Lies versus the truth - environmentalist quackery
Malrassic Park
thinking, the epistemology, behind it lies at the heart of the
enrivonmentalist movement.
The lie:
http://environment.about.com/od/ozonedepletion/a/whatisozone.htm
"The Benefits of Good Ozone
"Small concentrations of ozone occur naturally in the stratosphere,
which is part of the Earth's upper atmosphere. At that level, ozone
helps to protect life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from
the sun, particularly UVB radiation that can cause skin cancer and
cataracts, damage crops, and destroy some types of marine life."
The truth:
(Incredibly, the truth is found at the page cited above)
"The Origin of Good Ozone
Ozone is created in the stratosphere when ultraviolet light from the
sun splits an oxygen molecule into two single oxygen atoms. Each of
those oxygen atoms then binds with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone
molecule."
Does anybody besides yours truly see the immediate discrepancy between
these two stories?
The first story gives us the "shield" theory of ozone, for example:
http://www.theozonehole.com/goodozone.htm
"In the absence of this gaseous shield in the stratosphere, the
harmful radiation has a perfect portal through which to strike Earth."
So we can easily imagine a kind of shield surrounding the earth with
UV radiation bouncing away, using little arrows to depict the motion
of the harmful UV rays.
However, this picture is contradicted by the story of how O3 is
created in the first place. Note carefully:
There is O2 floating around in the upper atmosphere. UV rays contact
this O2, splitting it into separate oxygen atoms which then combine
with O2 to create O3, "good" ozone.
By the correct theory, there is no such thing as "good" ozone, just
good old oxygen we breathe. By the correct theory, there is no shield
of ozone shield protecting us from harmful UV rays. There is just good
old oxygen absorbing UV, and in the process, recombining with O2 to
create O3 as a byproduct of this process.
The epistemological method being perpetrated by the environmentalist
movement is that of the Big Lie. As with any Big Lie, it has been told
so many times that it is in the very air we breathe, the "air" of our
culture. That is why nobody bothers to question it. Or if somebody
does notice the discrepancy between the two stories, nobody wants to
rock the boat.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> The epistemological method being perpetrated by the environmentalist
> movement is that of the Big Lie.
Ok, I'm not sure Big Lie is an adequate description. The idea of the
Big Lie
is a distortion of the truth so large that nobody would believe
anybody
could be impudent enough to tell such a big lie. Then that is combined
with incessant repetition.
We need an accurate picture of the method so we can recognize it in
all its various forms and formats.
The problem with enviro-whackos is not that the lies they tell are so
big.
It's that there are so many small ones.
Consider this site.
In case there is anybody who does not know what dihydrogen monoxide
is, it's water. The idea of the web site is to get the serious enviro-
whacko
so deeply involved in trying to ban DHMO that he becomes frothy. Then
to tell him he's trying to ban water. I've used this to catch the
unwary.
It makes some people very angry.
But why does that web site have any ability to catch people? Why were
Penn and Teller able to get thousands of signatures to ban DHMO from
the marchers at an Earth Day parade? (The guy who was swigging from
a bottle of water while he signed was priceless.)
The enviros have several standard ploys.
- They hide behind technical language as much as possible. What the
hell
is dihydrogen monoxide? Even a chemist has to translate that one.
- They deliberately exagerate the bad aspects of a thing. "Responsible
for accidents at sea. When you find it in vegetables you can't wash
it out."
- They hide the good aspects. Often behind the technical language.
- They steadfastly refuse to allow any comparison of their plans with
alternatives. It's their way or armageddon.
- They deliberately hide the costs and difficulties of following their
plans.
Socks
Malrassic Park
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 6:21 pm, Malrassic Park <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>> The epistemological method being perpetrated by the environmentalist
..
>Ok, I'm not sure Big Lie is an adequate description. The idea of the
>Big Lie
>is a distortion of the truth so large that nobody would believe
>anybody could be impudent enough to tell such a big lie. Then that is combined
>with incessant repetition.
So we have incessant repetition, but not impudence?
