Your Thoughts on the Great Ozone Debate?

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?"

Comments

Well...

[slavemowgli]

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?

Re:Well...

[Solr_Flare]

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).

Easy...

[benhocking]

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

It's not news if it isn't sensational

[Bob3141592]

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.

RTFA (closely)

[ShieldWolf]

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.

political agenda

[minus_273]

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)

Evolution in Action

[WormholeFiend]

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.

Who do you trust?

[kjs3]

I'm not familiar with this issue in particular, but BBC > CNN for essentially all values of news.

No, we don't.

[binary paladin]

Do we really know what's going on?

No.

There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)

The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:

• "The earth is getting cooler. We're heading straight for a new ice age! We have to cut our pollution!"
• "The earth is getting hotter. It's global warming! We're all gonna fry if we don't stop polluting!"
• "We are all vile sinners. We're heading straight for hell! Repent and accept Jesus or you'll burn!"

People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?

I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?

I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.

Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.

Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.

Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.

Re:No, we don't.

[PsiPsiStar]

We do know how some things work. We do know that CFCs destroy Ozone. That's a fact. Test it out in the lab all you like. There are other variables once the chemicals get into the atmosphere like the rate of ozone produced or where the CFCs travel to exactly, or if they can be destroyed or precipitated, etc. but chemical reactions are easy enough to test in the lab. .

However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years?

Several tens of thousands, thanks to ice core samples. It's possible to gather data on events that happened before recorded history. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it's better than nothing. And even in our lifetime, we've altered the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models based on past climate changes have been horrible at predicting future climate changes, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and make no decisions whatsoever, or that we're inevitably safe.

Whether or not there's a political debate around a scientific assertion should be irrelevant to the weight of validity that you assign to it. For example, the insurance industustries try to play down the health risks of mold so they don't have to cover mold-ridden houses (which would be incredibly expensive.) But talk to any microbiologist and they'll tell you just what mold can do to you.

Politics is a pretty poor barometer of the truth or falsity of an assertion, I agree. We need to make our decisions based on evidence rather than political ideology. But while politics shouldn't be involved in sciences science should be involved in politics. Or should we just go with our gut feelings?

Will our medicine be considered primitive in the future? I'm sure. Honestly, who said otherwise?

I, for one, would like to see rapid identification of bacterial infections and greater reliance on bacteriophage (viruses which kill bacteria) so that normal intestinal flora are not destroyed. This would allow treating people with only mildly harmful infections, since the side effects of treatment (potential fungal overgrowth, C. Difficile infection, etc.) would not be as bad.

Our techniques for rapidly and cheaply diagnosing pathogens right now are piss poor, and as they improve we'll be able to give very specific, effective treatments with fewer side effects.

Even our legal system could be making better utilization of science. All people have certain mostly benign viruses in them, which are often sexually transmitted. If a court case came up where one person claimed they were raped and another denied doing it, sexual involvement could be demonstrated by showing the two people had a similar set of viruses in their body. Mutation rates of the more steady portions of the virus might be useful for determining the relative date of the event (good for divorce trials, too.)
Of course, more than one virus would have to be used.

Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750.

Who, exactly, has been telling you that they know how everything works?

With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.

So the harm attributed to pesticide usage, lead in the water pipes and in face paint, poor food quality standards, and sexual pandemics... these are just phantoms of our imagination? I'm sure you can think of more.

Sometimes science does identify real threats. And it requires a political movement to get the law to recognize those threats.

The thing is, no matter how little information we have, we still have to make decisions based on that information or else confusion and indecision will paralyze us, socially, scientifically, and politically.

CNN: thanks to Ted Turner.

[Elder Entropist]

3) Ted Turner hasn't been intimately involved in what goes on with CNN for a decade (he sold CNN in 1995) and conservative Walter Isaacson moved the network very much to the right when he took over in 2001.

Re:I will explain something to you

[Rei]

Cute explanation, but wrong. CFCs have a stratospheric halflife of 70-120 years, and catalyze ozone destruction, thus reducing the steady-state ozone level when balancing solar ozone creation and ozone destruction.

Basically, CFCs long life allows them to reach the stratosphere. There, they slowly break down, releasing a constant supply of chlorine ions. This participates in many reactions, most notably Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2; ClO + O -> Cl + O2. Note that the chlorine ion is still left over. This ion goes on to complete thousands of more reactions before it is ultimately lost (to a variety of mechanisms).