View Single Post
  #38   Report Post  
Big Bill
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:59:43 -0800, Mike Kohary
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:12:45 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:28 -0800, Mike Kohary
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James"
wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...

Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
large hole above the arctic.

Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
due to natural forces.

It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.


Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.


The scientific literature says otherwise.


No, the scientific literature that *you* read and give credence to
says so.
How long have we been monitoring the ozone layers?
How long have they been there?
What was their behaviour before we started monitoring them?
Any breakdown in answering those questions (especially the last) means
we just don't know what he current behaviour means. We only know what
it *is*. We don't know *why* it is. We *think* we may know one way it
could be this way, but without a better understanding of the nature
and history of the nature of the layers, we can not, with any
certainty at all, say *why* certain behaviour in them exists.

Some literature says it's out fault. This is a politically correct
attitude, and it *might* be right. The problem is we just don't
*know*.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"