Ok, get this (please don't take this too literally, I'm simplifying
the examples) -
Pollution (plus other factors) is the cause of ground-level ozone:
true.
Pollution (plus other factors) is the cause of upper-atmosphere ozone
*depletion*: true?
How can both be true?
But the whackos will tell you the type of pollution differs, the
supposed cause in the second example is CFCs, not VOCs as in the
first. These CFCs are hovering around over Antarctica - and only
Antarctica. How did they get down there? And why not over the Arctic
as well? Is the effect worse there because the Antarctic ozone layer
is already thin? But isn't it about as thin over the Arctic?
>We need an accurate picture of the method so we can recognize it in
>all its various forms and formats.
..
>The problem with enviro-whackos is not that the lies they tell are so
>big. It's that there are so many small ones.
..
>Consider this site.
..
>http://www.dhmo.org/
..
>In case there is anybody who does not know what dihydrogen monoxide
>is, it's water. The idea of the web site is to get the serious enviro-
>whacko so deeply involved in trying to ban DHMO that he becomes frothy. Then
>to tell him he's trying to ban water. I've used this to catch the
>unwary. It makes some people very angry.
Analyze this example of psycho-epistemology:
While standing in line at a concert a form was being passed around
which people were supposed to sign. It had to do with preventing the
torture of beef cows going to slaughter. I felt a certain social
pressure to sign, even though I believe the whole issue is a bogus
animal-rights scam. I refused to sign - but part of that refusal
involved coercing another part of myself not to give in and sign,
although there was no external pressure whatsoever.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So we have incessant repetition, but not impudence?
Impudence, but not the kind of impudence involved in a Big Lie.
It's quite believable impudence. It's the kind of impudence of a
teen thug caught shoplifting who claims he "had it when he came
into the store."
> Ok, get this (please don't take this too literally, I'm simplifying
> the examples) -
>
> Pollution (plus other factors) is the cause of ground-level ozone:
> true.
>
> Pollution (plus other factors) is the cause of upper-atmosphere ozone
> *depletion*: true?
>
> How can both be true?
Easy. That one happens to be measured.
Ground level ozone is the result of things like photo-chemical smog.
When
concentrations and temperatures are high, you get reactions that pump
out, among other things, ozone. Though in most cases where ozone is
significant there are lots of other things to worry about that are
usually
way more annoying.
At high altitudes in the atmosphere the concentrations and
temperatures
are lower. In those conditions there is a reactions where CFCs, such
as used to be used as propellent in spray cans, catalyzes O3 back
into O2.
There also, it's a bunch of small lies. For example, CFCs only do that
when the air is still, when the temperature is below about - 40C, and
when it is dark. Such conditions only exist over the ant-arctic in the
southern winter, and to a much lesser extent over the arctic in the
northern winter. A few minutes after local dawn the ozone is nearly
back
to normal values. So, CFCs are really not that big a deal because
as soon as there is need for ozone (because of sunlight) there is
creation of ozone (because of sunlight). But you won't hear any of
that from the enviro-whackos.
Now such lies are not so big that it is unbelievable that somebody
would tell them. Rather the opposite. They are so small that nobody
believes anybody would tell such a trivial lie. But they tell dozens.
[snip]
> Analyze this example of psycho-epistemology:
>
> While standing in line at a concert a form was being passed around
> which people were supposed to sign. It had to do with preventing the
> torture of beef cows going to slaughter. I felt a certain social
> pressure to sign, even though I believe the whole issue is a bogus
> animal-rights scam. I refused to sign - but part of that refusal
> involved coercing another part of myself not to give in and sign,
> although there was no external pressure whatsoever.
Yeah, see, that's got many issues attached to it.
First, of course there is external pressure. It's not been applied
by the particular persons who passed around this bogus petition,
but it has been there. It's the pressure that turns many people
into what Kurt Vonnegut called "agreeing machines." The desire
is to fit in with everybody else. The method of fitting in is to
"go along to get along." This pressure has existed as long as
humans have existed. It is, for example, a big part of why an
army can be made to march as a unit, and not run away when
facing pretty certain death. It's why teenagers are prepared to
lick a toad that may or may not give them a buzz.
