more scary stuff

[narf poit chez BOOM]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=18&u=/ap/20040207/ap_on_re_us/activist_investigation

relevant link: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014021.php

http://bar.baen.com/WB/default.asp?action=9&read=31441&fid=36

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_re_us/activist_investigation

interesting, unrelated thing: http://bar.baen.com/WB/default.asp?action=9&read=31409&fid=36

[ February 11, 2004, 04:44: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Puke]

meh. its not like they dont have access to all that **** anyway, and its not like they dont use it to profile people. this just means that they can use that information in official court cases.

I have known people that have been denied government contracts because the feds had them flagged as political activists. They were of course NOT any sort of political ANYTHING, and had never been a part of any protest, or even had anything to do with protesters or activism. What they did do was give an interview to cnn about 5 years before, and talk about technology that was being used for political purposes.

if you think you have any privacy, you're just wrong - and you should get over it. Id really like this to be a topic for debate, but its not. its a one sided coin. no privacy. its a myth. you dont have any. sorry. effort will be better spent if you try to make sure that the information is used responsibly, because effort spent to conceal or protect the information is just being wasted.

The other day, i was talking to a researcher in the genetics / biotech industry. her orginization relied heavily on government funding, and involved stem cells. nothing had been published describing their work, so it was all 'officially' in the dark. about thirty minutes (yes, 30 minutes, one half of an hour) after their first paper was published, they received a call withdrawing their government funding.

"sorry, because right wing politics in the US are identified with religious concervitism, it is our duty to cancel all funding for research involving stem cells, evolution, or other scientific progress. try again during another administration."

Its really quite silly. I dont mean to start a debate about absurd partisan politics and the two party system as a sociological institution that we are better off without. the point is, that they got the call in THIRTY MINUTES after a paper was published. Do you have any idea how many HUNDREDS of papers are published EVERY DAY?

Now, you really have two choices here on what to believe, wither or not you agree or disagree with the policy:

First, you can assume that they had been watching the project, and were just waiting for an opportunity to cut the funding. I am told that this is a virtual impossibility, and that the research team would be able to launch babies out of cannons without anyone knowing about it, unless they published a paper. im somewhat skeptical of this, but who knows.

Second, you can assume that no one knew what was going on until the paper was published, and some sort of system, akin to the Echelon System, detected key words or phrases in the paper, and flagged it.

Option one reaffirms your lack of privacy. Option two tells us that vast and unfathomable resources within the NSA are being spent to slow down scientific progress for political gain, instead of for important things like securing US global economic supremacy, committing industrial espionage against other nations, or engaging in inteligence / counter inteligence activities.

Either way, im not too happy with it.

edit: I realize that at the begining of this post, I instruct you not to waste your time griping. Then in the rest of the post, I procede to gripe. Please pay no heede to me, and continue about your regular business.

[ February 11, 2004, 05:02: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Fyron]

edit: I realize that at the begining of this post, I instruct you not to waste your time griping. Then in the rest of the post, I procede to gripe. Please pay no heede to me, and continue about your regular business. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oops! You forgot the request to be moderated down!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

P, i find you offensive and over-ready to offend.

and i always read your Posts when i'm reading the thread and there almost always worth reading. you've got faults? everybody's got faults. at least you know yours.

[Fyron]

But still oblige his on-going request and rate him a 1! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Loser]

You think that's scary, check this out (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/).

Fear?
No thanks, I'm trying to cut back.

[ February 11, 2004, 09:57: Message edited by: Loser ]

[rdouglass]

This is somewhat relevant to Loser's post:

http://www.principal.com/marketnews/news_template.htm?story=20040211/20040211OPECStunsWorldWithPlanToTrimOutput10.xml

Was that article for real? I just finished reading Looser's post and then read my link - seems like there may be some truth to it...

[Atrocities]

"sorry, because right wing politics in the US are identified with religious concervitism, it is our duty to cancel all funding for research involving stem cells, evolution, or other scientific progress. try again during another administration." <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Puke I have to dissagree with this statement. I think the real issue is money, nothing more. Look for those who would have profitied most by having this research shut down. I feel that the pharacuitical (sp) companies are to blame not the religious fanatics or the Right wing folks.

Remember the real power in Washington is neither the Rebulicans nor the ultra dark side liberal democrats. It is money plane and simple.

[ February 11, 2004, 16:23: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Atrocities]

I have said this before and I will keep on saying it, freedom is an illusion that rich people can afford to enjoy while poor people foot the bill and bare the burdon.

