the environment than that it's getting better, but CNN is reporting the opposite.

2) It seems you didn't RTFA, at least the CNN article. Note that it cites a NOAA report.

There have been many reports, even discussed and linked to on here, about how scientists in the Bush administration are constantly forced to alter reports to fit the views of the administration. Since this administration says everything is okay, there is no need to worry, it is only expected to see a report issued from a branch of the US gov. to agree with that statement.

Re:Well... (1)

parasonic (699907) | about 9 years ago | (#13456553)

The BBC: Run by a government that's run by socialists. Implications of the Labour party? Bash me if you please.

Very important (2, Insightful)

beldraen (94534) | about 9 years ago | (#13456566)

A big problem with listen to any debate is the understand that while people who are talking are equal, their knowledge is not necessarily equal. For any subject you can find, you can easily find ten people arguing on one side and ten on another. In the end, it comes down to two possibilities: Global warming is happening, global warming is not happening.

Unfortunately, America has lost responsibility in the press. It used to be about finding and reporting facts. Now it is about finding both sides to argue so as to make more money printing the same things over and over. In the end, whether or not global warming is happening or not, it makes sense that if there are things we suspect that are screwing the Earth up, we should take care of it. Americans are used to suing when you do something stupid and want to get out of it. There is no one to sue or a way to get a new Earth.

not THAT unusual (2, Informative)

Afecks (899057) | about 9 years ago | (#13456379)

The hole is a seasonal ozone hole over the South Pole. It comes and goes, sometimes it's bigger than usual. This has been used by environmentalists since the 80's to scare people.

Re:not THAT unusual (2, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 9 years ago | (#13456454)

Nevertheless, three quarters of the carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution is still there. Sooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost.

Re:not THAT unusual (2, Funny)

sweet sounding (908653) | about 9 years ago | (#13456606)

Are you the global warning malcolm X?

Seasonal? So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456507)

So what if it is seasonal, if it is getting worse and worse every year that's a bad sign.

That's like saying global warming doesn't exist because it still gets cold in the winters. What differnce does it make as long as it's not as cold as it used to be in the winter, and is hotter in the summer?

And ozone doesn't have anything to do with plants. It is produced from lightning. I believe there tends to be less ozone over the magnetic poles because the poles pull in ionizing radiation from the solar winds which breaks up the ozone.

I don't know, but I have other thoughts... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456384)

Like, for instance, am I the only one to have noticed that all the New Orleans looters are niggers? None of them white?

I think they drag the country down, make it look uncivilised. We should send them back to Africa where they can be as savage as they like.

Just my thoughts.

Re:I don't know, but I have other thoughts... (2, Interesting)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | about 9 years ago | (#13456463)

I guess you are like the person who wrote the caption on the following photo... because these people are white, they "found" this food in a store:

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/0 50830071810_shxwaoma_photo1 [yahoo.com]

Yet this black guy didn't find stuff, he looted it:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/48 0/ladm10708301649 [yahoo.com]

Uh huh.

Re:I don't know, but I have other thoughts... (0, Flamebait)

Francisco_G (676828) | about 9 years ago | (#13456545)

Well aren't you a good anti-racist! The black guy has garbage bags full of items, obviously looting. The whites carrying bread and soda, absolute necessities, don't deserve to be ridiculed.

Re:I don't know, but I have other thoughts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456593)

I guess you are like the person who wrote the caption on the following photo... because these people are white, they "found" this food in a store

In your pictures the white couple is obviously carrying bread. No one is faulting anyone that is taking food, diapers or other supplies from flooded stores so they can survive. OTOH, the second picture is of a man pulling two large garbage sacks of items. To be fair, it's impossible to tell what's in those garbage sacks, maybe food for his family that didn't want to get wet.

The news last night did show many people, predominantly black, looting. They were stealing TVs, clothes, shoes, display cases, etc... These people were obviously NOT just getting supplies to get through the disaster.

not all sure... (2, Insightful)

solosaint (699000) | about 9 years ago | (#13456385)

i dont think we know all there is to know yet, but i have to think that much of what man has done has had some effect

Ozone Hole Generator ® (1)

truckaxle (883149) | about 9 years ago | (#13456398)

The science is right rest assured. I have been recently doing prelim testing on my Ozone Hole Generator ® in my quest for world domination. I have choosen using the antartic as my test bed since I didn't want to tip my hand too soon. But things are shaping up quite nicely I will be submitting my demands... err offer soon, actually I like to think of it as my IPO Muahahahahahah.

good and bad.. (1)

dotpavan (829804) | about 9 years ago | (#13456399)

from the article, once can infer that in some places, the ozone layer has deteriorated and some palces, it has stabilized.

but that does not imply its improving all over, esp with moves like US denying to join the grp to reduce or check emissions..

