backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 179 comment(s) - last by depravedone.. on Jul 13 at 1:01 AM
New studies indicate that nitrogen trifluoride a compound used in flat panel displays may have devastating warming effects

A new study shows that while current efforts may be making a positive difference in curbing CO2, they may be missing a greenhouse gas that may soon have far greater impact on warming.

The compound nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a "missing greenhouse gas" that may have an impact 17,000 times as great as carbon dioxide, according to a new study by atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26.

The compound is used in the production of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) Panels, in semiconductors, and in synthetic diamonds.  According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time.

The Kyoto protocol covered six gases, and nitrogen trifluoride was noticeably absent.  Since that time, production of the compound has grown at a frenzied pace due to the proliferation of LCD panels in phones, TVs, and computer screens.  More semiconductors are also using the compound.  According to Pranther, global production may double in 2009, to 8,000 metric tons.

The treaty left out about a dozen gases that technically were greenhouse gases, but were not manufactured in sufficient quantities to have an impact.  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and of sulfur hexafluoride, which were considered, actually are projected to have less effect this year than the nitrogen trifluoride emissions.

The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth.

The Kyoto Treaty's failure to consider changes in industrial use may come back to haunt it.  Particularly ironic is that the chemical was touted as a way to prevent global warming.  Since flat-panel TVs consume less power than rear project or plasma models, they were presented as environmentally friendly.

In reality when the LCD market hits full swing, as is expected with the 2009 switch to digital television, the increased production will send levels of this new greenhouse gas soaring.  Worse yet, with 80 million analog TVs projected to be discarded by Americans in the shift, some older LCD models,  more of the gas and other hazardous chemicals may be released if they're disposed of improperly and merely tossed in landfills or incinerated.

Another piece of bad news is that the gas has a very long half-life -- staying in the atmosphere for approximately 550 years, with almost no ecological cycles to aid in its removal.

While carbon dioxide emissions remain a pressing issue, soon we may be hearing a lot more about nitrogen trifluoride if the study's conclusions hold true.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
C'mon everyone...
By DCGMoo on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By mdogs444 on 7/7/2008 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. It's because Americans are arrogant and insist the entire world revolve around their own wants and needs, the rest of humanity be damned.

Yeah, you mean like that $300B in global aid we gave, while we sit in the midst of a recession and changing our own lifestyles to cope with the risings costs of fuel and food?

Where do you enviro-nazi liberals come up with this crap?


RE: C'mon everyone...
By Ryanman on 7/7/2008 11:02:32 PM , Rating: 4
You're both exaggerating. The US is made up of a ton of different people, a lot of them who (like me) are arrogant and selfish about "losing technology". It's all we care about.

But like Mdogs said there are a ton of people who DO care about other countries and the global warming (even though I don't personally believe it). The goverment pays out huge funds for developing countries, even if their motives are only to placate the huddled masses.

Both of you need to chill. This sensationalist blog isn't the end of the world for multiple reasons.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By michael67 on 7/8/2008 7:46:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yeah, you mean like that $300B in global aid we gave, while we sit in the midst of a recession and changing our own lifestyles to cope with the risings costs of fuel and food?

And here is a other American that thinks the US gives tons aid compered to the rest of the countries in the world.
Your wrong and i would say stop watching fox news

As i commented on this in a other post from a other article http://www.dailytech.com/EU+Court+to+Hear+Case+Gra...

quote:
Wrong on a few counts. First of all, you're using a highly misleading metric that measures not total giving, but rather share of GDP.
GDP Gross domestic product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_produc...

Imo that’s the right way as all other countries use that system as well
It shows how mouths money a country is willing to sacrifice of its total income to help out other countries that are in need.

quote:

Secondly and much worse, you're ignoring by far the largest portion of US giving -- private contributions. The US has by far the largest amount of private contributions of any nation on earth, a sum which far outweighs governmental aid.


That would be impossible to do for example in Holland given the amount the state is all ready is giving to aid, even do the amount given by private contributions and charity organizations in Holland is pretty large, but I cant give a Nr on that because its unnone to me.
Also its mouths easier for private contributions to out spend US government do to the extreme low a mount that’s given by it, if they actual really do, because to get on the same level as EU spending even excluding private contributions from the EU zone,
Because private contributions in the US count for 2.3% (2005) of its GDP but that Nr include all types of donations

quote:
$253 billion in gifts supported more than 1.4 million charities including religious congregations, schools, clinics, arts groups, food banks, and more.

(quote from document, forging aid isn’t even listed there) http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/...