We have no freedom, and as our population continues to grow, we will enjoy even fewer illusions of freedom as restrictions and taxes continue to mount would our representation in Washington continues to dwindle.

The USA is on the fast track to a toltarian society where people will be afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals. Where no one will question authority or the methods at which those in authority deal with people who question authority.

They will be demonfied in the news, made out to be horrible anti american monsters when in fact they are more american than those who fail to stand up and say "What are you doing?"

First they will take your rights from you, a little bit at a time. While they are doing this they will raise your taxes, keeping more of the money you make for themselves while keeping you down financially. They will feed you a constant line of utter BS through the news media trying to convince you that you need to give away even more of your rights. Right to free speach, right to bare arms, right to privicy, etc.

If you don't believe me just look back over the Last 12 years and you will see the pattern. Started with Clinton and will continue in one form or another until it is accomplished. Clinton raised taxes, dwindeled many of our rights away, and opened the flood gates that swampped out economy. Bush has dwindled away our right to privicy and freedom of movement.

What will the next demi god president do?

[ February 11, 2004, 16:33: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Loser]

Whoa there.

Take a few deep breaths there.

You're starting to sound more than a little paranoid.

[Atrocities]

Here is some information about what we can expect in the future as our rights dwindle, the cause will be clear.

LINK (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

I don't recall the mathmatican whos seminar talked about this, but he explains it very clearly then, this web page does a nice job of simplifying what he said. I know I posted about this before, I just don't recall the thread as it was nearly a year ago.

[geoschmo]

Atrocities, not sure if you realize it but you posted a link to the same page that Loser did a few Posts before. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[AMF]

I feel it's wise to stay away from the political aspects of this discussion, since I have strong political views.

But, I wanted to comment on the linked document: it seems a pretty standard Malthusian argument and is hence susceptible to the vulnerabilities that it was. Its been a long time, but IIRC Malthus was unable to account for the effect of technology. He predicted the same thing but talked about food (grows mathematically) v. population (grows geometrically). The two are, by their nature, out of sync so he predicted the human race would have chaos, mass wars and die offs, sometime around the 1900s I think.

See also the modern Versions re: growth of the world' food supply (Lester Brown) v. the Green Revolution boosters.

So...a healthy starting point would perhaps be to discuss the role of technology in overcoming the problems the "peak oil" guy warns about. Maybe he does in the article, I haven't read it all the way through...

I'm gonna get away from this topic now, lest I start talking politics.

thanks,

Alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Here is some information about what we can expect in the future as our rights dwindle, the cause will be clear.

LINK (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

I don't recall the mathmatican whos seminar talked about this, but he explains it very clearly then, this web page does a nice job of simplifying what he said. I know I posted about this before, I just don't recall the thread as it was nearly a year ago. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Shrapnel]

I found the "Peak Oil" article ... interesting.

I found the "New Energy" comments more interesting though. That is a field that has so much potential if the proper funding and attention could be given it.

Not enough money to make in it yet though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Loser:
You think that's scary, check this out (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/).

Fear?
No thanks, I'm trying to cut back. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Comedic gold.

[Loser]

Thanks, Fyron.

[Litcube]

That oil-peak essay reads like penis-enlargement spam.

[Litcube]

[ February 11, 2004, 19:24: Message edited by: Litcube ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Very good article, finally it has been put into proper perspective. No offense to anyone here but from real life experience I have heard one after another person say; “We will run out of oil”. As this article paints it the fact is we will never run out of oil, it will just become so expensive to retrieve and sell that very few if any will want to buy it. As for my personal outlook I won’t say, the fact is none of use are 100 percent certain of how much oil is in the Russian fields, under Siberia, etc. I will caution that no one knows for certain because it is still by far cheaper to capitulate to the demands of OPEC than it is to try and find and drill some of the above sources, thankfully not all of them…yet.

[Loser]

It does have an unconvincing rhythm and tone. I doubt it for reasons other than that, but that's the one that really calms my irrational mind that is so eager to panic.

He also takes any possible objection and turns them to his cause, alternately saying that Bush is in favor of conserving oil and that Bush is desperately trying to waste oil.

Additionally, he mentions 'New Energy' in a positive light. Being heavy on physics myself I've read up on this 'New Energy' and it's a bunch of bunk (I know some of you disagree, feel free to "Bring it!"). He's only mentioning this in such a light so that he can appear sympathetic to the fringers that are his target audience anyway. To me, this draws strongly away from his credibility.

