Climate Change Tangent

Fun story behind DOS. IBM went to Gates looking for an OS. He didn't have one so he sent them to Gary Kildall but he wasn't home. Back to Gates who said he'd come up with something. He cobbled together an OS (probably mostly Kildall's) and made QDOS, the Quick and Dirty Operating System. Of course, they had to change the name to the Disc Operating System.

Kildall recently died in a bar fight.

Now Gates is using his money to destroy civilization because it's "bad for the planet". Never mind that improving CO2 levels are a boon to nature. If only Kildall had been home!

No, it really isn't.
Like... at all...
Climate Science is a Real Science, populated by degreed professionals that support their conclusions with a mountain of evidence.
Please avoid using the Forum to promote Political Misinformation and Propaganda Falsehoods.

3 Likes

Sorry Aravisian, but there are two false assumptions to your argument. You are assuming that having a degree means someone wont lie. And you are also assuming the mainstream media is telling the truth. Let me ask you two simple questions. What do plants breath and how does a lower heating bill hurt anyone? Because this is really not the place for this discussion I wont make any further comments about it. I just wanted you to have something to think about.

The evidence that documents Climate Change is well supported and independently verified across the Scientific Community, including NASA, Universities, Oceanography, Geology, Weather services and reviewed by literally Hundreds of thousands of professionals, regularly, internationally.
Are you suggesting that they are all Lying?
Are you suggesting that they are in cahoots with the "Mainstream" media, a group of heavily diverse individuals that bicker and disagree with each other constantly, to cooperate in a Massive Global Conspiracy to mislead the public into "believing" well supported science that is independently verifiable? And for what motive?

Opposition to this falls in the Conspiracy Websites that promote doubt, claim they are "just asking questions" and are the same folks that doubt that the Earth is a sphere. That claim Zetans warned us that the world would end in 2012.
In other words - the Fringe.

Science Works. It is why that computer you are using Works. It is how we have made such medical progress, cured Hepatitis, eradicated many diseases... We sent people to walk on the Moon.

Plants take in CO2, and release oxygen. However, this does not mean that "More is better". Plants rely on Pollinators including many species of insects and mammals. More climate change removes pollinators.

The rising Co2 Levels are not a boon for nature, even if Some Plants might be more prosperous; any more than Rising Hydrogen Sulfide Levels are a "boon to nature" even if bacteria benefit- the rest of the Earth would suffer. This simplistic argument lacks any scientific merit and belongs on Loose Change forum - Not Here.
In the meantime, this one is double dangerous; because the drastic effects of Climate Change are not being halted. Because some people dislike that fear so they resort to Denial.
And spreading Misinformation. There is No Reason to do this here.

Does this question ignore the increasing Cooling bill, which produces far more greenhouse gasses? I could go on for pages on this question. Really.

This forum is for providing a Resource to Linux and Zorin OS users to troubleshoot Zorin OS or Linux issues, exchange tips and ideas and help eachother. It is intended to be an environment where people can find Good and Reliable Information.
It is not here to promote unreliable information or Fringe or Conspiracy innuendo. It is not here to promote political agendas (I'm sure how you could imagine promoting the Fringe Conspiracies about Putins reasons for invading Ukraine would go over here). It is not here to cast doubt on the Scientific Community, promote Anti-Vax, anti-science, anti-reality propaganda which repeatedly show to be Speculative waxing amusements that harm people and our world, and is not Well-Grounded Science.
It would perform a disservice to this forum for it to promote unsupported speculations about the world as a whole.

As far as something for me "to think about"; I am a scientist, first; even as my current profession is as a Classic Car Mechanic- I enjoy my hobby and made it my living. I did not have to do it that way.
I studied in Marine Biology and Biotechnology prior to changing my direction in life. I am one of the Experts. And I probably spend more time catching up to my subscriptions to pubmed, nature, cell and reading on ArXiv than most folks read the comics.
Would you suggest I am lying as one of them? A liar for the Illuminati, perhaps?
And my paid shills in the "mainstream" media are who exactly?
An assumption that I "blindly accept the reports of MainStream media" will quickly pale when compared against the Real and Hard Science I can cover these threads with.
And if a person actually understands the science; does your argument assume that they must be lying and involved in the Global Conspiracy?

5 Likes

Everyone have a choose if this is true or false.
One what I can sayed media and internet is more propaganda.
Technology go forward to not create a more freon gas.
I more believed the some politics want put a hand and a control all world and people to slave.
I am surprised the users linux what are liked a privacy believed that someone "bad news". Besides some people on this forum don't agreed with another people they choose a own side . That why i don't go with discussion some controversial.

You do not get a choice as to what is real.
People may choose what to believe... However, reality is not made up of what we choose to believe. It is made up of the real, whether we choose to believe it, or not.

