"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
..

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yC9pe.566$%j7.167@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> We're talking
> Science here

then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve given
me thus far.

> and can anyone guess what your
> agenda is, or who *you* voted for

so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
"name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading your
drivvel.


> what it
> would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.


> Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> not as simple as you make it out to be?

ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.


> What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> that one

your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
source from within the hvac industry. i work within the refrigeration/hvac
industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to know
so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.


> What would be conclusive evidence for you?

statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door for
when its proven wrong.


> That
> NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> rising since 1980?

so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
save-face is left in every document youve quoted.



> I posted that link... all you
> posted was a periodic table.

proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yC9pe.566$%j7.167@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> We're talking
> Science here

then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve given
me thus far.

> and can anyone guess what your
> agenda is, or who *you* voted for

so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
"name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading your
drivvel.


> what it
> would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.


> Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> not as simple as you make it out to be?

ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.


> What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> that one

your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
source from within the hvac industry. i work within the refrigeration/hvac
industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to know
so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.


> What would be conclusive evidence for you?

statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door for
when its proven wrong.


> That
> NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> rising since 1980?

so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
save-face is left in every document youve quoted.



> I posted that link... all you
> posted was a periodic table.

proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yC9pe.566$%j7.167@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> We're talking
> Science here

then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve given
me thus far.

> and can anyone guess what your
> agenda is, or who *you* voted for

so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
"name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading your
drivvel.


> what it
> would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.


> Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> not as simple as you make it out to be?

ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.


> What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> that one

your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
source from within the hvac industry. i work within the refrigeration/hvac
industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to know
so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.


> What would be conclusive evidence for you?

statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door for
when its proven wrong.


> That
> NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> rising since 1980?

so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
save-face is left in every document youve quoted.



> I posted that link... all you
> posted was a periodic table.

proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

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

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yC9pe.566$%j7.167@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> We're talking
> Science here

then show me something conclusive. no "could be's" which is all youve given
me thus far.

> and can anyone guess what your
> agenda is, or who *you* voted for

so call me a conservative and i wont whine about name calling. youre a
liberal. you wear it, you may as well own it. calling you a liberal isnt
"name calling", especially when its painfully obvious to anyone reading your
drivvel.


> what it
> would take to convince *you* of a scientific fact?

CONCLUSIVE evidence. no "could be, might be, probably is" crap.


> Can you understand that the atmosphere is
> not as simple as you make it out to be?

ive never tried to over simply it, but that doesnt change one basic point.
heavier gas does not rise above lighter gas.


> What about my HVAC industry link? You glossed
> that one

your link means NOTHING. its not an "industry link". industry link would
suggest universal acceptance within the hvac industry. you quoted one
source from within the hvac industry. i work within the refrigeration/hvac
industry and have forgot more about it than you could begin to hope to know
so dont try to tell me how the hvac industry feels about anything.


> What would be conclusive evidence for you?

statement of fact from a _credible_ source without leaving the back-door for
when its proven wrong.


> That
> NASA has measured chlorine in the stratosphere
> rising since 1980?

so tell me CONCLUSIVELY where its coming from. you cant. could it be
naturally occuring in the stratosphere and falling down? fact is you (or
your links) dont have any idea where its coming from which is why the
save-face is left in every document youve quoted.



> I posted that link... all you
> posted was a periodic table.

proving that the atomic weight of chlorine is heavier than oxygen and
carbon. heavier gases do not rise above lighter ones.

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

 

Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml
We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> 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
> .

 

Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml
We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> 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
> .

 

Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml
We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> 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
> .

 

Kentucky was a part of Europe when the Iridium was deposited:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ntinents.shtml
We are about a hundred years into the next polar flip:
http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html during which the northern and
southern hemispheres will remain separated via basic laws in physics
governing the earth's rotation, the same that determine the direction
water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> 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
> .

 

What do you except? A giant meteor hit the gulf of Mexico at near
equator Latitude. Along with covering the earth with ash, we probably
blasted rock out into the universe like the mars rock we have with
fossils. BUT our earth's northern and southern hemispheres will remain
separated via basic laws in physics governing the earth's rotation, the
same that determine the direction water will funnel down into a drain.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> 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
> .