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 (52344)	10/16/2002 7:57:29 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 281500

Re: They supported my views I realize the links you posted supported your views but you posted them without reading them, and was probably not a happy camper when you saw the "God has not regulated CFC's" quote I fished out of one of them :) you went for the "Ad Hominine" of their thinking on other subjects I assume you mean "ad hominem" - the logical fallacy of attacking the person rather than the argument itself. I am actually happy you brought this up, because this is exactly your position with the environmental scientists opposing your views, whom you feel are funded by the state. Please check out: intrepidsoftware.com You will see that one of the examples is: We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial) On the other hand, I have pointed out that the guy who has written in the link you have posted is a religious nut who is probably not qualified to give an opinion on the subject, also verified by his strange definition of a CFC. This is not ad hominem. It may be "ad hominine", if such a thing exists :) LindyBill - For the whole "whether scientists are lying in CFC vs ozone to get grants from the state" issue, it sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Sorry. In the Scientific American link I posted for you, the Nobel Prize winning environmental scientist was saying he has personally found CFCs in upper atmosphere: "The measurements of CFC-11 in the stratosphere were first described in 1975 by two research groups in Boulder, Colorado, and have been similarly observed innumerable times since. The uniform mixing of CF4 versus altitude was reported from balloons around 1980 and many times since, and from an infrared instrument aboard the space shuttle Challenger (which exploded in 1986) in 1985. My own research group has measured CFC-11 in hundreds of air canisters filled while flying in the NASA DC-8. We once did a descent directly over the North Pole and found uniform mixing in the lower atmosphere, and slightly less CFC-11 in the stratosphere. sciam.com ... and you are saying there are no CFCs "up there" Message 18118981 Put yourself in my shoes - Should I believe LindyBill or F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry? Sorry, Bill, I choose Mr Rowland this time. ... and as for this little difference in opinion: zonder: "Modesty is a virtue" LindyBill: "Not when you are right, it isn't." I beg to differ. Modesty is most a virtue when you know (or, rather, are fairly certain) that you are right. And if I may add, this is exactly the sort of attitude that winds up the rest of the world about what they see as "American arrogance" :)