If I tell a person that touching a Live Wire will deliver 240 volts to their body, whether they believe my statement or not is irrelevant to what will or will not happen should they touch the wire. All the belief in the world would not change that reality.
So... No. People do not get a choice of what is true or false. And no person is entitled the Granted Right to propose whatever they just Make Up in their heads.
Rather, people have a choice to seek out and learn what is true or false.
True or False should be uncovered, not assumed. Not believed or disbelieved, but verified using Evidence, Observation and Comparison of data.

Opinions should not ever be confused as Knowledge or Fact. And this also means that Knowledge and Fact should not ever be confused as Belief or Opinion, either. The value that is speed of light, for example, is no ones opinion nor belief.
Disregarding a wealth of evidence or simply denying it outright also is not opinion.

Controversy and debate are a part of life. So are disagreements; and the very act of debating disagreements can do a great deal of good, by allowing people to question their assumptions and to examine other ideas. However, debating such topics must come down to merit of the idea.
This forum serves a purpose and debating topics on it is fine: Expect misinformation or unsupported or unsupportable suppositions to be challenged. OR even, in some cases, outright halted to keep the peace (which let's hope it does not often come down to that.)
In regards to certain Off Topic subjects that are particularly harmful in our world and lives, such as Vaccination, Climate Change and the like... Promotion of Unsupported and Unsupportable evidence-lacking conspiracy claims simply cannot be tolerated.
Link warning: Contains expletives:
https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2106.1/04596.html

5 Likes

I taken observation here on this forum.
Some topic when started discussion started a "road to hell".
That means I can reading a controversal topic but i taken a balance and a salt on tongue. I mean something could wrote but i didn't because it could be forward with a storm and lighting. We are diffrents a culture and nationality, we all have diffrents history our country. The fact and wisdom could be true with both sides but in perspective and missunderstanding because we have diffrent expereience in life or our family history like example my grandfather in WWII.

Pardon me If I don't get into this free for all but I have been living on this planet for 76 years and I have seen and felt a lot of things so I won't be following this topic .... but have fun folks ....

2 Likes

Yes. History can be a repeatable.

Hi Aravisian, I have been debating with myself for while now since I saw this thread whether I wanted to continue this discussion or not. But I have great respect for you and all the time you put into this forum helping others. So I decided to continue the discussion hopefully with the proper respectful attitude.

My first comment will be that there are facts which are true and there are opinions which may or may not be true.

It is a fact that the climate of the earth IS changing. Only someone with their head totally buried in the sand would deny the climate is changing.

It is an opinion of the experts that mankind is the cause of the climate change. I can easily find just as many experts that will claim mankind is not the cause of the climate change.

More later.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: I am also 76 years old like Frog and have seen a lot too.

If you can actually support this statement, I would be amazed. I also am fully aware- that you cannot support this statement.
Can you provide statistics, that any person can independently verify, that show that an Equal or Approximately Equal number of professionals of the field of Climate Science disagree with Anthropogenic Climate Change?
You note that is a specific question. Because an expert in Forensics may be a degreed professional, but have no understanding of Climate Science.

It really is very simple: Mankind has suddenly introduced Massive CO2 emissions in a very short amount of time:

Moreso than any natural occurrence shown in core drilling samples going back hundreds of millions of years. No natural source has introduced such vast amounts of Carbon release in such a short span of time, even though far more gradual events have occurred (and led to mass extinctions) that have introduced large amounts, though nowhere near what humanity has introduced.

Here is a video:

Now, I will reference what you claimed above: I ask you... respectfully... To Retain the Evidence and Merit Based arguments. Unless you have evidence that the educational video is lying... please avoid making the reference you made above that "I deny the evidence on the grounds that I simply make up the claim that they are lying without being able to show that they are lying in any way whatsoever."

CO2 is a known Greenhouse gas:

So you can see the simplicity here:
Known Greenhouse Gas, emitted in sudden and drastically high numbers.
The evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is quite real is HEAVILY Supported by the experts:
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.
No... It is not divided by 50% as you claim, and not even close. It's not even 80%.

This statement is a fallacy of misdirection. I have seen a lot in my many years, too; it does not make you an Expert on Climate Science. It may make you opinionated.

3 Likes

People assume things are 50/50 or opinions are facts since they hear them constantly in the bubble sphere they have found themselves in.

IMO, (and I believe there is evidence now that this is not only an opinion but fact) this is what happens in allowing an algorithm show you things you want to hear. Letting Google, Facebook, etc decide what it is you should see is why we're even having this discussion. Ones reality is only that what is given to you in the little bubble, which only are things that re-enforce your own particular narrative whether true or not.

