Politics and energy policy we can reasonably disagree about but the ozone hole and it's causes are as real as the sun and probably better understood. There is no longer any serious argument about this by reputable scientists and the people who discovered and characterized the phenomenon are good ole US scientists. Rowland and Messina got Nobel prizes for the work and one of the current projects is measuring changes in rate of release of methane from the tundra since, yes indeed, methane plays a role although for this case, anthropogenic clorofluorocarbons were the most important gases. If you want to see what one of Rowland's successors is doing, visit the web site of Prof. Donald Blake at UC Irvine. He and co-workers have been doing relevant observations on the ground and over Alaska for a couple of decades.

RMK

You have to agree that we live in a market economy, I am sure that there are others that share your opinions so I imagine that there would be a market for the high mileage vehicles. If someone as altruistic as yourself developed one of these vehicles, I would think that you and your friends would flock to buy one. And since the designer is altruistic he would not sell out his design to an energy company (as you imply occurs). So where are these vehicles? could it be that there are still some bugs to be worked out in them?

Those hybrid cars are out there and they get close to 100mpg but still remain very expensive. I see the energy companies did not stop these cars(from being produced.
Why not? if that is what you claim that they are doing.

BTW what are you doing yourself, to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels? do you own a vehicle? if so what kind? I am curious.

Does it have one of those hundred mile carburators on it whoose plans are often advertised in magazines?

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

I've lived in the big oil producing states all my life and worked directly and indirectly for several major oil companies for most of these years.

The SIMPLE and obvious fact is that America has just about run out of oil! And a few other things! Why people have such an idea that this country has an inexhaustable supply of everything totally escapes me. It should be as obvious as your own bank accounts......which I suspect are not inexhaustable either.

The oil companies are not doing anything to worsen this country's energy woes any more than the super markets are out torching wheat fields at night to drive up the price of bread.

Why don't the oil companies do something about fuel efficient cars? Well, cause they are oil companies...not car companies.

The only people in the world playing games with energy products are our friends in the Middle east and other big oil exporters that have figured out we are over a barrel and they can (and are) raping us!

Sure we should have been working on seriously energy efficient cars long ago, but blame that on our famously short sighted politicians who ALWAYS take the path of least resistance. And we can blame it on ourselves as well. 30 - 40 years ago if someone had produced a little car that got 100 mpg nobody would have touched it. It's taken some serious energy problems to get OUR attention. The closest person any of us can find to really get mad and about the problem is waiting for us in our bathroom mirrors. Go yell at him. He's a co-conspirator for sure.

Believe me, the oil companies would be tickled to death to drill anywhere we will let them. THEY aren't the problem. If we don't drill in ANWR, we are fools. Further, it CAN and WILL be done with precious little environmental impact.
And unlike MANY people around the country spouting off about this issue, I actually have some real first hand knowledge of what I speak!

------------------
A well placed bullet is worth 1,000 ft/lbs of energy.

[This message has been edited by Pecos45 (edited 05-10-2002).]

But the scientific explanations on what happens with the ozone hole is still theory. I remember long ago scientists telling us about the impending ice age, then they switched to "global warming." Not too long ago they were saying that deformed frogs (frogs with three legs) was caused by pollution. Last week they said that the reason why the frogs are deformed is because a "microscopy parasite tape worm found in ponds."

Will try to post again. I am a scientist and your statements pushed some of my buttons.

Briefly stated, all we ever have is theory. What better mode of explanation exists? The question is whether or not the theory is supported by observation and provides new predictions. CFC origin of the ozone hole is now conclusively tested and the theory is not in doubt by serious scientists. (Not everyone is ever convinced. There are still flat earth advocates. No sane scientist bothers to argue with them.)

Your statements about climatological change are simply not correct, either with regard to the history of the field or physical fact. It may be intellectually convenient for you to feel that science gives such latitude as you think, but is isn't so.

About "Your statements about climatological change are simply not correct," I didn't make such statements; that's what was predicted over 25 years ago by a great number of scientists (ice age).

How would a simple man like me push your button?

