dennislmay

The Junk Science of Climate Change

Recommended Posts

I am interested in a non-polemic challenge to AGWA, or even a straightforward narrative of the terrible Ozone Hoax Fraud. Spell it out, do not just assume it and mutter darkly about darkies and plots and QM.

I will address specifics if you wish to discuss them.

If you can give a non-polemic, straightforward narrative of the Ozone Hoax/Fraud, great. That would be -- from my point of view -- a much more useful post than one in which you simple charge, conclude and assume a hoax and a fraud. I have only seen assertion, opinion and heightened language from you on this subject.

I am not the proponent of some impending doom scenario - it is not my place to prove a negative. Since I have seen nothing to date but junk science and political pull it is up to your side to provide evidence of something serious. With no such evidence and a history of incorrect predictions, false claims, and science fraud exposed at the highest levels I am waiting for you to produce specifics so I can determine their true origin and merit if any. Real science does not have to throw away data, alter old data, hide data from other researchers, lie about the validity of data, or pull tricks in their codes to produce results.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you can't go to the trouble to reference any of this, but ... how about it, Dennis? If you have wrassled with the hoaxers before, and vanquished them (at least in the big online discussions), give it up -- just direct me there that I may read your previous arguments.

Go to Atlantis_II on Yahoo Groups and do a search.

Are you kidding me? That is the best you can do to advance your argument or to direct us to your argument? Tell us to go search for it?

No thanks, but I understand the attitude. I have seen that attitude before.

I have seen the old trick of - you do all the hard work while I do none - trick in many on-line arguments before. If you have a specific topic you want to discuss lay it out with specifics. As I said the issue is settled as far as I am concerned and I am not the one promoting doomsday scenarios with junk science. Present specifics and I will research them if the research is not hidden or data destroyed so it cannot be questioned.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to Atlantis_II on Yahoo Groups and do a search.

Are you kidding me? That is the best you can do to advance your argument or to direct us to your argument? Tell us to go search for it?

No thanks, but I understand the attitude. I have seen that attitude before.

I have seen the old trick of - you do all the hard work while I do none - trick in many on-line arguments before. If you have a specific topic you want to discuss lay it out with specifics.

Tricks. Tricks. Interlocutor Dennis May says "Ozone Hole Hoax Fraud Junk Science." I say, "Oh yeah, where is your Argument, please? Dennis says, over there somewhere, go look for it where I wrote it ...."

I say, "No. If you cannot make your argument here, and you cannot direct to the argument elsewhere, then all we have is your huffing and puffing and conclusions."

The hard work is presumably going through some endless stream of Yahoogroups conversation between (who, Climate Scientists?) Objectivish ranters. The easy work would be you giving an indication of where all this momentous intellectual labour is presented. Not 'over there somewhere.'

Really, dude. You are insulting and now petty and Phil-like.

As I said the issue is settled as far as I am concerned and I am not the one promoting doomsday scenarios with junk science.
Present specifics and I will research them if the research is not hidden or data destroyed so it cannot be questioned.

This is distinctly unimpressive, Dennis. If you have specifics in re your assertions Ozone Hole Fraud Hoax Junk Science, great, as I said. If you are too lazy and unwilling to support your assertions with argument, that reflects on you, nobody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to Atlantis_II on Yahoo Groups and do a search.

Are you kidding me? That is the best you can do to advance your argument or to direct us to your argument? Tell us to go search for it?

No thanks, but I understand the attitude. I have seen that attitude before.

I have seen the old trick of - you do all the hard work while I do none - trick in many on-line arguments before. If you have a specific topic you want to discuss lay it out with specifics.

Tricks. Tricks. Interlocutor Dennis May says "Ozone Hole Hoax Fraud Junk Science." I say, "Oh yeah, where is your Argument, please? Dennis says, over there somewhere, go look for it where I wrote it ...."

I say, "No. If you cannot make your argument here, and you cannot direct to the argument elsewhere, then all we have is your huffing and puffing and conclusions. Just the end point, the assertion phase. That is so weak.

