134a Refrigerant
#631
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11afe0h7baerg3e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jQLpe.2040$751.622@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Then why is it measured there? Along with CFC? The
> > CFC is coming from space?
>
> can you PROVE otherwise? c'mon you talk about links, show me something
> CONCLUSIVE (which is all ive asked for!) you CANT.
If you won't listen to thousands of scientists, what can
I hope to do? You can't even prove you're not in a
militia!
> > If the atmosphere layered out like you said it
> > should, we'd all be dead from it... do the math.
>
> not if the concentration wasnt there. are you saying that heavier gases
> rise above lighter gases? answer directly.
I'm saying the reason that the atmosphere is
not stratified is due to mixing... it's not a closed
system, there are thermal and physical forces
at work. It's very complex... not like your
'chlorine heavier' model.
> >> > I didnt' say a 'licensed' tech...
> >>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "im full of ----, nate". :-)
> >
> > Did you have physics in high school or college, Nate?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "ill try to spin it but yes, im full of ----, nate". :-)
You didn't take much science in school, did
you?
> > I've already posted links from reputable scientific
> > organizations
>
> containing NOTHING conclusive.
How to convince an ignorant person? Preponderance
of evidence, even assertions by atmospheric scientists
don't work. The only reason there's nothing conclusive
for you is that there would be *no* evidence that would
convince you... you don't have a clue about the scientific
method.
Can you give an example of evidence that would
satisfy you?
> > as well as HVAC industry periodicals,
> > supporting my assertion.
>
> which means NOTHING.
No, it actually means something. I've posted
links... suppose *you* post a link. I've asked
before... you can't. Go ahead... if it's as you
say, then certainly, you could find a link somewhere,
supporting your assertion that there's no CFC
affect on the ozone layer. We're waiting...
> > Nothing I could post would
> > convince you
>
> WRONG. all it would take is CONCLUSIVE evidence which you CANNOT provide
so
> you continue to attempt to spin your horseshit.
Begging the question.... 'all it would take is conclusive evidence'.
This is a logical fallacy... one of the biggies. You don't
know how science works, you can't even keep the
difference between Iraq and Afghanistan straight!
Post a link! *One* link.... any link... that shows
that there is no CFC affect on the ozone layer.
__
Steve
..
#632
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11afe0h7baerg3e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jQLpe.2040$751.622@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Then why is it measured there? Along with CFC? The
> > CFC is coming from space?
>
> can you PROVE otherwise? c'mon you talk about links, show me something
> CONCLUSIVE (which is all ive asked for!) you CANT.
If you won't listen to thousands of scientists, what can
I hope to do? You can't even prove you're not in a
militia!
> > If the atmosphere layered out like you said it
> > should, we'd all be dead from it... do the math.
>
> not if the concentration wasnt there. are you saying that heavier gases
> rise above lighter gases? answer directly.
I'm saying the reason that the atmosphere is
not stratified is due to mixing... it's not a closed
system, there are thermal and physical forces
at work. It's very complex... not like your
'chlorine heavier' model.
> >> > I didnt' say a 'licensed' tech...
> >>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "im full of ----, nate". :-)
> >
> > Did you have physics in high school or college, Nate?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "ill try to spin it but yes, im full of ----, nate". :-)
You didn't take much science in school, did
you?
> > I've already posted links from reputable scientific
> > organizations
>
> containing NOTHING conclusive.
How to convince an ignorant person? Preponderance
of evidence, even assertions by atmospheric scientists
don't work. The only reason there's nothing conclusive
for you is that there would be *no* evidence that would
convince you... you don't have a clue about the scientific
method.
Can you give an example of evidence that would
satisfy you?
> > as well as HVAC industry periodicals,
> > supporting my assertion.
>
> which means NOTHING.
No, it actually means something. I've posted
links... suppose *you* post a link. I've asked
before... you can't. Go ahead... if it's as you
say, then certainly, you could find a link somewhere,
supporting your assertion that there's no CFC
affect on the ozone layer. We're waiting...
> > Nothing I could post would
> > convince you
>
> WRONG. all it would take is CONCLUSIVE evidence which you CANNOT provide
so
> you continue to attempt to spin your horseshit.
Begging the question.... 'all it would take is conclusive evidence'.
This is a logical fallacy... one of the biggies. You don't
know how science works, you can't even keep the
difference between Iraq and Afghanistan straight!
Post a link! *One* link.... any link... that shows
that there is no CFC affect on the ozone layer.
__
Steve
..
#633
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11afe0h7baerg3e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jQLpe.2040$751.622@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > Then why is it measured there? Along with CFC? The
> > CFC is coming from space?
>
> can you PROVE otherwise? c'mon you talk about links, show me something
> CONCLUSIVE (which is all ive asked for!) you CANT.
If you won't listen to thousands of scientists, what can
I hope to do? You can't even prove you're not in a
militia!
> > If the atmosphere layered out like you said it
> > should, we'd all be dead from it... do the math.
