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