14 Sep
2000
14 Sep
'00
7:41 a.m.
--- Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com> wrote:
At 11:44 PM 9/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
I have personally worked with scientists from the University of Wyoming and
technicians from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who directly and indirectly
measure the ozone hole and the chemicals that are harmful to ozone (CFCs,
Bromine compounds, etc.) I have helped launch balloons and collect telemetry
data. No doubt that I'm not an unbiased source, but even though I think CFCs
are nifty compounds at ground level for lots of tasks (cooling, cleaning,
etc.),
at 30,000m, they are not a) natural and b) harmless.
At McMurdo, in spaces with electrical equipment, rather than Halon, there are
built-in C02 fire-supression systems. They are much larger physically, and
harmful to humans, but CO2 poisoning vs. Halon suffocation leave you just as
dead.
-ethan
http://penguincentral.com/ozone.html
=====
Even though my old e-mail address is no longer going to
vanish, please note my new public address: erd(a)iname.com
The original webpage address is still going away. The
permanent home is: http://penguincentral.com/
See http://ohio.voyager.net/ for details.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
I've heard that Freon...isn't nearly as
dangerous as it's made out to
be, and that the recent legislation to have it banned came about just after
the patents expired
It isn't patents, it is the CFC treaty (Osaks?) that bans the production
(first) and then use (second) of CFCs based on their alleged, but unproven,
impact on the ozone layer surrounding the earth. Note that I do not dispute
that there is a gap in the ozone layer around the earth, only that no one
has yet given anything more than conjecture on why it exists, and since we
don't have historical data on its existence (or lack thereof) we don't yet
have anyway of proving or disproving said conjectures, but something that
_was_ a provable way of saving _actual human lives_ was banned because of
it. </soapbox> 
14 Sep
14 Sep
8:39 a.m.
Ethan and others,
My intention is not to offend, and I apologize if I have. Further I wish to
clarify that I have no issues with the _science_ that is being done to
understand our planet and the things that go on around it. I have a
_serious_ issue with people who do not understand that science is a
continual process and that at any given point it can be _completely_
inaccurate in the projections it makes. This has been true since before
Galileo was put on trial for disputing scientific theories of the time that
the world was _not_ the center of the universe. In the case of ozone it has
been shown that CFCs can catalyze ozone given the right conditions, but any
theory of the ozone layer has to include that umptyzillion terawatt ozone
generator known to you and I know as the Sun. The same is happening with
the Global Warming crud. If you assume that we've got tolerable climate
records for the last 500 years and you assume that it took 15 MILLION years
after the event that wiped out the dinosaurs for the climate to "settle
down." If you compare the amount of time we've been watching the macro
"global" climate changes to the very well known and studied "micro"
climate
changes that happen every year, then we have been watching the macro cycles
for an equivalent of about 5 minutes of elapsed time. If you were plopped
on to this planet and observed the climate for 5 minutes could you predict
what was going to happen the rest of the year or even THEORIZE about why it
would change? No you couldn't. We've been studying the annual cycle for
decades and we still don't completely understand the relationships between
El Nina and the weather. We've got a fossil record that _clearly_ shows the
planet gets a lot hotter and a lot colder than it is now over periods
ranging from 100,000 to 250,000 years, and yet some irresponsible
scientists insist in their hubris that it is somehow "man's" fault that the
damn global climate is changing, and since its our fault we should be able
to do something about it, even when everyone knows we can't stop a
hurricane, so how could we possibly have the gall to believe we could alter
a temperature cycle that not only have we only just begun to appreciate,
but has occurred for millennia without us even being present to observe
it?! I used to marvel at the stories of Mayan priests sacrificing human
lives so that the seasons would come, now I weep at the stories of
politicians who, at the behest of modern scientists, are sacrificing entire
generations to try to stop the earth from proceeding through its natural
cycles.
