Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

billvon said:
I just asked you a question. Would it be moral to solve the CFC problem by introducing a product which is safe now, but in 250 years could kill hundreds? Or would it be more moral to not fix the ozone layer?
Click to expand...

under funding childrens food
is the same
the governments do this with unemployment benefits and disability benefits

this already takes place on mass in many countrys and is normalised as acceptable losses of children.

same with lack of healthy houses for children to live in with over crowding and mold and damp giving them diseases and killing them and crippling them for life giving them inability to learn at school etc etc...

these children are acceptable war dead by the majority of the population and governments.

this is normal

what is the moral rule you are seeking to facilitate a side to define ?
which side of what ?

we shall see how long it takes for governments to ban diesel vehicles around schools and urban areas and high foot traffic areas.
 
wegs said:
Remember ...we have the luxury of hind sight, now. ;)
Click to expand...
and yet there is still a majority who choose to ignore the scientific advantage of that position.

note jakarta have declared they are moving their capital
im quite impressed.

helping to off set their carbon emissions by having a city surrounded by jungle is quite clever.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Ethically the release of the second version of the gas is being done as an emergency reaction to what has become known as a serious failure of science. So ethically any cost of the subsequent gas is part of the release of the first gas.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic that you condemn others for trying to do the right thing, whereas you aren't even willing to answer the question to begin with.

Yes, as you said, it is a tough question. It is surely foolish to condemn someone as greedy/shortsighted/careless because they did not answer a question correctly that even you admit has no right answer.
Why did the world choose to use the hybrid gasses instead of a local naturally occurring compound?
Click to expand...
Because they worked better, and allowed cheaper/smaller refrigeration systems to be built. Also, ammonia is toxic, and killed a lot of people before Freon replaced it.
 
Quantum Quack said:
so MR USA and MRS USA know the limitations of who they can have a reproductive relationship with?
Click to expand...
Probably not.
There is no way that a CRIPR scientist can know that his editing is going to be compatible with other nations editing, including back yard editing... Not a hope in hell of being able to control the outcomes of edited mismatching... a proverbial nightmare of potentials.
Click to expand...
Right. And there is no way that a computer scientist can know whether his new computer design will be compatible with existing computer systems, and it could result in a worldwide computer crash. Not a hope in hell of guaranteeing that. Should we stop all development of new computer systems? Say, all research into quantum computing?
 
billvon said:
I find it ironic that you condemn others for trying to do the right thing, whereas you aren't even willing to answer the question to begin with.

Yes, as you said, it is a tough question. It is surely foolish to condemn someone as greedy/shortsighted/careless because they did not answer a question correctly that even you admit has no right answer.
Click to expand...

What a hate filled response...
Little wonder we are facing an extinction event...with attitudes like that we deserve it...
 
billvon said:
Probably not.

Right. And there is no way that a computer scientist can know whether his new computer design will be compatible with existing computer systems, and it could result in a worldwide computer crash. Not a hope in hell of guaranteeing that. Should we stop all development of new computer systems? Say, all research into quantum computing?
Click to expand...
Do you consider the lyrics to this song written 30 years ago, as being anti-science?
Salt Water:

We are a rock revolving
Around a golden sun
We are a billion children rolled into one
So when I hear about the hole in the sky
Saltwater wells in my eyes
We climb the highest mountain
We'll make the desert bloom
We're so ingenious we can walk the moon
But when I hear of how the forest have died
Saltwater wells in my eyes
I have lived for love
But now that's not enough
For the world I love is dying And now I'm crying
And time is not a friend (no friend of mine)
As friends we're out of time
And it's slowly passing by ....right before our eyes
We light the deepest ocean
Send photographs of Mars
We're so enchanted my how clever we are
Why should one baby feel so hungry she cries
Saltwater wells in my eyes
I have lived for love
But now that's not enough
For the…

 
Quantum Quack said:
what question haven't I answered... be specific use quotes.
Click to expand...