So what he was saying is that next to the government forging aid about 15% of all American donations are given to foreign aid , just to be on par whit the hole EU, I really serious doubt that, and think that Americans that the aid that’s is given just as mouths is over estimated as what’s on the federal budget.

quote:

Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%


Also the US aid that’s given comes very often whit ties and /ore conditions, ware (and I can only speak for 100% shore for Holland) the aid (ore at least most of it) from the EU zone comes unconditional.

I would also suggest of reading this page: http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/faid_3.html

quote:
Overestimation

The feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.
quote:
when respondents were asked "to imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they were one big economy," and then to think about the relative shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50 split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality, based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while the EU countries gave 78%.)

And this: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

quote:

The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:


I really advice to see Adam Curtis docu series especially “The Power of Nightmares” and “The Century of the self” I am pretty shore you would revise some of your opinions you are venting here, at least look at the first part of “The Century of the self” the worst that could happen is you wasted a hour and maybe you learn why I don’t agree whit you on a lot of other points from other posts, and ad best you learn something about the word you dint know (there are worst things ;-)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...


RE: C'mon everyone...
By TheDoc9 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: C'mon everyone...
By afkrotch on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By Ringold on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By DCGMoo on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: C'mon everyone...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's the fact that people saw this article, and immediately comments like "They're trying to take away our TVs and send us back to the Stone Ages" come up"

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion —- guilt-free at last!
—Stewart Brand, from the Whole Earth Catalogue.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
People just post that kind of crap just to get popularity. They can't get it any other way. Anyway, great counter.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By masteryoda34 on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
Score
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Another win for DLP. :)

Buy a DLP and save the environment.




RE: Score
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 3:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not advocating climate change since you all know my views on that topic. I just like DLP so I was making a joke.


RE: Score
By Icelight on 7/7/2008 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Me and my LCoS set will continue to further the global warming cause thank you very much.


Jason
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 4:56:35 PM , Rating: 1
Please stop writing these articles - you are completly trashing your journalistic integrity. I am all for covering both sides of the debate, and I realize that you see yourself as countering Asher's coverage, but the difference is that you are just putting out articles of pure FUD, and you know it.

I mean, seriously - is this "new compound" actually being released into the atmosphere in any significant way? No. Is the magnitude of its production anywhere near the same as CO2? No. Are there any studies that are suggesting this is any kind of problem or that there is even any measureable effect at all? No. Then what are we supposed to be all fearful about exactly? What should we do with this mis-information? Stop buying LCDs and go back to CRTs? Stop using computers? What?

I welcome and value complementary coverage, especially of controversial topics, but I am personally tired of reading trash like this article on DT.

I would suggest, however, that you seek at job at CNN. They, just today, ran a headline on their web site's main page that blamed the drought and plight of children in remote East Timor on "climate change." See, there is demand for your "talents."




RE: Jason
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 5:55:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
hey, just today, ran a headline on their web site's main page that blamed the drought and plight of children in remote East Timor on "climate change."


Oh, you know, a ruinous civil war, a government barely better than a failed state, high inflation, 50% unemployment and almost a total lack of modern industry has nothing to do with it. It's global warmings fault. :P

CNN should read its recent history at wikipedia or the CIA Factbook. It's a study in how not to run a country, just like Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's crop yield collapsed not due to global warming but due to, in their case, confiscating farms from white owners and redistributing the land it black laborers, who quickly degenerated the properties to subsistence levels. Zimbabwe went from a large net food exporter to rely on foreign food aid to avoid famine. Stories like that are impacted, at worst, only marginally by the environment.

Even in the 1300s, people knew this much:
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/l/lorenzet/a...


RE: Jason
By SpaceRanger on 7/7/2008 9:40:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Please stop writing these articles - you are completly trashing your journalistic integrity.


You mean... He had integrity to begin with?!?


RE: Jason
By GaryJohnson on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
By Carter642 on 7/7/2008 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 1
Really? This was fit to print?

So it's 17,000 times more warming, and several trillion(or more?) times less abundent than CO2. Sure it's not a good thing to have floating about but statistically it's not significant in the least.

This is like telling people to eat veal because it will save the environment from all the methane the cow is going to fart out in it's old age. Pure sensationalism.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 4:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "So it's 17,000 times more warming"

The only problem is -- it isn't. The simplistic analysis of warming potential is based on the assumption that each gas has the entire IR spectrum to itself.

In reality, whatever one gas absorbs is something another cannot. Water vapor alone already absorbs a huge amount of infrared spectrum. CO2 itself is only capable of absorption in a couple narrow bands...and once it's absorbed that, its not capable of any more warming, no matter how much you add. And any other gas which absorbs even partially in that range also has its warming potential likewise reduced.

