Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:11:19 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Besides, if you read into it a bit you'd find that the effort to tie
global warming to the ozone thing is taking place.


Ummm ..... in what way, exactly, are they the same thing?

Cliff, work with me here. I didn't say they are the same thing, I said
that the effort to tie them together is being made. I feel that this
means that someone mentioning them both in the same sentence isn't
something to be confused with confusing them. The "and such" on the end
of the quote is what I'm referring to, he's presenting the CFC thing as
equal hogwash to the global warming hogwash.

I find that I'm still not convinced on either issue, although some
googling I've been doing indicates that NASA is certainly convinced on
the CFC thing; they present it not as a theory but as a demonstrated
fact. Strange that they only consider R12 and R11 in that issue though,
chlorine released to the atmosphere got no consideration whatsoever,
although I did manage to find one page where they did admit that
volcanoes *are* a goodly source of what bothers them.

Where the two are being tied together is in "atmospheric waves",
allegedly a product of global warming and, supposedly, a factor in the
temperature of the stratosphere during the polar winters. You'll have to
look it up for a better explanation..

Re; global warming.. I read some thoughts on the issue and the one that
stuck with is was "If the climate is changing, we better hope it's
warming and not cooling, 'cause warming is something we can do something
about". I think that makes sense- do you?

John