Regards,
--Chuck
At 09:41 AM 9/14/00 -0700, you wrote:
--- Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com> wrote:
unproven,
At 11:44 PM 9/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I've heard that Freon...isn't nearly as dangerous as it's made out to
>be, and that the recent legislation to have it banned came about just
after
the
patents expired
It isn't patents, it is the CFC treaty (Osaks?) that bans the production
(first) and then use (second) of CFCs based on their alleged, but impact on the ozone layer surrounding the earth.
Note that I do not
dispute
that there is a gap in the ozone layer around the
earth, only that no one
has yet given anything more than conjecture on why it exists, and since we
don't have historical data on its existence (or lack thereof) we don't yet
have anyway of proving or disproving said conjectures, but something that
_was_ a provable way of saving _actual human lives_ was banned because of
it. </soapbox>
I have personally worked with scientists from the University of Wyoming and
technicians from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who directly and indirectly
measure the ozone hole and the chemicals that are harmful to ozone (CFCs,
Bromine compounds, etc.) I have helped launch balloons and collect telemetry
data. No doubt that I'm not an unbiased source, but even though I think CFCs
are nifty compounds at ground level for lots of tasks (cooling, cleaning,
etc.),
at 30,000m, they are not a) natural and b) harmless.
At McMurdo, in spaces with electrical equipment, rather than Halon, there are
built-in C02 fire-supression systems. They are much larger physically, and
harmful to humans, but CO2 poisoning vs. Halon suffocation leave you just as
dead.
-ethan
http://penguincentral.com/ozone.html
=====
Even though my old e-mail address is no longer going to
vanish, please note my new public address: erd(a)iname.com
The original webpage address is still going away. The
permanent home is: http://penguincentral.com/
See http://ohio.voyager.net/ for details.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/ 
9:11 a.m.
My intention is not to offend, and...
....sacrificing human
lives so that the seasons would come, now I weep at the stories of
politicians who, at the behest of modern scientists, are sacrificing entire
generations to try to stop the earth from proceeding through its natural
cycles.
--Chuck
Obvious... The Internet causes global warming. All those flamers.
John A.
9:23 a.m.
In the
case of ozone it has
been shown that CFCs can catalyze ozone given the right conditions, but any
theory of the ozone layer has to include that umptyzillion terawatt ozone
generator known to you and I know as the Sun. The same is happening with
the Global Warming crud. If you assume that we've got tolerable climate
records for the last 500 years and you assume that it took 15 MILLION years
after the event that wiped out the dinosaurs for the climate to "settle
down."
In otherwords, you argue that outside of substantial concrete evidence
that we are affecting the environment we should do whatever the hell we want
regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that it will affect
the environment. Sounds damn short sighted to me. A better course of
action is to work to minimize our impacts regardless of what they might be.
We might not know exactly what the effects of pumping vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution?
I think you also underestimate the quality of the data regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
I used to marvel at the stories of Mayan priests
sacrificing human
lives so that the seasons would come, now I weep at the stories of
politicians who, at the behest of modern scientists, are sacrificing entire
generations to try to stop the earth from proceeding through its natural
cycles.
I think you're mistaking exactly who it is that is "sacrificing entire
generations." You also have as little evidence to support your claim
that recent global temperature changes are part of a natural cycle (perhaps
less) as those that claim that recent temperature changes are linked to
rising CO2 levels. You are as guilty of letting your pollitics influence
your view of reality as they are.
Eric
9:58 a.m.
In otherwords, you argue that outside of substantial
concrete evidence
that we are affecting the environment we should do whatever the hell we want
regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that it will affect
the environment.
Can we get back to computers now? Seconds?
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra -----------------------------
10:44 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I'll second that, but realize I also tend to very much agree with Chuck!
*******************
The environmental movement as it is today would not exist were it not for
scientific illiteracy.
In otherwords, you argue that outside of
substantial concrete evidence
that we are affecting the environment we should do whatever the hell we want
regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that it will affect
the environment.
Can we get back to computers now? Seconds? 
11:20 a.m.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Eric J. Korpela wrote:
Well, plant more trees, shrubs, and grass and let photosynthesis do its
work. But that means irrigation, and water is seldom where you
want/need it, so... Lotsa problems, few solutions!
