134a Refrigerant
#1521
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
And we see National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration blame the
solar fluctuations for the ozone hole, too:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/wo...fs/soclong.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source,
> you have to argue the science. The NOAA stuff
> wasn't from anywhere but NOAA, btw.
>
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
> C'mon, Nate! If what you say is true, then you should
> at *least* be able to find some decent links about it.
> __
> Steve
> .
solar fluctuations for the ozone hole, too:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/wo...fs/soclong.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source,
> you have to argue the science. The NOAA stuff
> wasn't from anywhere but NOAA, btw.
>
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
> C'mon, Nate! If what you say is true, then you should
> at *least* be able to find some decent links about it.
> __
> Steve
> .
#1522
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#1523
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#1524
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#1525
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
_best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
because it is heavier than air.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#1526
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bq2ekcnckv1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
I already have... the burden is on you.
> > Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
The absence of science in your posts is telling...
there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
None. You can't post a scientific link that does...
that's why you stonewall. You lose.
__
Steve
..
#1527
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bq2ekcnckv1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
I already have... the burden is on you.
> > Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
The absence of science in your posts is telling...
there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
None. You can't post a scientific link that does...
that's why you stonewall. You lose.
__
Steve
..
#1528
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bq2ekcnckv1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
I already have... the burden is on you.
> > Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
The absence of science in your posts is telling...
there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
None. You can't post a scientific link that does...
that's why you stonewall. You lose.
__
Steve
..
#1529
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bq2ekcnckv1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
I already have... the burden is on you.
> > Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
The absence of science in your posts is telling...
there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
None. You can't post a scientific link that does...
that's why you stonewall. You lose.
__
Steve
..
#1530
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:si8ve.1834$5w3.446@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> I already have... the burden is on you.
TRANSLATION --> "i cannot provide you with conclusive science"
thank you. i already knew that.
> The absence of science in your posts is telling...
> there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
you speak of "engineers" and tell me all about how engineers are gods and
above me, yet when i provide you with two solid links that clearly state
what ive been telling you, written by those same engineers, you drop
engineers and change it to scientists. :-)
the engineering is indeed science, and those from within the hvac industry
have spoken. you just dont want to listen because thats not what you were
taught in your seminars.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:si8ve.1834$5w3.446@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> I already have... the burden is on you.
TRANSLATION --> "i cannot provide you with conclusive science"
thank you. i already knew that.
> The absence of science in your posts is telling...
> there are no scientists supporting your assertions.
you speak of "engineers" and tell me all about how engineers are gods and
above me, yet when i provide you with two solid links that clearly state
what ive been telling you, written by those same engineers, you drop
engineers and change it to scientists. :-)
the engineering is indeed science, and those from within the hvac industry
have spoken. you just dont want to listen because thats not what you were
taught in your seminars.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com