Exactly. We detected them when we launched the satalites to measure
ozone, and then we discarded the data because we assumed it was faulty.
Only years later after the fact did they go back and confirm that the
data confirmed seasonal thinning of polar Ozone. We have no idea, at
present, what the cause may have been.
Also, since this debate was fashionable, we've discovered creatures that
halogenate their own hydrocarbons--part of the weird metabolism of deep
ocean volcanic creatures that live happily in "toxic sulpher fumes."
Meaning it's no more possible to eliminate environmental CFCs than it is
to eliminate environmental radiation.
DAGS on "Sustainabilty of Human Progress" for MANY pages of actual data
and actual calculations. You need not agree with his conclusions, but
you must understand his thought process.
We have temperature readings dating back to Galleleo. But for most of
the Earth, no readings exist prior to WWII when the weather became
important to some folks as a means to an end to prosecuting said WW.
The fact that some people "remember" cooler weather has nothing to do
with whether the worldwide pattern of weather has in fact changed, and
even less to do with what, if anything should be done in the event that
it DOES prove to be a problem.
Environmentalism has in some quarters become a religion, with all that
implies. It is the one heresy of which it remains fashionable to accuse
another in Western liberal cultures.
But religions arguments do not make for good policy, regardless of
whether your religion identifies a particular diety.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:06:13 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
"Who's 'we', white man?" -- Tonto
Unexpected results in one's data collection are correctly
suspected of being faulty, until the results can be replicated.
False. The cause was anthropogenic CFCs.
False. It is possible to eliminate artificial CFCs. The debate (it's over,
by the way) was not a "fashion." Researchers gathered data, and
learned something new. The consequences were easy to predict. After a
period of peer-review, the results and conclusions are accepted by
everyone except loonies.
The 016/018 delta ratio is a reliable indicator of global temperature. Ice
cores provide the samples; the data go back thousands of years. The ice
core samples can provide measurements of naturally-occuring chlorine
True, but irrelevant. Cooler or warmer weather has little or nothing to do
with erosion of upper-atmosphere ozone.
False. Your second sentence makes no sense, either.
True, but irrelevant when the topic is reality.
P.S. I had a brain fart in an earlier post. I do know that 1 - 10 = -9,
but my fingers apparently forgot.
Argument on anthropogenic origins of ozone depletion elided.
(I can't call it a debate because only one side (the fellow with
a name, Charles) has provided any citations (a professor at stanford, iirc),
while the anonymous poster (AS) just states "True", "False" as if
one were to take his word for it).
Cite? What makes you (AS) more authoritative than Charles?
I see, change the terminology to fit. "Environmental CFCs becomes
Ah. Ad hominem attack.
Per Professor John McCarthy (whom few would genuinely consider looney):
"The theory that the ozone layer is being damaged by chlorofluorocarbons has
widespread acceptance, but there are many scientifically respectable dissenters"
Cite Please? (on the reliability of O-16/o-18 delta ratios for historic global
temperature (vice the local core area))
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:58:18 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
Sorry, but wrong. I can see the jump in spam even when my email is
disguised ("remove something" type). The ISP from which I post filters
most, not all. I also like my nick, because it is clever and humorous.
Before you quibble with me about my choice of nicks, why don't you go beat
up on Keith? Hmm?
If I say, "There was a full Moon last night," it doesn't matter what my
nick is, or if I even say it. The Moon was full last night. No amount of
quibbling changes the fact. So, don't look at my finger. Look where I'm
(BTW, were you the one at the Greek Denny's who wanted a saw handle?)
Sorry, but it may be _one of the reasons_, but it's clearly not the
My direct personal experience, experimenting with email addresses and
aliases, differs from yours.
Nope, didn't get to the rummage sale. I assume that was the one on highway
100? Both events that I've known about so far (other than the one that
Paul and I went to at the wrong Balestrari's) have been on bad days.
No affect on the mechanism or the rate of synthesis, obviously. But since it
increases the rate of breakdown, it clearly produces a net loss of ozone.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:29:25 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
CFCs participate in a catalytic cycle which breaks down ozone. The
catalytic aspect is why it is so important to stop putting CFCs into the
atmosphere. Remember, CFCs are wholly artificial. Natural processes,
vulcanism, for example, can contribute chlorine compounds to the
atmosphere. The naturally occurring chlorinated molecules have a much
smaller effect on upper-atmosphere ozone levels than do the artificial
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:17:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
I expect you to use nothing but waterborne finishes, cook nothing
on the BBQ, use electric home heat, and drive an electric car
so you don't pollute the air, Scoby baby.
(Oops, electricity is coal-powered so the damage is sone anyway.
No heat for you. BTW, is your shop totally Neander-based yet?)
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:10:22 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
False. I live in a technologically advanced society. Please stop trying to
impress us with your contrived straw men. I neander for the fun
of it. I drive, but combine trips. I don't drive too fast, but still stay
with the flow of traffic. I enjoy a charcoal grill-out now and then. I am,
in short, nothing at all like the insulting portrait you wish to paint. So
much for the ad hominem.
Why is it that my reporting of scientifically peer-reviewed public
knowledge causes you so much fear? What are you afraid of? Yes, your world
view might have to change to fit reality, and that may frighten and
confuse you. However, many other people have mastered that challenge, and
have come through as better people. <really funny, but ad hominem, punch
I am sorry Mr. Jacques. I had previously scored your posts high, because
of the quality of woodworking advice you presented here. I'm sorry to have
to rescore your posts. Your postings on this topic have revealed an
inability to perform critical thought and sound reasoning. I cannot expect
that your woodworking advice is any more sound. Because it is possible
that you do indeed have some small ability with wood, or are able to
repeat sound advice presented to you by your betters, your ww posts may
contain a nugget of value here and there. Thus, no "plonk." Regretably, I
suspect that your vitriolic response will be to kill the messenger. Do try
to rise above that base emotion, you'll be a better, more mature person
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:05:58 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
Heh, it's winter. Put your thick skin back on. That was humor, not
an attack. Man, lighten UP. Eez joke, mon.
I used to be somewhat of an environmentalist but I read too much
research for that. Liberal scientists tend to insert more fear
than reality or science. Please note, that's not my fear.
Hey, that's "Jaques". My other nickname is "C-less". My other
brother Jacques Cousteau has a "c" in his first name. (Should
I overreact to an ad hominy attack here? I'm cornfused.)
Are you done yet? Good. Now smile. It was the original intention
of my post. What the heck got you so worked up, anyway?
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
I respect the environment.. I recycle.. I try to be responsible and
caring about waste and air quality..
BUT, if my ass (and my tools) is about to burn up, I'd put the fire
out with baby seals and unburned hydrocarbons if it worked fast..
And more to the point, fridges release far more than fire
extinguishers need to. Lets control CFCs by all means, but
extinguisher panic is excessive.
Oh, and U-CDK_CHARLES - you're a clueless idiot, go read some science.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:39:28 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
Sigh. In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis which, while still subject to
disproof, has so far passed all experimental tests. "Theory" is as good as
it gets. Gravitation is a "theory." Golly, look, you just started to drift
off the floor! After all, it's only a "theory." Cheez.
C'mon people, this is Jr. High level stuff; ya know, the "Scientific
Method," and all that. It's not just Mr. Blathermeister droning on about
forces and atoms. It's reality. Get a grip on it.
You trolls should be ashamed of yourselves. Go read a damn book and
stop cluttering the bandwidth with your asinine, willfully ignorant drivel.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.