Almost none of the oh-so-important and convincing quotes have any sort of notes by which they could be confirmed or denied. Same goes for the 'facts'. Any that have links tend to be links to other sites which also lack proper documentation. Standard fringe fare.

Lastly, on a purely personal note, I still have hopes for fusion. The author's treatment of fission is atrocious and inaccurate, and he completely ignores fusion. The first reactors will take fortunes to build and decades to get running, but they will power vast fractions of a continent.

In closing:</font> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Keep breathing</font> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We'll see</font> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Always be sure to drink plenty of water</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[solops]

I'm an engineer. I have worked in the oil and gas industry for 28 years. This column and the linked articles are really interesting. Please don't stop.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Loser:
Additionally, he mentions 'New Energy' in a positive light. Being heavy on physics myself I've read up on this 'New Energy' and it's a bunch of bunk (I know some of you disagree, feel free to "Bring it!"). He's only mentioning this in such a light so that he can appear sympathetic to the fringers that are his target audience anyway. To me, this draws strongly away from his credibility.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This was also for me the weakest point in his arguments. However, my own little irrational voice pointed out, "So he's a kook, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about the other stuff." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anybody know where I can get a ten year supply of emergency rations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[TerranC]

Could anybody more educated on Energy sources tell me what that person that wrote the page loser linked to got wrong and got right? I'm trembling with curiosity, here.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

VOICE OVER: In the future the land will become a desert, roads will become battlefields and the hope of mankinds will appear as a stranger.

ZOOM TO CLOSE UP OF A BLACK V-8 INTERCEPTOR

When the "you know what" hits the fan, I'm outta here. Everyone should have a "Bug out" kit ready to take with them when the aliens arrive with their cookbooks, or some other calamity. Not too worried about the Peak Oil thing. There is no better motivator for changing our ways of living then being forced to do it. As much a fan Iam of military power I just hope we don't continue using it to secure other countries oil resources, It's starting to get a little embarrasing. I'd rather be on the moral high ground on military force and it's uses even if it does make for great video.

[rextorres]

Whether this guys a crack pot or not is moot. Civilization's collapse - for whatever reason - is inevitable. When it happens is the real question. This guy just seems to think it's going to happen in the next 5 - 10 years.

Anyway most of the death and destruction will occur in places like china and india where there is already extreme overcrowding and they are already having trouble feeding themselves. One thing going for the US is that we are not overcrowded and we have a food production cushion.

[solops]

We are running out of hydrocarbons, but the process will be a long one. During that process there will undoubtably be shifts in global power as money flows change directions. As far as I can tell, the public hasn't a clue as to the situation, mainly because the press and politicians are so ignorant of the situation. They quite humanly see only the parts of it that directly effect them.

I Subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for many years. I particularly enjoyed the middle column of the front page which often had "in-depth" reviews of situations in industries such as publishing, leather, fresh-produce, fishing, etc. I felt like I was getting a good, "inside" picture of how the world really worked. Then they did an article on the oil & gas business. I was badly shaken by the sheer ignorance dispayed in the article. Then I realised that if the paper was that far off on MY industry, it was quite likely to be equally as wrong about the others and my "education" was so much bushwah. I let my subscription expire as I contemplated world decision-makers making laws and policy on the basis of equally flawed material prepared by well credentialled experts who hadn't a clue as to the reality of the matter...insofar as anyone can wrap their minds around such complex matters. I certainly have not seen any sensible laws or discussion in any country. The best discussions, which often have special agendas, are found in the industry's trade journals. These sources are carefully ignored by the rest of the media. The energy "news" of today was discussed a year or more ago in print in publications such as The Oil & Gas Journal or Offshore Engineer.

Sigh....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Whether this guys a crack pot or not is moot. Civilization's collapse - for whatever reason - is inevitable. When it happens is the real question. This guy just seems to think it's going to happen in the next 5 - 10 years. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, you certainly aren't the only one that thinks that, but I don't really see why it's inevitable. Sure change is inevitable, soceities are constantly evolving. But that doesn't neccesarily mean a total collapse of civilization is a guaranteed occurance. Something drastic like the collapse suggested here is certainly possible. But inevitable?

[Paul1980au]

You know i think improving technology levels in terms of recycling and energy efficent technologies will slow these problems i mean by banning CFCs the ozone hole is recovering. If it becomes enough of a problem science and commercial opportunities will exist and answers will be found - hydrogen energy technology is the next boom tech and combine biotech, nanotechnology and increasing computing technolgoy to run science simulations etc this will aid in improving the situations.