Do you want to take the risk of inaction ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456400)


the goverment in New Orleans thought so, and look what happened

its real and its here, get used to it

Re:Do you want to take the risk of inaction ? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 9 years ago | (#13456659)

Doesn't it hurt when your knee jerks like that?

no one has a clue (2, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 9 years ago | (#13456409)

The ones that think we are harming the earth and the ones that think we aren't

neither side have any idea what is going on with the earth.

the earth will be fine, now and long after humans are wiped from the planet. are we speeding up that process? maybe, maybe not.

Re:no one has a clue (1)

justforaday (560408) | about 9 years ago | (#13456526)

And this really gets to the heart of the matter. The entire "save the planet" movement is really "save the humans." The Earth will be fine long after we're gone...

Re:no one has a clue (2, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | about 9 years ago | (#13456547)

neither side have any idea what is going on with the earth.

Yes, we do. The chemical reactions that result in CFCs depleting ozone are well understood. If you didn't sleep through freshman chemistry, you probably learned about that, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, etc. It's all perfectly valid science.

If you want to debate global warming, that's a separate issue. There is no doubt that humans have done significant damage to the ozone layer.

Re:no one has a clue (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 9 years ago | (#13456552)

the earth will be fine, now and long after humans are wiped from the planet.

I agree completely. We couldn't wipe out life on earth if we dedicated all our efforts to it. It's that last part that I'm worried about.

That we don't know, and some people think that's the same as us being safe and not needing to change anything, is what scares me. We need to know. And in the give and take of "maybe, maybe not" there's a lot to say "maybe" and therefore a lot to say we are screwing ourselves by doing nothing and waiting for a final answer.

My greatest fear is that we will finally solve the issue, and the science community will say with one voice "Yes, we finally realized that we are dooming our own race through our actions... and the last chance to do anything about it was one hundred years ago."

You don't wait until you're 100% sure the snake isn't poisonous before you move your hand away, do you?

That's just my take. I want to save our way of life for my descendents, and I'm frustrated by people who think doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I hope you can swim (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 9 years ago | (#13456621)

the earth will be fine

Sure, but wouldn't be nice if the biosphere sitting on it would make it too?

Watch a bit of New Orleans news, and think about how readily people dismiss the warnings about increasing severity of storms and other atmospheric extremes due to global warming.

Translation (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 9 years ago | (#13456413)

It stopped growing, but it's still the largest on earth.

Ta-da! :D

Love /. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456417)

.. for the insightful comments.
Farewell.

It's not news if it isn't sensational (5, Insightful)

Bob3141592 (225638) | about 9 years ago | (#13456419)

Bad science? More likely bad reporting. The public likes their news in small, easilly digested sound bites, but something as complex as environmental policy issues don't fit that template. So one scientific paper says the ozone hole isn't as big as before (even if the previous case was a record breaker) and the press says that things are recovering. That's just misleading.

What we need are better educated reporters. And a better educated public. But I'm not holding my breath for that, no matter how polluted the air is.

my great idea... (0, Flamebait)

phobafiliac (704426) | about 9 years ago | (#13456424)

my great idea (and i hope you think so, too) is to FIX the hole... the idea [somethinglikewhoa.com] (pops). /didnt RTFA

Re:my great idea... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456505)

My great idea is that you learn how to spell, so that when anyone reads your ideas, you don't sound like a wild monkey throwing feces from behind the cage walls. /I did read your website.

I'd like to take a moment (-1, Troll)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 9 years ago | (#13456433)

and thank the United States, along with other countries all over the world, for STILL depending on the archaic power production form known as "Coal power plants". I look forward to dying of skin cancer! Your efforts to completly fuck up the globe (and then deny anything is happening while massive hurricanes batter continents, the temperatures keep getting warmer, and smog slowly vertakes clean air in major cities) are very appreciated.

