"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.

horseshit. explain the difference!

> Now *you* have to
> post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
> the ozone layer

i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. i said that cfcs cant reach
the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight and i provided links from your
engineers that validated my statement.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.

horseshit. explain the difference!

> Now *you* have to
> post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
> the ozone layer

i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. i said that cfcs cant reach
the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight and i provided links from your
engineers that validated my statement.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.

horseshit. explain the difference!

> Now *you* have to
> post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
> the ozone layer

i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. i said that cfcs cant reach
the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight and i provided links from your
engineers that validated my statement.

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

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bkbk02ltsb559@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..

>>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...

> horseshit. explain the difference!

Explain the difference in what? Is there something
that you don't understand about the sentence "the truth of an
assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it"?

>>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.

> i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone.

Notice: neither did I. I said "don't". Please
read carefully.

> i said that cfcs cant reach
> the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight
> and i provided links from your
> engineers that validated my statement.

The NOAA article clearly states that man-made
CFC's were measured in the stratosphere...
and everywhere else in the atmosphere.
The article goes on to explain the ratios, how
they've grown since first detection in the 1950's,
and how they've started to fall after CFC's were
discontinued.

All you posted was the user's manual from
your leak detector, and a page from an
online HVAC tech course. Don't bring
a pea-shooter to a shootout, Nate...
get some evidence with *****, or give up.
If what you say is true, then there's some
scientific evidence for it. That's what we're
waiting for.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bkbk02ltsb559@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..

>>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...

> horseshit. explain the difference!

Explain the difference in what? Is there something
that you don't understand about the sentence "the truth of an
assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it"?

>>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.

> i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone.

Notice: neither did I. I said "don't". Please
read carefully.

> i said that cfcs cant reach
> the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight
> and i provided links from your
> engineers that validated my statement.

The NOAA article clearly states that man-made
CFC's were measured in the stratosphere...
and everywhere else in the atmosphere.
The article goes on to explain the ratios, how
they've grown since first detection in the 1950's,
and how they've started to fall after CFC's were
discontinued.

All you posted was the user's manual from
your leak detector, and a page from an
online HVAC tech course. Don't bring
a pea-shooter to a shootout, Nate...
get some evidence with *****, or give up.
If what you say is true, then there's some
scientific evidence for it. That's what we're
waiting for.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bkbk02ltsb559@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..

>>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...

> horseshit. explain the difference!

Explain the difference in what? Is there something
that you don't understand about the sentence "the truth of an
assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it"?

>>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.

> i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone.

Notice: neither did I. I said "don't". Please
read carefully.

> i said that cfcs cant reach
> the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight
> and i provided links from your
> engineers that validated my statement.

The NOAA article clearly states that man-made
CFC's were measured in the stratosphere...
and everywhere else in the atmosphere.
The article goes on to explain the ratios, how
they've grown since first detection in the 1950's,
and how they've started to fall after CFC's were
discontinued.

All you posted was the user's manual from
your leak detector, and a page from an
online HVAC tech course. Don't bring
a pea-shooter to a shootout, Nate...
get some evidence with *****, or give up.
If what you say is true, then there's some
scientific evidence for it. That's what we're
waiting for.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bkbk02ltsb559@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..

>>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...

> horseshit. explain the difference!

Explain the difference in what? Is there something
that you don't understand about the sentence "the truth of an
assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it"?

>>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.

> i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone.

Notice: neither did I. I said "don't". Please
read carefully.

> i said that cfcs cant reach
> the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight
> and i provided links from your
> engineers that validated my statement.

The NOAA article clearly states that man-made
CFC's were measured in the stratosphere...
and everywhere else in the atmosphere.
The article goes on to explain the ratios, how
they've grown since first detection in the 1950's,
and how they've started to fall after CFC's were
discontinued.

All you posted was the user's manual from
your leak detector, and a page from an
online HVAC tech course. Don't bring
a pea-shooter to a shootout, Nate...
get some evidence with *****, or give up.
If what you say is true, then there's some
scientific evidence for it. That's what we're
waiting for.
__
Steve
..

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6cJue.1293$5w3.932@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Explain the difference in what?

both the epa and noaa are self serving. ive asked you for conclusive
evidence from a credible source and you gave me links with "proudliberal" in
the url as a credible source. lol.


>All you posted was the user's manual from
> your leak detector, and a page from an
> online HVAC tech course.

exactly! links from your ENGINEERS that are actually from WITHIN the hvac
industry! they have nothing to gain or lose by the environmental issues and
are telling you how to use the tools effectively. both clearly state to
check for leaks below the source because refrigerant is heavier than air and
falls which is what ive told you from the beginning.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6cJue.1293$5w3.932@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Explain the difference in what?

both the epa and noaa are self serving. ive asked you for conclusive
evidence from a credible source and you gave me links with "proudliberal" in
the url as a credible source. lol.


>All you posted was the user's manual from
> your leak detector, and a page from an
> online HVAC tech course.

exactly! links from your ENGINEERS that are actually from WITHIN the hvac
industry! they have nothing to gain or lose by the environmental issues and
are telling you how to use the tools effectively. both clearly state to
check for leaks below the source because refrigerant is heavier than air and
falls which is what ive told you from the beginning.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6cJue.1293$5w3.932@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Explain the difference in what?

both the epa and noaa are self serving. ive asked you for conclusive
evidence from a credible source and you gave me links with "proudliberal" in
the url as a credible source. lol.


>All you posted was the user's manual from
> your leak detector, and a page from an
> online HVAC tech course.

exactly! links from your ENGINEERS that are actually from WITHIN the hvac
industry! they have nothing to gain or lose by the environmental issues and
are telling you how to use the tools effectively. both clearly state to
check for leaks below the source because refrigerant is heavier than air and
falls which is what ive told you from the beginning.

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