I am 51 years old, and I remember a time when there were facts that everyone agreed on and there were opinions. Sadly it seems that is gone where facts are maybe's and opinions are facts. We're now asked to prove a random statement isn't true over the person making the outrageous statement proving what they are stating is true. We are through the looking glass.

As such since we're playing the age game.. I remember a lot as well in particular about the older generation where we had to watch the Indian commercials about cleaning things up as a kid. As it was common practice for older adults to just dump their trash all over the place with zero care. They polluted everything they could possible manage to pollute including rivers, lakes and streams with wild abandon whether it was with garbage or chemicals. Done with that? Yes, just throw it out the car window. I remember a time when you could not see the valley in Los Angeles because of all the smog. It was an ongoing issue back in the day, hence why CA instituted all their standards they have now.. So they could breathe...

I've now watched it go from we need to clean this up and fix this to the same older generations whine and cry about the "regulations" and roll them back so pollution can go back to where it was before. My, how quickly we forget....

Yes, the earth's climate is constantly changing but what people ignore is that we've sped up the process causing untold damage to the delicate ecosystem. If the earth was warming, it didn't need our help in warming it up and that's exactly what we did. The plants and trees do use CO2 however they don't need us to make more than they can handle and they didn't need polluted CO2. If I give you oxygen but it's polluted oxygen, would you like that? No? Yes?

For every action there is a reaction, something that seems to have been lost on many people. There are consequences both intended and unintended for everything we do as a people or person. You can't have light without dark, good without bad. People focus on a short term gain but then don't see the long term loss that will hit them. Everything you do will require a price to be paid for it, and that price is not always monetary.

All that being said, I will end with if I wanted to read a bunch of off the wall conspiracy theory nonsense put out by mental midgets, I would go to 4Chan, Reddit, Twitter or Youtube and read/watch it. But I didn't... So spare us all the nonsense please in a Linux distro forum. Not the time nor the place for such silliness.

1 Like

This is very very astute and covered in depth with "The Social Dilemma"

Really... I mean... the current concentration of Oxygen is about 21%. The plants are not gasping, here.

There is a lot of money in this... I asked earlier about the motive.
There are clear motives in denying the Clear and Hard Evidence of Climate Science. The changes needed to correct this are costly.
And many of those in charge of the Big Companies that have a large economic stake in this topic are of advanced years... They know the science - they have good advisors. But they also know that they will be dead by the time the Climate Changes get real bad... and they want their Millions or Billions to enjoy now.
As mind-boggling as it is... They Do Not Care if they doom future generations. At all. They do not care, at all. I know. It's strange.

3 Likes

Fact: CO2 levels are rising.

Opinion: Those rising levels are going to destroy the world.

Fact: The climate alarmists are still flying all over the world in their private jets instead of using commercial flight to reduce pollution.

Opinion (mine): They don't care about the environment like they claim the do.

Scientifically support these statements, please.

This demonstrates your bias.
Alarmists.
I ask you for the second time: What is the motive for the alarm?

EDIT: I realize I was probably too brief above, assuming that my previous posts carry the weight of the point. But making assumptions is best avoided: I add the following for clarity...

I recall how AOC was chomped (rightfully so) for disregarding her own advice and is indefensible. I realize this is what you referenced.
I agree with this point; the hypocrisy of humanity can be quite glaring. However... That humans can be lackadaisical or careless hardly comes as a surprise. That a person showed such carelessness is a Political Statement and does not in way whatsoever discuss The Science of Climate. Should a person be not doing their part to combat CO2 addition, this does not in any way, provide a refutation for Climate Science.
Which brings us back to the point above:

So, rather than assume that the points are self evident, I quote them here to allow a more Linear Progression of the points - easy to follow.
This forum is not a place to support or propose Political agendas. It is true that some topics are politicized, though they should not be. We have seen much of this in recent times. In such cases, the topic must adhere to

  • The Evidence,
  • The Science,
  • The verifiable
  • and falsifiable data.

This forum is not the proper place to promote Politics.
Using the scientific method to reduce bias and examine the merit of points can apply in any setting.

2 Likes

As I am sure you are well aware there are many times false evidence presented on both sides of any discussion. I found one of those falsehoods this morning while researching this subject.

As you have probably heard a claim has been made many times that volcanoes produce more pollution than humans. I actually found data this morning that gives the amounts of CO2 emitted by volcanoes and human use of vehicles and heating sources. I did not write down the actual amounts but the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is only a small part of the CO2 being admitted into the atmosphere. So yes humans are contributing more CO2 than volcanoes.

Now please present some factual evidence that more CO2 is actually causing harm. I don't want the opinion of the experts. I want facts. As you can see I am willing to learn.

As for those that don't want this topic here, I don't think anyone is forcing them to read this thread. After they have seen what it is about they can easily skip it in the future.

