Global Warming Fraud?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Sonart So I'm sorry, but when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association says that stratospheric ozone absorbs "most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight (called UV-B)", and that "ground-based and satellite instruments have measured decreases in the amount of stratospheric ozone in our atmosphere", and that "the scientific evidence, accumulated over more than two decades of study by the international research community, has shown that human-produced chemicals are responsible for the observed depletions of the ozone layer" then I'm going to take their word for it and not yours. Period. Thanks for playing. .

Feel free to check my facts Sonart. I have accurately described how O3 is created in the upper atmosphere. The facts don't jibe with the conclusions that are being put out. And like I said, they count on there always being more dumb schmucks who wont question what they are being fed and apparantly a fairly large percentage of them are quite unable to put two and two together and recognize that ozone is a result, not a cause..

Tell you what sonart? Why don't you demonstrate how much you know about ozone and tell me exactly where I am mistaken...either in my description of how it is created, or my argument that we couldn't be rid of the ozonosphere even if we tried.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Sonart So I'm sorry, but when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association says that stratospheric ozone absorbs "most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight (called UV-B)", and that "ground-based and satellite instruments have measured decreases in the amount of stratospheric ozone in our atmosphere", and that "the scientific evidence, accumulated over more than two decades of study by the international research community, has shown that human-produced chemicals are responsible for the observed depletions of the ozone layer" then I'm going to take their word for it and not yours. Period. Thanks for playing. .

Sonart, In the article that you linked to, did you notice that they noted that the decreases in ozone are at the poles exactly as I said? Of course you didn't. They give you just the smallest taste of fact and then cover it in BS. You seem quite unwilling to put two and two together. I also noticed that they said that there was some ozone depletion measured in other regions. If you do just a little research, you will find that those measured depletions over other, more populated regions happen at night. WHEN THERE IS FAR LESS UV RADIATION HITTING THE ATMOSPHERE!!!...As I said, my son figured this out when he was a child in about half a minute and my bet would be that 80 or 90 percent of 6th graders could do the same. Earth to Sonart. Get a clue guy.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder OK. A Boeing 747 has four General Electric CF-6 turbofan engines. The flow rate of a CF6 is about 1300 pounds per second. At .0807 pounds per square foot, the flow through the engine is about 16,109 cubic feet per second or 966,542 cubic feet per minute. In an hour, a CF6 engine will flow about 57,992,260 cubic feet of air. There are 4 engines on a 747 which would make the amount of air flowing through the engines roughly two hundred and thirty one million, nine hundred and seventy thousand, two hundred and sixty cubic feet per hour. Now if a single airliner is destroying almost 232 million cubic feet of ozone per hour, how many cans of CFC do you suppose would have to be used in order to equal that amount times the number of planes in the air at any given moment 24 / 7 / 365? Also, since CFC's are quite a bit heavier than air, exactly how much of each ounce of propellant do you suppose actually gets up to the ozonosphere. And since the half life of an O3 molecule is only 7minutes, what the hell difference do you think that tearing one down makes anyway? O3 is the result of UV transferring energy to O2. It is that energy transfer that keeps us from burning up, not the O3. When I said that the half life of an O3 molecule was 7 minutes, that time is if it is in a vaccum tube in a lab. In the actual atmosphere, the O3 molecule lasts until it is struck by more UV radiation at which time it ionizes into O and then regroups as either O2 or O3. It is the energy transfer that stops the UV, not the gas itself. The ozone layer can not be worn out anymore than the surf can be worn out. The ozone scare has always been a lie. If they will lie to you for money about something so easy to verify , how much more will they lie to you on the tough stuff that is worth potentially so much more money to them in the form of grants?

So you're claiming that all the air that could possible pass through the engines would be oxidised and not a single bit of oxygen is left?

Did you know that a single Chlorine radical released from a CFC is capable of destroying 100,000 O3 molecules before it forms a stable product which leaves the atmosphere?
Do you know how many tonnes of CFC was released into the atmosphere?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Pale RIder Feel free to check my facts Sonart. I have accurately described how O3 is created in the upper atmosphere.

So?

Quote by: Pale RIder Sonart, In the article that you linked to, did you notice that they noted that the decreases in ozone are at the poles exactly as I said?

Again, so what?