"Let's say we do the research and realize that CFC's are a problem. We develop an alternative refrigerant. It solves the ozone problem - but in 250 years it may cause a more toxic atmosphere, resulting in hundreds of deaths from chloramine poisoning. What's the right thing to do? Release the alternative, thus solving the problem now but putting people 250 years in the future at risk, or do nothing and let the ozone layer perish?"
 
wegs said:
Remember ...we have the luxury of hind sight, now. ;)
Click to expand...
He is the problem from my viewpoint

First it really is impossible to know the effects of your actions, ANY action, let alone a science discovery

Next if YOU make a ground breaking discovery and though your fantastic forethought suspect it may cause more problems years later, not definitive but it MIGHT

so you do not release your discovery. Guess what? The discovery remains out there in the ether. So it has every chance of being discovered and released

Pacifist Einstein signed, along with others, a letter urging America to develop a atomic bomb when he was under the impression Germany was doing such research. So he certainly knew of the problem his research had thrown up, so his reasoning became, better we have it first

Best which can occur is try, stress TRY, to predict, and monitor any released discovery in addition to improving any discovery

But what ever is out there will be found

:)
 
Quantum Quack said:
Do you consider the lyrics to this song written 30 years ago, as being anti-science?
Click to expand...

How about -

"They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
And put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half to seem 'em"

Or -

"From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it's nothing but flowers

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
You got it, you got it

We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
We got it, we got it

There was a shopping mall
Now it's all covered with flowers
You've got it, you've got it

If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower"

Or -

"I went back to Ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride

The farms of Ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And Muzak filled the air
From Seneca to Cuyahoga falls

Said, a, o, oh way to go Ohio"

Or -

"We're coming down to the ground
There's no better place to go
We've got snow upon the mountains
We've got rivers down below

We're coming down to the ground
To hear the birds sing in the trees
And the land will be looked after
We'll send the seeds out in the breeze"
 
billvon said:
"Let's say we do the research and realize that CFC's are a problem. We develop an alternative refrigerant. It solves the ozone problem - but in 250 years it may cause a more toxic atmosphere, resulting in hundreds of deaths from chloramine poisoning. What's the right thing to do? Release the alternative, thus solving the problem now but putting people 250 years in the future at risk, or do nothing and let the ozone layer perish?"
Click to expand...
Quantum Quack said:
Would I release another potentially more harmful gas or would I simply say enough and shut the entire industry down and use ammonia or evaporation cooling instead. hmmmm good question.. today, in a climate crisis free world, I would stop using these hybrid gasses immediately but unfortunately this is impossible given the Climate crisis and extreme heat being experienced and on it's way...by the time we switched to Ammonia or other more benign gasses we probably won't have any one around to use them...
Click to expand...
You must have missed it....
But have thought again and would definitely take progressive steps to replace the hybrids regardless of the climate crisis...
So no, is my answer i would not use the hybrid replacement gas, I would use a more natural alternative that we already co-exist with and have evolved with. (Re: previous discussion)
With the amount of work needed to convert from Freon required using another more natural substance may actually prove cost effective.
Doing nothing is not an option....
The question you ask speaks volumes of how competent your enquiry is.
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
How about -

"They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
And put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half to seem 'em"

Or -

"From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it's nothing but flowers

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
You got it, you got it

We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
We got it, we got it

There was a shopping mall
Now it's all covered with flowers
You've got it, you've got it

If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower"

Or -

"I went back to Ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride

The farms of Ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And Muzak filled the air
From Seneca to Cuyahoga falls

Said, a, o, oh way to go Ohio"

Or -

"We're coming down to the ground
There's no better place to go
We've got snow upon the mountains
We've got rivers down below

We're coming down to the ground
To hear the birds sing in the trees
And the land will be looked after
We'll send the seeds out in the breeze"
Click to expand...
They don't seem to be anti science to me... how about you?
 
Michael 345 said:
He is the problem from my viewpoint

First it really is impossible to know the effects of your actions, ANY action, let alone a science discovery

Next if YOU make a ground breaking discovery and though your fantastic forethought suspect it may cause more problems years later, not definitive but it MIGHT

so you do not release your discovery. Guess what? The discovery remains out there in the ether. So it has every chance of being discovered and released

Pacifist Einstein signed, along with others, a letter urging America to develop a atomic bomb when he was under the impression Germany was doing such research. So he certainly knew of the problem his research had thrown up, so his reasoning became, better we have it first

Best which can occur is try, stress TRY, to predict, and monitor any released discovery in addition to improving any discovery

But what ever is out there will be found

:)
Click to expand...
Well those darstedly Russkies are doing their best to compete with the Yanks on hybrid nukes now...what say you about that? Wise or unwise science?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
billvon
Use Ammonia based cooling and hybrid gas cooling gas an example (circa : 1920's)
  • Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound that has beneficial attributes for living organism.
    • It is cheaper and more cost effective than CFC or HCFC.
    • Impacts are already known or can be known as found in nature.
  • Hybrid manufactured gasses such as CFC and HCFC have no obvious benefit to organisms.
    • Have unknown and unknowable impacts as they are not naturally found in the environment.