[Fyron]

The ozone hole was caused by a volcanic eruptions in Antarctica during the 1980s and 1990s! It was most certainly not _caused by_ our pollution. The reason why the hole has decreased in size is because the effects of the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo have slowy been filtered out.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020304volcano.html

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2001.htm

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_BAS/Cambridge/Divisions/PSD/volcanic_eruptions.html

http://randalcarr.tripod.com/pinatubo/

[ February 12, 2004, 01:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[PvK]

Hmm, at those links I see links of erruptions to ozone depletion, but also:


First site (NASA):

"Climate change combined with aftereffects of large volcanic eruptions will contribute to more ozone loss over both poles," Tabazadeh said. "This research proves that ozone recovery is more complex than originally thought."

"... the early and rapid growth of the Antarctic ozone hole in the early 1980s may have been influenced in part by a number of large volcanic eruptions ..."

Second site (ozonehole.com):

"However, man-made chemicals such as CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are now known to have a very dramatic influence on Ozone levels too. CFCs a were once widely used in aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foams, and industrial processes."

Third site (Cambridge):

"despite the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the atmosphere will contain enough CFCs that the ozone layer will be at risk of other events of severe ozone loss at mid-latitudes for at least fifty years."

Fourth site looks to be only about volcanoes anyway.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is, it would be easy to misinterpret what Fryon said, to think that human pollution is not a contributing cause to ozone depletion. It would seem it is a cause, in addition to volcanoes.

PvK

[PvK]

Personally, I'd say the loss of petroleum and nuclear fuel would be good goals, if done without a catastrophe. They're both pretty foul. So would the reduction in the human population and land use by a factor of 10 or more. Hopefully, we won't have to destroy all our freedom and civilization to do so (although some of our civilization would be nice to lose, too, in my opinion). Also, although especially in the USA, we are massively car & gasoline oriented, I think that's also not necessary, nor desirable. I much prefer pedestrian-oriented communities, with as little exhaust pollution as possible.

PvK

[narf poit chez BOOM]

divide everybody into family's of four. divide the araible land of the us and canada among them. i'm sure there's enough for everyone to live off, just not feast on. and that leaves the rest of the world.

[AMF]

I'm glad someone came forth to say the emperor has no clothes. I avoided it becuase of the risks of bringing up politics in this very important issue which should NOT be political which always seems to be...and for the wrong reasons.

Shutting up now.

Originally posted by PvK:
Hmm, at those links I see links of erruptions to ozone depletion, but also:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
First site (NASA):

"Climate change combined with aftereffects of large volcanic eruptions will contribute to more ozone loss over both poles," Tabazadeh said. "This research proves that ozone recovery is more complex than originally thought."

"... the early and rapid growth of the Antarctic ozone hole in the early 1980s may have been influenced in part by a number of large volcanic eruptions ..."

Second site (ozonehole.com):

"However, man-made chemicals such as CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are now known to have a very dramatic influence on Ozone levels too. CFCs a were once widely used in aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foams, and industrial processes."

Third site (Cambridge):

"despite the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the atmosphere will contain enough CFCs that the ozone layer will be at risk of other events of severe ozone loss at mid-latitudes for at least fifty years."

Fourth site looks to be only about volcanoes anyway.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is, it would be easy to misinterpret what Fryon said, to think that human pollution is not a contributing cause to ozone depletion. It would seem it is a cause, in addition to volcanoes.

PvK </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Fyron]

It is certainly a contributing factor, just a rather minor one. Volcanic eruptions put out many orders of magnitude more pollutants into the atmosphere than humans ever have. They have a much greater effect upon the ozone than we do.

Originally posted by alarikf:
I'm glad someone came forth to say the emperor has no clothes. I avoided it becuase of the risks of bringing up politics in this very important issue which should NOT be political which always seems to be...and for the wrong reasons.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are you talking about? We are certainly not helping the environment, we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

[ February 12, 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[AMF]

I just meant that talking about global climate change almost always immediately devolves to a political discussion when it shouldn't. I don't think we humans should be talking about right wing/left wing political discussions when we're discussing the future of the planet - whether changes in planetary climate are caused by volcanoes, pollution, cow farts, or trees.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I'm glad someone came forth to say the emperor has no clothes. I avoided it becuase of the risks of bringing up politics in this very important issue which should NOT be political which always seems to be...and for the wrong reasons.
What are you talking about? We are certainly not helping the environment, we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Fyron]

Umm... I was not engaging in any sort of political discussion, more of a factual one... you can't really fight what the planet does to itself to cause damage.

