Jump to content






Photo

The Junk Science of Climate Change


  • Please log in to reply
213 replies to this topic

#41 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:33 PM

Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole

Ellen helps reveal some facts -- that Atlantis II at Yahoo is not quite reachable by all OL members. This is as it should be, I guess. I accepted the challenge to go search for your arguments about Ozone and found what I quoted above. The rest is cloaked from general view until you or I reveal it.

But let's put that aside. Let me play my part as prescribed by you. Above you tell us what I haven't done, from your point of view. I have not presented anything specifici to be discussed on the Ozone Hole. So, I must present something specific, open up something for discussion.

That is probably right.

So, how about some specific statements?
  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).
+++++++++++++++++++

So, there are a few specifics, laid out in assertion form, Phil-style, ready for refutation. They are ready to be picked off as evidence of Fraud or Hoaxing. And I have not even got started in fairly blandly laying out background material sufficient to understand Ozone ...

So, Dennis -- the subject is Ozone. Ozone, Ozone depletion, Ozone generation, Ozone, Ozone, Ozone. Not the blacks or the QM mafias or da Jooz or the evul sciences that have opprossed you.

Climate Change - yet you wish to stand by fantastic claims which once specified could actually be argued and discussed.

This makes me think of the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do. My fantastic, lurid, garish, even burlesque 'claims' are just above. Choose your weapon and attack. Yabba Yabba Do Dabba Do, baby.

Proponents of the fanstastic need to present data and theory supporting their claims for examination. To date every time specific claims are examined they are found to be without merit.

I am sure I speak for the entire class, Mr May, when I say I really look forward to your axe-work on the Hoaxery and Fraudulizing contained above. I want to see your axe-work as you set out to smash the rather ho-hum knowledge humans have garnered in re Ozone, your veddy skeddy bugaboo.

So far you have presented generic background information - please continue.

Dennis

#42 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:40 PM


Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole

  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).

So far you have presented generic background information - please continue.


I think I will take a break, Dennis. I had assumed a discussion, not a Philip Coates-style learning-by-torture session, full of Teacher sighing, "I am waaaaaiiiiiting, class ...." tap tap tap. Come on, Dennis, no one will steal your lunch if you discuss. The blackboard is yours to teach, to show how Ozone Fraud Hoax was manifest ...

You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this. If there is anything in the above claims that sniffs the least little bit like hoaxerizing or fraudulization, this is your chance to tell us, sir. The bell rings at 3 so we can go home. The chalk is on the ledge.

Edited by william.scherk, 11 February 2012 - 03:43 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#43 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:06 PM



Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole

  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).

So far you have presented generic background information - please continue.



I think I will take a break, Dennis. I had assumed a discussion, not a Philip Coates-style learning-by-torture session, full of Teacher sighing, "I am waaaaaiiiiiting, class ...." tap tap tap. Come on, Dennis, no one will steal your lunch if you discuss. The blackboard is yours to teach, to show how Ozone Fraud Hoax was manifest ...

You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this. If there is anything in the above claims that sniffs the least little bit like hoaxerizing or fraudulization, this is your chance to tell us, sir. The bell rings at 3 so we can go home. The chalk is on the ledge.

In my own experience the lesson is learned best when you discover the problems for yourself. If you start heading the wrong way - I will be happy to point you in the right direction so you can discover the errors for yourself. I don't know your background and like I said it took more effort than I expected when I looked for the errors. Everything you need I was able to find on line 3 years ago. Again I am not the one making the fantastic proposals involving climate doom. I am not the proponent - the proponent should understand what he is a proponent of and the roots of where the proposals came from. I think you will be at least mildly surprised when you discover the roots and what they did and did not include.

I am not trying to be an ass - there is a real problem for you to discover. From your comments you don't trust my views on things so I would be happy to help you discover it for yourself. Hint1: look at the original chemical lab research. I will be happy to point to the next hint once your find that.

Dennis

#44 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:09 PM




Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole

  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).

So far you have presented generic background information - please continue.


You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this.

In my own experience the lesson is learned best when you discover the problems for yourself. If you start heading the wrong way - I will be happy to point you in the right direction so you can discover the errors for yourself.

OK. So, I will fall back onto trusting you to come out of the bushes and screech a warning if I or anyone should begin to tumble off the One True Path. So far, everyone is safe. Let us continue:
  • There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
  • Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
  • an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
  • a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
  • The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
  • This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  • Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  • Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  • Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
  • Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
  • The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.
  • The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
  • In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
  • Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
  • Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.
  • It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

I am not the one making the fantastic proposals involving climate doom.

Of course. Some fifteen twists of the thread back, however, you were claiming FRAUD and HOAX, without specifying just where this fraudulous hoaxerogations had been accomplished, without attaching a name or statement or other ID to this horriblocity.

I am not the proponent - the proponent should understand what he is a proponent of and the roots of where the proposals came from.

I accept that you are not making any proposals at all in the last turns of this thread: you have challenged me to lay out what I believe is known; you are then going to possibly give hints to me and simpler and bluster and hide behind the veils and dance along without engaging in good faith ...

I am not trying to be an ass - there is a real problem for you to discover. From your comments you don't trust my views on things so I would be happy to help you discover it for yourself.

I accept the learning-by-torture formulation of your Lesson Plan.

Please continue with the hinting and gurning and "Not Me" and general all-round fun. Ass is as Ass does, methinks, Mr Teacher Expert. Asses/Donkeys are known for their stubbornness, also for the sterility of their cross-bred hybrids via horses, Mules.

Mulishness would better describe your lumbering avoidance of specifics entombed in your Ozone FraudHoax charge.

Edited by william.scherk, 11 February 2012 - 05:15 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#45 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:45 PM





Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole

  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).

So far you have presented generic background information - please continue.



You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this.

In my own experience the lesson is learned best when you discover the problems for yourself. If you start heading the wrong way - I will be happy to point you in the right direction so you can discover the errors for yourself.

OK. So, I will fall back onto trusting you to come out of the bushes and screech a warning if I or anyone should begin to tumble off the One True Path. So far, everyone is safe. Let us continue:
  • There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
  • Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
  • an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
  • a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
  • The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
  • This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  • Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  • Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  • Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
  • Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
  • The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.
  • The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
  • In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
  • Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
  • Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.
  • It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

I am not the one making the fantastic proposals involving climate doom.


Of course. Some fifteen twists of the thread back, however, you were claiming FRAUD and HOAX, without specifying just where this fraudulous hoaxerogations had been accomplished, without attaching a name or statement or other ID to this horriblocity.

I am not the proponent - the proponent should understand what he is a proponent of and the roots of where the proposals came from.

I accept that you are not making any proposals at all in the last turns of this thread: you have challenged me to lay out what I believe is known; you are then going to possibly give hints to me and simpler and bluster and hide behind the veils and dance along without engaging in good faith ...

I am not trying to be an ass - there is a real problem for you to discover. From your comments you don't trust my views on things so I would be happy to help you discover it for yourself.

I accept the learning-by-torture formulation of your Lesson Plan.

Please continue with the hinting and gurning and "Not Me" and general all-round fun. Ass is as Ass does, methinks, Mr Teacher Expert. Asses/Donkeys are known for their stubbornness, also for the sterility of their cross-bred hybrids via horses, Mules.

Mulishness would better describe your lumbering avoidance of specifics entombed in your Ozone FraudHoax charge.

Now we are getting into the realm of claims which are the source of disagreement:

These are the bullet points of contention:

  • There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
  • This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  • Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  • Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  • Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
  • The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
  • In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
  • Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
  • It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

Your next step is to locate the original lab research from which these many bullet points arise. Again I would expect at least mild surprise when you discover what these experiments do and do not include. Next partial hint: What types of experiments were never done?

Dennis May

#46 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

  • there are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
  • This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  • Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  • Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  • Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
  • The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
  • In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
  • Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
Your next step is to locate the original lab research from which these many bullet points arise. Again I would expect at least mild surprise when you discover what these experiments do and do not include. Next partial hint: What types of experiments were never done?

Like I said, I will take a break. We two are not the only participants in discussion. If you find in these last statements some whiffs of fraud or hoaxing, I fully expect you to denote one of the numbered points for critique. Your roundabout Phil Coates-ish Dance of Veils is tiresome and obvious.