>
> not if the concentration wasnt there. are you saying that heavier gases
> rise above lighter gases? answer directly.
I'm saying the reason that the atmosphere is
not stratified is due to mixing... it's not a closed
system, there are thermal and physical forces
at work. It's very complex... not like your
'chlorine heavier' model.
> >> > I didnt' say a 'licensed' tech...
> >>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "im full of ----, nate". :-)
> >
> > Did you have physics in high school or college, Nate?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "ill try to spin it but yes, im full of ----, nate". :-)
You didn't take much science in school, did
you?
> > I've already posted links from reputable scientific
> > organizations
>
> containing NOTHING conclusive.
How to convince an ignorant person? Preponderance
of evidence, even assertions by atmospheric scientists
don't work. The only reason there's nothing conclusive
for you is that there would be *no* evidence that would
convince you... you don't have a clue about the scientific
method.
Can you give an example of evidence that would
satisfy you?
> > as well as HVAC industry periodicals,
> > supporting my assertion.
>
> which means NOTHING.
No, it actually means something. I've posted
links... suppose *you* post a link. I've asked
before... you can't. Go ahead... if it's as you
say, then certainly, you could find a link somewhere,
supporting your assertion that there's no CFC
affect on the ozone layer. We're waiting...
> > Nothing I could post would
> > convince you
>
> WRONG. all it would take is CONCLUSIVE evidence which you CANNOT provide
so
> you continue to attempt to spin your horseshit.
Begging the question.... 'all it would take is conclusive evidence'.
This is a logical fallacy... one of the biggies. You don't
know how science works, you can't even keep the
difference between Iraq and Afghanistan straight!
Post a link! *One* link.... any link... that shows
that there is no CFC affect on the ozone layer.
__
Steve
..
#634
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A79EED.6E2EC008@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > You see what I mean...
> I don't blame Matt for not replying to you in the future, but it's
> worth beating my head against the wall, not to win a pissing contest,
> but for the others that you may miss lead.
Just what am I supposed to be 'miss lead' ing
about? The fact is, you can't show *one link*
that supports your assertion that CFCs don't
affect the ozone layer... that's pretty telling,
isn't it? I mean, all these links you've posted,
and I'm able to find info to support my argument
with each one!
Just who's misleading whom? And what are the
consequences of this misleading? If I'm wrong,
you pay a little extra for refrigerant. If you're wrong,
everyone gets skin cancer. Which of us would
be best to trust?
__
Steve
..
#635
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A79EED.6E2EC008@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > You see what I mean...
> I don't blame Matt for not replying to you in the future, but it's
> worth beating my head against the wall, not to win a pissing contest,
> but for the others that you may miss lead.
Just what am I supposed to be 'miss lead' ing
about? The fact is, you can't show *one link*
that supports your assertion that CFCs don't
affect the ozone layer... that's pretty telling,
isn't it? I mean, all these links you've posted,
and I'm able to find info to support my argument
with each one!
Just who's misleading whom? And what are the
consequences of this misleading? If I'm wrong,
you pay a little extra for refrigerant. If you're wrong,
everyone gets skin cancer. Which of us would
be best to trust?
__
Steve
..
#636
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A79EED.6E2EC008@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > You see what I mean...
> I don't blame Matt for not replying to you in the future, but it's
> worth beating my head against the wall, not to win a pissing contest,
> but for the others that you may miss lead.
Just what am I supposed to be 'miss lead' ing
about? The fact is, you can't show *one link*
that supports your assertion that CFCs don't
affect the ozone layer... that's pretty telling,
isn't it? I mean, all these links you've posted,
and I'm able to find info to support my argument
with each one!
Just who's misleading whom? And what are the
consequences of this misleading? If I'm wrong,
you pay a little extra for refrigerant. If you're wrong,
everyone gets skin cancer. Which of us would
be best to trust?
__
Steve
..
#637
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A79EED.6E2EC008@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > You see what I mean...
> I don't blame Matt for not replying to you in the future, but it's
> worth beating my head against the wall, not to win a pissing contest,
> but for the others that you may miss lead.
Just what am I supposed to be 'miss lead' ing
about? The fact is, you can't show *one link*
that supports your assertion that CFCs don't
affect the ozone layer... that's pretty telling,
isn't it? I mean, all these links you've posted,
and I'm able to find info to support my argument
with each one!
Just who's misleading whom? And what are the
consequences of this misleading? If I'm wrong,
you pay a little extra for refrigerant. If you're wrong,
everyone gets skin cancer. Which of us would
be best to trust?
__
Steve
..
#638
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#639
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#640
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:ifRpe.2114$751.2050@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> If you won't listen to thousands of scientists
the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their
own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been
proven at all!
> You can't even prove you're not in a
> militia!
what a dumb *** herring.
> You didn't take much science in school, did
> you?
red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i
ask to see your credentials. :-)
> Can you give an example of evidence that would
> satisfy you?
absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative
source.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com