[ February 12, 2004, 17:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[solops]

Originally posted by alarikf:
I'm glad someone came forth to say the emperor has no clothes. I avoided it becuase of the risks of bringing up politics in this very important issue which should NOT be political which always seems to be...and for the wrong reasons.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">[/QB][/QUOTE]

Energy is an engineering problem. It becomes political as soon as people don't get what they want, be it money or cheap products or satisfaction of their pet convictions, i.e. pretty quick.

[ February 12, 2004, 17:20: Message edited by: solops ]

[AMF]

Absolutely agree. Who was it first defined politics as the distribution of scarce resources...?

Originally posted by solops:
Energy is an engineering problem. It becomes political as soon as people don't get what they want, be it money or cheap products or satisfaction of their pet convictions, i.e. pretty quick. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... I was not engaging in any sort of political discussion, more of a factual one... you can't really fight what the planet does to itself to cause damage. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well . . . the Volcano myth has been one of the arguments proposed by some political pundits (Rush, for instance, has long diatribes about it in his books) as a reason to ignore warnings by "wackos" about damage humans cause the ozone layer and to suggest that they are trying to disrupt the "American way of life".

With that said, climate change would happen even if humans didn't exist. So the fact that humans help change it is probably a moot issue because ANY changes would probably be bad for us anyway.

[ February 12, 2004, 18:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Will]

Excuse me, but I just read through this really fast. If I missed something, I'll come back after class and amend myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The statement that volcanoes release more 'pollutants' than humans do is really a factual one. Some eruptions can release more sulfur dioxide (which causes sulfuric acid rain) in the span of a week then humanity has in a few to several years. Ditto for carbon mono- and di-oxide, methane, etc. It is a natural process, which has a natural recovery time faster than what most environmental Groups are willing to admit.

This doesn't mean, however, that humanity should be contributing more to it. I, like Fyron, live around LA right now. The Last time I had a breath of fresh air was just after it had stopped raining, and most of the smog was filtered out of the air... the stuff ain't healthy. There are lots of people shouting at both ends of the spectrum ("Save the Planet!", "Don't mess with our way of life!"), and usually when you have two diametrically opposed Groups like that, the 'right answer' is somewhere in between.

Eh, I'll finish later...

[rextorres]

Coincidently the EPA calls it a myth too.

http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/science/volcano.html

Unfortunately too many people read Rush (a "political" pundit who has taken the lead on this issue and made the myth popular) and take his word at face value as if he were some authority.

BTW: If you were to read Fyron's "proofs" they suggest that Volcanic Eruptions ADD to the depletion NOT that they cause it.

[Fyron]

Leave it to Rex to distort a non-political conversation to politics. I could really care less what Rush Limbaugh says, and you have been a much greater source of knowledge about his viewpoints today than I have ever had in the past.

Volcanic eruptions and the amount of pollutants they spew out are no myth. Stating that humanity's actions are the sole cause of the hole in the ozone layer is a myth. As I stated before, they are a contributing factor, but not _the_ (as in, singular, most contributing) cause of it.

BTW: If you were to read Fyron's "proofs" they suggest that Volcanic Eruptions ADD to the depletion NOT that they cause it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What proofs? I provided no proofs. Supporting evidence maybe, but certainly not proofs. And that certainly is a biased reading of them.

[ February 13, 2004, 02:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's the myth! That's what you wrote. You are wrong.

The Volcano Myth certainly is political because it has been used exstensively by political pundits - if not you - to discredit environmentalists and confuse the issues.

Anyway - as I said - I think the whole issue is moot because climate change will happen regardless of what we do.

[ February 13, 2004, 03:33: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The Volcano Myth certainly is political because it has been used exstensively by political pundits - if not you - to discredit environmentalists and confuse the issues.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">bias.

[Fyron]

Yes and the myths about how devasting we are to the ozone have been overused by political pundits to discredit the other side. What is your point? I was not talking of anything political, merely of fact. Just because various facts have been distorted by one side or the other to push their political agenda does not mean the facts themselves have anything to do with politics. Nearly any fact you can think of has been abused by a politian at one point or another. That does not make it political. You are the one that brought politics into this. Leaving them out of discussions is always for the best.

[rextorres]

That volcanoes cause ozone depletion may not be a political issue but if one were to believe the opposite that it was caused soley or in part by humans then getting to a solution - to ozone depletion - would have to be political by the nature of the cause.

Unfortunately the volcano myth confuses the argument because all of a sudden the debate shifts in enough people's minds from how to fix the ozone to does the ozone need fixing.

