From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Dumping on the study of the environment (Re: Gore's environmental ideas)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:48:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.150705.4174@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) wri

>Does anyone remember it was just a few years ago that the science community
>came out and said we where destroying the Ozone layer because of the use
>of aerosol (didn't spell that right).  Or just recently when they said there
>was a huge hole developing in the layer above the poles.  Of course these 
>groups and their megaphones like Gore don't bring up the later articles about 
>when there wasn't actually a hole, just normal fluctuations in the layer.

What articles are those? The hole is definitely there, it's definitely
seasonal (i.e. is disappears in the summer and re-forms in the
winter). Is it a result of human usage of CFCs? Nothing conclusive,
without further study. 'Aerosols' have nothing to do with it.

>It was just a few years ago, that the science community said we where 
>heading for GLOBAL COOLING, not Warming.  Remember when they
>predicted the coming of the next Ice Age?  Listen, man has been on this
>globe for so short a period of time, but can be so 'arrogant' with claims
>to have all the answer's and knowledge of his everything that goes on 
>around him.

Nobody claims to know it all, except you. 

>It makes me sick to hear these so-called environmental groups claim
>that because I burn an oil and gas mixture in my gas-powered weed-eater,
>and my Kawasaki dirt bike, that I'm a major contributer to the total
>destruction of the ozone layer.  

Sigh. Yes, another brilliant expert has now confused the ozone
depletion problem and the Greenhouse Effect. Congratulations.

FYI, ozone depleting CFCs are man-made products that do not exist in
fossil fuels (i.e. oil and gas).

>Don't people realize that just one,
>I repeat 1, major volcanic eruption spews more hydrocarbons, ash, and
>gases into the atmosphere than the total of all the engines, turbines, 
>and factories emission's in the last 100 years?  

Wonderful claim, no support. It's abundantly clear that you don't
understand the problem. Hydrocarbons (compounds containing carbon and
hydrogen) are not really the problem, since most of the them are
rapidly removed by normal atmospheric chemistry. CO2 (which is not a
hydrocarbon) and CFC's (Chlorofloruocarbons) are the problem. Not
hydrocarbons.

>Now, I realize that
>this view is not politically correct, but I'm afraid people are
>getting a real snow job by some of these groups.

Snow job? You're the one blowing snow here, bub. Maybe you oughta
study the problem before you become Our Authority on it.

>  I garuntee you, that
>if the earth's temperature rises a few degrees, it won't be because
>the Lincoln Limo our CEO drives, but would more likely due to the
>ever increasing volcanic activity that we are seeing.

Increasing volcanic activity? WHAT? Where do you get a statistic like this?

>You just don't know how bad it hurts me to crank up my dirt bike and 
>realize the little cloud of blue hydrocarbons I just spewed out is
>causing more damage to the atmosphere than all of Mt. St Helen's millions
>of ton's of ash and gases.  I remember when they tracked that dust cloud
>into Europe.

Now you're just raving. Dust has nothing to do with the Greenhouse
Effect or ozone depletion.

Do us all a favor. Learn about the issues first, before ranting about
it.  If you still want to rant after you understand the most basic
elements of the issues (like, say, what a hydrocarbon is), then you
can rant all you want. At least you won't spread misinformation at the
same time.

-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#      This netnews message has been brought to you by the number 3!   #