Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#111

Post by Clubber »

nimbius wrote: post #63

As an engine mechanic, Hanlons Razor comes to mind. We once had a "thief" in our garage who was stealing expensive welding gasses and getting away with it. Sometimes she would steal whole tanks, other times she would siphon tanks until they were almost dry. We took to naming her Shirley. After about a month we caught the culprits. The tank theft was due to a manager in another location who was greedily stealing our g…

That's the most insidious thing about theft. Your mind starts blaming the innocent people you know (friends or colleagues) and you convince yourself someone is doing it and start treating them differently.

I have to constantly remind myself that it's probably lost or I misplaced it or something.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#112

Post by reitanqild »

SanityIsRare wrote: post #58
evek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shady countries? Those are people and regular families...

I live in one of those "shady" countries and I wish that I was never born.

> I live in one of those "shady" countries

You keep mentioning this.

Were you born there or did you move there?

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#113

Post by rdiddly »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #34
mhneu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember as you read these arguments that the wide consensus of scientists is that CFCs cause ozone breakdown. And the only reason there is any disagreement at all is because billionaires and corporations pay for disinformation. They amplify the tiny number of scientists that disagree, and fund conferences and media to push this false story. Why? Because oil and gas companies make money on climate inaction. So they s…

First, I've never heard anyone doubt the ozone layer issue, I've never read anything negative or even looked into any skeptics on this. I didn't even know they existed. So claiming that I am influenced by some mega-corp's propaganda isn't relevant. I just found that basic science points out flaws in this theory, and came here to bring up the issue. Arguments are meaningless, on either side. Chemically speaking I don'…

Gases don't go to one place; they go everywhere including that place. Attention to the ozone problem is what leads the discussion in a direction of asking or explaining "how CFCs got to the poles." Nobody asks how CFCs get to, I dunno, 15 miles above Scranton. But the lack of asking does not at all imply that there are no CFCs above Scranton. There is extra attention paid to the poles because an ozone hole appears there.

In your spray-can story, the scent doesn't just go from the corner to your nose and concentrate there, it diffuses throughout the room. But its effect is noticed at the location of your nose and talked about because there's a human paying attention to smells at that spot. If you asked "How did the smell get to my nose?" you would get the answer, "It traveled there from the corner of the room." Which is correct, but not the whole picture. The question itself is biased to focus on your nose and exclude the rest of the room.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#114

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

firmgently wrote: post #100
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(thanks for posting) ... which anyone could have easily read up on, but some people are interested in stirring up trouble not about learning.

I'm glad RobertRoberts asked those questions here. Some people have answered in useful educational ways and I've learned. Taken to its logical conclusion "just Google it" more or less means comment threads and places like HN may as well not exist. Also personally I don't see strong evidence that the questions were asked to stir up trouble and not to learn. People have quite a wide range of ways of using language and…

He didn't ask to learn but to stirr up like in "commenting on every comment here with my contrary views"

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#115

Post by selimthegrim »

SanityIsRare wrote: post #71
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…

Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…

You idiot, this is about you too. When the glaciers dry up in the Himalayas is that going to make first or third worlders' lives worse?

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#116

Post by inetknght »

SanityIsRare wrote: post #71
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…

Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…

I concur that there's an ivory high tower that a lot of well-educated people preach from. Saying you're a third world citizen won't move people like that. Being dismissive or even antagonistic against such people just turns them off from even interacting with you on here. It feels good temporarily but it doesn't solve anything.

I encourage you to well-document what you see. That takes time, patience, and maybe a small amount of money. Put it into a website (there's plenty of demos on here that show how easy it is), put it into a blog (again, plenty of demos and resources), and link to it here on HN. There's no guarantee that it will do any good. It might not even make it to the top of the news. But it will at least allow you to show exactly where you're coming from by linking to your own personal experience.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#117

Post by IshKebab »

donttrack wrote: post #9

How big a factory would you need to do this? I mean that sounds like some pretty low hanging fruit right there for the evil scientists out there, who wants to destroy human kind.

Not many people really want to destroy all human kind including themselves.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#118

Post by kevin_b_er »

_bxg1 wrote: post #110

Everybody's saying China, and, well, maybe. But what about North Korea? Despite China having a reputation for shady business practices, the Chinese government at least often gives the environment a higher priority than the US does. Also, North Korea probably has tons of outdated hardware, I would guess, and little respect for the outside world. God help us if it is North Korea. Things are delicate enough as it is, wi…

Either are possible, but China has more manufacturing that doesn't care about the consequences and has shown a history of this.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#119

Post by StopCensoringMe »

selimthegrim wrote: post #115
SanityIsRare wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…

You idiot, this is about you too. When the glaciers dry up in the Himalayas is that going to make first or third worlders' lives worse?

That's the whole point you myopic idiot. You need to be hopped up on some of that first-world prosperity to think that everyone wants to live the basic life and have kids and die of natural causes.

You thought that I think third-world are in Mars or something?

I'd rather take you with me if I can - you deserve it.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#120

Post by StopCensoringMe »

frockington wrote: post #86
SanityIsRare wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…

Playing the victim is probably the worst approach to take as it benefits nobody. And the irony behind your hope for payback is that the third world people will be hit the hardest by any environmental disaster

At what point does it turn from "playing the victim" to "being the victim"? I swear, you people will do anything to justify your oppression.

I don't care, as long as it hurts you too then I'm totally okay with it.

Post reply on HN