And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Another howler! How do you explain the global
> iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> the other?
> __
> Steve
> bemused
> .

 

And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Another howler! How do you explain the global
> iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> the other?
> __
> Steve
> bemused
> .

 

And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> Another howler! How do you explain the global
> iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> the other?
> __
> Steve
> bemused
> .

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A50B20.DE620A3E@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! How do you explain the global
> > iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> > crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> > the other?
> > __
> > Steve
> > bemused
> > .
> And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
> http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
> atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
> times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?

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.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A50B20.DE620A3E@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! How do you explain the global
> > iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> > crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> > the other?
> > __
> > Steve
> > bemused
> > .
> And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
> http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
> atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
> times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?

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.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A50B20.DE620A3E@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! How do you explain the global
> > iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> > crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> > the other?
> > __
> > Steve
> > bemused
> > .
> And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
> http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
> atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
> times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?

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.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A50B20.DE620A3E@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Another howler! How do you explain the global
> > iridium deposits from the KT boundary? Nothing
> > crosses from one foot on one side, to one foot on
> > the other?
> > __
> > Steve
> > bemused
> > .
> And what does Iridium being deposited sixty five millennium ago:
> http://www.ias.ac.in/epsci/jun2001/1352.pdf have to do with present day
> atmosphere conditions? And if it did, do you know how many thousands
> times our polar axis has flipped in that time? What are you nuts?

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.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a9vio46h6sb3a@corp.supernews.com...
>"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iC6pe.481$%j7.320@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>>
>> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>> > > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
>> > > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
>> > > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
>> > > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
>> > > belong to?
>> >
>> > lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
>> with
>> > tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
>> cloud
>> > the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
>> liberal
>> > tactic that failed miserably.
>>
>> No, because you started the name-calling, I can
>> call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
>> the extreme right... completely apropos for what
>> you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
>> never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
>> AFA you're concerned...

>
> horseshit. are you suggesting that you arent a liberal? c'mon tell the
> truth.....you voted for kerry, and gore before him. :-)
> once again i call horseshit. you compared me with tim mcveigh who was a
> domestic ---------, and not a right wing conservative. on second thought,
i
> know you liberals look at _all_ right wing conservatives in the same
manner
> as we would look at tim mcveigh. your comparison is truly amongst the
most
> assinine statements ive ever read in any newsgroup. a new low that
screams
> of your own ignorance and agenda.

Keep squealing... it's not Science. We're talking
Science here... and can anyone guess what your
agenda is, or who *you* voted for, or what it
would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

>> Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
>> about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
>> F-.

> simply not worthy of response as i have no intention of lowering myself to
> your red hearrings and desperate attempt at getting off the subject that
all
> ive asked for is conclusive evidence. all you can provide is "could
be's".

You *could be* a member of a militia... you can't
prove that you aren't. Not *conclusively*, anyway...

>> You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
>> your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
>> stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
>> periodical:
>>
>> http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm
>>
>> Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
>> more of these links... show me *one* for your
>> side.

> horseshit. i conceeded that i have no proof of duponts patent running
out.
> my assertion of chlorine is a simple matter of atomic weight that anyone
can
> look up.
> from http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/ the atomic weight of oxygen is
> 15.9994. the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107. the atomic weight of
> chlorine is 35.453 or OVER TWICE that of oxygen. heavier gasses do not
> float above lighter gases.

Unless there is a mixing mechanism... the Polar Vortex.
Ever seen a thunderhead? Do you understand the forces
at work? Can you understand that the atmosphere is
not as simple as you make it out to be?

What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
that one... theres a double buttload more of those.
You don't have a leg to stand on, Nate... that's why
you started the name calling to begin with.

>> > > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
>> > > the nature of science.
>> >
>> > WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind
speculation.
>> > "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as
fact,
>> > another typical seminar liberal tactic.
>>
>> Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
>> Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

What, no response? Male prostitute, run of the WH,
W's buddy? Nice fluffy softball questions? C'mon,
Nate, take the bait! Rove'll back you up!

>> Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
>> surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

> make all the excuses you care to, you can NOT show me one single bit of
> CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up your liberal whinings because it simply
does
> not exist.

What would be conclusive evidence for you? That
NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
rising since 1980? I posted that link... all you
posted was a periodic table. According to *you*,
what I cited NASA measuring should be completely
impossible... by your backyard 'science' reckoning.

>> Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
>> for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
>> have the first clue how Science is done. You
>> can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
>> it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
>> is done on a preponderance of evidence...
>> but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
>> be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
>> can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
>> showed that it cannot remain both complete and
>> consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
>> removed certainty from Physics. All other
>> sciences are based on these two.
>>
>> Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
>> it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
>> You can have your Faith... just don't call it
>> Science.

Well?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a9vio46h6sb3a@corp.supernews.com...
>"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iC6pe.481$%j7.320@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>>
>> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>> > > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
>> > > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
>> > > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
>> > > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
>> > > belong to?
>> >
>> > lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
>> with
>> > tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
>> cloud
>> > the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
>> liberal
>> > tactic that failed miserably.
>>
>> No, because you started the name-calling, I can
>> call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
>> the extreme right... completely apropos for what
>> you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
>> never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
>> AFA you're concerned...

>
> horseshit. are you suggesting that you arent a liberal? c'mon tell the
> truth.....you voted for kerry, and gore before him. :-)
> once again i call horseshit. you compared me with tim mcveigh who was a
> domestic ---------, and not a right wing conservative. on second thought,
i
> know you liberals look at _all_ right wing conservatives in the same
manner
> as we would look at tim mcveigh. your comparison is truly amongst the
most
> assinine statements ive ever read in any newsgroup. a new low that
screams
> of your own ignorance and agenda.

Keep squealing... it's not Science. We're talking
Science here... and can anyone guess what your
agenda is, or who *you* voted for, or what it
would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

>> Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
>> about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
>> F-.

> simply not worthy of response as i have no intention of lowering myself to
> your red hearrings and desperate attempt at getting off the subject that
all
> ive asked for is conclusive evidence. all you can provide is "could
be's".

You *could be* a member of a militia... you can't
prove that you aren't. Not *conclusively*, anyway...

>> You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
>> your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
>> stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
>> periodical:
>>
>> http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm
>>
>> Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
>> more of these links... show me *one* for your
>> side.

> horseshit. i conceeded that i have no proof of duponts patent running
out.
> my assertion of chlorine is a simple matter of atomic weight that anyone
can
> look up.
> from http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/ the atomic weight of oxygen is
> 15.9994. the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107. the atomic weight of
> chlorine is 35.453 or OVER TWICE that of oxygen. heavier gasses do not
> float above lighter gases.

Unless there is a mixing mechanism... the Polar Vortex.
Ever seen a thunderhead? Do you understand the forces
at work? Can you understand that the atmosphere is
not as simple as you make it out to be?

What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
that one... theres a double buttload more of those.
You don't have a leg to stand on, Nate... that's why
you started the name calling to begin with.

>> > > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
>> > > the nature of science.
>> >
>> > WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind
speculation.
>> > "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as
fact,
>> > another typical seminar liberal tactic.
>>
>> Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
>> Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

What, no response? Male prostitute, run of the WH,
W's buddy? Nice fluffy softball questions? C'mon,
Nate, take the bait! Rove'll back you up!

>> Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
>> surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

> make all the excuses you care to, you can NOT show me one single bit of
> CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up your liberal whinings because it simply
does
> not exist.

What would be conclusive evidence for you? That
NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
rising since 1980? I posted that link... all you
posted was a periodic table. According to *you*,
what I cited NASA measuring should be completely
impossible... by your backyard 'science' reckoning.

>> Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
>> for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
>> have the first clue how Science is done. You
>> can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
>> it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
>> is done on a preponderance of evidence...
>> but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
>> be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
>> can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
>> showed that it cannot remain both complete and
>> consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
>> removed certainty from Physics. All other
>> sciences are based on these two.
>>
>> Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
>> it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
>> You can have your Faith... just don't call it
>> Science.

