"I spray roundup on my driveway. The weeds die. Next year, some more weeds grow back. Because the weeds grow back and I didn't do anything to cause it, I must not have killed them in the first place."
Put that way, it's pretty stupid, isn't it?
The ozone hole, and how it's caused by chemical reactions on the surface of ice particles in the stratosphere, is no longer even mildly controversial, guy. Limbaugh is a brilliant political polemicist; he should avoid pontification in the area of atmospheric chemistry, where as far as I know he doesn't have much expertise. There isn't that much ozone up there in the first place, and if you put a source of atomic chlorine into the stratosphere, in the presence of particles upon which it can react with ozone, it will destroy the ozone.
Most 'environmnetalists' are indeed chicken-littles; there is a great deal of total b.s. talked by tree-hugging types, and he's right that many of these people really are ideologues who true goal is to make the rest of us live according to their particular notion of a harmonious life. But that doesn't mean that all environmental science is b.s.. Problem is, to tell the b.s. from the legitimate science, you really do need to know some science, and most people, on both sides of the issue, are not willing to do the hard work to learn science. So they toss idiotic slogans at each other, and when Rush does it, he's no better than the tree-huggers.
We've got to go back to something called the Big Bang, and then we've got to try to make guesses as to we were all spermazoid, promozoics.
This is gibberish. As I said, he looks like a fool when he says this sort of thing. If I were a liberal trying to convince scientists that conservatives are idiots, I'd play Rush's words here at them, without comment.
Thanks for confirming my theory. You guys are too smart for your own good.
The highest reading of chlorine in the atmosphere is 0.5ppb. In other words there are 1,999,999,999 other molecules for each chlorine up there--how is that going to destroy the ozone?
This doesn't even come close to the number of good-for-you/bad-for-you/good-for-you/bad-for-you articles that come out in the popular media about particular foods.
Let's face it, the grant system has taken science on the edge of alchemy, with wild promises of drastic results (e.g., stem cells) that are -- at best -- decades to centuries down the road. We have wild tales of doom-and-gloom from every corner of "science".
And then there's the pompous superiority of scientists who proclaim idiocy upon any individual who doesn't hold to the theory of the day which is "right" and "the only valid scientific explanation" until the next one comes along. Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Hawking. And even he can't figure out what he's doing. See here and here. At least string theorists don't call you an idiot if you don't declare 5 times a day that their theory is right, genuflecting to Cambridge. These petitions signed by scientists are nothing but the condemnation of Galileo under a veneer of a democracy.
With junk science and the absolute allergy of public schools to any mention of religion (to the point where any other faith-based philosophy -- say Communism -- has much more free reign) can you blame anyone for wanting to use ID to poke a stick in the eye of the self-righteous secular fetishists? Nobody wants ID taught, really. If you're religious, you want your religious point of view taught. It's just an attempt to undermine the existing order.
On a personal note, I am a mathematician (not a "mathematician" like Hawking -- he's a physicist) and if you believe in evolution, math is still true. If you believe in ID, math is still true. Axiom, conjecture, theorem, proof. No muss, no fuss. Of course, that kind of rigor is a little too difficult for most. Hence, if anything can be used to underscore the shifting sands on which so-called science is built, so much the better.
I saw this:
Rush: "They cannot prove that the current warming cycle that I admit we're in, can be proved to be manmade and even man-caused. There have been too many global heating and cooling cycles long before man came along and industrialized the planet, and there have been way too many volcanoes spewing pollution that doubles the amount of the total of all the automobiles ever invented and manufactured in the world."
One: There's a BIG difference between "proving that the current warming cycle is "manmade... man-caused" and establishing with considerably certainty that human activities are partly responsible for the currently observed warming (which is what has been done). Scientists can make that distinction; it's more difficult to explain it to non-scientists, and I suspect it would be difficult to explain it to Rush.
Two: "Volcanoes spewing pollution" is so vague. I suspect Rush is tabbing volcanoes as a major CO2 source, given his reference to automobile emissions. If he is, he's stating something that I, with my interests in both environment and geochemistry, have politely corrected numerous FReepers about -- volcanoes are not a major CO2 source compared to fossil-fuel energy emissions. If, on the other hand, he was so nuanced to be considering sulfur dioxide, volcanoes are a significant source -- about 1/4 of the emissions from coal burning (unfiltered) or underground coal fires.
I truly agree with you, RWP, that Rush has frequently demonstrated considerably misunderstanding of scientific knowledge related to the environment. My problem is not with his level of knowledge, but that he passes on his misconceptions to his listeners, many of whom don't have the ability to realize where he is erroneous, so Rush's errors are transformed into their own state of perceived factual knowledge. Misinformation breeds mis-knowledge, i.e., people don't understand why what they have been told is incorrect. (If they were computers, it would be GIGO.)
The voice of reason, lost in the wilderness.
Not everything can be analyzed as liberal or conservative. Some things are just facts. And most complex things simply can't be reduced to slogans.
"and if you put a source of atomic chlorine into the stratosphere, in the presence of particles upon which it can react with ozone, it will destroy the ozone."
Specify a 'source' of atomic chlorine which will continuously gernerate that flow and a source of certain particles which, in combination with atomic chlorine, will destroy the ozone, and it's source, the sun.