This is just like your "climate fluctuates naturally, therefore any warming has to be a natural fluctuation" arguement. Yes, the ozone is thinner at the poles to begin with so yes, any additional thinning will manifest most dramatically there. So frigging what! That does NOT change the reality that man-made chemicals have been proven to delete ozone from the upper atmosphere.

You do this repeatedly, RIder, you pick and choose your facts and discount any that conflict with your agenda driven premise. The vast -- and growing -- majority of scientists now accept that anthrogenic global warming is a fact... but not you.

The vast majority of scientists now accept that anthropogenic pollution has thinned the ozone layer.... but not you.

And that vast majority of scientists - by far - accept that evolution is a fact and that any theoretical questions remain simply in what the process was.... but not you.

So just who is out of step with scientific knowledge, RIder, me or you?
.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants So you're claiming that all the air that could possible pass through the engines would be oxidised and not a single bit of oxygen is left? Did you know that a single Chlorine radical released from a CFC is capable of destroying 100,000 O3 molecules before it forms a stable product which leaves the atmosphere? Do you know how many tonnes of CFC was released into the atmosphere?

You do realize, don't you, that CFC's are 4 to 8 times heavier than air don't you? How did they get up there. By the way, I can't find any evidence that a signifigant amount of CFC's have ever been measured in the ozonosphere. Can you provide a link?

And even if less than 100% of the O3 is burned, we are still talking about a molecule that is so fragile that it's half life is 7 minutes. How much of those molecules do you believe could even survive the trip through a jet engine?

Then there is still the bothersome fact that ozone is created by the expenditure of UV radiation on the ionization of O2 molecules that results in O3 molecules. I am greatly interested in hearing your explanation of how it is that O3 blocks UV when the UV was spent on the O2 in order to create the O3.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Sonart So? Again, so what? This is just like your "climate fluctuates naturally, therefore any warming has to be a natural fluctuation" arguement. Yes, the ozone is thinner at the poles to begin with so yes, any additional thinning will manifest most dramatically there. So frigging what! That does NOT change the reality that man-made chemicals have been proven to delete ozone from the upper atmosphere. You do this repeatedly, RIder, you pick and choose your facts and discount any that conflict with your agenda driven premise. The vast -- and growing -- majority of scientists now accept that anthrogenic global warming is a fact... but not you. The vast majority of scientists now accept that anthropogenic pollution has thinned the ozone layer.... but not you. And that vast majority of scientists - by far - accept that evolution is a fact and that any theoretical questions remain simply in what the process was.... but not you. So just who is out of step with scientific knowledge, RIder, me or you? .

I asked pooey pants, so I suppose I may as well ask you as well. Can you provide a link that lists the measured amounts of CFC's found in the ozonosphere? They are, after all, between 4 and 8 times heavier than air. I looked, but could find no evidence at all that any signifigant amount of CFC has ever been detected that high up in the atmosphere.

And don't you find it odd that the thinning doesn't occur over the populated areas where the CFC's are actually used? How do you suppose that they all get sucked up to the poles and only at the times when the earth is most tilted away from the sun? And can you provide any evidence that there are CFC's present in the ozonosphere at the time of the greatest thinning over the poles?

The facts don't jibe with the stories that are being told Sonart, and you certainly aren't making any case at all. Why don't you explain, please, how it is ozone that protects us from harmful UV radiation when it is the expenditure of that harmful radiation that creates ozone in the first place. If the UV is used up making the ozone, exactly what is left for the ozone to block?. Could that be because you actually don't know anything about ozone other than what you have been spoonfed by a press that readily admits to being biased towards global warming?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder You do realize, don't you, that CFC's are 4 to 8 times heavier than air don't you? How did they get up there. By the way, I can't find any evidence that a signifigant amount of CFC's have ever been measured in the ozonosphere. Can you provide a link?

The atmosphere is dynamic, winds can carry the particles into the higher altitudes. Hell, they even teach about it in Key stage 4 science!

Apparently, the answer to your latter questions can also be reviewed in a student's online guide

At the turn of the century, chlorine levels in the stratosphere were much lower than at present. As the use of CFCs has increased, however, so has their concentration in the atmosphere. Scientists could detect 100 parts per trillion (ppt) of CFC-12 in the atmosphere by the 1960s, 200 ppt by 1975, and more than 400 ppt by 1987. By 1990, they detected more than 750 ppt of CFC-11 and CFC-12, the two most destructive and persistent CFCs.