The kind of people who pass around petitions are masters at it.
Next is the venue. A lineup at a concert? A place that the folks
in line are not going to want to just leave. And it will be difficult
to summon any authority to chase the harrassers away. It's
like a buffet to the kind of mentality who is manipulative.
Next is the smear job involved. Torture? Not that I know of.
Your typical slaughterhouse worker is simply drastically
bored with his job. He barely sees the cows at all, never
mind as objects to torture. Probably the petition had pictures of
cows with their big old sad eyes looking right at the camera.
Trying to make an emotional plea rather than a rational
argument of any kind.
Next there's the notion that if you don't sign you are hurting
the person who started the petition. In other words, he's using
your pity for him as a weapon. In essence, he's walking along
the edge of an emotional cliff and telling you if you don't sign
you will be pushing him off. The correct thing to do in such
a situation is to quietly pocket the petition and simply ignore
anybody asking where it went. In other words, if somebody
tries to use pity to manipulate you, deliberately push them
off the emotional cliff.
Just imagine a Klingon getting passed that peitition. Heh heh.
In the first video, I'm the guy at 1:07.
But the fundamental here is this. The purpose of a system is
what it does. The person who passed this petition around can't
possibly be stupid enough to think humans will stop eating meat.
The purpose of such petitions is to get people to unite, to agree,
to obey. That makes one neck ready for one chain. Again, as
K.V. said, "agreeing machines."
Socks
Malrassic Park
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 29, 4:39 pm, Malrassic Park <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> How can both be true?
..
>Easy. That one happens to be measured.
..
>Ground level ozone is the result of things like photo-chemical smog.
>When
>concentrations and temperatures are high, you get reactions that pump
>out, among other things, ozone. Though in most cases where ozone is
>significant there are lots of other things to worry about that are
>usually way more annoying.
..
>At high altitudes in the atmosphere the concentrations and
>temperatures
>are lower. In those conditions there is a reactions where CFCs, such
>as used to be used as propellent in spray cans, catalyzes O3 back
>into O2.
O3 serves no purpose, it is not a shield it is only the byproduct of a
chemical reaction involving oxygen and UVB. It is a poison which is
harmless to us at high altitudes. And while ozone is heavier than air,
it is unstable, so by the time the molecules float down to the ground
they will have deteriorated back to beneficial O2 again.
>There also, it's a bunch of small lies. For example, CFCs only do that
>when the air is still, when the temperature is below about - 40C, and
>when it is dark. Such conditions only exist over the ant-arctic in the
>southern winter, and to a much lesser extent over the arctic in the
>northern winter. A few minutes after local dawn the ozone is nearly
>back
>to normal values. So, CFCs are really not that big a deal because
>as soon as there is need for ozone (because of sunlight)
Is there any need for upper-atmospheric ozone? Isn't ozone a byproduct
and not a shield? What purpose does it serve?
..
>there is
>creation of ozone (because of sunlight). But you won't hear any of
>that from the enviro-whackos.
..
>Now such lies are not so big that it is unbelievable that somebody
>would tell them. Rather the opposite. They are so small that nobody
>believes anybody would tell such a trivial lie. But they tell dozens.
..
>> Analyze this example of psycho-epistemology:
..
>> While standing in line at a concert a form was being passed around
>> which people were supposed to sign. It had to do with preventing the
>> torture of beef cows going to slaughter. I felt a certain social
>> pressure to sign, even though I believe the whole issue is a bogus
>> animal-rights scam. I refused to sign - but part of that refusal
>> involved coercing another part of myself not to give in and sign,
>> although there was no external pressure whatsoever.
..
>Yeah, see, that's got many issues attached to it.
..
