Go to THE CHICKEN LITTLE AGENDA—DEBUNKING EXPERTS' LIES
- Add a comment
- Go to Ch 2 – The Great Ozone-Hole Hoax (Part 2 of 6)
You still don't get it, Xeno...
There are no such things as "my facts" and "your facts" and "NASA's facts." There are only facts. In your last two items you did not cite any facts, but conclusions derived from facts, and actually your interpretation of someone else's conclusions regarding a set of facts.
If you read my book excerpt carefully, you will see where I reported that NASA did report that the ozone layer was healing itself faster than predicted. You have inserted additional conclusionary information that simply isn't factual.
I never said human activities had no effect on the ozone layer, I said human activity had negligible effect on the layer, and that at its most extreme possible level (never reached, and almost certainly never to be reached), the effect would be about the difference between full sunshine in New York City and Miami.
The whole point of my discussion was two-fold: (1) To tell an interesting story about how the "we-have-a-big-problem concept" ended up in the public eye; and (2) to alleviate the reader's fears about what is actually happening at the top of our atmosphere. If you were to show my material to an atmospheric scientist, the first thing he would say is that it is very simplified – he might use the term "oversimplified." Then he would probably comment that my conclusions are on track, and would certainly agree that we don't have a significant problem.That is, unless he is one of the agenda-driven lefties (of which there are a bunch) who put their political agenda above accurate reporting of the facts.
If you stop for a moment and get off your rostrum, and if you simply examine what I wrote dispassionately, if you are intellectually honest, you will be forced to agree with my general conclusions. As I wrote in a previous response, all my writing is based on one primary premise: FACTS ARE VERIFIABLE.
I challenge you to verify what I have presented. Don't do this from a pre-established point of view. Just check the science and the facts. It's all there. It's all true. If you can't (won't) see it...shame on you!
posted by
arGee
on November 11, 2006 at 10:43 AM
| link to this | reply
you say NASA uses your facts.
and on the NASA website, they come to the conclusion that the ozone hole IS man-made.
they also say that the hole should be dwindling in the years to come since man-made chemicals have been phased out in the main.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 11, 2006 at 9:50 AM
| link to this | reply
i thought NASA was giving us facts
and if their facts contradict your facts, what then?
whose facts should we consider as the facts that we use to make our decisoins?
those of hundreds of scientists -- or those of one person whose facts are differeent than those of thousands who have studied these subjects?
one against thousands -- hmmm . . . wonder whose facts I will consider as facts.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 11, 2006 at 9:48 AM
| link to this | reply
It's not a question of believing me or believing NASA, Xeno...
The only thing that matters in science are the facts. Don't take anyone's interpretation of the facts – not even mine. Get the facts, and make up your own mind. If you are intellectually honest and examine the facts as they actually are, you will be forced to conclude that humankind does not have much of an effect on either global warming or the ozone layer.
What I present in my book is enough of the underlying science so the reader can understand the subject matter, and then I present the unvarnished facts – the same facts that NASA and every other research organization uses. Facts are without opinion, agenda, point of view, politics, or anything else. Facts simply ARE.
One reviewer of my book asked the generic question: Will you agree with everything Dr. Williscroft says? And then answers: Probably not, but the book is based on the premise that facts are verifiable, so check for yourself. The reviewer concludes that he did check on my facts, and found that I was truthful and accurate.
You can do the same, Xeno – if you are sufficiently intellectually honest to do this.
posted by
arGee
on November 10, 2006 at 1:41 PM
| link to this | reply
should I believe you
or NASA
I wonder wher the weight of scientific evidence lies
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 10, 2006 at 8:48 AM
| link to this | reply
It's NOT 'nuff said, Xeno...
Be a little intelligent about your responses, please. You are looking at an artificially generated and colored image that attempts to show the extent of THINNING beyond the "normal" thickness of the ozone layer. In my book, I describe how the thinning happens – my description is not somebody's idea of how it happens, it is ACTUALLY how it happens. I present you real, unadulterated, unaltered FACT, nothing else.
Our planet has ALWAYS had thinning of the ozone at the poles for EXACTLY the reason I gave in my book (in the chapter excerpt you read). This thinning has NOT gotten bigger or smaller, except for cyclical changes that happen and have happened since time immemorial. The ONLY reason NASA even makes an issue of this now is a lame attempt to keep the funding for this kind of research flowing.
You really need to gain an understanding of how the REAL world (physics, chemistry, etc) works. Only then will you be intellectually equipped to discuss these kinds of things. As of now, you sound like a fringe nut who heard something, got it wrong, but is trying to use his "knowledge" to further his point of view.
Real people, intellectually honest people, modify their world view as new information comes to light. So get with it. Learn how things work, and THEN enter the discussion. Right now you're just another ignorant fool spouting off on something about which you don't have a clue!
posted by
arGee
on November 9, 2006 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply
here's the image
and the site
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html
nuff said
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 9, 2006 at 3:22 PM
| link to this | reply
NASA HAS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROGRESSING OF THE HOLE IN THE OZONE
over antarctica.
you know that normal light photographs don't tell us everything.
i wil lhave to check out their website -- but i did see the images -- how's that -- images, not photographs -- that they posted.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 9, 2006 at 3:12 PM
| link to this | reply
You're missing the entire point, Xeno...
In the first place, you cannot photograph the Ozone Hole, because all the gasses involved in this phenomenon are transparent – ergo, no photographs. But the real point is that the hole (actually the thinning) is NATURAL, not man-made, and it is only influenced very slightly by human activities.
In case you missed it in the excerpt from my book, I was the person who actually made the measurements that established the existence of the thinning. I was the guy, on the ground at the South Pole. I took measurements at the exact time that the satellite passed overhead, and so, for the first time in history, was able to measure the actual extent of the thinning. Before that, all the measurements were relative measurements; i.e. the thickness of the ozone layer is x or y percent larger or smaller than at another particular time in the past. I'm the guy who established the benchmark that everyone still uses.
Try to understand the FACTS! The joke was on the entire world. The only guys who were in on it were the researchers on the matter itself. You and everybody else have been had.
The other real irony here is that even if there were a "traveling" hole, and even if it were to cause some kind of increase in ultra-violet at the earth's surface, according to Dr. Singer's worst-case calculations, this increase would be about the difference you experience when you travel from New York City to Miami. That's it; it's simply not a big deal!
The key here is to focus on REAL problems, not on problems that exist only in the minds of agenda-driven lefties.
posted by
arGee
on November 8, 2006 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
NASA HAS PHOTOGRAPHS
sorry to burst your bubble
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 8, 2006 at 3:11 PM
| link to this | reply