Source

Now, you can continuing believing that this is all just a big conspiracy and you're the absolute righteous one but don't expect us to join.

[pit bull]

I believe if we grow more trees, plants, flowers and vegitation the rising water level will be replaced by nature and the natural process in the future

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants The atmosphere is dynamic, winds can carry the particles into the higher altitudes. Hell, they even teach about it in Key stage 4 science! Apparently, the answer to your latter questions can also be reviewed in a student's online guide Source Now, you can continuing believing that this is all just a big conspiracy and you're the absolute righteous one but don't expect us to join.

Your links were full of blatant lies. First off, the scientists who discovered the ozone "hole" in the antarctic went to the arctic with full expectations of finding a "hole" there as well because of the lack of UV radiation. The found the hole and reported that it was a natural occurence. The media created the hysteria by simply announcing that another ozone hole was found. They didn't bother to tell anyone that it was a natural phenomenon resulting from the lower levels of UV light striking the O2 in the atmosphere at the poles.

Once the mood was created, in come the grant $$ so guess what.

I also noticedthat there are no sources noted for their figures. It has been my experience that credible sources go to great pains to list their sources so that they can be fact checked.

I never expected you to actually grasp the fact that you have been lied to. That would involve actually understanding the physics of ozone creation and applying that knowledge to the pap that you have been fed and realising that the physical realities don't mesh with the stories and then it would further involve the honesty required to admit that you were wrong. I expect neither from environmentalists. But perhaps the simple facts as they exist will gnaw at the edges of your ideology enough that eventually you will actually begin to question what you have believed.

There is still the bothersome fact that ozone is created by the expenditure of UV radiation on the ionization of O2 molecules that results in O3 molecules. I am greatly interested in hearing your explanation of how it is that O3 blocks UV when the UV was spent on the O2 in order to create the O3.

At some point, I would like for you or Sonart to actually explain (in your own words) how I am mistaken. Explain how the surf holds back the ocean. If all you are able to do is link to inaccurate sources, I am left to conclude that you really don't know anything at all.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder Your links were full of blatant lies. First off, the scientists who discovered the ozone "hole" in the antarctic went to the arctic with full expectations of finding a "hole" there as well because of the lack of UV radiation. The found the hole and reported that it was a natural occurence. The media created the hysteria by simply announcing that another ozone hole was found. They didn't bother to tell anyone that it was a natural phenomenon resulting from the lower levels of UV light striking the O2 in the atmosphere at the poles.

How do you know their intent? Do you have a recording of their mind at the time? Their memos or diary?

Quote by: Pale RIder Once the mood was created, in come the grant $$ so guess what. I also noticedthat there are no sources noted for their figures. It has been my experience that credible sources go to great pains to list their sources so that they can be fact checked.

Oh, I just quoted kiddies education websites but I'll try to find the source of the material. However, we both know that scientific papers from pre 1998 ish is very hard to come by online.

Quote by: Pale RIder I never expected you to actually grasp the fact that you have been lied to. That would involve actually understanding the physics of ozone creation and applying that knowledge to the pap that you have been fed and realising that the physical realities don't mesh with the stories and then it would further involve the honesty required to admit that you were wrong. I expect neither from environmentalists. But perhaps the simple facts as they exist will gnaw at the edges of your ideology enough that eventually you will actually begin to question what you have believed. There is still the bothersome fact that ozone is created by the expenditure of UV radiation on the ionization of O2 molecules that results in O3 molecules. I am greatly interested in hearing your explanation of how it is that O3 blocks UV when the UV was spent on the O2 in order to create the O3. At some point, I would like for you or Sonart to actually explain (in your own words) how I am mistaken. Explain how the surf holds back the ocean. If all you are able to do is link to inaccurate sources, I am left to conclude that you really don't know anything at all.

Hmm, let's see, what did I learn in A Level chemistry.
O3 is capable of absorbing UV and then reemitting it at a longer wavelength!!! Wow! That was hard to remember.
I tell a lie, I checked out other websites


Source

So are you telling me that you didn't understand that this was how O3 blocks the majority of UV light? You weren't looking too hard were you? Or perhaps you didn't want to understand but wanted to keep on pretending that you're always right.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants So are you telling me that you didn't understand that this was how O3 blocks the majority of UV light? You weren't looking too hard were you? Or perhaps you didn't want to understand but wanted to keep on pretending that you're always right.