As I said the issue is settled as far as I am concerned and I am not the one promoting doomsday scenarios with junk science.
Present specifics and I will research them if the research is not hidden or data destroyed so it cannot be questioned.

This is distinctly unimpressive, Dennis. If you have specifics in re Ozone Hole Fraud Hoax Junk Science, great, as I said. If you are too lazy and unwilling to support your assertions with argument, that reflects on you, nobody else.

Again I am not the proponent of fantastic ever evolving claims concerning impending climate doom - if you have a specific claim which can be examined - state it - if not the crank is the claimant of the fantastic - not those who question those making fantastic claims. I have stated my belief that there is no real science behind such claims - present it openly for all to see and we will look at it. All such claims I have looked into in the past have been found baseless - perhaps you can enlighten us all with an argument not heard before. I have in fact learned from previous engagements - in some cases the errors were not that obvious and required work beyond that I expected in order to find the error. Hones my skills don't you know.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

william.scherk wrote:

Peter Taylor has shown quite a gift for nationalizing insults (with Angela); here he runs off into Two Species Wonderland, and it ain't pretty.

end quote

Wonderland? ”To boldly go where no one has gone before . . . “ William, don’t you need to recognize the facts to go where no one has gone before? The facts are not a fabricated, “Wonderland.” And Mea culpa! My jingoistic jokes like Angela in a Panzer or calling Canada, Canadia, our 51st state, are meant to cause a laugh, not hurt.

Dennis May wrote:

Real science does not have to throw away data, alter old data, hide data from other researchers, lie about the validity of data, or pull tricks in their codes to produce results.

end quote

Dennis, I am astounded at the size of the outright fraud. You are in a class with Australian climate expert Ian Plimer and Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark.

Robert Tracinski recently wrote:

It occurred to me a while back that there is something worse about this invocation of Galileo, because there is a modern-day equivalent to Galileo, specifically on the issue of global warming—and he's on the other side. In this more civilized age, he is thankfully not threatened with torture or any kind of persecution. But he is a pioneer of new and important scientific truths who is being ignored and vilified because his discoveries run counter to the quasi-religious dogma of our day.

That man is the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who seems to have discovered the most important factor that actually regulates Earth's climate, and who is quietly in the process of proving it . . . .

end quote

Amen. Now I must tweek the Canadian Billy Goat for impuning the most rational Dennis May. Let me close with the Australian National Anthem.

Let me abos go loose, Lew

Let me abos go loose

They're of no further use, Lew

So let me abos go loose

Altogether now!

Tie me kangaroo down, sport

Tie me kangaroo down

Tie me kangaroo down, sport

Tie me kangaroo down

Do you really not get it, William?

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

william.scherk wrote:

Peter Taylor has shown quite a gift for nationalizing insults (with Angela); here he runs off into Two Species Wonderland, and it ain't pretty.

end quote

Wonderland? ”To boldly go where no one has gone before . . . “ William, don’t you need to recognize the facts to go where no one has gone before? The facts are not a fabricated, “Wonderland.” And Mea culpa! My jingoistic jokes like Angela in a Panzer or calling Canada, Canadia, our 51st state, are meant to cause a laugh, not hurt.

Do you really not get it, William?

Peter Taylor

Peter, Canadia was funny and did cause a laugh. I enjoy the Canuckistan banter here very much, I start some of it myself. But surely you can see the difference between Amcan jokes, and Panzer references, as causes for humour. I am assuming you were just not thinking, and if you had thought of Oktoberfest or David Hassellhoff you would have used them instead.

I didn't see that comment, but I'm assuming X probably ignored it as one of her admirable qualities is her imperturbable focus on a serious topic she's pursuing, along with her contributions to fun when real fun is being had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
william.scherk wrote: Peter Taylor has shown quite a gift for nationalizing insults (with Angela); here he runs off into Two Species Wonderland, and it ain't pretty. end quote Wonderland? ”To boldly go where no one has gone before . . . “ William, don’t you need to recognize the facts to go where no one has gone before? The facts are not a fabricated, “Wonderland.” And Mea culpa! My jingoistic jokes like Angela in a Panzer or calling Canada, Canadia, our 51st state, are meant to cause a laugh, not hurt. Dennis May wrote: Real science does not have to throw away data, alter old data, hide data from other researchers, lie about the validity of data, or pull tricks in their codes to produce results. end quote Dennis, I am astounded at the size of the outright fraud. You are in a class with Australian climate expert Ian Plimer and Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark. Robert Tracinski recently wrote: It occurred to me a while back that there is something worse about this invocation of Galileo, because there is a modern-day equivalent to Galileo, specifically on the issue of global warming—and he's on the other side. In this more civilized age, he is thankfully not threatened with torture or any kind of persecution. But he is a pioneer of new and important scientific truths who is being ignored and vilified because his discoveries run counter to the quasi-religious dogma of our day. That man is the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who seems to have discovered the most important factor that actually regulates Earth's climate, and who is quietly in the process of proving it . . . . end quote Amen. Now I must tweek the Canadian Billy Goat for impuning the most rational Dennis May. Let me close with the Australian National Anthem. Let me abos go loose, Lew Let me abos go loose They're of no further use, Lew So let me abos go loose Altogether now! Tie me kangaroo down, sport Tie me kangaroo down Tie me kangaroo down, sport Tie me kangaroo down Do you really not get it, William? Peter Taylor

"the most rational Dennis May" - best compiment I recall ever receiving.

During my two stints in the QM battle of hearts and minds at graduate

school I failed to get a PhD - I like the looks of

Dennis May, TMR

New titles have to start somewhere :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I am not the proponent of fantastic ever evolving claims concerning impending climate doom

I have become a reader of Atlantis II at Yahoogroups, that fine platform for science discussion. I have come across Dennis May's opinions in several threads, threads of discussion turned up by "searches" as recommended.

Yes, I searched for what I hoped to find, somebody giving an argument about ozone.

if you have a specific claim which can be examined - state it

"The Ozone Hole was a fraud, a hoax" -- that is what I sifted out. The same loosey-goosey ranting over-generalization you have peddled in this thread.

if not the crank is the claimant of the fantastic

If I am a crank just because I ask you to give your argument, give an argument to back up your assertions about Ozone, then I am just a crank. But it seems to me that the person who evades giving simple answers to straight-up inquiry would be the crank, the crackpot, the Phil. However, I bow to the record at Atlantis II, especially because you rolled back your claim upon someone checking your excesses:

>Michael DeVault wrote:

>"Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud."

>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

>but never tested chemicals never used in

>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.

Jeepers, Dennis. You do not even remember your own caveats ... I am shocked. Shocked, I say.

not those who question those making fantastic claims. I have stated my belief that there is no real science behind such claims

Such claims! Such Thoses, too! Them, nameless theys and those. Such and so and so and bad people, but no names and no cites and no papers and so I rest my case, counsellor. Yours are assertions and charges and allegations -- and not much case. Not much to examine, after all.

Thanks for being so churlish, so small, so pontifical and misremembering of your own rants from yesterday. I had not wanted to mis-sort you into the crackpot file, and I do what to give you an opportunity to lay out some coherent argument concerning Ozone, ozone depletion, CFCs, Montreal ban, stats, current research and knowledge-base ... and so on. I leave open the possibility you continue to follow scientific debate on these issues.

But hey, this is OL, and if we get a Gawd indwelling in J Neil, we can get a Fraud/Hoax squad. If you want to play inplacable anti-AGWA Fraud halfback on the team, great.

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

Present it all openly, yes. Yes. Here is where it was presented openly for all to see, at Atlantis II:

Ozone Hole scientific fraud in data presentation is what got me started

watching "Global Warming" as it became the new religion.