- don
In the case of ozone it has
been shown that CFCs can catalyze ozone given the right conditions, but any
theory of the ozone layer has to include that umptyzillion terawatt ozone
generator known to you and I know as the Sun. The same is happening with
the Global Warming crud. If you assume that we've got tolerable climate
records for the last 500 years and you assume that it took 15 MILLION years
after the event that wiped out the dinosaurs for the climate to "settle
down."
In otherwords, you argue that outside of substantial concrete evidence
that we are affecting the environment we should do whatever the hell we want
regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that it will affect
the environment. Sounds damn short sighted to me. A better course of
action is to work to minimize our impacts regardless of what they might be.
We might not know exactly what the effects of pumping vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution? I think you also underestimate the quality of the data
regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
I used to marvel at the stories of Mayan
priests sacrificing human
lives so that the seasons would come, now I weep at the stories of
politicians who, at the behest of modern scientists, are sacrificing entire
generations to try to stop the earth from proceeding through its natural
cycles.
I think you're mistaking exactly who it is that is "sacrificing entire
generations." You also have as little evidence to support your claim
that recent global temperature changes are part of a natural cycle (perhaps
less) as those that claim that recent temperature changes are linked to
rising CO2 levels. You are as guilty of letting your pollitics influence
your view of reality as they are.
Eric
11:30 a.m.
Eric J. Korpela wrote:
We might not know exactly what the effects of pumping
vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution?
No. It's unlikely that we simply stop producing CO2. More likely we
replace processes that produce CO2 with processes that produce other
waste products. The environmental impact of those other waste products
is even *less* understood.
I think you also underestimate the quality of the data
regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
Some of them do deny that it's having an effect. The actual measurements
do not back up the claim that decreased use of CFCs will reduce the ozone
hole.
The point isn't that the hypothesis is wrong, but that it's not sufficiently
tested, and that there is in fact counterevidence. So it's foolish to
rush out and change from using CFCs with well-known properties to other
chemicals with less known effects.
You are as guilty of letting your pollitics influence
your view of reality as they are.
As are you.
3:17 p.m.
Eric J. Korpela wrote:
Not quite. The main trick is to stop using sources of carbon dioxide that
are outside of the carbon cycle. Once you get to renewable hydrocarbon
sources, the CO2 problem goes away.
We might not know exactly what the effects of
pumping vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution?
No. It's unlikely that we simply stop producing CO2. More likely we
replace processes that produce CO2 with processes that produce other
waste products. The environmental impact of those
other waste products
is even *less* understood.
Hell, even nuclear is better than fossil fuels. (A fairly simple risk
assesment shows that nuclear power plants save a lot of lives.)
I think you
also underestimate the quality of the data regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
Some of them do deny that it's having an effect. The actual measurements
do not back up the claim that decreased use of CFCs will reduce the ozone
hole. The point isn't that the hypothesis is wrong, but
that it's not sufficiently
tested, and that there is in fact counterevidence. So it's foolish to
rush out and change from using CFCs with well-known properties to other
chemicals with less known effects.
The "counterevidence" is probably wishful thinking. Antarctic ozone levels
have been dropping since the 70s, the reactants and the catalysts have been
measured in-situ, and the link to CFCs is well established. Researchers
don't even use "may" in their papers, prefering to now use statements like
"The depletion is caused chiefly by ozone reacting chemically with chlorine
and bromine from industrially manufactured gases."
I promise this my final entry to this discussion. I'm sorry I couldn't let
the rants of those who feel differently go unopposed. My next message will
be about a broken jumper wire on the one of the boards in my Tandy 6000.
Eric
3:23 p.m.
Hi
I'll be off the air until tomorrow morning.
Please don't fill my in-box with this thread.
Thanks
Dwight
3:34 p.m.
At 05:17 PM 9/14/00 -0700, Eric wrote:
The link between antarctic ozone depletion and CFC
emissions
is pretty well established by in-situ measurements.