If the UV radiation is expended in the process of ionizing the O2 so that it can reform as O3, exactly which radiation is it that the O3 is blocking?

I understand that the O3 blocks a certain amount of UV, but the vast, vast, vast....vast majority of the energy of the UV is used up ionizing O2. The O3 is a result, not a cause. Again, how is it that the surf keeps the ocean from flooding the land?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder If the UV radiation is expended in the process of ionizing the O2 so that it can reform as O3, exactly which radiation is it that the O3 is blocking? I understand that the O3 blocks a certain amount of UV, but the vast, vast, vast....vast majority of the energy of the UV is used up ionizing O2. The O3 is a result, not a cause. Again, how is it that the surf keeps the ocean from flooding the land?

Erm, the O3 will hang around for a while, you've noted that it has a half life of around 7 minutes. Therefore, as soon as it is created, it will start to absorb UV rays and reemit at a lower frequency. So inessence it is a negative feedback of sorts (with regards to the UV light) because the more UV light, the more O3 is created (as you said rightly) and therefore, the more O3 is formed to start absorbing the UV.

I'm not quite following your analogy though, what has a surf got to do with the ocean thingy? Do you not get the absorption spectra of the O3? Or the fact that it hangs around for several minutes? Or that it is created continuously as long as there is O2 and UV light?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Erm, the O3 will hang around for a while, you've noted that it has a half life of around 7 minutes. Therefore, as soon as it is created, it will start to absorb UV rays and reemit at a lower frequency. So inessence it is a negative feedback of sorts (with regards to the UV light) because the more UV light, the more O3 is created (as you said rightly) and therefore, the more O3 is formed to start absorbing the UV. I'm not quite following your analogy though, what has a surf got to do with the ocean thingy? Do you not get the absorption spectra of the O3? Or the fact that it hangs around for several minutes? Or that it is created continuously as long as there is O2 and UV light?

Actually, that half life of 7 minutes is in a vaccum chamber in a laboratory. Rare indeed would the the ozone molecule that would last more than a second or two in the atmosphere. UV radiation ionizes ozone in exactly the same manner as it ionizes O2.

I saw the absorption spectra that you listed. Clearly, you didn't grasp what you were seeing, and didn't take even a little while to try to understand it. This is what is most frustrating about discussing this topic with "true believers" You just grabbed the picture and posted it not even realizing that you were making my case for me. It is just one more omission perpetrated by people who make their money on your fear. O2 absorbs UV in wavelengths shorter than 240nm. (shorter is more dangerous) O3 is unable to absorb any UV in wavelenghts shorter than about 320nm. O2 is the workhorse in UV absorption, O3 plays a minor role at best. The idea that O3 saves us from skin cancer is a myth that is perpetuated by nothing more than government grant money. The physics and chemistry of the ozone cycle put the lie to the myth. Unfortunate that most people don't take the time to apply simple logic to the physics and chemistry of the ozone cycle and realize that what the "scientists" are saying is simply not what is happening.

The surf analogy is for folks who mistakenly believe that the "ozone" layer is some mysterous layer of ozone that protects us from the sun. It isn't.

Just as the surf is the result of deep water waves coming in contact with shallow water, the ozone layer is the result of short wave UV from the sun coming in contact with O2 in the upper atmosphere. The surf is a result...ozone is a result. In the case of the surf, the rising bottom absorbs the energy of the deep water waves and the surf is a result. In the case of UV radiation from the sun, O2 absorbs the great bulk of the radiation and O3 is a result of O2 absorbing dangerous UV radiation. O3 is almost immediately re-ionized and reformed into O2 again which, again, is the gas that absorbs the shortest and most dangerous wavelengths of UV.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder Actually, that half life of 7 minutes is in a vaccum chamber in a laboratory. Rare indeed would the the ozone molecule that would last more than a second or two in the atmosphere. UV radiation ionizes ozone in exactly the same manner as it ionizes O2.

It is in a dynamic equilibrium so long as the UV light of correct wavelengths strikes.

