Well well, there are smart courts

[billvon 3,120]

>Just like the GWing claims and the CFC's and Ozone depletion claims. (and the 1992 secondhand smoke issue)

Fascinating that you list the very issues that a small group of deniers have been fabricating controversy on for decades now. I imagine with all that practice they have gotten very, very good at deceiving people such as yourself.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>>can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is?

>It seems you can not address . . .

I will take that as a no.

If, in the future, you have a point to make, I will be happy to respond to it. Until then I will refrain from replying to the cut-and-paste du jour from right winger sites.

You only do that when you cant. I do understand

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Just like the GWing claims and the CFC's and Ozone depletion claims. (and the 1992 secondhand smoke issue)

Fascinating that you list the very issues that a small group of deniers have been fabricating controversy on for decades now. I imagine with all that practice they have gotten very, very good at deceiving people such as yourself.

Ah, did you see the study results from the UK universities that came out this month. Oh, sorry, I know they are not on the sites you visit. In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone, They now admit they are not sure what is going on but , well, you know, we still did the correct thing banning them, even if the reason is unknown.

It seems you have become the denier in this case sir.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Ah, did you see the study results from the UK universities that came out this month. Oh, sorry, I know they are not on the sites you visit. In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone, They now admit they are not sure what is going on but , well, you know, we still did the correct thing banning them, even if the reason is unknown.

It seems you have become the denier in this case sir.

I think you misunderstand the science. From a commentary by atmospheric scientist Andrew Dressler.

The atmospheric sciences community is excitedly discussing new results that potentially cast doubt on our understanding of the chemistry of the Antarctic ozone hole. The ozone hole is formed when two molecules of chlorine monoxide react with each other to form what is known as the chlorine dimer, ClOOCl, and that molecule is subsequently blasted apart by sunlight to release the chlorine atoms. New results suggest that this reaction is actually much slower than previously suggested. If this is true, it suggests that there is some important chemical process destroying ozone in the Antarctic stratosphere that we do not know about.

In reaction to this unexpected scientific result, stratospheric chemists are attacking the problem, trying to think up potential mechanisms that reconcile these new measurements with everything else we know about the chemistry of the stratosphere. As a former stratospheric chemist, I can say that I have not seen this level of excitement in the stratospheric chemistry community in at least 10 or 15 years.

So what does this tell us about the science of climate change? It tells us that many of the criticisms of climate science coming from the skeptics are dead wrong.


Skeptic Myth No. 1: Scientists who don't go along with the consensus are ostracized.

Reality: Scientists make a name for themselves by destroying the common wisdom. This new result on the ozone hole chemistry shows this. These researchers had no trouble publishing their results, and no one is attacking them for it. In fact, they are receiving tremendous positive publicity; just read the Nature article linked above. If this measurement turns out to be correct, these researchers will have made a significant name for themselves.

Skeptic Myth No. 2: The scientific community is not interested in any results that conflict with the consensus.

Reality: Credible scientific results that cast doubt on our scientific understanding of any subject are always of great interest to the scientific community. In this case, for example, many researchers around the world have jumped on this problem, trying to understand what the implications of it are for stratospheric chemistry, or to find additional data to validate the measurement. Those who solve the riddle and figure out how this new measurement fits in will also make quite a name for themselves. That is also clear from the Nature article.

Overall, the idea that any scientific community is not interested in new ideas is ridiculous. Good new ideas are the fuel that science runs on, and when new ones come out, they are thoroughly investigated by the scientific community. This new result about the ozone hole is a good example.

For those of you who might be wondering, here is what I think about this new measurement. First, it is crucial to realize that it has not been replicated. Replication is the cornerstone of science, and results that have not been replicated must be considered tentative. Second, my intuition suggests that attempts to replicate this measure will fail, and the measurement will turn out to be wrong. Before this new measurement, our understanding of stratospheric chemistry fit together well, like a completed jigsaw puzzle. If this new measurement turns out to be right, then there must be a compensating error somewhere else in our understanding. That would mean previously there were two errors, which exactly compensated in our understanding of ozone hole chemistry. While this is certainly possible, it strikes me as unlikely. However, the great thing about science is that future research will determine whether my intuition is right or not.

The other important thing to remember is that this new result does not mean that chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons is not responsible for the ozone hole. In fact, it is still highly likely that chlorine is destroying ozone. However, if this measurement turns out to be right, chlorine will be destroying ozone in a way that we do not presently understand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

And you claim I am a denier

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

And you claim I am a denier

I claim that you don't know what you are talking about, and your answers seem to support that hypothesis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>And you claim I am a denier

So your answer is (once again) no, you can't explain what it is you are posting about.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And you claim I am a denier

So your answer is (once again) no, you can't explain what it is you are posting about.

You choose not to respond to my point and then you claim I cant explain it. I have posted my point on more than one ocasion. That point being science does not and can not back up your position. Your divesion in this thread can not hide that. The pure dishonesty and lack of willingness to discuss the points made by the court in the UK. (those that I posted) are evidence of that fact. Dishonesty or discussion. The choice is yours. A court in the UK thinks the data does not support your position. I, and many others, believe the same. Since you will not address this FACT, I will believe you can not. Telling me thinks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

And you claim I am a denier

I claim that you don't know what you are talking about, and your answers seem to support that hypothesis.