Please provide a reference for this, I follow several science journals
(both refereed an non-refereed) and a definitive study that links the
Chlorine ions in Antarctic ozone to CFC emissions should have shown up
prominently either in one of them or in references by other studies.
--Chuck
4:33 p.m.
At 05:17 PM 9/14/00 -0700, Eric wrote:
I'll break my promise for this request for a reference.
The link between antarctic ozone depletion and CFC
emissions
is pretty well established by in-situ measurements.
Please provide a reference for this, I follow several science journals
(both refereed an non-refereed) and a definitive study that links the
Chlorine ions in Antarctic ozone to CFC emissions should have shown up
prominently either in one of them or in references by other studies. From an old file on the subject I find: Russell et al.
1996 Nature 379, 526.
"Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of
Chlorofluorocarbons in the
Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget"
I'm sure there would be something more recent if I looked.
Numerous papers link chlorine ions to low ozone concentration through in situ
measurements. Any one of a hundred would do, like:
Newman et al. 1997 GRL 24, 2689
"Anomalously low ozone over the Arctic"
Eric
4:17 p.m.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Eric J. Korpela wrote:
I promise this my final entry to this discussion.
I'm sorry I couldn't let
the rants of those who feel differently go unopposed. My next message will
be about a broken jumper wire on the one of the boards in my Tandy 6000.
Broken jumper wires in a 6000 are almost always caused by excessive
levels of Halon or other CFC's in the case.
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
2:02 p.m.
I've always wondered about the claim that CO2 causes global warming...
Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2, but Mars isn't warm....
Perhaps a more accurate question to ask is:
What is the effect of all the sources of heat (new and old) that we
are currently using? Almost every(*1) megawatt, gigawatt, petawatt that
is generated in the world is turned into heat eventually. In addition,
we are burning fossil fuels that captured the energy of the sun millions
of years ago, and releasing that energy as well.
How much power is required to heat the ocean by 1 degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
If some idiot actually devises a scheme for cold fusion, how long
will it take for the human race to cook itself?
clint
(*1) A very small amount of energy is used to convert small molecules
into larger molecules. This energy isn't converted to heat until the
molecules are broken down at a later time.
7:13 p.m.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Clint Wolff (VAX collector) wrote:
How much power is required to heat the ocean by 1
degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
Someone did a study of this, going back through decades old records
acquired from different sources, one of which was a bunch of temperature
readings recorded on punched cards.
Back on topic, baby!
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
VCF 4.0 is September 30-October 1
San Jose Convention Center, San Jose, California
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
15 Sep
15 Sep
7 a.m.
What is the effect of all the sources of heat (new and
old) that we
are currently using? . . .
How much power is required to heat the ocean by 1 degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
How many Pentiums will it take to exterminate life as we know it?
9:09 a.m.
I personally attribute Pentiums as Creating life as I know it. Without
the advent of cheap computers, I wouldn't be able to own a VAX 11/750.
Of course, the VAX puts out way more heat for less work, so I'm doing
more to hasten the heat death of the universe than a room full of
Pentiums.
<grin> Everyone needs a hobby....
clint
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
What is the
effect of all the sources of heat (new and old) that we
are currently using? . . .
How much power is required to heat the ocean by 1 degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
How many Pentiums will it take to exterminate life as we know it?
3:31 p.m.
New subject: VAXen My Chilren (was: Halon...)
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Clint Wolff (VAX collector) wrote:
I personally attribute Pentiums as Creating life as I
know it. Without
the advent of cheap computers, I wouldn't be able to own a VAX 11/750.
Speaking of halon and VAXen, how many here are familiar with the
humorous short story named "VAXen My Children"? For those who aren't
familiar with it, there's a copy somewhere on my web site, or you can
just FTP the file vaxen-my-children.gz (5.994 kb) from:
perqlogic.com in /pub/rdd/pdp/humor
Enjoy! P.S. - the separate computer-humor archive is also accessible
via my web page for those who aren't familiar with it... dozens and
dozens of ASCII files of comuter humor going back the the earliest
days of the 'net.