Nature abhors unregulated positive feedbacks. This explains why CO2 levels have risen so many times in the earth's past, and yet the planet still cools off and experiences ice ages.


By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
Fantastic explanation. +1!


*sigh*
By PlasmaBomb on 7/7/2008 4:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
Global production is currently 4000 tonnes, that doesn't mean that all 4000 tonnes are released into the atmosphere. In fact when NF3 is used as an etchant most of it is broken down in situ to produce fluorine radicals.

Another point is that NF3 is replacing other GHGs, such as SF6 which has a global warming potential of 22,200-23,900 times that of CO2 , as it is more efficient . So producing and using more NF3 is a good thing




Just give up.
By marsbound2024 on 7/7/2008 6:53:52 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the things that seem to "inevitably" contribute to global warming these days, I say we screw it and just invest all our research and development into planetary air conditioners. We can't win them all.




RE: Just give up.
By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
Air Conditioners contribute to global warming


all I can say is...
By Homerboy on 7/7/2008 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
wha-wha-whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa




Here's what got me
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/7/2008 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The compound nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a "missing greenhouse gas" that may have an impact 17,000 times as great as carbon dioxide, according to a new study by atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26.


It's speculation. Its like me saying like oh well, people's farts have become so toxic from all of the unnatural chemicals in the food we consume that they've mutated into a new form of gas that may be anywhere from zero to eleventy-billion times more effective in warming the earth and stays in the atmosphere....why th hell not, FOREVER!!

Now all I need is get some researcher drunk to agree to my story and then my EVIL plan will be complete!!! bwahahaha Well...and also print out a copy of my theory to send to Fox News.




...
By DASQ on 7/7/2008 3:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh God, the massive synthetic diamond industry must be paraded by activists immediately!

...




Yawn
By Griswold on 7/7/2008 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Look up Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Thats a much more potent greenhouse than NF3 (24'000 times stronger than CO2, lasts more than 3000 years in the atmosphere and is widely used not only in display production but also and mainly in high-volatage insulation of switching equipment).

And the best about it: its been known as a baddie for almost a decade.




Convenient
By batman4u on 7/7/2008 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
ok, i am a proenviorment guy but since OLED is coming out dont it seems that this information came just when needed? i mean, with the tech right now its not like they didnt know




CRT?
By GoodBytes on 7/7/2008 11:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
So wait.. is that polluting more than a CRT?




Who's doing what?
By Hare on 7/8/2008 12:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In reality when the LCD market hits full swing, as is expected with the 2009 switch to digital television, the increased production will send levels of this new greenhouse gas soaring.

Maybe the author should mention that when he is talking about the switch to digital television he means specifically the US.

Dailytech has a broad audience and there are lots of readers who have had digital TV for a long while (e.g. in Finland since 2001). Most of Europe has digital TV and lots of countries have ditched analog completely... and there are even more readers who aren't switching to digital TV in 2009.




By Hieyeck on 7/8/2008 5:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
We all need to agree with Jason on this one, it'll get him off the computer and DailyTech for good!




By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 7:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Surely it's about time hat all industries were looked at.

One industry that I find mind boggling is the fashion industry.

Fashion being (kinda) the antonym of recycling should surely be getting a bad press too?

Recycling = Take something that you (reasonably) believe has come to the end of it's life and reuse either the materials or the object for a purpose different to that which it was initially intended.

Saving money and energy producing new products, the resources that are needed and the transportation costs associated with all of this.

Fashion = Take something which is perfectly good and convince people that they need to throw it away and buy something new for no discernible reason.

Causing more energy and materials to be used unnecessarily, often transporting it across the globe after being produced in ethically questionable factories on the other side of the world.

This combined with the "snake oil" face cream/eternal youth nonsense which invariably are proven (in independent surveys on most of the many fashion related shows that my girlfriend makes me watch) to have very little effect but still take up huge amounts of energy and (I admit, I don't know the exact processes involve) no doubt require some rather nasty chemicals too.

Maybe these scientists involved in "skin toughtening" and fighting the "7 signs of ageing" (whatever they are, I just go by birthdays and calenders) could put there education and efforts into "fighting the good fight" and helping us keep the icecaps from melting and flooding us all?

As a guy, I guess it's just as easy for me to say that women should just accept that brown is not the new black (black is and always will be black, until I have a go at doing the laundry and then it instantly becomes grey that is) and that they should wear their clothes until they wear out, as much as people who aren't into cars can tell me that I should drive a tiny little electric car because I don't need 190 bhp when the speed limit is 70 mph and I am normally the only person in my car, and that I should use my old TV until it stops working as I don't really need that new big and shiny LCD HD TV?