Re:I'd like to take a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456503)

That is because you green enviro-idiots won't let them build any nuclear power plants. At least here in Franch they don't care.

Re:I'd like to take a moment (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 9 years ago | (#13456576)

I live in Canada. Did you know something like 50% of Ontario's power comes from Nuclear plants? "Green enviro-idiots" pretty much ONLY applies to the US. Funny (ironic?), considering you're the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.

Re:I'd like to take a moment (1)

truckaxle (883149) | about 9 years ago | (#13456555)

Wait a dogone minute.... is there link between be coal power and ozone? I thought the Ozone Hole was do to CFC release into the air and Comsic Rays [newscientist.com] . In fact, burning coal releases ozone.

Re:I'd like to take a moment (4, Interesting)

bladernr (683269) | about 9 years ago | (#13456562)

I'd like to take a moment and thank the United States, along with other countries all over the world, for STILL depending on the archaic power production form known as "Coal power plants".

Why the US? You should be focusing on China and India. While the US did not sign Kyoto, it is still taking some steps on the environment (amazing considering the prevailing attitude of the party in power). China and India signed the Kyoto treaty - in which they made no committments (not sure why signing was a big deal, honestly, since they don't have to do anything).

Kyoto was intended to keep polution at 1990 levels (I would argue to reduce it from there - but just keeping it there was a start). China and India are countries of 1.3 and 1.0 billion people where pollution is skyrocketing, and no one is talking about it. The pollution in some cities in China and its health effects are astouding - nothing in the modern US or Western Europe compares. Why can't we agree that ALL countries need to go back to 1990 levels - and then work to reduce from there.

The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus ones in China (and India, but less of a consideration), because of different environmental requirements. You must have a level playing field to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to create a system that favoured China.

If you look at the trends out to 2050 and 2100, the US is NOT the problem - it's China and India.

Re:I'd like to take a moment (2, Informative)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | about 9 years ago | (#13456611)

You need to learn some science. Ozone depletion and global warming are NOT the same thing. Carbon dioxide does NOT deplete ozone. Chlorine, in the form of CFCs, DOES deplete ozone. Thanks to an international treaty, most CFC production has ceased and CFC concentration in the atmosphere is dropping. And while there are hints that global warming may exacerbate ozone depletion, this is by no means certain. Most models suggest that ozone depletion is stabilizing and will recover in a few decades. At least in this sense, we're reducing our damage. Now is the time to concentrate on other, more pressing issues like global warming.

you can't stop an earthquake, hurricane, rain, ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456682)

so how can we cause it?


Everything that happens on earth is not a manmade problem, nor an American-made problem. If it's hot one day and not hot the next day someplace where it's cool, it's not man made. It's not our fault. And I'm not going to sit here and accept the premise that somehow we are to blame for this. And that's what worries me the most about you liberals. Why can't you just accept that there are powers greater than us, greater than we have that may have influence over this over which we have no control? There's not one climactic event that we can stop, that we can alter, that we can detour. We cannot stop it raining harder; we cannot move thunderstorms; we cannot weaken hurricanes; we cannot steer them out of the way; we can't stop snowstorms; we can't stop drought; we can't do diddlysquat about all this, so in my mind there's no way we can cause it. You can't have one without the other. If we're causing it, then we can stop it. We can't stop it.

so saith rush

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083105 /content/anchorman.guest.html [rushlimbaugh.com]

full post:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Paul in Burlington, Connecticut. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. How can you say you're grounded in reality when you keep denying the issue of global warming? And it seems to me that the -- the answers don't fit your politics, and you're afraid of what the left has to say about this and their solutions, why aren't the conservatives on board? I think is the real issue. There's enough evidence. There's enough people saying it is, that we can't all be, you know, blame-America-first, freedom-hating sort of people -- and I've listened to you long enough to know you changed your position on it [sic]. You used to deny it existed. Now you've come to some sort of terms. "Well, it may be happening. It may be sunspots," and where are the conservative answers?

RUSH: Wait.

CALLER: It's obvious it's happening whether the hurricane was caused by it or not.

RUSH: Wait. Wait.

CALLER: Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't.