>First, of course there is external pressure. It's not been applied
>by the particular persons who passed around this bogus petition,
>but it has been there. It's the pressure that turns many people
>into what Kurt Vonnegut called "agreeing machines." The desire
>is to fit in with everybody else. The method of fitting in is to
>"go along to get along." This pressure has existed as long as
>humans have existed. It is, for example, a big part of why an
>army can be made to march as a unit, and not run away when
>facing pretty certain death. It's why teenagers are prepared to
>lick a toad that may or may not give them a buzz.
I see you've been watching Family Guy.
>The kind of people who pass around petitions are masters at it.
..
>Next is the venue. A lineup at a concert? A place that the folks
>in line are not going to want to just leave. And it will be difficult
>to summon any authority to chase the harrassers away. It's
>like a buffet to the kind of mentality who is manipulative.
..
>Next is the smear job involved. Torture? Not that I know of.
>Your typical slaughterhouse worker is simply drastically
>bored with his job. He barely sees the cows at all, never
>mind as objects to torture. Probably the petition had pictures of
>cows with their big old sad eyes looking right at the camera.
>Trying to make an emotional plea rather than a rational
>argument of any kind.
No, there is actually a video online, which I've saw at the time, of
slaughterhouse cow torture.
I think this is the one I saw (WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTO7UXsdC9w
The video is real, and graphic. However, it was not taped in the US
therefore no petition I ever sign while standing in line for a concert
can do anything to save these cows or shut down this slaughterhouse.
Signing it will make utterly no practical difference.
I've seen another slaughterhouse video that was taped in the US but it
was nothing like this one.
>Next there's the notion that if you don't sign you are hurting
>the person who started the petition. In other words, he's using
>your pity for him as a weapon. In essence, he's walking along
>the edge of an emotional cliff and telling you if you don't sign
>you will be pushing him off. The correct thing to do in such
>a situation is to quietly pocket the petition and simply ignore
>anybody asking where it went. In other words, if somebody
>tries to use pity to manipulate you, deliberately push them
>off the emotional cliff.
..
>Just imagine a Klingon getting passed that peitition. Heh heh.
..
>www.kag.org
This looks like gratuitous advertising for a group you are a member
of, and dress up for.
>In the first video, I'm the guy at 1:07.
Is that you? Or your cousin?
>But the fundamental here is this. The purpose of a system is
>what it does. The person who passed this petition around can't
>possibly be stupid enough to think humans will stop eating meat.
>The purpose of such petitions is to get people to unite, to agree,
>to obey. That makes one neck ready for one chain. Again, as
>K.V. said, "agreeing machines."
>Socks
Agreed.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>No, there is actually a video online, which I've saw at the time, of
>slaughterhouse cow torture.
Bleh. I shouldn't do these while I'm tired.
RichD
> I haven't seen this topic discussed here for a while, but the
> thinking, the epistemology, behind it lies at the heart of the
> enrivonmentalist movement.
> The epistemological method being perpetrated by the environmentalist
> movement is that of the Big Lie. As with any Big Lie, it has been told
> so many times that it is in the very air we breathe, the "air" of our
> culture. That is why nobody bothers to question it. Or if somebody
> does notice the discrepancy between the two stories, nobody wants to
> rock the boat.
You might also check Steven Landsberg's essay on
environmentalism. He approaches it as an economist,
excoriating the econazis for ignoring cost/benefit
analysis, and acting like faitheists, ideologically.
He also includes a discussion of his clash with his
children's indoctrinators, er I mean educrats, when
they tried to brainwash his kids on the issue.
--
RIch
Charles Bell
> You might also check Steven Landsberg's essay on
> environmentalism. He approaches it as an economist,
> excoriating the econazis for ignoring cost/benefit
> analysis, and acting like faitheists, ideologically.
>
Like the pot calling the kettle black. The number of economists who
are actually right about anything beyond a week in advance and who are
not driven by faith in one ideology or another is perhaps a handful
more than environmentalists.
Hypothetical Milton Friedman in 1865: "Hey, hold off on this ending
slavery completely. Allow the freedom to choose slavery if the negro
freedman so wishes. There can be many surpluses of benefit versus
costs involved.