Of course, the VAX puts out way more heat for less
work, so I'm doing
more to hasten the heat death of the universe than a room full of
Pentiums.
<grin> Everyone needs a hobby....
ROFL! :-)
--
R. D. Davis "The best way to gain a true understanding of
rdd(a)perqlogic.com Wile E. Coyote on the Roadrunner cartoons is to
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd fly, head-first, off a horse into something like
410-744-4900 a fence or a tree; trust me, this works." --RDD
3:18 p.m.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
How many Pentiums will it take to exterminate life as
we know it?
That depends upon whether or not Algore is elected president. If he's
elected, we'll probably have limits placed on the amount of energy
that we use, including how much electricity we use. This will have
the effect of a sharp reduction in the usage of the Internet by the
average citizen, thus makine the country safer for other totalitarian
politicians, paving the way for the Hillary Monster to get into the
White House. Oh heck, if she does get elected, that alone may
exterminate civilization if people have to look at that ugly face on
TV and in the newspapers enough. Of course, that won't stop the rest
of the world from producting and using pentiums, but it will slightly
lengthen the time it takes for them to do more damage... however,
Intel, wherever it's headquarters end up, may self destruct first as a
result of it's own chips, so, do we really have to worry about this?
;-)
On a more serious note, what we do have to be concerned with is the
possibility of new disk drives eventually becoming scarce, or
extremely expensive for individuals to purchase when they stop
producing PCs, etc. as we know them, and begin producing more and more
network appliances, with all of the software, including OS software,
coming from the so-called ASPs (application service providers). Yes,
I know what you're thinking. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. probably
won't stoop to this level, but, do they count enough for manufacturers
to still keep producing hardware for them if Microsoft, and even
manufacturers of commercial UNICES, etc. begin taking that approach
and stop selling software that runs directly on someone's PC via local
storage rather than doing it the ASP way and charging them a monthly
amount to use the OS and software, and file-space, on remote systems
located elsewhere via the 'net? Oh, yeah, and if Algore gets elected,
and electricity use is rationed, and those of us here in the states
can't get enough gasoline or natural gas to power a generator, what
good will our collections of power-hungry real computers over here do
us, other than sitting there beckoning to us to hack on them?
--
R. D. Davis "The best way to gain a true understanding of
rdd(a)perqlogic.com Wile E. Coyote on the Roadrunner cartoons is to
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd fly, head-first, off a horse into something like
410-744-4900 a fence or a tree; trust me, this works." --RDD
3:44 p.m.
New subject: [OT] waste heat (was Re: Halon dumps: a data point)
How much power is required to heat the ocean by 1
degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
The total water supply of the Earth is approximately 1.36x10^21 litres.
Our current rate of consumption of energy is NOT exponentially
increasing.
In 1997 (the most recent year for which I have information handy), the
total energy consumption was 376.8 "Quads" of energy. This is
376.8 quadrillion BTU (376.8x10^15).
Assuming all of the energy was used to heat the total water supply,
this would raise its temperature by 0.000070 degrees C.
Some not-entirely-trivial fraction of the 376.8 quads came directly
from solar energy, or indirectly (in the short term),
as from wind
power. This energy would have been converted to heat even if we did
not put it to use, thus it doesn't contribute to global warming.
10:22 p.m.
New subject: [OT] waste heat (was Re: Halon dumps: a data point)
Let's not forget the earth/oceans radiate a lot of heat out to space
each night. (being hampered a litlle bit by all CO2 gas)
Sipke
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:44 AM
Subject: [OT] waste heat (was Re: Halon dumps: a data point)
How much power
is required to heat the ocean by 1 degree C? At our
current (exponentially increasing) rate of consumption of energy,
how long will it take to heat the ocean?
The total water supply of the Earth is approximately 1.36x10^21 litres.
Our current rate of consumption of energy is NOT exponentially
increasing.