RUSH: Wait, wait. No, no, no. It's not obvious that it's happening in the sense that you guys mean it. The only stipulation I've made is, "There may be global warming, because I'm not an idiot. There have been warming cycles of the earth and freezing cycles, ice cycles, for as long as the earth has been around. We may be in a naturally warming cycle." Where I part ways from you is that man is causing it. There is no evidence of that, zilch, zero, nada. There's nothing more than a 25-year shrill campaign to create subconsciously the idea in everybody's mind that when it gets hot in July and hot in August it must be global warming; when it gets cold and a snowstorm happens in January, and happens to be a little bit more intense than it was last year, it must be global warming. Nobody can prove it. Nobody can prove that man is causing it. To me the proof that man is not causing it is there's nothing we can do to stop it. This hurricane was said to be caused by global warming. Well, this hurricane weakened right before it hit and it had nothing to do with the ocean temperature. It had to do with some dry air that it had encountered and pushed it further east (story).

But the problem that I have with you guys on global warming is it's become a political issue by which you seek to advance the liberal agenda. It's nothing more than a platform for you. Whenever I see anything designed to advance the liberal agenda, I'm going to oppose it because I hate the liberal agenda. I disagree with it. It's destructive; it's damaging, and it doesn't do anybody any good -- other than if you define it by spreading misery equally as the New York Times accurately headlined today in their coverage of the hurricane. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but I'm not going to accept your premise that there is man-made global warming. And therefore what's the conservative solution? Everything does not have a solution. Everything is not a problem. Everything that happens on earth is not a manmade problem, nor an American-made problem. If it's hot one day and not hot the next day someplace where it's cool, it's not man made. It's not our fault. And I'm not going to sit here and accept the premise that somehow we are to blame for this. And that's what worries me the most about you liberals. Why can't you just accept that there are powers greater than us, greater than we have that may have influence over this over which we have no control? There's not one climactic event that we can stop, that we can alter, that we can detour. We cannot stop it raining harder; we cannot move thunderstorms; we cannot weaken hurricanes; we cannot steer them out of the way; we can't stop snowstorms; we can't stop drought; we can't do diddlysquat about all this, so in my mind there's no way we can cause it. You can't have one without the other. If we're causing it, then we can stop it. We can't stop it.

And this fossil fuel business, burning fossil fuels? It's absolutely nothing more than a theory, and there are countless scientists who disagree with it. There are countless scientists who oppose it. Why do you think we haven't signed Kyoto? Because we still have some sanity left in this country in the scientific movement. The Kyoto Accord, if you want to know the details, the Kyoto accord claims that the Celsius temperature rise over the next hundred years will be three degrees without Kyoto. With Kyoto it will be 2.86 degrees. So we're talking about four-tenths of a degree centigrade if we sign Kyoto. Do you know what that's going to matter to a hill of beans? Zero, diddlysquat, and it wouldn't have had a thing to do with stopping this hurricane or making it less intense. There are forces greater than man, Paul. There are forces far greater than man that created all of this. We do not have dominion over it all. The idea that we do is a descent into vanity that I can't relate to. On the one hand you people on the left claim we're no different than rats; we're no different than any other animal that's on earth. In fact some of you say that this would be a far better place without us. On the other hand, when we're no different than rats, and no different than other animals -- who certainly don't do anything to cause global warming -- we all of a sudden still are more powerful than they are because we can stop this, because we're causing it?

The focus in this disaster ought to be on the destruction and the lives and the people, and the rebuilding and everything that we see on TV. But the focus with the left is on affixing blame, affixing blame that cannot be proven, cannot be established. Global warming, if the listen to Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center, he's an expert, William Gray, they're getting tired of the question. There's no relationship to hurricanes and global warming. It's a natural cycle that these storms go through, and the cycles are 40 years long, and they're irrelevant to global warming. The question that I have for people like you, Paul, is: "Why are you so gullible? Why are you such a sponge? Why are you so willing to soak up news and information that blames your country, that blames your lifestyle, that blames your species? What is it about you that wants to sit here and accept all the blame and then after you've accepted it transfer it to Republicans who disagree with you?" That's what I want to know. What kind of life must you live, to have to want to sit here and accept all the blame for these things? There are countless disasters the world over. To blame America, to blame fossil fuels, when these disasters have happened throughout time. When you understand that a volcanic eruption will spew more destructive pollution into the atmosphere than all automobile pollution since the history of the invention of the car combined, you have to understand that we are pretty inconsequential when it comes to the climate system and the ecology system of this planet. We are residents. Yes, there are things that we can do, and I'm not opposed to keeping things as clean as we can -- and we do a better job of that than any country in the world. We clean up our messes better than anybody in the world, and we spread that assistance and the technology that we have developed and the things that we have learned, and we have shared this with the rest of the world that has the ability to incorporate it. The idea that it all comes back to us, that it all comes back to be our fault, and it's all Bush's fault? Do you realize how absurd this all sounds, particularly when you say it next to the pictures we all see on TV?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