Well?
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11a9vio46h6sb3a@corp.supernews.com...
>"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iC6pe.481$%j7.320@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>>
>> "Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:11a96draii3te4@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > news:GOYoe.314$%j7.179@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>> > > Can't argue with a Luddite... do you believe we
>> > > went to the Moon? Trust NASA? BTW, you've
>> > > used the 'L' word... now can I equate you with
>> > > Tim McVey? What branch of militia do *you*
>> > > belong to?
>> >
>> > lol let me get this straight. because i require _proof_ you equate me
>> with
>> > tim mcveigh? how assinine. you cant make your argument so you try to
>> cloud
>> > the discussion with ridiculous statements....another typical seminar
>> liberal
>> > tactic that failed miserably.
>>
>> No, because you started the name-calling, I can
>> call you whatever I want. I chose to tar you with
>> the extreme right... completely apropos for what
>> you chose to tar me with. "Go negative early...
>> never give up"... I think I'll adopt Newt's credo
>> AFA you're concerned...

>
> horseshit. are you suggesting that you arent a liberal? c'mon tell the
> truth.....you voted for kerry, and gore before him. :-)
> once again i call horseshit. you compared me with tim mcveigh who was a
> domestic ---------, and not a right wing conservative. on second thought,
i
> know you liberals look at _all_ right wing conservatives in the same
manner
> as we would look at tim mcveigh. your comparison is truly amongst the
most
> assinine statements ive ever read in any newsgroup. a new low that
screams
> of your own ignorance and agenda.

Keep squealing... it's not Science. We're talking
Science here... and can anyone guess what your
agenda is, or who *you* voted for, or what it
would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

>> Notice you didn't deny belonging to a militia... what
>> about our trips to the Moon? Dodging the question,
>> F-.

> simply not worthy of response as i have no intention of lowering myself to
> your red hearrings and desperate attempt at getting off the subject that
all
> ive asked for is conclusive evidence. all you can provide is "could
be's".

You *could be* a member of a militia... you can't
prove that you aren't. Not *conclusively*, anyway...

>> You admitted you can't give me a link to back up
>> your assertion that chlorine can't make it to the
>> stratosphere... here's a link, by an HVAC industry
>> periodical:
>>
>> http://www.hpac.com/member/archive/0108data.htm
>>
>> Realize that there are literally tens of thousands
>> more of these links... show me *one* for your
>> side.

> horseshit. i conceeded that i have no proof of duponts patent running
out.
> my assertion of chlorine is a simple matter of atomic weight that anyone
can
> look up.
> from http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/ the atomic weight of oxygen is
> 15.9994. the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107. the atomic weight of
> chlorine is 35.453 or OVER TWICE that of oxygen. heavier gasses do not
> float above lighter gases.

Unless there is a mixing mechanism... the Polar Vortex.
Ever seen a thunderhead? Do you understand the forces
at work? Can you understand that the atmosphere is
not as simple as you make it out to be?

What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
that one... theres a double buttload more of those.
You don't have a leg to stand on, Nate... that's why
you started the name calling to begin with.

>> > > Science always leaves room for doubt... that's
>> > > the nature of science.
>> >
>> > WRONG. you have fact and then you have agenda driven blind
speculation.
>> > "room for doubt" just goes to show that youre presenting opinion as
fact,
>> > another typical seminar liberal tactic.
>>
>> Still on with the 'L' word? I'll give you two back... Jeff
>> Gannon, your buddy. (that was four, you got a bonus!)

What, no response? Male prostitute, run of the WH,
W's buddy? Nice fluffy softball questions? C'mon,
Nate, take the bait! Rove'll back you up!

>> Science, by definition, is self-modifying. You want
>> surety, go to church. Science is all about probabilities.

> make all the excuses you care to, you can NOT show me one single bit of
> CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up your liberal whinings because it simply
does
> not exist.

What would be conclusive evidence for you? That
NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
rising since 1980? I posted that link... all you
posted was a periodic table. According to *you*,
what I cited NASA measuring should be completely
impossible... by your backyard 'science' reckoning.

>> Do you assert that Science doesn't leave room
>> for doubt? That's the problem here... you don't
>> have the first clue how Science is done. You
>> can say something is a scientific 'fact'... but
>> it can be proven wrong the next day. Science
>> is done on a preponderance of evidence...
>> but at *no* time can a completely sure conclusion
>> be drawn. Mathematics is the only science that
>> can approach this level of certainty... and Gödel
>> showed that it cannot remain both complete and
>> consistant. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
>> removed certainty from Physics. All other
>> sciences are based on these two.
>>
>> Any time Science doesn't leave 'room for doubt',
>> it ceases to be Science, and becomes Faith.
>> You can have your Faith... just don't call it
>> Science.

Well?
__
Steve
..