In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:45:24 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.


Cite?


Which part?
That China and India are still making massive amounts of R-12?
Go look yourself. There are dozens of articles about it.

The US is still making R-22 and will be allowed to until 2020.
They can even manufacture new R-22 systems until 2020, as long as the
freon in them is recycled but they can still make new freon for
servicing existing systems.
Jan 1, 2010 is the deadline for new systems with new freon tho.

How can anyone say how well "it" (the ban) is working when "it" never
happened?

Some just read with a skewed filter and ignore anything that does not
fit their preconceived notions..

--
Wafa free again.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:


The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.

We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.

So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.

On Nov 5, 8:52*am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:

The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.

We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.

So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.

Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:38:53 -0500, NotNow wrote:

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because nobody is getting grant money to publish a study that doesn't
support the global warming theory.



The oil/coal companies have deep pockets and are certainly funding that
effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 11/5/09 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:38:53 -0500, wrote:

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because nobody is getting grant money to publish a study that doesn't
support the global warming theory.



The oil/coal companies have deep pockets and are certainly funding that
effort.


....along with the U.S. senator from Oklahoma they own...

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

lol
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!


But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

--
Wafa free again.

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.

cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.
WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

Yep, there you go, forgo good science in favor of what the RNC tells you.

In article ,
says...
But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

I can see it now. A liberal waving a Treaty saying "but we have a signed
treaty." As the opposing country's army shoots him dead.