[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_freon.txt is what I would regard as a sober " ... 
just the facts ma'am!" statement. It contradicts several of your statements.


Paul the page you sent me to contradicted nothing that I said. Further it 
concerned Freon 113.  .. the major refrigerants of current concern to Australia 
were freon 12 R12 in most if not all domestic refrigeration, and freon 22 , R22 
used in commercial refrigeration.  However I grant that the base elements 
namely carbon, chlorine and fluorine are the same..  therefore we accept that 
after the heavy F12 sinks to the sea or swamp, it breaks up or degrades 
chlorine and fluorocarbon, but  they are still heavier than air.  First up 
Chlorine will always hover near the ground as a pale yellow gas till it is 
dissolved in water or burns in a fire . the bonding of carbon to fluorine is 
too hard to break naturally and so the molecule alone also has a combined mol 
weight greater than air and would rarely get to the 15k + high ozone layer   
Perhaps a tornado or water spout hmmm  but none of these are in my kitchen 
where I canned my flies.

I did not expect to have to revisit this already well debunked hoax, but I will 
see what I can find. Ozone is caused by UV reaction with oxygen. All of the UV 
is filtered out. Ozone is the result .. 3O2 + ^radUV <->   203..   Its an 
unwanted left over..  In fact if it did not decay back to O2 then we would be 
in trouble. If you are seriously interested in a reason for increase in UV 
damage, look to (once again) changes in the frequency spectrum of the sun, and 
its changes (up frequency) where there is an increase in the higher frequencies 
of the UV band, which are not as much affected by O2  .do a search  The sun is 
swinging..  Ozone has little if any effect on UV filtration. Its a poison, get 
rid of it all .. Your sunburn will not change. 

Meanwhile..  the page mentions two manufacturers of freon.. I am sure there 
are/were many more around the world, all licenced to Du pont..  at least till 
the patent run out, and then it became illegal for any one else to bother..  I 
can find a court case if you like where someone tried it under a variable 
structure and name..  

Allied-Signal         Baton Rouge, LA    licensed. by dupont.  

Philip.            
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:39 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change


  Philip M
  Comments in colour. 
  Paul D




  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Tuesday, 5 June, 2007 10:49:31 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change


  Paul said,  Ah! conspiracy. Nobody does anything except they see profit from 
it. Just where -- and I've posed this question a number of times without 
getting a straight forward answer on those rare occasions that I got any answer 
-- is the profit, in this instance, from preaching global warming?

  Who said the preacher profits? The piper profited nothing.. He who pays the 
piper calls the tune...

  Let me leave aside the question of global warming in general, because that is 
a distraction , none is denying, but the reasons alone are disputed. This is a 
clear statement behind which I can get!!! (Shades of WC!).

  Profit? Du Pont a major multinational company stood much to lose but for the 
Ozone hole hoax promotion..  and much to gain by its successful outcome. The 
patents on the standard refrigerants Freon 12 Freon 22 etc had run out. Anyone 
could begin making and selling these gases. DuPont no longer could claim a 
monopoly. DuPont already had patents on alternative replacements.. Freons had 
to be banned....and that was managed worldwide..  AND MIND YOU THE CONSENSUS OF 
SCIENCE , THOSE IN WHOM YOU ARE CONFIDENT SUPPORTED THE CLAIMS. 

  http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_freon.txt is what I would regard as a sober " 
... just the facts ma'am!" statement. It contradicts several of your statements.

  Good you say. the greenie environmental bunnies are happy.  ?  

  Yet , Ozone depletion had nothing to do with aerosols or chlorine.  Freon as 
a gas in the atmosphere is like a brick .. It sinks and flows to the bottom of 
any hole. Reference refutes this. Even the major pollutor volcanoes, which did 
manage to get gases up there had no effect on the ozone layer. What were the 
gasses? Did they include chlorinr?

  Moreover, Ozone is not the UV filter.  oxygen is.   O2 + UV =  O3. Oxygen is 
generally defined as O2. Ozone is simply a different molecule of oxygen - O3. 
But chlorine breaks up O3 and that's the whole point. No solar UV=  no O3. 
Holes in the Ozone layer appeared over the polar winters since creation. ...  
Du Pont profits...  And who profits from global warming scams... we have 
already told you..  Did you check the references? There are plenty of sound 
equations on this one, and lots of bunkum as well.. You need to be able to tell 
the difference. But that battle is over..  you dont hear much about ozone 
anymore.. Perhaps the measures taken were successful? Perhaps its all gone??  
Like theres no more froth on the surf. The new monopoly is private ownership 
control and sale of water...  PROFIT!!!!.  Oh! Philip -- I do despair! |[:-)

  Philip .  

  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Paul Deema 
    To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:48 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change


    JA

    I really must take issue with most of the points in your post From j a Mon 
Jun 4 22:24:03 2007.