Quote by: Pale RIder I saw the absorption spectra that you listed. Clearly, you didn't grasp what you were seeing, and didn't take even a little while to try to understand it. This is what is most frustrating about discussing this topic with "true believers" You just grabbed the picture and posted it not even realizing that you were making my case for me. It is just one more omission perpetrated by people who make their money on your fear. O2 absorbs UV in wavelengths shorter than 240nm. (shorter is more dangerous) O3 is unable to absorb any UV in wavelenghts shorter than about 320nm. O2 is the workhorse in UV absorption, O3 plays a minor role at best. The idea that O3 saves us from skin cancer is a myth that is perpetuated by nothing more than government grant money. The physics and chemistry of the ozone cycle put the lie to the myth. Unfortunate that most people don't take the time to apply simple logic to the physics and chemistry of the ozone cycle and realize that what the "scientists" are saying is simply not what is happening.

Clearly, you weren't looking hard enough. The graph I cited show absorption from 130nm to 260nm (the full range is not shown). It compares the amount of absorption relative to O2 and quite clearly, because O3 absorbs a larger range (anything below 360nm is UV) it has a greater potential for "protecting" us. Unless of course, you can show me that the Sun emits more light in the higher UV frequencies than towards the lower frequency spectra.

Quote by: Pale RIder The surf analogy is for folks who mistakenly believe that the "ozone" layer is some mysterous layer of ozone that protects us from the sun. It isn't. Just as the surf is the result of deep water waves coming in contact with shallow water, the ozone layer is the result of short wave UV from the sun coming in contact with O2 in the upper atmosphere. The surf is a result...ozone is a result. In the case of the surf, the rising bottom absorbs the energy of the deep water waves and the surf is a result. In the case of UV radiation from the sun, O2 absorbs the great bulk of the radiation and O3 is a result of O2 absorbing dangerous UV radiation. O3 is almost immediately re-ionized and reformed into O2 again which, again, is the gas that absorbs the shortest and most dangerous wavelengths of UV.

So what is the lower density of O3 an indication of?

Anyway, what exactly does the government gain by banning the use of CFCs? Can you give us a plausible explanation of this conspiracy?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Clearly, you weren't looking hard enough. The graph I cited show absorption from 130nm to 260nm (the full range is not shown). It compares the amount of absorption relative to O2 and quite clearly, because O3 absorbs a larger range (anything below 360nm is UV) it has a greater potential for "protecting" us. Unless of course, you can show me that the Sun emits more light in the higher UV frequencies than towards the lower frequency spectra. So what is the lower density of O3 an indication of?

I was looking just fine. The table is in error. Ozone is simply unable to absorb UV C radiation. I can absorb UV B but not the entire range unlike O2 which can absorb the entire UV B spectrum. Neither O2 or O3 absorb any signifigant amount of UV A which is good since we need it for the synthesis of vitamin-D. The simple fact is that ozone is a result of dangerous radiation being absorbed by O2. The physics and chemistry are what they are.

Quote by: Pooeypants Anyway, what exactly does the government gain by banning the use of CFCs? Can you give us a plausible explanation of this conspiracy?

The new generation of refrigerants are quite a bit more expensive than CFC's but I am not much into conspiracy theorys. The only logical reason for the lies and logical errors that are handed out as science is to keep people afraid and the fact that a crisis brings in more grant money for studies than research into perfectly natural phenomenon that don't represent any threat to us. Clearly, you are afraid. If your fear is strong enough, you will be willing to concede more and more of your freedom to anyone who can lessen your fear as is clearly the case.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder I was looking just fine. The table is in error. Ozone is simply unable to absorb UV C radiation. I can absorb UV B but not the entire range unlike O2 which can absorb the entire UV B spectrum. Neither O2 or O3 absorb any signifigant amount of UV A which is good since we need it for the synthesis of vitamin-D. The simple fact is that ozone is a result of dangerous radiation being absorbed by O2. The physics and chemistry are what they are.

Okay, if you are willing to show something (other than your "I am right and you're wrong) to backup your claims, I can at least look at it and maybe concede. As it stands, it's just your words versus mine and neither of us has a degree in Environmental chemistry.