Anyway ozone depletion by Volcanos is not a fact as you keep stating it's a theory.

[ February 13, 2004, 04:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by rextorres:

Anyway ozone depletion by Volcanos is not a fact as you keep stating it's a theory. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Foul, back 30 yards please. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Please cite your source when you call something a theory so I know if you mean its unproved or if it has actually been supported, because different areas use the term entirely different.

/this has been a test of the pet peeve alarm. If this had been- oh, sorry, it was. Carry on.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Anyway ozone depletion by Volcanos is not a fact as you keep stating it's a theory. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not even a theory. It's most certainly plain wrong. One link has been provided. Doesn't make sense to list more. This is probably another area where you will not be able to counter myths, believes, and/or ideology with something as dull as facts.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

so, all that massive smoke billowing out of a volcanic eruption has no effect on the ozone? provide more than your opinion, please. Fyron did provide links.

[Roanon]

Rextorres provided a link with specific information and explanation about why volcano eruptions do not interact with the ozon layer in a significant way. Fyron's links contained "informations" like "it is a well known fact that volcanic eruptions interact with the ozone layer..:" - I stopped reading there. A myth repeated by a lot of people does not become a "well known fact". Scientific essays on a similar level have begun with "it is a well known fact that the earth is flat and the center of the universe..."
But, as I said, someone clinging to his myth or believe will take this sentence as 100% scientific proof and will ignore anything else. This happens very often: people first make up their minds about what they want to believe, and then search for facts (or "facts") supporting it and ignore anything else. Unfortunately, some of them even publish a book (or an internet article) and claim knowing it all because they have done "extensive research"...
The scientific approach is to first collect as much facts as possible, check for possible faults and errors, and then make a theory. And if some facts do not fit into the theory, it is probably the theory and not the facts that are wrong. Therefore, I'm not saying "this and that causes the ozone hole and it will develop like this" - I'm just sure that a few volcanic eruptions within the Last years didn't cause anything like that. Volcanoes have erupted since the formation of the earth, more and heavier when earth was younger, and I'm too missing an explanation why they should cause significant ozone holes only in our century.

[solops]

The “Volcano Question” is a good one. Much of the information floating about seems heavily influenced by personal bias or by who happens to be funding the study. I suggest two documents as helpful:

http://plaza.ufl.edu/airwess/
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StateOfThePlanet2.pdf

They have a spin, but are informative. The gist of these and other sources, plus my geology classes and industry experience, seems to be that we live on a planet that is dynamically changing and totally indifferent to our existence and mostly unaffected by our efforts. The biological component of the planet scrambles and reacts to the planet’s physical changes by either adapting or dying. It would seem that volcanism is responsible for creating our atmosphere and has changed the atmosphere’s composition over time. That change is ongoing and is still underway. Our admittedly shallow database of measurements seem to indicate that climatic changes induced by a single eruption from carbon dioxide and ash are significant but relatively short termed (2-6 years, depending on the source). The emissions of sulphur compounds and other materials are less well understood. Apparently the gross emissions of sulphur dioxide from eruptions are only 15% of man-made emissions. That number is shaky and there are natural sources other than explosive eruptions. Perhaps more important is where the injection of the SO2 occurs. Much of the volcanically generated SO2 occurs at high enough altitudes to have an impact out of proportion to its volume. Also, I know that in drilling for oil and gas we use layers of ash at different depths as markers to aid in telling where we are relative to certain target zones. Some of these as layers are local, covering only a few states. At least one is found world-wide. In the end, our climate and weather are driven by that overwhelming engine of heat, the sun. That is as true on Venus, with a sulphurous atmosphere, as it is on Earth or Jupiter. The composition of that atmosphere is a product of the planet itself.

Anyway, I think that our activities have some impact but that over time they are overwhelmed by natural processes (unless we do something really silly; nuclear war, anyone? Even that will disappear over geologic time). Perhaps even more interesting is the clustering of major volcanic and meteor activity at the great extinction events in history, particularly the Paleozoic-Mesozoic and Mesozoic-Cenozoic boundaries. Most people don’t realize that 60% of all known species became extinct at the Paleozoic-Mesozoic boundary. A company called Pan Terra produces a fabulous wall chart titled “A Correlated History of the Earth” detailing the evolution of animal and plant life, plate tectonics, and volcanic and meteor activity.

Another comforting thought: the Galactic Drift theory has us due for a meteor/comet strike and another massive die-off….

Edit for grammar.

