Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (52313)	10/16/2002 5:45:19 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Further, God has not regulated CFC's nor has made any pronouncements against them. LindyBill - The sentence above is an excerpt from one of the links that you have provided for your argument on how CFCs do not harm the ozone. In this issue, as with most, I'd rather listen to scientists. Sorry, it's nothing personal. I just posted a page from Scientific American that says CFCs destroy ozone: sciam.com Here's an article from New Scientist. newscientist.com Another from Wired: wired.com I do not know which scientific magazines you follow, but I have never seen anything about this theory you have stated that CFCs have nothing to do with ozone depletion in the atmosphere. Looking at the links you have provided, I must say that I am a little disappointed by their content – scientific and otherwise. Let us look at the link #2, sguthrie.tripod.com First of all, I do not know who the author of this page is, but he is no scientist and he borders on being a religious nut - Not only is he a little hazy on what chlorofluorocarbons are, but his references on God and the Bible strike me as a little odd in a scientific article :) 5. CFC is the abbreviation for a chlorofluorocarbon. This is the molecular structure found in freon gas. Not really. CFC is not a "molecular structure found in freon gas". Looking at Academic Press, it is "a hydrocarbon in which some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced by chlorine and fluorine; its use as an aerosol is prohibited because of the depleting effect on stratospheric ozone." How interesting that even the definition of the word verifies that its harm to ozone :) Anyway, going down the page, we see that the guy has some strange titles, such as "IV. ARGUMENT FROM COMPASSION" and, my personal favorite, "V. ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE REVELATION", which has some quite interesting footnotes such as: 11. Even if one were to accept God as the property owner, the argument fails since ozone depletion does not affect God. Further, God has not regulated CFC's nor has made any pronouncements against them. (this made me laugh so much :)))

To: LindyBill who wrote (52313)	10/16/2002 10:33:07 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

OK, one at a time: I've heard of heartland.org before. Follow the money works pretty good there; heartland.org leads to heartland.org sguthrie.tripod.com looks all very scientific and everything until you read the footnotes: END NOTES 1. Need I mention that the United States has agreed to assist in funding this bill? 2. Freon is a primary refrigerant in cooling systems ranging from kitchen refrigerators to air conditioners. 3. All information and data pertaining to the Montreal Protocol is taken from Whatever Happened to the American Dream? by financial columnist Larry Burkett (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993) pp. 113-14. 4. It must be noted that some UV exposure is necessary for organic growth (i.e. "flora" organisms utilize UV in the process of photosynthesis in order to produce sugar and carbon dioxide). 5. CFC is the abbreviation for a chlorofluorocarbon. This is the molecular structure found in freon gas. 6. At this point the reader may be speculating my plan to deny the antecedent to the biconditional argument (a fallacy to any student of logic). However, my goal in this response is to deny the consequent regardless whether or not CFC's deplete the ozone. I am also responding to the forerunner argument to this one. It is assumed that if human industrialization produces CFC's, then these CFC's are destroying stratospheric ozone. My contention is that the consequent in this is false. 7. Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling (Washington, DC: 21st Century Science Associates, 1992), pp. 1-13. 8. ibid., p. 13. 9. Robert W. Lee, "The Evidence Is Thin," The New American, 6/1/192, p. 12. 10. By permission I mean that human beings live on earth either by random chance or by divine decree, not by choice. 11. Even if one were to accept God as the property owner, the argument fails since ozone depletion does not affect God. Further, God has not regulated CFC's nor has made any pronouncements against them. 12. Refrigerators utilizing CFC's as their primary coolant average around $500 while alternative coolants (sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride, or anhydrous ammonia) may cost around $700 (not to mention a 50% decrease in lifetime). See Burkett, American Dream, p. 120. 13. Land and Moore are the editors of and contributing authors to The Earth Is the Lord's: Christians and the Environment (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992). 14. Ibid., p. 201. 15. Still, some have argued that Genesis 2:15 demonstrates that Man was made for the environment, not the other way around. This is immediately dismantled in Genesis 1:28 where dominion is clearly given to mankind. nickyee.com , well, Nick Yee has quite a collection of "research" on his site that seems pretty indicative of where his expertise really lies. nickyee.com members.tripod.com is just an excerpt from a book: The Holes in the Ozone Hole: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling, very authoritative sounding for your particular POV, but not the kind of title a working scientist would associate his name with. Finally, sciforums.com is a random anonymous internet bb post from some guy, and the following messages go through his "argument" thoroughly enough. Or, you can just go to google: google.com Mercifully, the biblical science crowd and other random crackpots don't seem to have gotten much traction there.