Just a thought.




Thermodynamics
By owyheewine on 7/9/2008 10:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see the thermodynamics behind the claim that anything can have the kind of impact that is claimed. My old engineering brain just keeps saying bull crap.




Global Warming
By depravedone on 7/13/2008 1:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming is like a religion. You can't question it without the believers freaking out, and you can't believe it without the skeptics thinking you're crazy. Frankly I'm tired of the constant barrage of claims and no real solutions.

We need to stop and think before we do something like they did with DDT. Millions have died from Malaria since it's banning because we needed to save some damn birds.




Wonder if LED helps the problem.
By gochichi on 7/8/2008 3:29:22 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting that this turned into an America blog. While it must be hard to take this gas out of the atmosphere, it must also be really easy to greatly reduce its emmissions during the manufacturing process.

Unless carbon emmissions, I think this could easily be curved, if for no other reason that LCDs last 10 years, while a gallon of gasoline lasts one day. Again, when it comes down to targeting one or two things during a manufacturing process, I really don't think it's insurmountable by any stretch. It may give CRT a little boost, or even Plasma... but ultimately LCD manufacturing can be cleaned up.

We are so far away from complete "doom", it is actually quite amazing to me how much prosperity there is in the world given the huge human population. Our ancestors couldn't cope one tenth as well per capita, the cup truly is half full.

We can end the war, and we can end global warming, yes we can. Everyone of us could use less amount of electronics and fuel waste in our lives, every one of us.




Kyoto Treaty
By jaylettu on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Kyoto Treaty
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "maybe YOU SHOULD RATIFY IT FIRST."

Why? When even its most ardent supporters even admit it will have an immeasureably small impact on world temperatures, its critics call it far worse than that, why should we?

When you add to that the fact that nearly all the nations which DID sign are still growing their CO2 emissions faster than the US, it seems an even further misguided document.


RE: Kyoto Treaty
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, Bush's refusal to ratify Kyoto is one of the very few things I agree with him on.

Kyoto Protocol is the case when the medicine is far, far worse than the disease.

Not to mention ineffective. How is Canada doing with Kyoto? Europe? Not too well. China? Brazil? India? Excempt.

Kyoto is what is stupid, not Americans. We got this one right (so far). We may, however, join the ranks of "stupid" after next election. Hopefully not.


Stop boiling water!!
By cochy on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Stop boiling water!!
By surt on 7/7/2008 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor has a convenient natural cycle for removing it from the atmosphere commonly known as rain. Things that stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years have more potential to be a problem.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By cochy on 7/7/2008 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
When the cloud cover of the world reaches 100% you'll be singing a different tune my friend!


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By lightfoot on 7/7/2008 4:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Water vapor has a convenient natural cycle for removing it from the atmosphere...


You mean kind of like the Carbon cycle that removes Carbon Dioxide? Don't you know that natural systems are static and can't possibly adjust to changing inputs? We're ALL GOING TO DIE because humans have thrown the whole water cycle out of balance by cooking rice!


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "You mean kind of like the Carbon cycle that removes Carbon Dioxide? "

I'm perpetually amazed that most people don't realize that nature removes 30X more CO2 from the atmosphere each year than man adds to it.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By Motoman on 7/8/2008 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 5
...forgive my potential ignorance, but if that were true then we'd not have anyone complaining about the effects of CO2 on the climate, I would imagine.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By PrinceGaz on 7/8/2008 3:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's all very well, but the problem is that nature put almost all of that 30x more CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. That's why it is called the carbon-cycle because it is a continual adding and removal process which is balanced (some of the carbon gets locked away as fossil-fuels etc, but that is balanced by what is released from other sources).

When man adds 1/30 more CO2 into the atmosphere, that is not balanced by what is naturally removed, therefore CO2 levels start to rise. Yes, as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, more will naturally be removed because the carbon-cycle will accelerate, but that will lead to more naturally being released also.

Whichever way you look at it, the fact that man is releasing extra CO2 into the atmosphere that had been locked away over hundreds of millions of years, has a major effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. It doesn't matter how much CO2 nature adds or removes, it's how much that we add which counts, because nature isn't going to remove it for us anytime soon.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By michael67 on 7/9/2008 4:14:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This just in: Water Vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Better stop boiling water for making tea, pasta or other foods, because you're polluting the environment.
Water vapor is actually saving our collected asses.