I claim that you cant understand a courts position. Points posted that you nor anybody else can say are false. The dishonesty of your position smells bad. Fun to watch though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ah, did you see the study results from the UK universities that came out this month. Oh, sorry, I know they are not on the sites you visit. In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone, They now admit they are not sure what is going on but , well, you know, we still did the correct thing banning them, even if the reason is unknown.

It seems you have become the denier in this case sir.

I think you misunderstand the science. From a commentary by atmospheric scientist Andrew Dressler.

The atmospheric sciences community is excitedly discussing new results that potentially cast doubt on our understanding of the chemistry of the Antarctic ozone hole. The ozone hole is formed when two molecules of chlorine monoxide react with each other to form what is known as the chlorine dimer, ClOOCl, and that molecule is subsequently blasted apart by sunlight to release the chlorine atoms. New results suggest that this reaction is actually much slower than previously suggested. If this is true, it suggests that there is some important chemical process destroying ozone in the Antarctic stratosphere that we do not know about.

In reaction to this unexpected scientific result, stratospheric chemists are attacking the problem, trying to think up potential mechanisms that reconcile these new measurements with everything else we know about the chemistry of the stratosphere. As a former stratospheric chemist, I can say that I have not seen this level of excitement in the stratospheric chemistry community in at least 10 or 15 years.

So what does this tell us about the science of climate change? It tells us that many of the criticisms of climate science coming from the skeptics are dead wrong.


Skeptic Myth No. 1: Scientists who don't go along with the consensus are ostracized.

Reality: Scientists make a name for themselves by destroying the common wisdom. This new result on the ozone hole chemistry shows this. These researchers had no trouble publishing their results, and no one is attacking them for it. In fact, they are receiving tremendous positive publicity; just read the Nature article linked above. If this measurement turns out to be correct, these researchers will have made a significant name for themselves.

Skeptic Myth No. 2: The scientific community is not interested in any results that conflict with the consensus.

Reality: Credible scientific results that cast doubt on our scientific understanding of any subject are always of great interest to the scientific community. In this case, for example, many researchers around the world have jumped on this problem, trying to understand what the implications of it are for stratospheric chemistry, or to find additional data to validate the measurement. Those who solve the riddle and figure out how this new measurement fits in will also make quite a name for themselves. That is also clear from the Nature article.

Overall, the idea that any scientific community is not interested in new ideas is ridiculous. Good new ideas are the fuel that science runs on, and when new ones come out, they are thoroughly investigated by the scientific community. This new result about the ozone hole is a good example.

For those of you who might be wondering, here is what I think about this new measurement. First, it is crucial to realize that it has not been replicated. Replication is the cornerstone of science, and results that have not been replicated must be considered tentative. Second, my intuition suggests that attempts to replicate this measure will fail, and the measurement will turn out to be wrong. Before this new measurement, our understanding of stratospheric chemistry fit together well, like a completed jigsaw puzzle. If this new measurement turns out to be right, then there must be a compensating error somewhere else in our understanding. That would mean previously there were two errors, which exactly compensated in our understanding of ozone hole chemistry. While this is certainly possible, it strikes me as unlikely. However, the great thing about science is that future research will determine whether my intuition is right or not.

The other important thing to remember is that this new result does not mean that chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons is not responsible for the ozone hole. In fact, it is still highly likely that chlorine is destroying ozone. However, if this measurement turns out to be right, chlorine will be destroying ozone in a way that we do not presently understand.

You know what is dam hillarous with your post? The results of CFS's destroying the ozone (the replication of that claim) CAN NOT be replicated as evidenced by this study. Oh the pain of it all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

And you claim I am a denier

I claim that you don't know what you are talking about, and your answers seem to support that hypothesis.

I claim that you cant understand a courts position. Points posted that you nor anybody else can say are false. The dishonesty of your position smells bad. Fun to watch though

For the Nth time, courts do NOT determine the validity of scientific research. What a court states about science is as irrelevant now as it was in Galileo's time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>In any event, the evidence is showing little or no cemical interactions from CFS's with Ozone . . .

Which evidence is that? Can you state it in your own words?

And you claim I am a denier

I claim that you don't know what you are talking about, and your answers seem to support that hypothesis.

I claim that you cant understand a courts position. Points posted that you nor anybody else can say are false. The dishonesty of your position smells bad. Fun to watch though

For the Nth time, courts do NOT determine the validity of scientific research. What a court states about science is as irrelevant now as it was in Galileo's time.

Nor do you. But you choose as billvon to not address a courts assurtion that data does not back up the claim. Too bad for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

For the Nth time, courts do NOT determine the validity of scientific research. What a court states about science is as irrelevant now as it was in Galileo's time.