I expect you, Dennis, to support your contentions of Fraud and Hoax. I mean, I expect a reasonable, reasoning person who objects to some aspect or finding of Ozone chemistry to put forward his objections.

I do not accept that you cannot (since you have written that you can), so I must accept that you will not.

So, I will give it a few days and check back to see if you are still stuck in non-response mode.

It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#47 Ellen Stuttle

Ellen Stuttle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 5,299 posts
  • Interests:Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:31 PM

Tabulating to have all the bulleted points in one post.

William, post #40:

Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).



Dennis, post #41, accepts that list as "generic background information."


William adds further points, post #44:


There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.
The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.
It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.


Dennis, post #45, accepts:

Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."

and:

Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.

and:

Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.




Dennis (post #45) lists these as "the bullet points of contention":

There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

#48 Ellen Stuttle

Ellen Stuttle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 5,299 posts
  • Interests:Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:49 PM

[....] Your [Dennis'] roundabout Phil Coates-ish Dance of Veils is tiresome and obvious.


I fail to see the "Coates-ish"ness in Dennis' replies. And, hint, Dennis probably hasn't followed any of the stuff about Phil, thus the attempted insult is useless.


I expect you, Dennis, to support your contentions of Fraud and Hoax. I mean, I expect a reasonable, reasoning person who objects to some aspect or finding of Ozone chemistry to put forward his objections.


William, it's you who are claiming that all the points you listed are "aspect[s] or finding[s] of Ozone chemistry," but that's just the rub. On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

Ellen

#49 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:52 PM

Actually, from my rhetorical knowledge and debate knowledge, what is the status quo position?

The burden would fall on the other side.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#50 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:06 PM

Here's a helpful bit of exposition from a summary article at Wikipedia. This gives a little further edge to unremarkable science, but perhaps sharpens our focus on just what it is that Dennis May considers fraudulencing and hoaxeronony:

[T]he primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs).



In the rest of this comment, Emphases added. Bold for claims by Dennis May. Bold blue for unremarkable scientific findings. Red bold for iffy-ish statements IDed by Dennis's sniffs, clues from earlier statements on OL and Atlantis II,

In the last big on-line discussions I had about the Ozone Hole I traced back some of the junk science and found that they neglected the surface chemical storage properties of dusts and colloidal suspensions rendering most of their claims about chlorine compounds in the air and various chemical pathways useless - and as of about 3 years ago none of that junk science has been corrected.


Go to Atlantis_II on Yahoo Groups and do a search.
>"[Dennis's interlocutor on Atlantis II] Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud."

[Dennis himself]
>Not all of it - just portions. Graphing fraud,
>links to amphibian declines fraud, hiding data
>that does not support the consensus fraud,
>sweeping generalizations fraud [banning similar
[b]>but never tested chemicals never used in[/b]
>significant quantities anyway]. Like global
>warming every politically popular abuse went in -
>another politial abuse of science leading to
>uncertainty in the quality of the science and the
>results presented. In both cases it will take
>generations to sort truth from fraud - and only
>then if science actually recovers.



present it openly for all to see and we will look at it.

[+ Dennis at Atlantis II]:

Ozone Hole scientific fraud in data presentation is what got me started
watching "Global Warming" as it became the new religion.

And yet, and yet! As yet, no reference to the specific data presentation fraud in re the Ozone Hole!

So, back to what we think we may know so far ...
  • Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  • Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
  • Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  • Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  • The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  • Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  • Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  • Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  • Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  • Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  • Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  • Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  • Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  • Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  • The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).
  • There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
  • Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
  • an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
  • a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
  • The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
  • This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  • Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  • Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  • Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).
  • Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
  • The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.
  • The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.
  • In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).
  • Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.
  • Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.
  • It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge
So, if upon my return from Mount Research, Dennis has advanced some evidence against the red items, all will rejoice.



For 16, Dennis can adduce some evidence showing robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, how it is produced and how it is depleted

For 21, Dennis can presumably find some evidence against the discovery of 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.

For 22, Dennis may be able to find research findings or observations that supplant the accepted measurements, that atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens.

For 23, Dennis may be forthcoming with evidence against the scientific finding that atmospheric Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Again, this is atmospheric chemistry, a measurement and an observation. The claim is that human-manufactured refrigerents enter the atmosphere and leave catalytic derivatives (atomic halogens) that act to 'crack' Ozone. Two things must be disproved to disprove the conclusions of 23. Can Dennis do this?