I am sorry, my friends, I cannot let this go. (sniveling liberal impression) "What are you conservatives going to do to offer a solution? You keep changing your mind. You know it's happening out there." Let me give you the conservative answer. For those of you on the left out there and those of you who are still straddling the fence on this environmentalist wacko stuff and you may think there's some relevance to it, the answer to the question, "What are you conservatives going to do to solve things?" let me throw this right back at you, and it goes right along with what I've always said about don't accept the premise. You liberals need to show me what you've fixed before I'm going to rely on you to fix anything else. You complain about things is all the liberals do. You would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience. You are driving up the cost of energy; you are driving down the supply of energy, and you are going to make it more difficult to heat homes during winter and cool homes during the summer if you succeed. You are going to drive up the cost of food and all products which are processed and transported with fuel. You are going to cause us to rely more and more on foreign countries and foreign regimes that seek to harm us but happen to control countries that are rich in oil. You are driving up costs. You are driving down supply, and then you blame others for the consequences of your policies, like George W. Bush! You don't fix anything out there. All you do is complain and whine and moan, and your solutions to the problems would bring about total destruction and havoc, if you were given free rein.

The environmentalists make it much more difficult to survive Mother Nature, not to tame her. Mother Nature can't be tamed! The folly of thinking that. Any time any local or state government attempts to build limited defenses against floods and the like, who runs into court? Who runs into the EPA and the interior department? Who throws up one obstacle after another? It's the environmentalists, folks, who treat Mother Nature like god, left to be untouched. On the one hand they use the power of government to obstruct progress, and on the other hand they demand the government act when tragedy hits! It's the same thing with military and law enforcement. They work year after year to undermine them and then when there's a disaster, they're the first to demand the military and law enforcement come to the rescue. Have you noticed all the Navy ships down there that have come to the rescue? If we'd listened to the left and if the left had their way there wouldn't be any Navy ships to run to the rescue and there wouldn't be a National Guard because they don't think it's anything but a bunch of draft dodgers. They don't offer solutions. They don't fix things. They only make things worse -- and that's why I oppose the liberal agenda.

Assume the worst case scenario (3, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | about 9 years ago | (#13456437)

As long as you don't have a consensus on the facts, you assume and act according to the worst case scenario.

RTFA (closely) (5, Insightful)

ShieldWolf (20476) | about 9 years ago | (#13456442)

The fourth paragraph of the BBC article says:

"There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050."

Sounds like the same thing CNN is saying to me.

Easy...... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456444)

The earth has been here for millions of years....

Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.

Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.

Extrapolation is easy if you really don't care.

AéîLsJ? (-1, Redundant)

loggia (309962) | about 9 years ago | (#13456447)

PK ä'/á¥19 mimetypeapplication/vnd.sun.xml.writerPK ä'/Ogä$ $ layout-cache p P 0 P ^ P S PK ä'/
            content.xmlí [wÚ8ú}...-½oep f/íl"!Í¥"(TM)Ü&$íÓ aÐ`Kl0~?Ù F HÛi^ÒXúîwÉnýø èrvP2z
    æqYAéîLsJ? íÝßO®ï>Ýoe"íRìûÜKBÂbÍã,ÑÍýû
ócTÒjë!a×)X^vrwç" >ÚéU
2zU?öKï- YYí "úq...ÈÁcò BK)0î Bäà¾À£Bh6Ïá|
= #+...4\×ý}Q;ã"ÄSY Ê KáÓÝ "%abIpOEYÙ%zè-"z ða*×ÇØ~)Ä"E,...E,? eûK tj--(TM)¼x2Y
K©~z ÃbÉ3R ý^£è "ÅÃdíYMC9CMY ÑsO¼ :|-- ùi eÏ WwÏCl"P--g ] Ò`oeo"jÅèGâ Ý3
(TM)LÐe{zÎñGÿy ---Ðí!=ý P Ð+8Oä[&÷&"iH"tEFè (±e*½ [ Q õ #z%''+-À"%oeÄ@!¦z-'z6ýùL... cÊf"ó
Ü xØÏ7`AV¾ôAËÚ1f> @N` Ä)è 6ðxÀ!£ÿÑíBêÏôXa Û)# Ö Ìz îÁ ɾÝ-s_Ìdôi4

AéîLsJ?

