[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

Carl Wagner carl.wagner at verbalworld.com
Wed May 26 11:25:47 MDT 2010


The hole in the ozone layer has everything to do with Climate Change.

There was scientific consensus that freon was destroying the ozone 
layer.  So they outlawed it.
IFF that was proved wrong, than scientific consensus is worthless, and 
science is not to be trusted, at least all not science where politics 
are involved, IE global warming.

When did Dupont's patent run out on R-12?

Carl.




Davide Del Vento wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 19:15, David L. Anselmi <anselmi at anselmi.us> wrote:
>   
>> Davide Del Vento wrote:
>>     
>>> I am a physicist and I work at NCAR so I must answer. The reality of
>>> global warming and its cause is indeed certain. Pumping into the
>>> atmosphere stuff that was in the ground increases the greenhouse
>>> effect and thus Earth *average* temperature, period.
>>>       
>> So where can I go to see the evidence that convinces you that man-made CO2 is causing a continual
>> increase in global temperature?
>>     
>
> Let's start with the past and present status.
> There is overwhelming evidence in thousand of publications. You can
> even download CCSM, study its code and do your own simulation and see
> by yourself.
> Removing anything from the model (e.g. the human emissions, the
> volcanoes, or whatever) will cause the model to be grossly
> inconsistent with the observed data, within the errors (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals_in_statistics and
> reference within). That doesn't mean that there could be a mistake
> sometimes, but the data is very clear and scientifically sound. The
> ball does indeed fall, according to any gravity theory.
> This is a fact and who doesn't "believe" it is "Flat-Earth-er"
>
> I believe the problem with this topic is that everybody takes it
> personal, uses it for political or ideological goals, so too many
> people (from both sides) tends to spread FUD instead of using his/her
> brain to "negotiate" with the other part. In fact there are three
> aspects of the issue that are completely separated and that tends to
> be wrongly commingled in all the discussions (including this one).
>
> The first is what I stated before: global warming (or climate change,
> if you prefer the word) is a fact, today. We know "how much" is a
> fact, because the models tell us pretty well what the climate would
> look like without human emissions (mostly burning fossil fuels, but
> non only). It is different from what we measure today.
>
> The second aspect is that it will surely get worse and that there may
> be "unexpected" consequences. This is certain too (if the climate
> changes, there will be changes in vegetation and wildlife), but less
> clear. Is the beetle problem we have in Colorado related to climate
> change? It might, but we are not sure. This is field of research
> today. The climate aspects are the easiest, the difficulties are the
> human-related inputs (will be e new technology that will reduce
> emission? how much will the population increase? etc) and the
> consequences (does the climate change really cause the beetle to
> prosper and destroy the whole tree population??)
>
> The third point is the most important, and the only one we should
> argue about. Human presence change the environment, period.
> Environmentalists that say otherwise lie, unless they seriously think
> we should go back living in caves and let 80% of our offspring die of
> starvation and illness. The point of the discussion is what we agree
> is ok to "kill" or "destroy", and what is not. Is it ok to kill a cow
> to feed my kids? Most people would say "yes". Is it ok to kill Jeffrey
> Haemer to feed my kids? Most people would say  "no". Is it ok to kill
> some trees to build a house? Etc. etc.
> This should be the core of the discussion, at least in a geeky-smart
> circle like ours. I understand that's easier for one side to claim the
> there isn't any climate change at all (or that we don't know exactly
> or whatever). And for the other side to claim that the changes will be
> so big that we must stop our lifestyle yesterday, because we are going
> to kill this or that species.
>
> Of course it's impossible to find an happy medium that makes everybody
> happy, but the discussion should aim at something like that: what is
> ok to change, what is ok to destroy and what is not? Of course a big,
> huge part of that is that there are too many people on the Earth, and
> counting!
>
> I won't say here what I think it's ok and what I think it's not,
> because it's irrelevant in this context, but if we switch the
> discussion this way, I'll be glad to participate (I wonder why we talk
> more about biking and climate than linux, though).
> Well, I have to say something about what I think it's ok and what I
> think it's not: I promise that I won't kill Jeffrey to feed my kids,
> relax :-)
>
>   
>> And what's the ozone hole up to these days?
>> Huh, looks like little change in the past 15 years:
>>     
>
> Uh? So what? What in the heck the ozone hole is doing in a climate
> change discussion? I'm really sorry to hear something so stupid from a
> guy so smart!
> Putting ozone hole in a climate change discussion sounds like the
> following in a Linux vs Windows discussion:
>
> My friend has a Mac. She had her email phished. I received an email
> from "her" asking for money because she was allegedly robbed while in
> vacation oversea. Several other friends have Windows and that never
> happened to them. Macs suck because they didn't protect my mac-user
> friend. Macs are unix-like, and so is linux. Thus linux must sucks too
> :-((
>
> Bye,
> ;Dav
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>
>   




More information about the LUG mailing list