    1) Reguardless of any definition - Concensus as used by the warming crowd 
is something like "All of the properly edjucated and degreed professionals who 
work in the approved fields agree except for a few misguided individuals". 

    OK -- paraphrased to reflect your particular prejudices, but pretty close.

    First it's not true, 

    Do you know this or are you just being influenced by others? If you know -- 
what is your reasoning? If you just believe it's true -- why not say so?

    second it's wrong to put your faith in these kinds of statements.

    Why? It seems to me you put your faith in statements by others, as 
evidenced by little or no reasoning. And I would appreciate your not ascribing 
my actions to 'faith' -- it smacks of religious indoctrination. I have 
'confidence' in the sources I quote.

    I suppose it's to much to ask for you to recognise the type of conspiracy 
behind this statement 

    Ah! conspiracy. Nobody does anything except they see profit from it. Just 
where -- and I've posed this question a number of times without getting a 
straight forward answer on those rare occasions that I got any answer -- is the 
profit, in this instance, from preaching global warming?

    where the only peolple whos opinion counts are people who have been trained 
what the opinion should be 

    What is your justification for this assumption? Do you have a degree which 
included opinion training? Do you know any 'degreed' person who has told you 
about opinion training? Have you seen reports from people you don't know who 
have reported opinion training? Or is it just that ' ... everyone knows ... '?

    and in fact thier job and/or grand money is dependant upon sharing that 
opinion.

    I agree that it's difficult the buck the majority -- just look at the 
problems encountered by all those 'unconventional' priests, pastors and 
prelates. But this is as it should be. If you want to rock the boat, you must 
be able to convince the majority that you are right. If this were not not so 
then every organisation in the world would be rendered powerless as they strive 
to implement the opinion gleaned from this afternoon's poll which modified 
yesterday's poll which overturned last week's poll ... Or they could proceed 
unilaterally on the assumption that they are right, disregarding all advice to 
the contrary. Of course there is the other way -- you don't take polls, or seek 
advice you just stride into the town centre with a band of enforcers, make your 
pronouncement, shoot a few of the objectors and entrench your position. It'll 
take longer, but sooner or later another group who just knows you are wrong and 
that the people long for deliverance will similarly stride into town with a 
bigger group of enforcers and the process escalates, pretty much as is 
happening in several Arab countries even as we speak.

    No -- the answer lies in reasoned debate among learned folk who reach 
consensus and convince the elected (hopefully) government of the correctness of 
their position who are entrusted with the task of legislating the future 
direction of the society. If a mistake is made, and many would, with some 
justification, contend that we have a recent glaring example before us at this 
time, there is always another election just ahead (or if you use the latter 
method -- a revolution a bit further down the track).

    No system is perfect, but the one we have works rather better than so many 
alternative models. It really gets interesting of course when we start having 
arguments about changing the system but that is a bit beyond the scope of this 
lesson. |[:-)

    2) Increased sun activity causing increasing temps on other planet can be 
easily looked up and has been reported many places - I cannot believe you 
haven't heard about it.

    I have heard about it.

    If true, does it not lend credibility to the idea that global warming sould 
be caused by it, 

    Here you repeat a mistake which I pointed out yesterday. It is not the Sun 
OR CO2.

    The Earth has several sources of energy of which I am aware though I cannot 
quantify them -- I lack the qualifications necessary. The largest I believe is 
the incident solar flux -- sunlight, about 1kW/m2 of a disk of the Earth's 
diameter. I recall reading that if this were removed, then over time, the 
average temperature would fall to ~-40 deg C. Next we have natural radioactive 
decay. There are a number of these decay sequences but I am even less able to 
quantify these. Then we have friction from tidal forces resulting from 
Earth/Moon interaction. Again no quantification, but if you care to look, you 
can find support for the idea that this force is responsible for the 
extraordinary volcanism on Io orbiting Jupiter so the effect is real. Who knows 
though, even here you may find a dissenting view you could champion. Lastly we 
have the actions of Man.

    My point in all this is that the Earth's temperature is determined by many 
factors, not just a choice between incident solar flux and the percentage of 
CO2 in the atmosphere. To get an answer you must do the sums and that is what 
the consensus of climate scientists claims to have done. At this time I have 
confidence that they are, if not correct, then at least espousing a course of 
action of which a prudent man should take heed.

    indeed perhaps all of the cycles of heating and cooling in the past are the 
result of the suns changing output? 

    I have no doubt that the Sun has changed its output and that it has had an 
effect on the Earth's temperature over a great period of time. The trap into 
which one should take care not to fall is the assumption that it is the only 
factor or even that it is the only factor worth considering.

    Oops! its late, I gotta stop, 

    Hope your sleep was not interrupted by impressions of being slowly baked.


     
    Paul D



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in 
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. 


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 4/06/2007 
6:43 PM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in 
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/06/2007 
2:03 PM

Other related posts: