more scary stuff

[Roanon]

*delete*

[ February 13, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[solops]

Any dogmatic assertion is unwarranted. For instance, this article make an interesting argument:

http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate...v3n16/hot1.htm

However, in just perusing down the lists of titles generated from a search one can readily see that there is a whole variety of positions and “proofs” to choose from. After reading a few rabidly anti-human articles and a few confident “the volcanos did it” articles, I can confidently assert that I don’t know and neither does anyone else. The evidence is inadequate. I BELIEVE, based on the data I have seen, that volcanos have in the past and still do cause at least variations in the ozone. I suspect that man does so as well. Certain theories can be put forward, based on the available data, both pro and con, but none are conclusive. I KNOW (as much as is humanly possible) from the facts recorded in the rock and ice of our planet that the sun, volcanos and outgassings from subterranean sources WILL change the atmosphere and climate over time. Our ability to do so has not been proven, but I know we can if we try. Time will tell.

Edit for dogmatism.

[ February 13, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: solops ]

[rextorres]

How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.

The only person that made an unequivical statement was Fyron. (I'll repeat what he wrote for effect)

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

What Fyron wrote seems unambiguous (even taken in the context that it was written) - at least to me.

Even Fyron's links don't make the assertions that Volcanoes cause the hole in ozone layer. All they suggest is that Volcanoes made the hole worse not that they were the cause of the hole.

If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

[ February 13, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.
If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

That's why I have stopped answering to Posts of Fyron a long time ago, and most of the time don't even bother to read them.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Core samples from glaciers in Greenland and Antartica. The gases caught in the ice enable researchers to measure the ratio of gases in the atmosphere.

Anyway - You are right natural effects will eventually overwhelm anything humans can do but that wasn't the issue.

The issue was that Fyron wrote - as it if were self-evident - that:

quote:

---

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

Even your two links refute that myth.

---

Have you heard of the term hyperbole? Obviously that statement had its intended affect.

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.

The only person that made an unequivical statement was Fyron. (I'll repeat what he wrote for effect)

quote:

---

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

What Fyron wrote seems unambiguous (even taken in the context that it was written) - at least to me.

Even Fyron's links don't make the assertions that Volcanoes cause the hole in ozone layer. All they suggest is that Volcanoes made the hole worse not that they were the cause of the hole.

If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

---

I fail to see how responding to Roanan's statements has degenerated anything into a debate of semantics. I see no debate of semantics in this thread. Very few Posts I make have anything to do with semantics. On occasion it is necessary to clarify terms used when they get misinterpreted, but that is hardly a "degeneration into semantics." Since you are looking for a scapegoat, Roanan is the one that called links into question, you (Rex) are the on that brought politics into this. Don't blame me for what others have said. I was fine discussing ozone depletion. You two veered the discussion away from that.

[solops]

Edit my Last post for dogmatism...

[rextorres]

Hyporbole? Maybe you can define it for me. Last time I used that word - in a different debate - you accused me of misusing it.

Anyway - since you seem to want to argue the semantics of your Posts . . . I certainly didn't detect any hyperbole in them, maybe others can correct me.