But hell what do you care all that environment, that shit is costing you just a shit load of money its just better to ignore it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0


Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By kattanna on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Scorpion on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Relion on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By chrisld on 7/7/2008 4:22:28 PM , Rating: 4
The latest consensus from a survey of thousands of scientists is that they don't believe there is global warming. It's also pretty clear that NASA have massaged their data to make it look like there is warming. I know I will get flamed for this as I do not have an opinion that is in vogue at the moment but as I said most scientists who have looked at the data agree there is no warming (myself included).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_na...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By barjebus on 7/7/2008 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 5
I really wish scientists and the media would begin representing numbers in something that can make sense to the public at large. For example, saying that 62 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is pretty much useless to me, since I have no idea how much we as humanity are producing, but more importantly, I have no idea how much nature is producing, nor do I know what percentage of the suns energy is it blocking relative to other GHG's.

Since CO2 actually only accounts for like 3% of the GH effect (normalized), and since we as humanity contribute like 3% of nature's natural emissions, we're only really talking about humanity adding 0.1% to the GH effect. Add on top of that the fact that Australia is absolutely tiny in terms of population and emissions, and even if they accounted for 10% of all man made CO2 emissions (which is ridiculous), we're still only talking about 10% of 0.1% which is 0.01%!!!

Imagine if the media actually reported things in such a manner...if all cars in Canada switched to solar energy, we'd reduce the GH effect by 0.0005%!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 5
Very good post.

But no. They'll never do that. You can't scare anyone into change with numbers like .1%. It has to be some big huge number so people will be like "Holy crap thats a lot!". It might not be in reality, but a big number always gets a larger emotional response.

The number of a certain type of bird that was killed by hunting could go from 1 to 10. To a logical person, 1 to 10 is not a big deal (provided the bird was not extremely endangered). But if the media were to report on it, the headline would be "BIRD DEATHS UP 1000%!".


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Polynikes on 7/7/2008 8:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I think things are far too skewed by the media.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By ebakke on 7/7/2008 9:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
The media exists for one purpose, and that is to sell advertising. People watch (and thus, advertisers advertise) when things are dramatic.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By SiN on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 11:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you had read the article from epw.senate.gov closely, you would have noticed that the survey of scientific papers from 2004-7 revealed that, while 45% of scientists implicitly endorsed the theory that global warming is human-made, 48% are neutral (agnostic?). This hardly supports your assertion that scientists "don't believe there is global warming."
I am the original author of that story. When more than half of surveyed scientists (48% neutral + 6% explicit rejection) do not support a theory, the assertion that they "don't believe" is not inaccurate.

Now, one can argue that scientific papers don't translate linearly into scientists. However, since voluntary surveys unavoidably contain selection bias, a survey based on published research is about as accurate as we can get.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/2008 11:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is why I said "misleading", not inaccurate. I chose my words carefully in that post.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 11:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "Moreover, the 'neutrality' category likely refers to scientific abstracts where no position could be determined, thus leaving the possibility that many (or few) of them believe in the theory"

True, however the vast majority of papers in the 'believers' category included those which only implicitly accepted the theory, meaning many (or few) of them may not believe in it.

Furthermore, all one needed to register in the believers column was acceptance of global warming itself, not man-made global warming. Meaning the number of believers in anthropogenic warming is smaller still.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 12:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, however the vast majority of papers in the 'believers' category included those which only implicitly accepted the theory, meaning many (or few) of them may not believe in it.


I grant you the possibility that the author's coding of 'implicit' believers may have been poorly designed. I did not read the author's article, as you had.

quote:
Furthermore, all one needed to register in the believers column was acceptance of global warming itself, not man-made global warming. Meaning the number of believers in anthropogenic warming is smaller still.


I'll concede this point. I was mistaken. Nevertheless, my original post is still correct in stating that the poster to whom I was replying was inaccurate in his assertion that scientists do not believe in the theory of global warming.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was mistaken. Nevertheless, my original post is still correct in stating that the poster to whom I was replying was inaccurate in his assertion that scientists do not believe in the theory of global warming
Rather more precisely, he should have said "the published research of a majority of scientists does not support anthropogenic global warming".

That, however, is essentially how the layman interprets the phrase "scientists do not believe in global warming"


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 12:27:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Rather more precisely, he should have said "the published research of a majority of scientists does not support anthropogenic global warming".


You don't think that's a misleading statement? One would assume that if the majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global warming, that they, then, reject it, which, seeing that you wrote the blog post, you know is not what the author was arguing. From what your blog post said, the author is contesting the existence of a scientific consensus. Would not the most accurate statement therefore be something to the effect of: "Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific consensus on global warming."?