[ February 13, 2004, 18:45: Message edited by: solops ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Volcanoes have erupted since the formation of the earth, more and heavier when earth was younger, and I'm too missing an explanation why they should cause significant ozone holes only in our century.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i'm undecided on this, but i don't see how we'd have instruments to measure holes in the ozone more than a century ago. unless they leave a mark somewhere; tree rings, geology...

[solops]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Volcanoes have erupted since the formation of the earth, more and heavier when earth was younger, and I'm too missing an explanation why they should cause significant ozone holes only in our century.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i'm undecided on this, but i don't see how we'd have instruments to measure holes in the ozone more than a century ago. unless they leave a mark somewhere; tree rings, geology... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure either, though I have read work on paleo-atmospheres. I recall the evidence as coming from rock and water samples from cores. We also learn of paleo-environments from things like crude oil:

"Crude Oils Provide Molecular and Isotopic Clues about OAEs
John Zumberge, GeoMark Research, Ltd, and Roger Summons, MIT"

http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/da2004/techprogram/paper_86525.htm

[ February 13, 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: solops ]

[rextorres]

Core samples from glaciers in Greenland and Antartica. The gases caught in the ice enable researchers to measure the ratio of gases in the atmosphere.

Anyway - You are right natural effects will eventually overwhelm anything humans can do but that wasn't the issue.

The issue was that Fyron wrote - as it if were self-evident - that:

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even your two links refute that myth.

[ February 13, 2004, 20:34: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Rextorres provided a link with specific information and explanation about why volcano eruptions do not interact with the ozon layer in a significant way. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which was an article lacking any form of reference, just making lots of unsupported bold assertions. Like most sources on the internet... What I linked to had information on how volocanos damage the ozone layer (other than that one link that just discussed what the Mt. Pinatabo volcano was). Unless you want to assert that NASA's data is flawed, of course.

Fyron's links contained "informations" like "it is a well known fact that volcanic eruptions interact with the ozone layer..:" - I stopped reading there.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As did that EPA article.

A myth repeated by a lot of people does not become a "well known fact". <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No. And the myth that we are solely responsible for destroying the ozone is not a well known fact just because it is a repeated statement either.

Scientific essays on a similar level have begun with "it is a well known fact that the earth is flat and the center of the universe..." <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nothing I linked to started off in such a manner. But either way, most (all?) scientific essays begin with some well known facts. It is pretty hard to discuss complicated issues if you do not accept less complicated issues as fact. Unless you want to prove every single item used in your essay every time you write one, of course.

But, as I said, someone clinging to his myth or believe will take this sentence as 100% scientific proof and will ignore anything else. This happens very often: people first make up their minds about what they want to believe, and then search for facts (or "facts") supporting it and ignore anything else. Unfortunately, some of them even publish a book (or an internet article) and claim knowing it all because they have done "extensive research"... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This goes both ways, of course. I did not first make up my mind and then go searching for evidence, I read various forms of evidence and then made up my mind. You seem to be doing just what you are accusing me of.

The scientific approach is to first collect as much facts as possible, check for possible faults and errors, and then make a theory. And if some facts do not fit into the theory, it is probably the theory and not the facts that are wrong. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't presume to lecture me on the scientific method. Such in no way helps your arguement.

Therefore, I'm not saying "this and that causes the ozone hole and it will develop like this" - I'm just sure that a few volcanic eruptions within the Last years didn't cause anything like that.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And you know this how? Because you have made up your mind and are unwilling to look at other facts that contradict your belief?

Volcanoes have erupted since the formation of the earth, more and heavier when earth was younger, and I'm too missing an explanation why they should cause significant ozone holes only in our century. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Please tell me where I ever said that? Volcanos have been damaging the ozone for countless millennia. The ozone layer has only been around for ~600 million years anyways. When the earth was much younger and had much more violent volcanos, there was no ozone layer. Free-floating oxygen in relatively large quantities is a by-product of the development of anaerobic bacteria which produced it in photosynthetic processes. The ozone layer is constantly replenished due to UV ray interactions with free floating O2 molecules. reference (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=formation+of+ozone+layer&btnG=Google+Search)

[rextorres]

Apparently there are only measurements back to 1956. Here is a link that the EPA's website links to.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

It seems to answer a lot of questions.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i'm undecided on this, but i don't see how we'd have instruments to measure holes in the ozone more than a century ago. unless they leave a mark somewhere; tree rings, geology... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Drilling arctic ice and analysing the water frozen thousands of years ago reveals a lot about past climates. Really interesting.