Circa : 1920's
  1. Logically which would be the most suitable for use as a refrigerant?
  2. Ethically which would have been the better choice?
  3. Economically which would have been the better choice?
  4. Why did the world choose to use the hybrid gasses instead of a local naturally occurring compound?
If you can answer question 4 ( I can't, but I suspect the fossil fuel industry has some responsibility) you will be well on your way to understanding the human dilemma...

According to reports the use of Ammonia based Air conditioning is already proved to be considerably more economical and efficient and lower energy ( CO2 ) cost.
http://ammonia21.com/articles/9087/what_about_ammonia_for_air_conditioning_
Click to expand...
You claim to be worried about hypoxia because forests are burning and you think you're about to run out of oxygen, but you think ammonia is the answer?

Ammonia may be naturally occurring, but it also has the potential to destroy the environment and cause havoc with our waterways.. It is classified as an air pollutant for a reason.

Given the ocean is this planet's biggest CO2 sink and produces the most oxygen, why in the hell would you (given your pearl clutching about your fear of hypoxia because you think we are running out of oxygen due to the fires in the Amazon and Siberia) advocate using something that can potentially destroy the organisms in our waterways and thus, polluting our oceans and thus, actually causing even bigger issues? A small leak can be devastating and even deadly.
 
Bells said:
You claim to be worried about hypoxia because forests are burning and you think you're about to run out of oxygen, but you think ammonia is the answer?
Click to expand...
how does Ammonia and hypoxia relate in your response... it makes no sense
Do I think ammonia is the answer to hypoxia...? Is that the question....?
Bells said:
Ammonia may be naturally occurring, but it also has the potential to destroy the environment and cause havoc with our waterways.. It is classified as an air pollutant for a reason.
Click to expand...
Nope... you are conflating the info in that Scottish article...



At least with Ammonia we know what to expect, which can not be said for CFC or HFHC's. And we can smell it if it leaks and do something about it.
Ammonia was only being used as an example any how...
I still have no idea how it relates to the hypoxia issue.

Bells said:
Given the ocean is this planet's biggest CO2 sink and produces the most oxygen, why in the hell would you (given your pearl clutching about your fear of hypoxia because you think we are running out of oxygen due to the fires in the Amazon and Siberia) advocate using something that can potentially destroy the organisms in our waterways and thus, polluting our oceans and thus, actually causing even bigger issues? A small leak can be devastating and even deadly.
Click to expand...
SPRI Emission Reporting Threshold
1,000 Kg/yr Pollutant Emissions to Air
20.0 Kg/yr Pollutant Emissions to Waste Water
20.0 Kg/yr Pollutant Emissions to Water

from your link...
Ammonia also if leaking is a local issue that can be contained locally. It is not a global issue that generates millions of skin cancer related deaths. Not to mention the undisclosed damage being done to other animals and plants etc. The'increased High spectrum radiation also doesn't do the ocean's phytoplankton much good either. Ammonia can be beneficial to Phytoplankton.

Reports are suggesting that China is still producing CFC.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-05-23/mystery-ozone-depleting-gas-tracked-to-china/11137546
rather bewildering, incredibly unwise...

The oceans them selves are not the major generator of O2. They do sacrifice O2 (ablate) when the atmosphere is reduced O2 and they get too hot etc...the oceans do not generate oxygen for the atmosphere per see.

It is the micro Phytoplankton, living in the oceans that is responsible for approx. 70% Global O2 generation which was reported in 2010 as being severely in decline due to acidification/heating of the ocean.

Dead zones/spots in the oceans are hypoxic areas and not necessarily attributable only to human generated effluence.

Totally devoid of Phytoplankton
in 20o4 146 DZ's reported
in 2018 405 DZ's reported
today ?

The overall atmospheric O2 deficit is not able to be properly determined but we do know that the Amazon is responsible for at least 6% generating capacity according to your own link to the Guardian and that Phytoplankton has declined severely. Starving marine life, mass die off etc all indicative of a very sick situation.

As I mentioned earlier the Dunning Kruger Syndrome is not restricted to anti science people but more dangerously so to pro-science people as well. Misinformation wrapped up as science kills credibility.


Btw That Scottish web site link is fabulous resource assuming the figures used are similar elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top