<< The counterpart for education (financing) would be to "buy" a share
in an individual earning prospects; to advance him the funds needed to
finance his training on condition that he agree to pay the lender a
specified fraction of his future earnings. There seems no legal
obstacle to private contracts of this kind, even though they are
economically equivalent to the purchase of a share in an individual's
earning capacity and thus to partial slavery. >>
-- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
"Economics in the narrowest sense is a science free of values."
"Judgmental clichés like 'the work ethic' and the 'virtue of thrift'
are utterly foreign to the vocabulary of economics."
-- Why I Am Not An Environmentalist by Steven Landsburg
Puppet_Sock
> chemical reaction involving oxygen and UVB. It is a poison which is
> harmless to us at high altitudes. And while ozone is heavier than air,
> it is unstable, so by the time the molecules float down to the ground
> they will have deteriorated back to beneficial O2 again.
Well... Ok, there's lots about that paragraph that I have no idea.
The parts about O3 floating to the ground etc. I've no idea about
any of that. Ozone from high altitude getting to the ground is
way less important than ozone produced by chemical reactions
with air pollution. Particularly things like photo-chemical smog.
But O3 is a shield. The point is, O2 gets turned into O3 by UV.
But O3 blocks way more UV than does O2, once it has been
formed. The usual measurement for this is called a cross section.
The cross section for O3 to down-scatter UV (that is, scatter the
UV light to a longer wavelength, taking the extra energy as
kinetic energy) is massively huge compared to that for O2. So a
tiny component of O3 will act as a UV shield.
To state all that a different way: The UV used up making O3 from
O2 is tiny compared to the amount of UV that the resulting O3
down-scatters.
Though I have not been able to find reliable numbers on the
fraction of UV that ozone blocks.
Socks
Malrassic Park
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well... Ok, there's lots about that paragraph that I have no idea.
>The parts about O3 floating to the ground etc. I've no idea about
>any of that. Ozone from high altitude getting to the ground is
>way less important than ozone produced by chemical reactions
>with air pollution. Particularly things like photo-chemical smog.
I actually said that upper-atmosphere O3 (which is heavier than air)
will revert back to O2 before reaching ground level.
>But O3 is a shield. The point is, O2 gets turned into O3 by UV.
Yes, that is my point. O2 absorbs UVB which unbinds the atoms from the
molecule. Nothing is being blocked or shielded.
>But O3 blocks way more UV than does O2, once it has been
>formed. The usual measurement for this is called a cross section.
>The cross section for O3 to down-scatter UV (that is, scatter the
>UV light to a longer wavelength, taking the extra energy as
>kinetic energy) is massively huge compared to that for O2. So a
>tiny component of O3 will act as a UV shield.
..
>To state all that a different way: The UV used up making O3 from
>O2 is tiny compared to the amount of UV that the resulting O3
>down-scatters.
..
>Though I have not been able to find reliable numbers on the
>fraction of UV that ozone blocks.
That would be helpful.
RichD
> > You might also check Steven Landsberg's essay on
> > environmentalism. He approaches it as an economist,
> > excoriating the econazis for ignoring cost/benefit
> > analysis, and acting like faitheists, ideologically.
>
> Like the pot calling the kettle black. The number of
> economists who are actually right about anything
> beyond a week in advance and who are
> not driven by faith in one ideology or another is perhaps a handful
> more than environmentalists.
Economics as descriptive, rather than predictive,
works quite well. Better yet, to view at as a branch
of psychology, as Landsburg emphasizes.
> Hypothetical Milton Friedman in 1865: "Hey, hold off on this ending
> slavery completely. Allow the freedom to choose slavery if the negro
> freedman so wishes. There can be many surpluses of benefit versus
> costs involved.
>
> << The counterpart for education (financing) would be to "buy" a share
> in an individual earning prospects; to advance him the funds needed to
> finance his training on condition that he agree to pay the lender a
> specified fraction of his future earnings. There seems no legal
> obstacle to private contracts of this kind, even though they are
> economically equivalent to the purchase of a share in an individual's
> earning capacity and thus to partial slavery. >>
> -- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
And this differs from student loans, how?