[Roanon]

*delete*

[ February 13, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[solops]

Any dogmatic assertion is unwarranted. For instance, this article make an interesting argument:

http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol3/v3n16/hot1.htm

However, in just perusing down the lists of titles generated from a search one can readily see that there is a whole variety of positions and “proofs” to choose from. After reading a few rabidly anti-human articles and a few confident “the volcanos did it” articles, I can confidently assert that I don’t know and neither does anyone else. The evidence is inadequate. I BELIEVE, based on the data I have seen, that volcanos have in the past and still do cause at least variations in the ozone. I suspect that man does so as well. Certain theories can be put forward, based on the available data, both pro and con, but none are conclusive. I KNOW (as much as is humanly possible) from the facts recorded in the rock and ice of our planet that the sun, volcanos and outgassings from subterranean sources WILL change the atmosphere and climate over time. Our ability to do so has not been proven, but I know we can if we try. Time will tell.

Edit for dogmatism.

[ February 13, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: solops ]

[rextorres]

How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.

The only person that made an unequivical statement was Fyron. (I'll repeat what he wrote for effect)

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What Fyron wrote seems unambiguous (even taken in the context that it was written) - at least to me.

Even Fyron's links don't make the assertions that Volcanoes cause the hole in ozone layer. All they suggest is that Volcanoes made the hole worse not that they were the cause of the hole.

If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

[ February 13, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.
If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's why I have stopped answering to Posts of Fyron a long time ago, and most of the time don't even bother to read them.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Core samples from glaciers in Greenland and Antartica. The gases caught in the ice enable researchers to measure the ratio of gases in the atmosphere.

Anyway - You are right natural effects will eventually overwhelm anything humans can do but that wasn't the issue.

The issue was that Fyron wrote - as it if were self-evident - that:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even your two links refute that myth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Have you heard of the term hyperbole? Obviously that statement had its intended affect.

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.

The only person that made an unequivical statement was Fyron. (I'll repeat what he wrote for effect)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What Fyron wrote seems unambiguous (even taken in the context that it was written) - at least to me.

Even Fyron's links don't make the assertions that Volcanoes cause the hole in ozone layer. All they suggest is that Volcanoes made the hole worse not that they were the cause of the hole.

If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I fail to see how responding to Roanan's statements has degenerated anything into a debate of semantics. I see no debate of semantics in this thread. Very few Posts I make have anything to do with semantics. On occasion it is necessary to clarify terms used when they get misinterpreted, but that is hardly a "degeneration into semantics." Since you are looking for a scapegoat, Roanan is the one that called links into question, you (Rex) are the on that brought politics into this. Don't blame me for what others have said. I was fine discussing ozone depletion. You two veered the discussion away from that.

[solops]

Edit my Last post for dogmatism...

[rextorres]

Hyporbole? Maybe you can define it for me. Last time I used that word - in a different debate - you accused me of misusing it.

Anyway - since you seem to want to argue the semantics of your Posts . . . I certainly didn't detect any hyperbole in them, maybe others can correct me.

[geoschmo]

Perhaps it's post-facto hyperbole. It's a little known use of the term that when applied correctly allows any previously uttered statement of fact to be instantly transformed into mere exageration for effect once it's been demonstrated to be provably false. It allows the speaker to avoid such uncomfortable situations as having to admit any sort of error. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Puke]

a while ago i read a really cool article on global warming and ocean currents.

if you accept that the globe is warming and climates are changing and ice is melting, then we can move forward. its not really important WHY its happeing, at least not for the purpose of the theory. it could be normal periodic climate change, the evils of industry, volcanoes, divine punishment, or the butterfly effect. doesn't matter at all. there is a general concensus among the global scientific community that we are getting warmer, and the only people saying otherwise are.. well, nevermind that. lets procede:

the short Version is that we get warmer, ice caps melt thus shifting cold water currents in the atlantic ocean, thus altering the main climate regulating mechanism on the globe. what we end up with, is an ice age. possibly one that can occur during our lifetimes, and Last for several hundred years.

the actual article was very detailed and the research seemed thorough, but I just cant remember enough of it to give a proper description.

Originally posted by Roanon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.
If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's why I have stopped answering to Posts of Fyron a long time ago, and most of the time don't even bother to read them. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yeah, a sharp guy with alot of good ideas. but he's often too pleased with himself and either cant conceed, or agree to disagree. even if you assume that he is right 100% of the time, he often has problems admitting that he is actually in agreement with someone else whom is arguing for his side - usually because of semantics. The only larger arse on the entire forum is, well, me.