"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:

....


> As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
> much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?

I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
__
Steve
believes in Science
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:

....


> As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
> much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?

I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
__
Steve
believes in Science
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:

....


> As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
> much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?

I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
__
Steve
believes in Science
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A4C8A0.18796DFD@***.net...
> absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
> opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.

Another howler! How do you explain the global
iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
the other?
__
Steve
bemused
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A4C8A0.18796DFD@***.net...
> absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
> opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.

Another howler! How do you explain the global
iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
the other?
__
Steve
bemused
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A4C8A0.18796DFD@***.net...
> absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
> opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.

Another howler! How do you explain the global
iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
the other?
__
Steve
bemused
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A4C8A0.18796DFD@***.net...
> absolutely right, tornados, and the way water drains in the
> opposite direction, nothing crosses the equator, atmospherically.

Another howler! How do you explain the global
iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
the other?
__
Steve
bemused
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
> > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
> > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
> > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
> > belong to?
>
> lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
with
> tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
cloud
> the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
liberal
> tactic that failed miserably.

No, because you started the name-calling, I can
call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
the extreme right... completely apropos for what
you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
AFA you're concerned...

Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
F-.

You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
periodical:

http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm

Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
more of these links... show me *one* for your
side.

> > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
> > the nature of science.
>
> WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind speculation.
> "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as fact,
> another typical seminar liberal tactic.

Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
have the first clue how Science is done. You
can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
is done on a preponderance of evidence...
but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
showed that it cannot remain both complete and
consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
removed certainty from Physics. All other
sciences are based on these two.

Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
You can have your Faith... just don't call it
Science.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
> > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
> > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
> > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
> > belong to?
>
> lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
with
> tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
cloud
> the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
liberal
> tactic that failed miserably.

No, because you started the name-calling, I can
call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
the extreme right... completely apropos for what
you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
AFA you're concerned...

Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
F-.

You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
periodical:

http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm

Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
more of these links... show me *one* for your
side.

> > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
> > the nature of science.
>
> WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind speculation.
> "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as fact,
> another typical seminar liberal tactic.

Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
have the first clue how Science is done. You
can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
is done on a preponderance of evidence...
but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
showed that it cannot remain both complete and
consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
removed certainty from Physics. All other
sciences are based on these two.

Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
You can have your Faith... just don't call it
Science.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
> > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
> > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
> > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
> > belong to?
>
> lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
with
> tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
cloud
> the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
liberal
> tactic that failed miserably.

No, because you started the name-calling, I can
call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
the extreme right... completely apropos for what
you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
AFA you're concerned...

Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
F-.

You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
periodical:

http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm

Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
more of these links... show me *one* for your
side.

> > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
> > the nature of science.
>
> WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind speculation.
> "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as fact,
> another typical seminar liberal tactic.

Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
have the first clue how Science is done. You
can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
is done on a preponderance of evidence...
but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
showed that it cannot remain both complete and
consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
removed certainty from Physics. All other
sciences are based on these two.

Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
You can have your Faith... just don't call it
Science.
__
Steve
..