In 1997 (the most recent year for which I have information handy), the
total energy consumption was 376.8 "Quads" of energy. This is
376.8 quadrillion BTU (376.8x10^15).
Assuming all of the energy was used to heat the total water supply,
this would raise its temperature by 0.000070 degrees C.
Some not-entirely-trivial fraction of the 376.8 quads came directly
from solar energy, or indirectly (in the short term), as from wind
power. This energy would have been converted to heat even if we did
not put it to use, thus it doesn't contribute to global warming.
14 Sep
14 Sep
6:20 p.m.
The ridiculous thing about the Osaka treaty (banning Freons) is that it
only bans the production and use in the US and other major countries. It
does nothing to prevent it's use on second and third world counties. In
fact, right now the production (and smuggling into the US) of freon is
going full blast in Mexico. My guess is that there is probably just as much
being produced now as there ever was but it has shifted to third world
countries. The "ban" is nothing but feel-good politics and continous to
ignore the problem (if indeed there really is one)!
Going more and more OT,
Joe
At 11:23 AM 9/14/00 -0700, you wrote:
entire
> In
the case of ozone it
has
> been shown that CFCs can catalyze ozone given the
right conditions, but
any
> theory of the ozone layer has to include that
umptyzillion terawatt ozone
> generator known to you and I know as the Sun. The same is happening with
> the Global Warming crud. If you assume that we've got tolerable climate
> records for the last 500 years and you assume that it took 15 MILLION
years
after the
event that wiped out the dinosaurs for the climate to "settle
down."
In otherwords, you argue that outside of substantial concrete evidence
that we are affecting the environment we should do whatever the hell we want
regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that it will affect
the environment. Sounds damn short sighted to me. A better course of
action is to work to minimize our impacts regardless of what they might be.
We might not know exactly what the effects of pumping vast amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
a good enough reason to exercise caution?
I think you also underestimate the quality of the data regrading the effects
of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
would deny that it is having an effect.
> I used to marvel at the stories of Mayan priests sacrificing human
> lives so that the seasons would come, now I weep at the stories of
> politicians who, at the behest of modern scientists, are sacrificing generations to
try to stop the earth from proceeding through its natural
cycles.
I think you're mistaking exactly who it is that is "sacrificing entire
generations." You also have as little evidence to support your claim
that recent global temperature changes are part of a natural cycle (perhaps
less) as those that claim that recent temperature changes are linked to
rising CO2 levels. You are as guilty of letting your pollitics influence
your view of reality as they are.
Eric
11:18 a.m.
New subject: [OT] CFCs vs. Ozone layer (was Re: Halon dumps: a data point)
Chuck is absolutely right. There *may* be some real scientific research
being conducted on the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer, but the
limited information the politicians have based the ban on is "junk
science" at best. I suggest reading the essay "Paranoia and Profit -
Holes in the Ozone Scare" by James P. Hogan. It's available online at:
http://www.monadnock.net/fanspaces/hogan/truth_06.html
15 Sep
15 Sep
9:22 a.m.
New subject: [OT] CFCs vs. Ozone layer (was Re: Halon dumps: a data point)
Chuck is absolutely right. There *may* be some real
scientific research
being conducted on the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer, but the
limited information the politicians have based the ban on is "junk
science" at best. I suggest reading the essay "Paranoia and Profit -
Holes in the Ozone Scare" by James P. Hogan. It's available online at:
Well, reminds me a lot of similar stuff in the 70s about
radioactive polution ... Since the very fist beginning man
has been exposed to radiation, and normal radiation is an
usual thing, so the low additional radiation is completely
riskless - and when our scientists tell so, then the radiation
emited in one of our minor leaks is no hazard...
and so on.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 2.0 am 28./29. April 2001 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
8716
days inactive
8718
days old
24 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
at258＠osfn.org -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
donm＠cts.com -
elvey＠hal.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
John.Allain＠donnelley.infousa.com -
korpela＠ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu -
marvin＠rain.org -
rdd＠smart.net -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
sipke＠wxs.nl -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
vaxman＠uswest.net