> "Economics in the narrowest sense is a science free of values."
So is every science. Any science is about
methodology; observation, testing, models.
Not values, except honesty; data trumps theory.
> "Judgmental clichés like 'the work ethic' and the 'virtue of thrift'
> are utterly foreign to the vocabulary of economics."
And your problem with that is....? It's quite sensible,
'objective', so to speak.
> -- Why I Am Not An Environmentalist by Steven Landsburg
Chuck, you went and looked it up! You amaze me, truly.
Yes, from "The Armchair Economist". I have no
idea why you want to toss mud at him, quoting
out of context. In that same essay, he compares
environmentalism to a religion, which converts
questions of preferences into dogma of moral
superiority; e.g. it's holy to convert a parking lot
into a wilderness, but profane to do the opposite.
He calls it "a form of mass hysteria".
So, Landsburg argues that these things should be
negotiated in the market place, with preferences
and values revealed by price, not dictated by
priests. This is the economist's view. You have
a problem with that? Also, that nature should serve
people, not the other way around. You have
a problem with that?
If you look at the rest of the book, you see he's
one of the good guys, a believer in laissez faire,
for both moral and efficiency reasons.
Your memo motivated me to scan it again, the best
book ever written on economics, I'd forgotten how
many gems it contains. Thanks!
--
Rich
Charles Bell
> On Jul 2, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > You might also check Steven Landsberg's essay on
> > > environmentalism. He approaches it as an economist,
> > > excoriating the econazis for ignoring cost/benefit
> > > analysis, and acting like faitheists, ideologically.
>
> > Like the pot calling the kettle black. The number of
> > economists who are actually right about anything
> > beyond a week in advance and who are
> > not driven by faith in one ideology or another is perhaps a handful
> > more than environmentalists.
>
> Economics as descriptive, rather than predictive,
> works quite well. Better yet, to view at as a branch
> of psychology, as Landsburg emphasizes.
>
Then it is not science though economists present themselves as such.
They even make predictions, too.
> > Hypothetical Milton Friedman in 1865: "Hey, hold off on this ending
> > slavery completely. Allow the freedom to choose slavery if the negro
> > freedman so wishes. There can be many surpluses of benefit versus
> > costs involved.
>
> > << The counterpart for education (financing) would be to "buy" a share
> > in an individual earning prospects; to advance him the funds needed to
> > finance his training on condition that he agree to pay the lender a
> > specified fraction of his future earnings. There seems no legal
> > obstacle to private contracts of this kind, even though they are
> > economically equivalent to the purchase of a share in an individual's
> > earning capacity and thus to partial slavery. >>
> > -- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
>
> And this differs from student loans, how?
>
It's a loan, not indentured servitude; you refuse to pay, you lose
good credit for seven years.
> > "Economics in the narrowest sense is a science free of values."
>
> So is every science. Any science is about
> methodology; observation, testing, models.
> Not values, except honesty; data trumps theory.
>
Wrong. The Global Warming Hoax proves otherwise. Dishonesty, lying,
threatening intellectual opposition are evil values that are the
problem and not as much any mistaken identification of the facts. And
besides all that, aGWT fails precisely because there are plenty of
data and no coherent theory to set the context for the data. Saying
there is no need for theory is either delusion (a psyche filled
notions that reality does not matter) or lying.
> > "Judgmental clichés like 'the work ethic' and the 'virtue of thrift'
> > are utterly foreign to the vocabulary of economics."
>
> And your problem with that is....? It's quite sensible,
> 'objective', so to speak.
>
Man does not live in any sense without values and therefore to pretend
to study man devoid of values is not studying man but rather some
strawman to push an agenda.
> > -- Why I Am Not An Environmentalist by Steven Landsburg
>
> Yes, from "The Armchair Economist". I have no
> idea why you want to toss mud at him, quoting
> out of context. In that same essay, he compares
> environmentalism to a religion,
That's just it: I found the context with which to frame his words.
His religion involves a superstitious belief in man without values.