RE: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD)

["Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Darren New et al.
You are referring to the carbon fixation subsequent to photosynthesis. The
CO2 is transformed into sugars and then primarily into cellulose.

There has been mention of the possibility that some of the software used in
the climatic change calculations could have errors. This is probably true
given the manufacturing technologies used and quality. This certainly is a
failure of the National Science Foundation. However, I do believe that in
general that the arguments against global warming are correct. The simple
fact that the USA is running low on petroleum is sufficient argument to stop
wasting fossil fuels. Our present automobile based transportation system is
obscenely inefficient. The efficiency of employing a 5,000 lb SUV to
transport a 150 lb human (3% payload) is a disgrace.

One of the major impediments to the use of nuclear power is the publics'
lack of trust in the reliability of these reactors. I certainly would not
want to live near a nuclear power station programmed with Microsoft, Sun, or
IBM technology. Software written at CMU level 5 in Ada with a careful
inspection by hazard experts would at least alleviate my fears concerning
the software part of the technology.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Darren New
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:07 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD)


> >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood?  Krebs cycle, anyone?  Where do you
> >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place?
>
> We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto
meetings.

Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and
produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals
came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate
animals that ate plants?

> It turns out that its quite debatable whether this is true or not (later
studies
> say not).

I'd *love* to see a study that says plants don't consume CO2.

>  Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2,
> when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around)
before we
> ever got here is just plain silly.

Well, has anyone *measured* it? That's my point. I don't believe folks
that stand up and say "It's silly that the world would work this way. We
could measure it, but then we'd have actual facts."

Folks who keep making these assertions without any evidence is the
problem.

--
Darren New
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    Those who work hard with few results always
           value hard work over getting results.