For 24, Dennis can no doubt find multiple instances in which the halocarbons (Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined to have no role to play in the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, and thus show evidence that the halocarbons should not be seen as Ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

For 27, it is not clear what Dennis may take issue with. If Ozone Holes do expose the surface of the earth (and its living biota) to increased amounts of UVB -- AND -- if a causal connection can be demonstrated between ODS and Ozone depletion in the stratosphere, sone certainly would argue that such increased harmful radiation is a cause for concern -- especially if the connection dials back to human-produced catalytic substances.

Now 28, perhaps Dennis can show something from the atmospherics and climatological literature that features clashes, disagreements, disarray and confusion with regard to Ozone holes. The fact is there isn't much confusion in re Ozone holes to be found. I suspect that Dennis does not bother reading any literature in these areas.

29 is fairly straightforward. It notes overlapping concerns with CFCs in climatology. I have no idea what is wrong with that observation. That CFCs are part of what are called 'greenhouse gases' is hardly counterfactual. If Dennis can find otherwise, supercalifragilistic.

Finally, in 31, Dennis seems to look down his nose at the notion that the fellow who charges Fraud and Hoax should be able to present evidence in support of the charge.

That just makes me sigh for him, his wife, the local feedlot staff, and for the future of armchair de-hoaxerology.

Edited by william.scherk, 11 February 2012 - 07:13 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#51 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:14 PM

...On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

Exactly why I am asking the proponent to go back to the original research, find out what it does and does not include, what types of experiments were never done, and then we can discuss the evidence. Once you see what research has and has not been done then we can discuss the merit of conclusions in light of basic science and its verfication through experiment.

Dennis

#52 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:28 PM

William, it's you who are claiming that all the points you listed are "aspect[s] or finding[s] of Ozone chemistry," but that's just the rub. On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

You come late to the opera, Ellen. The dance of the veils is indeed Dennis's, since I have attempted to pinpoint just where he claims hoax and fraud. I am doing a two-step (and with your help, a square-dance) with Dennis, asking him to put some flesh on the bones of his claims of fraud and hoax.

Thank you for the presentation of the list of contentions. It may be that I and only I must rove on in trying to find the 'falsifications' -- since Dennis (and you, now) tell me that this is my job. Like I say, I will come back in a week or so and see what material has been adduced by the Ozone Hole Fraud Squad.

But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.'

Ultimately, I want some facts, If we have so far outlined some facts and facts possibly in dispute, I have done well so far.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#53 Ellen Stuttle

Ellen Stuttle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 5,299 posts
  • Interests:Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:33 PM

Actually, from my rhetorical knowledge and debate knowledge, what is the status quo position?

The burden would fall on the other side.


Adam, we're talking about scientific issues, which are (supposed to be) backed up by evidence not by "the status quo position." I'm well aware that that "little" requirement called evidence has gone by the wayside in much current dispute on the truth and falisity of claims made in the name of "science" -- and that appeals to "consensus" are dragged in as if they were appropriate or relevant. But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Ellen

#54 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:33 PM

Actually, from my rhetorical knowledge and debate knowledge, what is the status quo position?

The burden would fall on the other side.

The static quo position from a political point of view has been settled in favor of the theory that chemicals "deemed harmful" to the Ozone Layer must be banned. It has entered into the new political catch phrase - "Settled Science". As a politically Settled Science no more experiments are required to verify the validity of previously reached conclusions - as such no govenment funding will be forthcoming to challenge those findings.

From the purely scientific point of view there is no such thing as a settled science and the burden rests on the proponent of a theory. This process was short-circuited.

Dennis

#55 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:40 PM


William, it's you who are claiming that all the points you listed are "aspect[s] or finding[s] of Ozone chemistry," but that's just the rub. On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

You come late to the opera, Ellen. The dance of the veils is indeed Dennis's, since I have attempted to pinpoint just where he claims hoax and fraud. I am doing a two-step (and with your help, a square-dance) with Dennis, asking him to put some flesh on the bones of his claims of fraud and hoax.