I know readers will see this as a sematical debate--purely academic--but it strikes me as a misrepresentation of the evidence, and thus is worthy of clarification.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:40:30 AM , Rating: 1
> "You don't think that's a misleading statement? One would assume that if the majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global warming, that they, then, reject it"

Only for people who don't understand logic...or, for that matter, plain English.

Specifically, you have fallen into the logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent. If research doesn't support global warming, then it doesn't support it. Period. It doesn't imply outright rejection. In fact, no scientist worth his salt engages in outright rejection of much of all. They merely trot out some variation of "the evidence does not support that statement at this time" and let it go at that.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 1:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
What I was arguing was that the original poster phrased his statement in a way that implied that scientists reject the theory of global warming. In fact, he said "believe" not "support". That there is a position between support and rejection (which I recognized explicitly in one of my previous posts by noting the possibility of scientific agnosticism) is beside the point. When someone says, for example, "I don't believe in god", most people, regardless of the logical fallacy you hilight, assume the speaker is an atheist. If the speaker were an agnostic, we would assume he would say so, as to prevent any ambiguity. The original poster's error was one of omission at best, and intentional misdirection at worst. His assertion that "scientists do not believe in global warming" implies a rejection, even if it is not logically the case. It does so by failing to note the neutral position of 40+% of the articles coded by the author. It is misleading for this reason. The purpose of the article you reviewed in your blog was to dispel the conventional wisdom that a scientific consensus existed on global warming. Why had the original poster not said so? I suspected he either misread the article, or was purposefully misleading his readers. I sought to correct this.

There's also no need for your snide prefatory remark on logic and English. That I was unclear in my previous posts, I apologize.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When someone says, for example, "I don't believe in god", most people, regardless of the logical fallacy you hilight, assume the speaker is an atheist. If the speaker were an agnostic, we would assume he would say so, as to prevent any ambiguity
I'm sorry, Delta, but you're still missing the forest for the trees here. For the average layman who wishes to know the scientific opinion on global warming, they merely want to know if the majority actively believes or not.

Whether the majority of scientist explicitly reject AGW, or they simply remain neutrally unconvinced is irrelevant. They still don't believe. And that's what matters to most people.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By GreenyMP on 7/7/2008 5:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think that they were advocating that we not suppress science.

Yes man has an effect on his environment, but until you can prove that man causes global warming, I am not sure that I want laws made prohibiting certain unproven theories. And by getting 3000 people to sign a document saying that something is true, doesn't make it true.

You are sick of us and we are sick of you. Great. Now lets all agree on OLED and move past this.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TheBaker on 7/7/2008 7:17:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't know how to deal with what we do to it in such a short amount of time, respectively.


I don't know how to break this to you, man, but the Earth is not a sentient organism. It doesn't know anything. Something tells me it will continue to do exactly what it has done for the last 5 billion years: Spin.

Why not admit that the problem you have is that you think that YOUR future is somehow going to be changed for the worse if the Earth heats up? Personally, I wouldn't mind some new beachfront property. What's there currently is godawful expensive.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By rsmech on 7/8/2008 1:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we produce isn't natural.


What's not natural about man? You forget how superior we are, don't mistake our faster evolution over other species as not natural. If man is not natural what is he? What we produce is from nature. The world has been dominated by many different environments or species throughout history. It has survived. If the human brain cannot be duplicated in it's complexity, what makes the Earth any easier? It's not a simple A + B = C. So no I don't have the answers, but neither do you. The difference is I don't pretend to know.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 4
You might vote Republican but with that attitude, you are not one. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

Yes there are plenty of people who don't necessarily need an SUV. And I agree, with the high fuel prices its dumb for those people to drive them. But to be thankful that these high prices exist because it rids you of an annoyance is just asinine. The prices are not just ridding the streets of larger SUVs, they are affecting every aspect of our society. In my family personally, my sister and her husband run an animal show that goes around the country. They've got two F650s and an F350 that hauls the animals and all their stuff around. These gas prices are killing them and they now have to charge a fuel surcharge. I'm glad you feel that their business should suffer so that you can be rid of large SUVs in your daily commute.

And in the end certain people still need larger SUVs. People with large families. Possibly with a boat. Why should they be punished for having a large family that a typical sedan or even a minivan won't work for? Yes smaller SUVs can hold 7 passengers now, but they can't do it while holding anything. And minivans really don't get much better mileage than large SUVs. A difference of a mpg or two isn't that big.

People with an attitude like yours are one of the biggest threats to our country that I see. People who think that because they don't like something, they should be able to dictate that feeling onto how the world should work. Of course some of you might be like "Well the US tries to tell other countries what to do." Yes, we try to punish other countries governments for killing its citizens, or supporting terror groups, etc. But if you can compare that to what kind of vehicle someone should drive, you have some serious issues.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/2008 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 1
I never cried:

1. To the government to outlaw SUV's
2. To have them banned
3. To have all of big auto destroyed

I asked for free market to get rid of the problem.

Perhaps you don't live in a large city where 90% of SUV's on the road are driven around by people that have - no large family, no need to haul large amounts of gear due to their cushy jobs, no need to go anywhere in the outdoors etc.

I'd say they are possibly fine for large families. I also didn't belittle trucks. My family owns a Truck (GASP), due to its utilitarian nature. Before you blast people like myself and pull the "He has a bad attitude, he doesn't deserve to be a Republican card," grow up for a minute (you usually are pretty grown up in your posts) and realize that what I spoke was an opinion and indeed offered nothing which is a threat to your nation.

Read the details before you preach the fire and brimstone and burn the witch at the stake. It is the mentality like which you just mentioned that would lead to the Salem witch trials.

But, I digress, what is the point. You are expressing your opinion. :)

Back to the city - most of these people who haul families around could do so in an Minivan or Station Wagon - while keeping their families just as safe or - *gasp* - safer than in an SUV... AND not put so many innocent people at risk due to their poor driving habits.

That is my opinion. I think they are stupid. When my family had the challenge of deciding between a Lincoln Navigator back in 1999 versus a Ford F150, the concensus was unanimous after logically thinking the process through - the F-150 has utility, it is useable via bed space, it was more practical and could haul far more stuff than a SUV could ever dream to do in a more useful manner.

They are dumb vehicles period.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I asked for free market to get rid of the problem.

They are only a problem because you don't like them. It's your personal opinion. And frankly, who are you to decide how people should spend their money?

There is nothing inherently immoral about any vehicle purchase decision. The entire concept of that makes no sense. What is immoral is trying to tell people they cannot pursue their liberties because they have a view that is different than yours.

We all need to stand up to the likes of you, lest we one day become ruled by the likes of you.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, backpedal... You said that big vehicles are a problem that need to be solved - that is not the same as saying you don't like them. If you don't like them, then don't buy one - end of discussion, right? What's the point of your post in the first place, except for the implication that we should all live by your values?

I'm open to everyone's opinion, so long as they don't tell me how to live my life. That's my job, after all, to use the brain God (or whomever) gave me and to exercise good judgement, in a way that doesn't deprive others of their liberties.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
I never told anyone how to live their life. I just said I thought they were dumb and am glad to see them possibly going away.

Or, as you suggest, I'm holding a gun to your head saying "drop the SUV now!"


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Dark Legion on 7/7/2008 8:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say they are possibly fine for large families.

And then you say, in the same post, no less...
quote:
They are dumb vehicles period.

Little contradiction?
quote:
... AND not put so many innocent people at risk due to their poor driving habits.

And then you stereotype SUV drivers as bad drivers, when in fact most are not. You are simply pushing you opinions on other people, so do not be surprised that many people don't agree with you.
quote:
Try being more open to others opinions rather than telling them to shut their mouths.

You have not said a single thing that indicates that you are open to others opinions. You have only been pushing you opinions onto other people, while your only little compromise was the quote about SUV's possibly being good for families, which you contradicted multiple times. Many people do need SUV's for their everyday life, and if they can afford the gas, who are you to say that they shouldn't be driving them?
quote:
Or, we can let the pussification of America continue. I said something that wasn't PC so therefore I shouldn't speak at all.

This makes no sense to me. Care to explain it further, because i had no idea that there was a "pussification of America" going on.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 10:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Contradiction? It is called a compromise and possible interlude to FIT's opinion. I still stand by the fact that they are dumb.

They are.

Station Wagons - worked fine for years. Minivans - worked fine for years.

I didn't grow up in a large family, but - we didn't have a minivan or station wagon either. We had two cars. That was it. On long trips we didn't need fancy TV's, stereo's or other things. We could read, talk, or look out the darned window and deal with it. Eventually the first gameboy was introduced and then we had that - but not until then.

Neither of them weigh 6000+ lbs. Take 6000+ lbs, and accelerate it to 80+ MPH and that is a LOT of kinetic energy.

Far more than say a 3000 lb car at 80+ MPH. Not to mention the surface area is much larger, the ability to control the vehicle in emergency situations is far worse than the smaller vehicle and the manageability of the vehicle is far less. I'm open to other opinions - there are a few here that are absolutely intolerant to logic and reason against their champion SUV.