All such claims I have looked into in the past have been found baseless - perhaps you can enlighten us all with an argument not heard before. I have in fact learned from previous engagements

Yes. Although I still search for more than bold assertions, for a summary of the fraud, for some notes on the hoax, I would like you to sum up, list, underline the whole awful Ozone 'thing' that we should all gnash our teeth and froth our mouths about.

in some cases the errors were not that obvious and required work beyond that I expected in order to find the error. Hones my skills don't you know.

Yes. Somewhere over that rainbow, however ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I am not the proponent of fantastic ever evolving claims concerning impending climate doom

I have become a reader of Atlantis II at Yahoogroups, that fine platform for science discussion. I have come across Dennis May's opinions in several threads, threads of discussion turned up by "searches" as recommended.

Yes, I searched for what I hoped to find, somebody giving an argument about ozone.

if you have a specific claim which can be examined - state it

"The Ozone Hole was a fraud, a hoax" -- that is what I sifted out. The same loosey-goosey ranting over-generalization you have peddled in this thread.

if not the crank is the claimant of the fantastic

If I am a crank just because I ask you to give your argument, give an argument to back up your assertions about Ozone, then I am just a crank. But it seems to me that the person who evades giving simple answers to straight-up inquiry would be the crank, the crackpot, the Phil. However, I bow to the record at Atlantis II, especially because you rolled back your claim upon someone checking your excesses:

>Michael DeVault wrote:

>"Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud."

>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

>but never tested chemicals never used in

>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.

Jeepers, Dennis. You do not even remember your own caveats ... I am shocked. Shocked, I say.

not those who question those making fantastic claims. I have stated my belief that there is no real science behind such claims

Such claims! Such Thoses, too! Them, nameless theys and those. Such and so and so and bad people, but no names and no cites and no papers and so I rest my case, counsellor. Yours are assertions and charges and allegations -- and not much case. Not much to examine, after all.

Thanks for being so churlish, so small, so pontifical and misremembering of your own rants from yesterday. I had not wanted to mis-sort you into the crackpot file, and I do what to give you an opportunity to lay out some coherent argument concerning Ozone, ozone depletion, CFCs, Montreal ban, stats, current research and knowledge-base ... and so on. I leave open the possibility you continue to follow scientific debate on these issues.

But hey, this is OL, and if we get a Gawd indwelling in J Neil, we can get a Fraud/Hoax squad. If you want to play inplacable anti-AGWA Fraud halfback on the team, great.

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

Present it all openly, yes. Yes. Here is where it was presented openly for all to see, at Atlantis II:

Ozone Hole scientific fraud in data presentation is what got me started

watching "Global Warming" as it became the new religion.

All such claims I have looked into in the past have been found baseless - perhaps you can enlighten us all with an argument not heard before. I have in fact learned from previous engagements

Yes. Although I still search for more than bold assertions, for a summary of the fraud, for some notes on the hoax, I would like you to sum up, list, underline the whole awful Ozone 'thing' that we should all gnash our teeth and froth our mouths about.

in some cases the errors were not that obvious and required work beyond that I expected in order to find the error. Hones my skills don't you know.

Yes. Somewhere over that rainbow, however ...

Yet again you have not presented anything specific to be discussed on the Ozone Hole or Climate Change - yet you wish to stand by fantastic claims which once specified could actually be argued and discussed. 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.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Request: Would someone reading this thread who isn't a member of Atlantis_II click on the link in WSS's post #33 and see if you're taken to the Atlantis message? It shows for me, but I'm a member. (Atlantis_II is supposed to be readable only by members, hence my curiosity as to what would show if a non-member clicks the link.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Request: Would someone reading this thread who isn't a member of Atlantis_II click on the link in WSS's post #33 and see if you're taken to the Atlantis message? It shows for me, but I'm a member. (Atlantis_II is supposed to be readable only by members, hence my curiosity as to what would show if a non-member clicks the link.)

Ellen

To enjoy this Web-only feature of atlantis_II, you need to enable Web Access.

With Web Access, you'll enjoy your group's online photos, polls, links, message archive search, and more!

