sir_toejam
Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005
|
silly game???
tell you what BV and all, if you want to challenge the findings of this paper, and all the research that lead to the protocol, go right on ahead.
feel free to show me the models that would predict the same results based on changes in H2S, or nitrous oxide, or whatever else you wish.
feel free to reference primary literature that conflicts with the studies on CFC's from the 80's for example.
To me, what I see is beervolcano attempting to start an argument based on his assumption that any of the variables he mentions were never covered by anyone involved with the models used to support the protocol; which is a pretty ridiculous position to take (Did he think they were retarded?)
Hey, wanna prove them wrong?
go right on ahead. You got about 30 years plus worth of articles to review and reject.
In fact, if you're really interested (are you?) i would highly encourage you to do so.
I'm sure we would all garner valuable information from the attempt, one way or the other.
I must admit that I haven't glanced at much of the primary literature in this area in over 10 years. I could use a refresher, and this study, and my support of it, could be completely wrong.
I just don't think it logical to expect 30 years of research to be overturned because you thought they might have forgotten to include NoX or H2S in the models.
Also note that the reason i posted this here was to mainly to bring up the "good news" that the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.
onto another thing. It's been my experience that the "chicken little" argument usually comes from those that have never had to deal with Government agencies or representatives of congress.
If you want to accomplish ANYTHING, you almost HAVE to overstate your case.
Not that I'm saying the case for CFC's was in this instance, but rather, that there is some political expediency to the "chicken little" syndrome.
I want to point this out, because I very often ran into scientists, in my own lab and when i was working with ngo's, that wanted to wait and wait and wait until every single detail was worked out, when it was blatantly obvious that at least some aspect of a particular issue could be acted on with likely productive results immediately.
Being careful is a good thing, but when you let the forest be bulldozed because there isn't rock-solid evidence that this forest is the ONLY significant gene pool for a specific species, well.... I think you can see what i mean. And yes, this isn't too far from many of the examples I saw both as a student, a researcher, and when working with ngo's.
You can make all the arguments for prudence you wish, BV, but can you really say that you examined the data and research at the time the protocol was put into effect enough to conclude there would be no benefit to reductions in CFC outputs?
Your general point of prudence in science is obvious.
Your specific contention that there is no value in the models used to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone levels needs more evidence.
| Quote | | I would have to do a lit search. Apparently you already have. Maybe you can just give me the weblinks you used to find these articles. |
EDIT:
hmm, this does bring up a bit of an issue if we want to actually hash this out.
I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries. the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to. I'd bet that both you and I are in the same boat that we can't afford easy access to anything but abstracts these days. If you can find links to abstracts to support your refutations, at least I can check them out the next time I hit the library.
It's likely to get pretty frustrating tho.
got a better idea?
and no, wiki doesn't qualify as primary literature 
|
