"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A53282.448A767C@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Well... it's evidence of atmospheric effects crossing
> > hemispheres... which you said couldn't happen.
> >
> > Tell me... how many times has the Earth flipped
> > upside down since KT? Please supply a link, I
> > collect real funny stuff.

> Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
>
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml

The earth has not flipped over... the continents have
drifted, but not that much since KT. BTW, when I
say KT, that refers to the Cretaceous-Tertiary
Boundary where the iridium layer is found.
The KT boundary was formed 63 million years
ago at the end of the Cretaceous era... watch the
animation on the above link (you'll have to look
carefully, the animation covers almost a billion
year period).


> We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
> http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
> southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
> governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
> water will funnel down into a drain.

Hilarious! 'Crystallinks.com'... 'Psychic... Therapist...
Reiki Master... Teacher'.

Here's a big funny: "In my opinion - the Earth will loose
its magnetics - the grids that form the consciousness
of our reality will collapse - as we shift into the next
level of consciousness".

I wasn't aware that you were a devotee, Bill! What
color is *your* aura? Had any psychic cleansing
done lately?
__
Steve
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "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
> > .
>
> That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> every time I start it.
>
> Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> at the south pole.

Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
*certainly* have bigger issues...

> If we are to give up everything that works well but
> may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> never get anywhere.

Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.

> As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> hogwash was perpetrated.

"Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
to make it one with scientific evidence.

> And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> than we ever have.
> And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.

As long as Bush does what he does best...
the head in the sand thing, I mean...

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed

and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>


> When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> ('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> value of new cars- so the effect is still there.

The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
*alone* will drive R12 away.

> Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> it's not.

Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
__
Steve
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "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
> > .
>
> That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> every time I start it.
>
> Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> at the south pole.

Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
*certainly* have bigger issues...

> If we are to give up everything that works well but
> may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> never get anywhere.

Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.

> As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> hogwash was perpetrated.

"Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
to make it one with scientific evidence.

> And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> than we ever have.
> And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.

As long as Bush does what he does best...
the head in the sand thing, I mean...

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed

and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>


> When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> ('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> value of new cars- so the effect is still there.

The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
*alone* will drive R12 away.

> Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> it's not.

Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
__
Steve
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "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
> > .
>
> That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> every time I start it.
>
> Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> at the south pole.

Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
*certainly* have bigger issues...

> If we are to give up everything that works well but
> may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> never get anywhere.

Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.

> As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> hogwash was perpetrated.

"Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
to make it one with scientific evidence.

> And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> than we ever have.
> And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.

As long as Bush does what he does best...
the head in the sand thing, I mean...

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed

and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>


> When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> ('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> value of new cars- so the effect is still there.

The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
*alone* will drive R12 away.

> Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> it's not.

Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
__
Steve
..

 

"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > "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
> > .
>
> That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
> every time I start it.
>
> Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
> at the south pole.

Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
*certainly* have bigger issues...

> If we are to give up everything that works well but
> may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
> that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
> never get anywhere.

Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.

> As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
> more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
> hogwash was perpetrated.

"Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
to make it one with scientific evidence.

> And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
> developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
> than we ever have.
> And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
> efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.

As long as Bush does what he does best...
the head in the sand thing, I mean...

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed

and quote:
<>
It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
on the CFC industry.
</>


> When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
> a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
> Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
> ('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
> disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
> of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
> value of new cars- so the effect is still there.

The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
*alone* will drive R12 away.

> Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
> that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
> it's not.

Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
__
Steve
..

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:ouednXGiVs8SzDjfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
coming around... :)
__
Steve
..

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:ouednXGiVs8SzDjfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
coming around... :)
__
Steve
..

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:ouednXGiVs8SzDjfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
coming around... :)
__
Steve
..

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:ouednXGiVs8SzDjfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and existed
> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding ocean...the
> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse the
> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.

Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
coming around... :)
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11aabjllp0ftuf1@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:yC9pe.566$%j7.167@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > We're talking
> > Science here
>
> then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve
given
> me thus far.

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html


> > and can anyone guess what your
> > agenda is, or who *you* voted for
>
> so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
> liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
> "name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading
your
> drivvel.

'Drivvel'? Self-referential, that...

> > what it
> > would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?
>
> CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html


> > Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> > not as simple as you make it out to be?
>
> ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
> heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.

Why is air a mixture of gases? Why is it not all Argon
down here? By your ignorance, we should all be dead
now... the Oxygen layer would be several thousand feet up.

> > What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> > that one
>
> your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
> suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
> source from within the hvac industry. i work within the
refrigeration/hvac
> industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to
know
> so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.

Do you dispute that the HVAC industry is
not in agreement over ozone depletion?
I cited an industry periodical... perhaps
you could do the same, if your assertion
holds water... go ahead, cite one. We're
waiting...


> > What would be conclusive evidence for you?
>
> statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door
for
> when its proven wrong.

You'll have to ask your pastor for that one... oh,
btw:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs...nt98/faq3.html


> > That
> > NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> > rising since 1980?
>
> so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
> naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
> your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
> save-face is left in every document youve quoted.

Now you've admitted that Chlorine is found in
the stratosphere... are you going to assert that
it's coming from outer space?

>
> > I posted that link... all you
> > posted was a periodic table.
>
> proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
> carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

Then why did you admit that NASA measures
stratospheric chlorine? Why is it not falling down
here? Why are we not drowning in Argon?
__
Steve
..