YES - some people think they do need SUV's for daily life - but I'd say very few actually do need them. Especially in a large city like I live in. I see them very rarely filled to the brim with people. This is through personal observation. Useless mass draining energy driving down the roads creating a larger safety hazard.

Once again - large families survived for years without SUV's. If you argue people need them to haul cargo - what about Trucks? They are far more utilitarian and useful. What about Vans - once again they are far more utlitiarian and useful. I see very little utility in a large SUV compared with the alternatives.

Why have so many vehicles of this size on the road when there are more efficent modes of transportation to fit the bill. If they can afford it, fine. However, they are are larger danger to the rest of the people on the road in smaller vehicles. I'd say there are some SUV drivers who drive responsibly - but there are many more that do not.

Why give a blind man a BFG 9000 when you can give them a pistol instead. At least with the pistol they'll hurt far fewer people than the room-emptying BFG. It is simple logic man.

I don't care if others agree with me - but, I dare say my opinion is not a dangerous one when I do have clear, thought out reasons as to why I hold the opinion.

The "pussification of America" reference was to those who said my opinions were "dangerous" and "harmful" - which refers to to the attitude the PC crowd (Politically Correct) hold. In a PC America, you will not be allowed to say anything that could possibly offend or worry ANYONE.

In a perfect PC world, this would essentially equate to a complete stagnation of all communication channels due to anything and everything you say could possibly offend someone.

My opinion didn't state - hey lets go blow up a crowded room of SUV drivers. Instead, it simply expressed that I'm glad the free market system could lead to their demise for the most part.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "Once again - large families survived for years without SUV's. "

Large families survived for centuries without cars. They even survived without TVs, washing machines, refrigerators, running water, and indoor toilets. Since we can all survive without any of those conveniences, what say we ditch them all.

You first. We're right behind you, every step of the way.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Cute logic train, you are very "cute" sometimes masher. I ditched the concept of large SUV's quite a long time ago. I took the first step.

Care to follow?

Or, how about this - stop breeding except to limited capacity and we won't have large families. ;) We'll solve overcrowding, hunger, poverty and a host of other ailments all in one fell swoop.

You first, we're right behind you.

How's that for "cute" as well?

Please see my next argument further down the thread.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 5:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is it immoral if the purchase of a larger vehicle plays a role in someone getting hurt who has a smaller vehicle? Or are they expected to pony up and buy a larger vehicle too, lest they be unsafe on the roadways?

While I support people's right to spend their money however they choose, I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut in this case.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/2008 5:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it immoral if the purchase of a larger vehicle plays a role in someone getting hurt who has a smaller vehicle? Or are they expected to pony up and buy a larger vehicle too, lest they be unsafe on the roadways?

So here's your thinking...

Any car is at fault for not offering the same safety to people on scooters/motorcycles? Large cars and SUV/truck owners are at fault for it because people have chosen to buy small cars? And semi-trucks are at fault to the people who drive suv/truck, large car, small car, and bikes?

So, since you cannot afford a larger car than a Chevy Aveo, I'm supposed to buy one too, even though I have the money to buy a large car or SUV to protect my family?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm saying the proliferation of SUVs that emerged in the 90s has made it less safe than it was previously for drivers of full-size, mid-size and compact cars. It has not to do just with the size of the vehicles, but with the numbers. Tractor trailer trucks are significantly larger, but they are also less numerous, so they present less of a hazard. On the other end of the spectrum, scooters/motorcycles are also far less numerous.

But anyway, I was mostly providing food for thought with that question. I'm not at all suggesting that everyone buy a cheap car or that all large vehicles should be banned.

Personally, I think in the majority of cases they're a waste of money, but if other people want to spend their money on transportation, they're welcome to do so. I'm a firm supporter of capitalism.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By theapparition on 7/7/2008 6:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm saying the proliferation of SUVs that emerged in the 90s has made it less safe than it was previously for drivers of full-size, mid-size and compact cars.

Complete non-sense.
Safety on all cars has increased. Many SUV's don't get 5 star ratings, while many sub-compacts do.

With all those "dangerous" SUV's on the road, higher speeds, more electronic distractions (cell/gps/ipod), and higher population densities, why have traffic fatalities clearly decreased year over year?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 6:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
The different classes of cars are on different scales. You can't compare a five star sub-compact to a five star mid-size or SUV or whatever.

It's true that safety has improved due to improved chassis, air bags, etc. These improvements come irrespective of vehicle class. It's hard to say exactly how much more things would have been improved if an 8,000lb SUV were instead a 4,000lb minivan. There's also the rollover aspect, but that mainly applies to the SUV occupants.


RE: Another GW scare tactic