Support this statement by showing the false evidence in regards to this topic.
"As I am sure you are aware, chocolate cheez-whiz snorting space dragons raided Ft. Knox."
An unsupported statement has no value and cannot be taken seriously.

In addition to the links I have already posted? Or are you dismissing those without countering them with any scientific evidence?
Very well... In fact, I will aim toward addressing the idea that since Plants take in CO2, that it is "a boon for nature" too.
The summary below is Very Lengthy.

Summary

Gene expression responses of paper birch (Betula papyrifera) to elevated CO2 and O3 during leaf maturation and senescence - ScienceDirect

Impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on nutrient content of important food crops | Scientific Data

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14678

The growth response of plants to elevated CO2 under non-optimal environmental conditions | SpringerLink

How rising CO2 and global warming may stimulate harmful cyanobacterial blooms - ScienceDirect

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1602435113

Dynamic CO2 and pH levels in coastal, estuarine, and inland waters: Theoretical and observed effects on harmful algal blooms - ScienceDirect


And for the effects on Humanity:

[0804.1126] Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

Geology of Mankind | SpringerLink

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1941591

ACP - Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change | SpringerLink

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition | Nature

http://grapevine.com.au/~pbierwirth/co2toxicity.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/plphys/article/160/4/1686/6109554?login=true

Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics - American Economic Association

Mankind's impact on climate: The evolution of an awareness - Climatic Change

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27847841

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1210026

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106

https://academic.oup.com/treephys/article/19/4-5/211/1689867?login=true

This statement does not follow. It seeks to dismiss anything I present preemptively. The experts present the data and scientific findings. Mislabeling this as "mere opinion" is a strategy bound to fail, since opinions cannot be measured, independently verified or analysed to the same conclusion. The above links all contain the data presented by the experts, which are verifiable, repeatable and measurable by any independent party.

There are certain things we can easily agree on...
If we state "rocks are hard like teeth are hard," I am quite sure that the vast majority of people would fine that a reasonable and agreeable statement.
We can agree that the sky appears blue in the day and that water feels wet.
But if we increase the complexity beyond what the average person experiences in daily life... Well... People don't like to feel ignorant. They like to speculate, assume, suppose or even... consider what they like or don't like, then form an opinion that aligns to what they like.
I am as human as anyone.
I hold some beliefs, that are not supported by evidence, but by faith. For example, I believe in the Zorin OS project - this is more faith based than evidence based.
I have biases. I make assumptions. I have misconceptions in my head ( but I am seeking them out and eliminating them). I have preconceptions.
I have political views.
I am ignorant about a great many things. And yes, it bothers me a lot that I am.

This is a topic that - If the Climate Experts are correct... affects us all very deeply..
As such, speculations, assumptions, preconceptions... they simply will not do.
Wisdom and educated learning are necessary.
And if a person is not a climate scientist and is not trusting of their own ability to fully submerse themselves in the topic, then accepting the counsel of experts apolitically is the Wise Thing To Do.
Would you ignore your Doctor on diabetes if your own full-understanding of diabetes did not answer all your questions or if a Political figure influenced you? Or would you accept a dietary change for the better, even if you were not totally sure about diabetes - just to be safe?

I have presented a great deal of data, already. I have supported my assertions.
It is understandable that for some of it, a person simply cannot take it at face value and then "reach their own conclusions." Because they are not experienced in the field of study and not properly equipped to reach conclusions. But... Given time of research and study and learning... a person begins to see with eyes Wide Open that the data is unbiased, apolitical, unfeeling and cold.

3 Likes

@Aravisian You are wasting your time, energy and effort here...

Nobody is interested in what you have to say or link too, they do their own "research" (and I use that term extremely loosely).

You're already being sucked down the rabbit hole of nonsense. The both sides mantra along with strawmen have already been rolled out...

Let go, give it to God or else risk losing more brain cells reading and responding to the sheer lunacy.

I disagree and I debate you.:slight_smile:

Many lurkers... Many quiet readers... they stumble on topics like these. Some seek them out, some are caught off guard by them.
But it is a good thing to suddenly find yourself facing what can happen when the confusing issues are discussed

  • Shining some light on ideas you did not see before
  • Providing thoughts or clarity that had not been previously considered
  • Providing balance to something that prior to had seemed all over the place...

Many people are confused by this topic and unsure of what to think of it. But my methodology of approach is aimed toward lifting that confusion. Will it work on Cifta? Given the nature of certain statements, I uhh... refuse to predict.
But it's not all about you. Or Cifta. Or any individual... But the many people that it catches their eye and they say... "Oh... I get it. I was uncertain and on the fence about this but now... Now I have a sense of direction."
I know this, having spent much time as a lurker and feeling this effect on myself, many times.

I uhh... yes, I know this one well... Yep. "Researched shadows on the Moon..." I've been down this road before...

3 Likes