Take a look at some new details about the ozone hole: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 05-14-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pecos45:
...
The oil companies are not doing anything to worsen this country's energy woes any more than the super markets are out torching wheat fields at night to drive up the price of bread
...

---

Bravo!

Unfortunately, I think some f the people on here are seeing chemtrails.....

what of the recent discovery of the global pressure systems and their effect on the "hole" (actually a thinning)? And the seasonal oscillations that have caused it to virtually disappear recently?

Chemtrails...aggghhh!

It is only fair to follow up your link with a link from the same NASA page 2 months later:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm?list68077

Funny thing, this dynamic atmosphere we have. The ozone "hole" was discovered around 1956.

I would ask Daryl what he thinks of the Cauer effect and its possible implications on this phenomenon?

There is only so much energy in a gallon of gas, you might want to blame the oil companies for not putting all the BTU's possible in a gallon, but thats just the way it is. Current engines as I recall are about 30% efficient. Even if you could double that and make them 60% efficient, you are still looking at just doubling the mileage of our current vehicles, so say we go from 25 mpg to 50 mpg. Thats not to say one could easily double the efficiency. There are thermal and mechanical losses inherent in our engines and drivetrains.

To really get the efficiency up requires smaller, lighter, and less powerful cars. If you built something resembling a glorified golf cart with a 300-500 cc engine, then no doubt you could hit 100 mpg. The real question is, would anybody buy such a vehicle? And if the answer is no, then aren't the consumers to blame for the current gas guzzlers?

The real question is, what are the impacts vs the benefits of ANWR drilling? Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the impacts. In 30-50 years when as much of the oil as can be economically extracted is complete, the production facility will be dismantled, the gravel put back in the pit, and the area re-seeded and return nearly to its original state.

If eco tourism increases in the area, then it will have a much greater impact to the environment then oil development.

[This message has been edited by ScottB (edited 05-15-2002).]

quote:

---

aren't the consumers to blame for the current gas guzzlers?[/B]

---

Yes, they are. And liberals always lose sight of that. It's easier to blame a company or government.

There are a lot of towns in the west that just look like California money from the time you cross the town line, and they're financed by people who want their new home to be just like California except not screwed up. Too bad they don't have a clue as to how California got screwed up, since they're just carrying the disease with them.

Tom

Sometimes when watching TV shows about scientists arguing about what is happening around the world, for some reason I can't help it but laugh until tears roll out of my eyes. Please understand that in no way am I making fun of science, but when I see scientist switch back and forth...

I was watching a show about "the missing link" or something like that last week, and when I saw the little "humanoid" skeleton of a little monkey called "Lucy" I just rolled on the ground laughing.

science is a way of thinking and exploring questions in the natural world

science is a body of evidence generated since the 1600s or so

science looks at data (observations of the natural world) and provides TESTABLE explanations for that data.

when those explanations are new and relatively untested, we call them HYPOTHESES.

after these explanations have been evaluated - tons of supporting data has been gathered - beyond a reasonable doubt, we call this explanation a THEORY (note that this use of the word "theory" is not the same as the common vernacular usage of the word "theory" - the usage that means "guess").

science can NEVER prove one of these explanations to be 100% absolutely true - they are ALWAYS proven based on the data available . . . and it takes quite a mountain of data for an explanation to be called a theory! and it takes similar large amounts of data (or exceedingly critical data) to refute an explanation that has made it to "theory" status.

often times, the popular press uses "theory" inappropriately - to refer to explanations that should be considered "hypotheses", based on the amount of supporting data. when you see scientists debating and changing their minds (a very important part of the process, particularly in light of the fact that a scientist should only be changing his explanations in light of new data) about an explanation, that explanation is a hypothesis.

also realize that a big, overarching theory can be accepted and supported by lots of data, but that explanations for smaller details of that theory may still be open for debate.

it sure seems popular for the average american to bash scientists (in hollywood, the scientist is either a geek, an incompetent who's screw created the problem, or a villain), but pretty much everything we have today and take for granted we owe to scientists and the engineers who took their explanations (theories) and put them to technological use.