Get Web Access to atlantis_II

If you already receive email from atlantis_II, it's easy to get Web Access and make your Yahoo! Group experience complete.

To activate Web Access for atlantis_II, click "Get Started Now".

Not a Member of atlantis_II?

If you are not currently a member of atlantis_II, join this group now.

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

This is what you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daunce wrote:

I am assuming you were just not thinking . . .

end quote

Where I live, captured POW Germans, worked in conditions that we would now call work-release circumstances and then they were sent back to Germany after the war. German submarines, during WWII sent English speaking sailors to the shores of eastern Virginia to buy groceries. They paid with gold coins. They were decent chaps. Some were captured the second time they showed up at a store, sometimes after days of hiding in the marshes. I heard stories about rationing – coupons for sugar and coffee. My mother even found some old rationing coupons before she went into the old folks home.

I grew up watching war movies. The Ninth Panzer Division assaulting Stalingrad. Victory at Sea with its rousing score by Richard Rogers. Generals Rommel and Patten. I don’t associate German Panzers with the SS or the holocaust. Instead, to me, they were brave warriors fighting to the death, for their country. My dad never cared much for Germans. “We fought those Nazi bastards to the death,” he would say, and he really despised American Nazi’s and the Klan with their swastikas.

My wife and I were recently going through old coins and memorabilia that I have and selling them. We don’t need the money, by my kids have no interest in them. My dad had what I thought was a Masonic sword, but when my wife pulled it out of its protective sheath, we found out it had a swastika on it, which surprised me because my dad hated the Nazis so strongly. I got two cents a piece for about twenty pounds of old copper Wheat pennies. Rolls of circulated, silver dimes were 2 dollars apiece. Even a roll and a half of war nickels that had silver in them brought 50 cents apiece. The nickel was used in armaments during the second world war. I bought my wife a ruby ring for Valentine’s Day.

I still have a cigar box of more valuably dated silver coins that weren’t worth what I thought they were worth on the internet, but it is still 20 to 50 times face value. I was going to take them to a dealer today but we were supposed to have snow.

Alvederzein, Shalom, So long, Farewell, Goodbye, Til we meet again.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Thanks re post #36. Nice to have confirmation that Atlantis_II really is, as it's said to be, readable only by members. Not that it matters with most of the posts, but occassionally subscribers do post things they're disinclined to have searchable by web engines.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt any philosophy people need be concerned, but in Internet marketing, there is one course I went through where they taught you to go into Yahoo groups (and a few other places) precisely because they were not crawled by search engines.

You join a Yahoo group, say about dog training, and just rip off the interesting posts. You change a word here and there and do some SEO keyword preparations on each one. Then set up an autoblog. (btw - This is crawled by search engines.) This means you load up the posts in a drip-feed release schedule, fill the blog with ads, set up an automated backlink system, and voila, you have an automatic money pump. People go to it from the search engines. No need to do a lot of writing--meaning no need to do any writing per se--and you only need to fiddle with it when the posts run out.

Google recently did an overhaul to its algorithm called Panda which makes this a little harder (now keyword preparation is more elaborate and you need more than backlinks to rank), but it's still doable and I would wager there are people pumping it along according to a slightly modified recipe.

The concept behind this system runs against my morals on several levels, so I never did it--never even thought about doing it, really. I learn this stuff for protection, as prevention for when my own Internet marketing thing takes off for real.

Also, I think it's fun to learn this stuff.

(Heh... the things I have learned, too... :smile: )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. 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.
  2. This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  3. Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  4. Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[....] 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 or finding 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The burden would fall on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

>but never tested chemicals never used in

>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 ...

  1. Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
  2. 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
  3. Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
  4. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
  5. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
  6. Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
  7. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
  8. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
  9. Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
  10. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
  11. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
  12. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
  13. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
  14. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
  15. 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).
  16. 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.
  17. Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
  18. an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
  19. a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
  20. The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
  21. This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
  22. Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens
  23. Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.
  24. 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).
  25. Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.
  26. The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.
  27. 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.
  28. 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).
  29. 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.
  30. Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.
  31. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...