I tried, but I learned long ago gasoline will extinguish a burning
match.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> So Bill, how did you make out with the gasoline experiment I suggested?
> As I haven't seen any fireballs out west I am guessing you are too
> chickenshit to stand in the middle of a puddle of gasoline and light a
> match, even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline
> vapors are heavier than air. BTW, while the actual effect of CFCs on
> ozone are still somewhat uncertain, the presence of CFCs in the
> stratosphere has been measured in samples taken during high altitude
> flights. Also, FWIW, even though freon is much lighter than water, it
> has been measured in the deepest parts of the ocean. This is the source
> of much of the uncertainty in the ozone depletion models: They assumed
> no natural sinks, whereas the the oceans, and the ground itself absorb
> and sequester CFCs, and there is some evidence for bacterial breakdown
> as well.
> --
> jeff

 

I tried, but I learned long ago gasoline will extinguish a burning
match.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> So Bill, how did you make out with the gasoline experiment I suggested?
> As I haven't seen any fireballs out west I am guessing you are too
> chickenshit to stand in the middle of a puddle of gasoline and light a
> match, even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline
> vapors are heavier than air. BTW, while the actual effect of CFCs on
> ozone are still somewhat uncertain, the presence of CFCs in the
> stratosphere has been measured in samples taken during high altitude
> flights. Also, FWIW, even though freon is much lighter than water, it
> has been measured in the deepest parts of the ocean. This is the source
> of much of the uncertainty in the ozone depletion models: They assumed
> no natural sinks, whereas the the oceans, and the ground itself absorb
> and sequester CFCs, and there is some evidence for bacterial breakdown
> as well.
> --
> jeff

 

I tried, but I learned long ago gasoline will extinguish a burning
match.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> So Bill, how did you make out with the gasoline experiment I suggested?
> As I haven't seen any fireballs out west I am guessing you are too
> chickenshit to stand in the middle of a puddle of gasoline and light a
> match, even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline
> vapors are heavier than air. BTW, while the actual effect of CFCs on
> ozone are still somewhat uncertain, the presence of CFCs in the
> stratosphere has been measured in samples taken during high altitude
> flights. Also, FWIW, even though freon is much lighter than water, it
> has been measured in the deepest parts of the ocean. This is the source
> of much of the uncertainty in the ozone depletion models: They assumed
> no natural sinks, whereas the the oceans, and the ground itself absorb
> and sequester CFCs, and there is some evidence for bacterial breakdown
> as well.
> --
> jeff

 

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:W0jue.2431$G4.1408@trnddc09...
> even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline vapors
> are heavier than air.

ridiculous because the force of the explosion would force the burning vapors
up, much like the VOLCANIC ERUPTION would do the same thing.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:W0jue.2431$G4.1408@trnddc09...
> even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline vapors
> are heavier than air.

ridiculous because the force of the explosion would force the burning vapors
up, much like the VOLCANIC ERUPTION would do the same thing.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:W0jue.2431$G4.1408@trnddc09...
> even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline vapors
> are heavier than air.

ridiculous because the force of the explosion would force the burning vapors
up, much like the VOLCANIC ERUPTION would do the same thing.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:W0jue.2431$G4.1408@trnddc09...
> even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline vapors
> are heavier than air.

ridiculous because the force of the explosion would force the burning vapors
up, much like the VOLCANIC ERUPTION would do the same thing.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtjidimtif2f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AI5ue.584$5w3.559@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > ... to promote my *science* agenda..
>
> youre "science" agenda was nothing more than "could be's" from self serving
> governmental agencies.

The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:

<>
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" ....
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.
</>

Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> > You asserted that
> > you would change your mind if given good evidence...
>
> so give me something _conclusive_ that doesnt come from a self serving
> governmental agency.

Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
world is wrong, while you're at it.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtjidimtif2f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AI5ue.584$5w3.559@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > ... to promote my *science* agenda..
>
> youre "science" agenda was nothing more than "could be's" from self serving
> governmental agencies.

The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:

<>
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" ....
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.
</>

Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> > You asserted that
> > you would change your mind if given good evidence...
>
> so give me something _conclusive_ that doesnt come from a self serving
> governmental agency.

Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
world is wrong, while you're at it.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtjidimtif2f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AI5ue.584$5w3.559@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > ... to promote my *science* agenda..
>
> youre "science" agenda was nothing more than "could be's" from self serving
> governmental agencies.

The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:

<>
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" ....
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.
</>

Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> > You asserted that
> > you would change your mind if given good evidence...
>
> so give me something _conclusive_ that doesnt come from a self serving
> governmental agency.

Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
world is wrong, while you're at it.
__
Steve
..