Its funny to watch a right winger...applaud and commend an activist judge legislating from the bench

[billvon 3,120]

>Its funny to watch a right winger...applaud and commend an activist
>judge legislating from the bench

Now, Jeanie, you know as well as I do that when they uphold women's rights, prevent schools from forcing students to pray or require the administration to follow constitutional restrictions they are "activist judges legislating from the bench." When they legislate activity in a school based on their political views, they are "smart courts doing their jobs."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Its funny to watch a right winger...applaud and commend an activist
>judge legislating from the bench

Now, Jeanie, you know as well as I do that when they uphold women's rights, prevent schools from forcing students to pray or require the administration to follow constitutional restrictions they are "activist judges legislating from the bench." When they legislate activity in a school based on their political views, they are "smart courts doing their jobs."

Nice twist. THE FACT IS, the law in the UK was followed. No actism here. The FACTS were presented in a court of law and your side got thier asses kicked.
Fucking painful for you. Too bad.

The "activism" claim is just another deversion for you and yours to justify the loss

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Fucking painful for you. Too bad.

All this anger and vehemence! It's the UK; I don't really care what they do there. I do care what they're doing in US labs, and fortunately science proceeds there largely without interference from denier organizations.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Fucking painful for you. Too bad.

All this anger and vehemence! It's the UK; I don't really care what they do there. I do care what they're doing in US labs, and fortunately science proceeds there largely without interference from denier organizations.

No, not anger, just disgust. Once again a non-verifiable claim. And fortunatly truth is more important than agenda. And, once again, I state you can not back your claim that man is a cause of global warming with scientific data or experiment. The same decision and conclusion came to by the court in the UK.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>And, once again, I state you can not back your claim that man is a
>cause of global warming with scientific data or experiment.

I have, several times. So has the IPCC and thousands of scientists. Since that conflicts with your politics, I don't expect you to be able to understand. (And since most of your information comes from sources like newsmax and www.rightwingnews.com I don't expect that to change.)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

>Its funny to watch a right winger...applaud and commend an activist
>judge legislating from the bench

Now, Jeanie, you know as well as I do that when they uphold women's rights, prevent schools from forcing students to pray or require the administration to follow constitutional restrictions they are "activist judges legislating from the bench." When they legislate activity in a school based on their political views, they are "smart courts doing their jobs."

Nice twist. THE FACT IS, the law in the UK was followed. No actism here. The FACTS were presented in a court of law and your side got thier asses kicked.
Fucking painful for you. Too bad.

The "activism" claim is just another deversion for you and yours to justify the loss

It looks like they're going with the tactic of:

"If you throw enough bullshit up against the wall, some of it is bound to stick"

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

THE FACT IS, the law in the UK was followed. No actism here. The FACTS were presented in a court of law and your side got thier asses kicked.

Dude! This is getting stupid. Go read what the court said and quit inserting your opinion, or more accurately, someone else's opinion, in between the lines of the official opinion. Burton said that the documentary was "broadly accurate" but that it was too "one sided" to be shown to students without a disclaimer. He also listed what he saw as nine inaccuracies. Some of those "inaccuracies" were things like Gore stating that there will be a significant sea level rise in the near future. Burton said that he thought was "alarmist" and that it will likely take much longer.
Regarding the Gulf Stream, Gore said "shut down" the judge said it's more likely to "slow down".
Gore gave the impression that Katrina was caused by global warming. Burton there was "insufficient evidence to show that".
Gore blamed the coral bleaching on increased temperatures. Burton said that "separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult."
Gore blamed the melting ice for the polar bear drownings. Burton said ""The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".

You get the picture? You understanding what an "inaccuracy" is yet? Stating that Gore's film is "broadly accurate" yet "alarmist" and "political" does NOT mean that the science is all wrong.

[AWL71 0]

The science is not all wrong, just half wrong. But the GW followers treat Gore's film like it is 100% truth because it fits their agenda. This is true no matter what the cause is. When people feel strongly about something their emotions cloud their judgment. We are all guilty off this to some degree. We all have things that we believe strongly in. Problem is that exchanges on this forum and in real life regarding ideas only involve talking and there is no listening going on.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

When people feel strongly about something their emotions cloud their judgment. We are all guilty off this to some degree. We all have things that we believe strongly in. Problem is that exchanges on this forum and in real life regarding ideas only involve talking and there is no listening going on.

Blah, blah, blah - anyway, the war is costing too much and we need education tax credits or vouchers to encourage school choice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

When people feel strongly about something their emotions cloud their judgment. We are all guilty off this to some degree. We all have things that we believe strongly in. Problem is that exchanges on this forum and in real life regarding ideas only involve talking and there is no listening going on.

Blah, blah, blah - anyway, the war is costing too much and we need education tax credits or vouchers to encourage school choice.

Blah, blah, blah, see what happens when you don't have your jelly donuts for breakfast.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When people feel strongly about something their emotions cloud their judgment. We are all guilty off this to some degree. We all have things that we believe strongly in. Problem is that exchanges on this forum and in real life regarding ideas only involve talking and there is no listening going on.

Blah, blah, blah - anyway, the war is costing too much and we need education tax credits or vouchers to encourage school choice.

Blah, blah, blah, see what happens when you don't have your jelly donuts for breakfast.

I'd rather the government spend money on jelly donuts than on a war of aggression.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants