NationStates Jolt Archive

If you voted YES above, I have another question for you:

Do you research issues that are important to you?

In spite of the sloppy and careless (not to mention incorrect) science reflected in the current "Alternative Fuels" proposal, the following are actually true:

- the hole in the ozone layer has been getting smaller since 2000,
and is predicted to be gone by 2050

- fossil fuels have NOTHING to do with the ozone hole

- the ozone hole does NOT contribute to global warming

Don't believe me? Look it up yourself: Google "global warming" "ozone hole" and "fossil".

Or is that too much effort?

Really. Check it out yourself and start thinking for yourself.

ozone layer has also enlarged and then decreased in prehistoric times

the hole cycles over a ten year period, getting "serious" then closing back up... pollution is bad, but not because of this...

The US government reported it would be back to normal (from the damage we did with spray deodorants ect) in the year 2050.

I didn’t think global warming had anything to do with destroying the O-zone. CCF's did, which are now not used in aerosols.

Unless my school teachers where worse than I can remember!

It's also been shown that the planet is warming because of sun activity and that these rises in temperature happen periodically over time. Proven by examining very old ice.(?) So it isn't entirely our fault. :D Unless I picked up that data from an unreliable source.

Information i have read says that rather than actually decreasing in size, the ozone layer is still growing but the rate at which it is growing is decreasing and in a few years it will start to shrink. I can't remember quite when that was supposed to be.

But yes, global warming and ozone depletion are not causally linked. Even so, both need to be dealt with, and are urgent problems. When the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that something is happening and will soon cause us massive problems, it is best to listen.

It's also been shown that the planet is warming because of sun activity and that these rises in temperature happen periodically over time. Proven by examining very old ice.(?) So it isn't entirely our fault. :D Unless I picked up that data from an unreliable source.

Most scientists agree that climate change is at least partially our fault. And whether we caused it or not, we should be doing our damndest to stop it, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the best way to do this.

We need electric charging stations to be places all over the world, giving more access to electric powered cars. They give off no harmful anything, as there’s no chemical reaction going on inside the car. Getting people to use it, we have to allow electric cars the capability to drive their self, to link with a central computer in the city area, so they can travel close to other cars without ‘causing accidents. That will speed up travel from A to B, and remove petrol cars from the road, as they would be obsolete.

I don't think the US government would lie about the hole in the ozone repairing itself.

We need a compelt rehaul in the way we get power. I say the answer is Atomic Energy! It is not polluting and very effenit. And they are very safe. They have trained scientests and everything.

France had to such down their nuclear power stations in the summer, where it was so hot, everyone complained about them adding to the heat.

I think it best to place a net of solar panels between us and the sun, they can stop some light, lowing the temperature a little, and then they can collect energy.

We need a compelt rehaul in the way we get power. I say the answer is Atomic Energy! It is not polluting and very effenit. And they are very safe. They have trained scientests and everything.

Great. Except for the question of what to do with the nuclear waste. Nuclear power is preferable to fossil fuels but it's not as good as proper renewable energy.


We need electric charging stations to be places all over the world, giving more access to electric powered cars. They give off no harmful anything, as there’s no chemical reaction going on inside the car. Getting people to use it, we have to allow electric cars the capability to drive their self, to link with a central computer in the city area, so they can travel close to other cars without ‘causing accidents. That will speed up travel from A to B, and remove petrol cars from the road, as they would be obsolete.

The problem that everyone always seems to forget with electricity and hydrogen fuel is the question of producing the electricity or hydrogen in the first place. The best way to get hydrogen is to electrolyse water, which needs electricity, so whatever we do we're faced with the problem of generating electicity without pollution.

I think it best to place a net of solar panels between us and the sun, they can stop some light, lowing the temperature a little, and then they can collect energy.

Errrr...I hope you're joking. If not, did you ever consider the logistic nightmare of building an earth-sized net of solar panels, putting it into space, and keeping it between Earth and the Sun all the time? Also, what about the fact that blocking out quite a bit of light would starve plants (including crops) because they need light to make their food?