Re:AéîLsJ? (1)

Afecks (899057) | about 9 years ago | (#13456520)

lol..how did that get past the lameness filter?

Another Link (4, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 9 years ago | (#13456451)


Here's a good link [spaceref.com] to the story...quite a bit of detail not present in either article cited in the submission.

Interesting that the sources that hold that the hole is gtting worse are European, while the sources that state everything's OK are American.....hmm....

political agenda (5, Insightful)

minus_273 (174041) | about 9 years ago | (#13456466)

It really depends on what the political agenda of the person writing the story/the station is. On one hand the intention might be to make Bush look bad in which case, it is the biggest ever. On the other side, reduce panic and therefore say its recovering. If cnn said it was the biggst ever, they migth be accused of scaremongering.

Go look at some stories on democratic underground and you will see stories saying that Bush was responsible for hurricanes because of global warrming and a ton of "scientists" backing that. Look on michael moore.com and cindy sheehan has a post about jews who took soldiers away for war in iraq and not being here to stop the looting ( hello posse comitatus) in New Orleans.

My point, "News" is basically the blog of some reporter with about as much factual basis behind it. (See jason blair)

Did you RTFA? (1)

madman101 (571954) | about 9 years ago | (#13456467)

The articles do not contradict each other, both say the problem is slowly fixing itself but it will take decades. The CNN article doesn't even mention the hole over the Antartic that the BBC article is talking about.

RTFA (1)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | about 9 years ago | (#13456475)

In the BBC article, it states that this year's hole is "ONE OF the largest on record". It also states that the ones in 2000 and 2003 are still the largest on record. This year's could get larger, sure, but we won't know for sure for a few weeks.

Magnetic Pole Flip causing this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456478)

Nova did a story on this and when you saw the change in the magnetic field at the poles it looked like an outline of the ozone hole.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/ [pbs.org]

It amazed me to hear that there are areas in the southern hemisphere that a compass does not work at all.

Being used to push an agenda (2, Insightful)

Leknor (224175) | about 9 years ago | (#13456484)

This is another case of science being used to push an agenda. Is the "hole" there, sure, I'll take their word for it. If I really cared I could establish if that fact was true or not. Everything after that fact is opinion and probably biased. Some people may believe it's a problem and will change the earth for the worse forever. Other people may believe it's part of the natural evolution of the earth which may lead to a new great era. Others may believe it's part of Intelligent Design so it must be implicitly good. Who is right? Probably none of the above. My opinion is that the effects will be both bad and good. It's part of life, learn to deal with change.

This is America, we don't care (1, Insightful)

no parity (448151) | about 9 years ago | (#13456490)

We rather have our cities covered in 30 feet of water than care about the environment.

Re:This is America, we don't care (1)

releppes (829336) | about 9 years ago | (#13456575)

Nah....I live in the north, so I still don't care....until winter comes :)

RTFA (1)

Mark of THE CITY (97325) | about 9 years ago | (#13456493)

BBC: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000.

Not the biggest depletion ever, just the largest in five years.

tan (2, Funny)

daddyrief (910385) | about 9 years ago | (#13456501)

I, for one, could use the extra sun. Being a nerd, I'm pretty white.

There is no "partially right" (3, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | about 9 years ago | (#13456510)

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with bias in media. The real question is who is lying and who is telling the truth? My money is on the folks who say global warming is happening because they have quantifiable data to back their claims up. The people who are opposed to those findings have yet to produce reliable proof. But getting back to the question at hand, where does the bias come from? The news media corporations have many companies behind them. And those companies have investors backing them financially expecting a return on their investment. And not just a reasonable return, but unrealistic expectations. This drives those parent companies to cover their asses every which way as long as whatever they are doing makes a profit. They could be putting newborn babies in crash test simulators and if there was a tidy profit to be made from it, they'd do it and then try to hide the fact that they're doing it. Meanwhile, the media companies that they control aren't going to leak a word of the story because the parent company could shoot them down permanently. It's gotten out of hand and I suggest that some people at the tops of many corporations need to be handled in the way that Pat Robertson suggested that Hugo Chavez be handled. ;P Seriously. All the investors need to put down the crack pipes and realize that they are indirectly responsible for a lot of really rotten things. Don't just bury your head in the sand. Accept the fucking responsibility.

How do you measure it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456533)

Let's all measure apples against apples before we make apple juice.

Maybe because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456574)

Maybe because it's winter down there and there's not enough sunlight to replenish it? And because there's not a lot of upper-atmosphere circulation, it doesn't get replenished from the upper-atmosphere outside the Antarctic region?

Maybe because of that, there always was and always will be an ozone hole over the Antarctic in their winter-time? And some years it will be larger or smaller than average?

Or we could blame it on Bush and Global Warming.

No contradiction, just spin (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 9 years ago | (#13456577)

So, the ozone layer is stabilizing... meaning that it is shrinking by less each year. It's still shrinking, however, so the hole will continue to grow for a bit.

Also, there is a 26-month cycle for equatorial winds that affects the size of the Antarctic hole, so there's a quasi-biennial cycle to the ozone layer hole.

So, the only question is, how do you want to spin it?

The hole is still getting bigger. We need to step up pollution controls. Or

Nothing to see here, the hole is stabilizing at it's current size and we expect it to go back to normal within 50 years, so our current ozone-depleting-compound-pollution policies are fine.

Are we doing the best we can in re: O3 layer? No.

Do we need to do better? I dunno, and apparently, neither does anyone else.

Why _South_ Pole? (1)

redelm (54142) | about 9 years ago | (#13456582)

The vast preponderence of human activity is in the Northern hemisphere, and there's relatively little atmospheric exchange between the hemispheres.

I'm not exactly sure what the article submitter (3, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | about 9 years ago | (#13456594)

I'm not exactly sure what the article submitter is trying to imply or ask?

The submitter seems to be trying to say that the BBC and CNN articles contradict one another. However, this isn't the case at all. The BBC article is talking about the size of this year's hole; CNN seems to be talking about the size of the hole in a more general over-years sense. CNN is saying that the ozone hole is levelling off in a long-term sense; the BBC is talking about year-to-year fluctuations. The BBC itself even says: There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050, seeming to support the CNN article.

Moreover, the article submission is misleading. The submission says the 2005 is the largest on record. The BBC says the 2005 hole is one of the largest on record. The BBC itself says: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000. The 2000 ozone hole was still larger than this year's hole!

CFCs take a certain amount of time to fall out of the atmosphere, and the damage they cause lasts a certain amount of time beyond that. There is no sign in the news here that the Montreal protocol is anything but working; we're jolting back and forth within a certain area but at least the ozone hole is no longer getting worse constantly.

It's cyclical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456596)

I remember reading not too long ago-I cannot recall where, sorry, that the hole is cyclical, and is based on the severity of the storms in the region.

But wait...it's still just a hole? And it's ONLY over the Antarctic? How can this be? I was assured by "science" that the hole was growing and that eventually the ozone layer would be gone. Now you're telling me that it's not only still over the Antarctic, but it's STABILISED?

Loooooooocy, you got som' 'splainin' to do!

Is there really reason for debate on this? (2, Interesting)

RamboIII (899894) | about 9 years ago | (#13456610)

Has anyone noticed how freggin HOT it's getting outside these days?

Another question is, what about the magnetic field around the earth [nasa.gov] ? Why is it changing? Is it because of hair-spray? Or is it due to a natural occurance of Mother Earth?

Evolution in Action (5, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | about 9 years ago | (#13456626)

I predict that the ozone layer will vanish one day, not because of first world countries, but because third world countries dont have the cash for the more expensive ozone-friendly chemicals.

When that happens, a whole bunch of people are going to die from skin cancer and/or will go blind from cataracts, while the survivors who are more resistant to UVs will procreate.

I'd give anything to be around at that time, only to see how the creationism/evolution debate turns out.

My opinion on the Ozone debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13456641)

Pesonally I lik the e-zone much better than the ozone. But its just a personal preference.

It doesn't matter... (2, Informative)

CptNerd (455084) | about 9 years ago | (#13456657)

.. since It's All Bush's Fault(tm)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>