Thank you for the presentation of the list of contentions. It may be that I and only I must rove on in trying to find the 'falsifications' -- since Dennis (and you, now) tell me that this is my job. Like I say, I will come back in a week or so and see what material has been adduced by the Ozone Hole Fraud Squad.

But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.'

Ultimately, I want some facts, If we have so far outlined some facts and facts possibly in dispute, I have done well so far.

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science. We are now at the stage of requiring the basic reasearch and data to be explored. Discussing conclusions is getting the cart before the horse. I already looked into the basic research I am asking the proponent to do the same so we are both on the same page in understanding what the proponent is asking us to believe. I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but the science which has or has not been done to support their conclusions.

Dennis

#56 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:48 PM

But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Hurrah!

Seriously, and more pointedly, a question for Ellen. I appreciate what she may be trying to do -- that each of us is trying to do -- ID particular points of contention and give them a workover. I am game. Dennis has done it all before and considers it settled, so he is probably not game at all.

So, you, dear lady, are you in this game, or merely keeping score and scolding? Will you be putting forward any argument about Ozone depletion yourself? Are you on a particular side here, or part of the Neutral Observer mission?

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science.

Yes, I think most of us here would get on the same page that A Claim Needs Evidence to support it.

As I remarked above, and as Ellen has magnificently listed, there are some issues that lay between you and acceptance. I understand that. I understand that you yourself will be no help in pinpointing those issues. I hope I use my week well. I shall be concentrating on that which most interests me, the unremarkable observation that "Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion." I will report back on this.

But, again, just to say it one more time: Dennis, you charged fraud and hoax. Adam and I are asking: who should be coming up with evidence of fraud and hoax in Ozone depletion? You, me, him, Ellen, Santa? This question you do not answer ....

Edited by william.scherk, 11 February 2012 - 08:01 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#57 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:55 PM

But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Hurrah!

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science.

Yes, I think most of us here would get on the same page that A Claim Needs Evidence to support it.

As I remarked above, and as Ellen has magnificently listed, there are some issues that lay between you and acceptance. I understand that. I understand that you yourself will be no help in pinpointing those issues. I hope I use my week well.

But, again, just to say it one more time: Dennis, you charged fraud and hoax. Adam and I are asking: who should be coming up with evidence of fraud and hoax in Ozone depletion? You, me, him, Ellen, Santa? This question you will not answer ....

After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot get the cart before the horse on basic science.

Dennis

#58 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:08 PM

Dennis wrote:
I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but {what} the science has or has not been done to support their conclusions.
end quote

When Dennis is “published,” I hope he will be given VIP Status. I don’t have the math skills, but “Deterministic Quantum Mechanics” is the correct path. There have been many hoaxes in Scientific History, like Cold Fusion, The Cardiff Giant, The Perpetual Motion Machine, The Piltdown Man, and Lamarckian Inheritance. Man made Ozone Depletion? Man made global warming? The truth will out.

Heil, General Maximus May, gladiator. May you claim your rightful place.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#59 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:23 PM

After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot get the cart before the horse on basic science.

I will be blogging my findings during my week away. Beyond blathering about meta-argument and blowing off the burden of proof, you are just not very interesting to discuss with at times, rather bluntly do you disregard my concerns. So I will discuss my findings with myself and see where I get to, off the main rink ... having slayed the dragon here, you may continue declaiming and expostulating without fear of contradiction.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#60 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:27 PM

Dennis wrote:
I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but {what} the science has or has not been done to support their conclusions.
end quote

When Dennis is “published,” I hope he will be given VIP Status. I don’t have the math skills, but “Deterministic Quantum Mechanics” is the correct path. There have been many hoaxes in Scientific History, like Cold Fusion, The Cardiff Giant, The Perpetual Motion Machine, The Piltdown Man, and Lamarckian Inheritance. Man made Ozone Depletion? Man made global warming? The truth will out.

Heil, General Maximus May, gladiator. May you claim your rightful place.
Peter Taylor

Well you got me to laugh out loud on that one.

It is a sad day when there are millions of scientists out there, an Internet full of information, but the application
of elementary scientific method seems to elude so many.

Dennis






Recent blog entries on this topic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users