Oh, it wouldn't have to be as big as the earth... Just like the moon can eclipse the earth, so could a smaller panel put far, far, out in space and keep it between the sun and the earth... Not a bad idea overall, actually--though it would cost... ugh... I don't want to think about it.

So...does it bother anybody that the current "Alternative Fuels" bill is currently passing by a huge margin, even though it is based on blatantly incorrect statements? If you have voted for this proposal, do you truly believe that it is right to vote for false and incorrect resolutions because you think you sort of agree with what you think the author was trying to say, even though the author is too sloppy or too uneducated to get his or her facts straight? Seriously?

It will pass because thousands of nations see the worlds "help the environment" and are immediatly sold.

I have had enough of these harmful resolutions I'm resigning, effective immiediatly, and will create a U.N. puppet nation like everyone else.

^'s U.N. puppet, hello all, see I carry through with my threats.

^'s U.N. puppet, hello all, see I carry through with my threats.

It bothers me. I railed against it to no avail apparently. I think we need to organize those people who actually have a brain and vote as a bloc.

So...does it bother anybody that the current "Alternative Fuels" bill is currently passing by a huge margin, even though it is based on blatantly incorrect statements? If you have voted for this proposal, do you truly believe that it is right to vote for false and incorrect resolutions because you think you sort of agree with what you think the author was trying to say, even though the author is too sloppy or too uneducated to get his or her facts straight? Seriously?

No it doesn't bother me. I agree that we need to cut fossil fuel emissions, and move to renewable energy. What does it matter that the argument put forward is incorrect, as long as what is actually being done makes sense to me?

And lets face it, this is not real life, so the exact wording of proposals doesn't actually matter - it's like with that equality resolution. Everyone knew that the author only meant to protect sentient life (i.e. rouglhy equivalent to humans on a mental scale), but you voted it down anyway, just because the wording wasn't correct.

hmmm

myopia, a nation aptly named.

Ambrose Woodfellow
Unstatesmenlike Department
Commonwealth of Treenoia

Well, Fossil Fuels do NOT cause ozone layer depletion, but they DO cause global warming. Which is rather like saying "ban pedophilia because it will reduce beastiality." Not true, but a commendable effort nonetheless.


So I would be all for it but my region asked me to vote against it.

What does it matter that the argument put forward is incorrect, as long as what is actually being done makes sense to me?


Wow. Myopia, I respect your honesty, if not your logic.

Let me run this example by you for your reaction:

Let's say that I decided that the growth of totalitarian repressive regimes or ideologies
is one of the biggest dangers facing mankind.

Many people might agree on that basic assumption -- we might honestly disagree on what
actually constituted a "totalitarian repressive regime or ideology", and we might
honestly disagree about what caused them to exist or thrive, but we could agree on
the basic proposition that they exist and that they are bad for most people.

Now suppose that I further decided that two of the biggest immediate threats were
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and Maoist totalitarianism. Again, many people might
agree on these points, while disagreeing on details as to priority or cause.

Now...

Let's say that to address this issue, I submit a UN proposal that states:

1. The growth of totalitarian repressive regimes or ideologies is one
of the biggest dangers facing mankind.

2. In order to combat this threat, the UN will outlaw Islamic fundmentalist terrorism
in all UN nations.

3. If we don't do this, Maoist totalitarianism will continue grow at an alarming rate
until it takes over the entire world.

I would hope that when you got to point #3, you would go "Good grief, what has this
guy been smoking!?? The author is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Maoist totalitarianism,
while a major threat in the past, is now in decline, and it has NOTHING to do with Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism. I can't support a resolution that contains an idiotic premise like this,
even if I agree with the overall intent of the resolution."

Maybe you don't see any difference, and you could vote in good conscience for this
resolution as well. But if this example proposal makes you at all uncomfortable, I hope
you would re-examine your thinking on the Alternative Fuels resolution.

I think the percentage should go up in another resolution, and continue to rise in subsuquent resolutions to help small nations become independant from other fuel-enriched nations, as well as help conserve our fossil fuels for emergency use only.

The Dominion of NeoNauru, though not a member of the UN, would like to point out how amusing it is that nobody has contested the main point brought up by the author of this thread, namely that the use of fossil fuels is unrelated to the ozone layer and that the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming. There can be no disputing either of these simple facts (though the resolution makes a determined attempt...). Instead, people have resorted to claims that it does not matter whether the most prestigious organization in the world of NS openly endorses unsound science. The Dominion finds this very telling, and it only further increases our resolve not to become a voting member of the United Nations.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoNauran United Nations Observer

1. The growth of totalitarian repressive regimes or ideologies is one
of the biggest dangers facing mankind.

2. In order to combat this threat, the UN will outlaw Islamic fundmentalist terrorism
in all UN nations.

3. If we don't do this, Maoist totalitarianism will continue grow at an alarming rate
until it takes over the entire world.

I would hope that when you got to point #3, you would go "Good grief, what has this
guy been smoking!?? The author is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Maoist totalitarianism,
while a major threat in the past, is now in decline, and it has NOTHING to do with Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism. I can't support a resolution that contains an idiotic premise like this,
even if I agree with the overall intent of the resolution."

The difference is that whilst 2/3 of your example is stupid, and so make the whole thing ridiculous, only one or two sentences in the current proposal is incorrect. Also the error is much less serious and actually somewhat understandable, given that today all these environmental crises seem to merge into one big lump (in fact, they are mostly quite probably interrelated anyway).

Myopia, I bow in awe and wonder to your proud and insistent ignorance. I have never seen a more eloquent and honest declaration of a "Don't confuse me with the facts" philosophy. You should go far in middle management.

Best of luck in the future,

Dweezil of the the CoNST (shaking his head in amazement)

P.S. You should be happy to know that Lenin would have described you as extremely useful.

I for one Taxes, was not drawn in my your sleight of hand. I am very aware that the destruction of the ozone layer (which is causing an increase in harmful ultraviolet rays) is caused by CFC's and HCFC's, I can even outline the cyclic destruction of Ozone by Chlorine and explain why, even though the release of these chemicals has been slowed by the Montreal Protocol and subsequent acts, it will by some time before the destruction slows and even longer (if ever) before it actually reverses (although I will refain from doing so since I am quite sure no ones interested in the actual chemisty involved). I am also quite aware that Global warming is caused by the by-products from burning fossil fuels. Your little demonstration of scientific ignorance does not change the facts that although unrelated these two issues are important in their own right. Steps have been taken to address the ozone layer problem, It is now time to tackle the dirty problem of Global Warming and a reduction of dependance on fossil fuels would be a logical first step.

check this out all you ever wanted to know about ozone and more
http://www.theozonehole.com/

I will not debate so much as give some facts I have collected with sources since there was a lot of scientists say this and he said that. . .

who said and why?

The ozone is 3 oxygen molecules dicovered by a fat dude named Christian Friedrich Schonbein way back in the 1900s

ozone can be classified as both good and bad
the bad being the ozone is created all the time in the air and then broken down again. this ever flowing process can be stopped by the presence of NOx and VOC in the air

http://www.clair.org/HowdoNOx.htm
is a good website that describes the process, which I am not going to get into since you can read. I know this because you are reading this. See I'm not so dumb

There is also good ozone, which protects the atmosphere. That is what we are taking about here.

The ozone hole was first noticed in the 1985 and is approximately the 1.5 times then the US.

It is though getting worse according to NASA and since 1979 ozone levels have fallen 5% on average per year in middle latitudes and is worse in higher ones (for you readneck uns). The reason people hear it is getting smaller is because it only lasts for 2 months out of the year. catarophic depletion is mainly seen in the spring in antartica.

the website i mentioned before has some very good data to support this for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003

even though cfs are not being used anymore they have a long "shelf-life" that is to say they hang around for a while (up to a hundred years) What is seems scientists (such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, British Antarctic Survey, and NASA) are concerned with the long term effects.

The greenhouse effect is a separate problem though

I'll let some scientists speak on this one. tell what's what Emily Schuckberg, Mr. K. Madhava Sarma, Dr Jonathan Banks, Rajendra Shende, and Stephen O. Andersen

"Does the Greenhouse effect cause the ozone hole?
The Greenhouse Effect (producing global warming) and ozone depletion are two separate problems, however there are links between them. Warming at the earth's surface is caused by certain gases in the atmosphere which can trap energy from the sun. An increase in the amount of these gases produces an increase in the surface temperature. The largest increase is in carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil, gas and forests, but other gases such as methane (from cattle and rice fields) play a part. A link with ozone depletion is that CFCs are gases which also contribute to greenhouse warming.

A further link is that although the Greenhouse Effect warms the surface, it allows the higher atmosphere, where ozone is present, to cool. This means that more stratospheric clouds may form and so make the ozone hole worse.

Even if the problem of ozone depletion is solved, global warming will still remain. It will cause a rise in sea-level and change the regions where crops can be grown. The issue will be harder to tackle than ozone depletion, but is one which concerns everyone on our planet."

---http://www.theozonehole.com/askthescientist.htm

maybe I cleared it up maybe I did it, but I am more well informed writing this and hope you are too.

If you well then,
I HATE YOU

(the nation of diatities hides in its corner of the world and cries)

I under stand the fix the world is in on the subject but if we do not stop the use of coal and fossil fuel it will burn the ozone and well all be doomed so as long as i am rule i will sell it ... makes me a profit!

Myopia, I bow in awe and wonder to your proud and insistent ignorance. I have never seen a more eloquent and honest declaration of a "Don't confuse me with the facts" philosophy. You should go far in middle management.

Best of luck in the future,

Dweezil of the the CoNST (shaking his head in amazement)

P.S. You should be happy to know that Lenin would have described you as extremely useful.

I know why I want to decrease fossil fuel emissions - to stop global warming. I know that that proposal would do that. I know full well, and acknowledge, that the writer's argument was incorrect. But the argument has no real effect, it is just there as an attempt to persuade people to vote in favour. So why should it matter?

I'm not twisting the truth, or lying, I'm simply choosing to forgive a minor ignorance, rather than refusing to approve the proposal simply because of a mistake that has no effect.

Myopia, I bow in awe and wonder to your proud and insistent ignorance.

Oh and don't call me ignorant. I know that global warming does not cause ozone layer damage.

When my land is rebuild i will start putting most of my money in researching a better kind of solarcells. This research will probably take 15/20 jears but when i have completed this research i will sell them worldwide. When that day comes i will report it to the UN.

When my land is rebuild i will start putting most of my money in researching a better kind of solarcells. This research will probably take 15/20 jears but when i have completed this research i will sell them worldwide. When that day comes i will report it to the UN.

i aggree on the way we are useing our fuel we will destroy ourselves there are alltrunative ways to use energy wind solar hydrogen fossil fuels may also be used but we must be concertive about the way we use it

i aggree on the way we are useing our fuel we will destroy ourselves there are alltrunative ways to use energy wind solar hydrogen fossil fuels may also be used but we must be concertive about the way we use it

i aggree on the way we are useing our fuel we will destroy ourselves there are alltrunative ways to use energy wind solar hydrogen fossil fuels may also be used but we must be concertive about the way we use it

No matter how you look at it, people haven't been watching the use of such fossil fuel consumption or the ozone layer all that long.

Regardless what has and will be said here, the current Alternative Fuels resolution stands. Unfortunate as it may be.

The newly enacted Alternative Fuel Resolution, though well intentioned, falls far short of any repair of our universal fossil fuel concerns. This resolution has nothing to do with the Ozone Layer or the repair of any environmental concerns at all. This Alternative Fuels resolution has resulted in only a monetary expense upon every single nation that has an Automotive Industry, in which, every citizen of every nation that purchases or utilizes fossil fuel enabled transportation, will pay the cost.

The Commonwealth of Treeonia would like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to all concerned nations to create and participate in the Universal Fuels Symposium: An Alternative Fuels Forum.

The UFS will have the express intent upon creating proper legislation to repair and amend currently lacking UN sanctioned Alternative Fuels Resolutions.

We, the nations that have suffered, unjustly, under the thumb of UN legislation, now have the good and timely moment to bring to light the reality of fossil fuels and their inappropriate use. Let us, as nations that have become severed and nations that have curdled, stand together and create a viable, universally accepted, Alternative Fuels solution.

The time is now, if it's been ever. We, as inhabitants of this universe and sufferers of environmental damage, cannot stand by in idle repose as our nations come under the gun of useless and pointless UN sanctions. Symbolize your position and impale the reckless use of Fossil Fuels upon the fair and unbiased spear of rational thinking.

Let us, as a unified block, garner and dispense with frivolous UN resolutions, and create solid legislation that builds trust and nations. The Commonwealth of Treenoia will stand with you in partnership, as solid as the Oak of Resistance.

Upon ratification, via TG to Treenoia, of five nations, the http://ufs.croakingfrog.org Forum will be created for all nations to participate. Upon acceptance of all nations participating in the Universal Fuel Symposium, we, as a common entity, will submit the UFS as an organ of the United Nation and bound by current and future UN charter.

Our words will be heard and heeded.


Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

anyone who thinks any government wouldn't lie is whistling in the dark and probably hasn't read much history

of course it's just as absurd to assume EVERYthing we are told HAS TO BE a blantent lie

ozone layer reflects certain forms of radiation from the sun mostly, and possibly other sources.

radiation does generate heat

all glaciers seem to be shrinking

this while it is natural that there have always been times when more shrunk then expanded and other times when more expanded then shrunk, it does not intuitively seem to me that for ALL of them to be simultaniously shrinking is natural

find me one glacier that is growing rather then shrinking

there are always vested intrests in turning a blind eye to what is observable

the observation of shrinking glaciers did not start as a grinding of political axes but i simple objective observation

there are other simple objective observations that we are being fed smoke screens to distract us from

loss of species diversity due to habitat loss is one of these simple observations

while there are certainly multiple ways of approaching real concerns attempting to conceal them with less then totaly pertinant reports is not one of them

an unwillingness to avoid causing avoidable harm because a few bennifit in the proccess and the expense of the many is precisely what it is

and the detriments of worshipping the private passinger automable to both human societies and life as a whole are no figment of anyone's immagination, no matter how many hairs can be split over the details of one natural mechanism or another, or how great one's own emotional attatchment to self serving conventionalities

=^^=
.../\...

Oh and don't call me ignorant. I know that global warming does not cause ozone layer damage.

Myopia, the arguments were actually whether or not fossil fuels caused ozone layer damage, and whether or not said ozone damage caused global warming, as declared in the proposal. But whatever.

I sincerely wish you the best. You are concerned about important issues and are willing to speak up about them, and I respect that. It puts you ahead of about 98% of your peers.

However, I disagree with your definition of a "minor ignorance" (your words) or its impact in the wording of a proposal. (Yes, this whole thing is a big game, but it does a surprisingly good job of emulating real-life issues and problems.) When a major justification for a proposal is verifiably incorrect, it indicates a disturbing lack of competence or honesty on the part of the sponsor, and makes the entire resolution suspect. Bending or ignoring facts so that things will match your preconceived notions is not a good way to make decisions.

I strongly urge you to research things yourself, using a variety of sources, and be prepared to rethink things when evidence (based on YOUR independent research, not whatever you hear from activists, or newspapers, or me, or talking heads on CNN) doesn't fit into the way you think things are or should be.

Very sincerely,

Dweezil of the CoNST
(Posting from an ambassadorial puppet nation)

I strongly urge you to research things yourself, using a variety of sources, and be prepared to rethink things when evidence (based on YOUR independent research, not whatever you hear from activists, or newspapers, or me, or talking heads on CNN) doesn't fit into the way you think things are or should be.

I do research stuff, especially scientific stuff. And not once did I actually state anything false as a fact (think what you may about my opinions), so I'm unsure of why you believe my knowledge is lacking and in need of research.