Quote by: Pale RIder The new generation of refrigerants are quite a bit more expensive than CFC's but I am not much into conspiracy theorys. The only logical reason for the lies and logical errors that are handed out as science is to keep people afraid and the fact that a crisis brings in more grant money for studies than research into perfectly natural phenomenon that don't represent any threat to us. Clearly, you are afraid. If your fear is strong enough, you will be willing to concede more and more of your freedom to anyone who can lessen your fear as is clearly the case.

So you have no plausible reason for this. I mean, at least show me some tinpot website which gives a story on this conspiracy.

I don't buy into the politics of fear. For example, the latest product is Terrorism; marketed to such a high degree that no one questions its validity. Getting people to change their fridges is one matter, having their freedom stripped away by some laws as such "Patriot act" is quite another matter.
Now, don't tell me they have you believing that Al Qaeda the worldwide organisation of terror actually exists, do you?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Okay, if you are willing to show something (other than your "I am right and you're wrong) to backup your claims, I can at least look at it and maybe concede. As it stands, it's just your words versus mine and neither of us has a degree in Environmental chemistry.

This is another thing. If you say something that I believe is untrue, I go out and do my own research to find out if you are right or wrong. Is there some reason that you wouldn't do your own research other than that you might not want to learn the truth? My figures come from textbooks which are very rarely to be found in text form on the internet. I trust very little of the information on the internet and as such, rarely link to it even when it agrees with me unless I can verify the source that it comes from. If you want a bibliographical reference to take to your library, I will be happy to provide one.

Quote by: Pooeypants So you have no plausible reason for this. I mean, at least show me some tinpot website which gives a story on this conspiracy.

Hell, I don't need even a tin pot web site. You guys, on threads scattered across the net provide all the evidence that I need. All one need say is that global warming may be real but man is not causing it and as such, we really don't need to do things that will have an effect on our economy or our way of life and the inevetable flood of links begin explaining why we need to curtail this business, or stop that practice, or regulate this or that and if one follows the web sites to the money source, they are almost universally attatched to some group who makes their living on grant money.

Quote by: Pooeypants I don't buy into the politics of fear. For example, the latest product is Terrorism; marketed to such a high degree that no one questions its validity. Getting people to change their fridges is one matter, having their freedom stripped away by some laws as such "Patriot act" is quite another matter.

Maybe you don't buy into it on a conscious level, but go back and read your posts on this thread and on others that are dealing with global warming. You are arguing from a position of fear. You have indicated that you are willing to do, and give up most anything if it will just stop global warming when the facts indicate that in the end, all your sacrifice will have been for naught, because we aren't causing it. You are willing to give up, sacrifice, and regulate people out of work on the mere "hope" that it might in some way curb global warming. You are afraid whether you can admit it or not. You are a victim of the politics of fear. And more than that, you are so afraid, that it seems that you are quite unable, or unwilling, to thoroughly examine the very broad body of scientific evidence that states that global warming is not anthropogenic in nature.

The global warming movement is anti capitalist in nature, and anything that is anticapitalist is about controlling people via fear of one thing or another.

Quote by: Pooeypants Now, don't tell me they have you believing that Al Qaeda the worldwide organisation of terror actually exists, do you?

Al Qaeda is just a name. They are no different than any number of other radical islamist organizations. They have their preachers on the internet, and in video on the news telling them to kill the infidel. I, in no way believe that they (al qaeda) are responsible for radical islam. Islam has always been a violent, agressive religion. They were violent and agressive before muhammud was dead. They don't need a worldwide organization because their srcriptures advocate the subjugation and eradication of the infidel. The infidel is anyone who is not them.

Christians once used the bible to justify burning heritics and witches. Thousands were killed but that all ended hundreds of years ago. Islam is still in the mindset that existed hundreds of years ago. They are still exactly the same agressors that the crusaders were at war with all those hundreds of years ago. Islam still has a medieval mind set and the Muslims who have modernized and reject the fundamentalist brand of Islam are now infidels as well. This would be why there is little public condemnation from the "peaceful" islamists just as there was little opposition in medieval times to the witch hunts and other atrocities that happened in the name of Christianity. Anyone who speaks out becomes himself a heretic.

[Pooeypants]

So now we're turning this debate into the conspiracy theory realm (however much you want to dress it up, that is what you're positing).
Somehow you think that they're all just commie schemes out to destroy capitalism even though capitalism has been thriving all this time and will continue to do so. There is more at stake than money you know, the welfare of our descendents for a start. I can see though that with your "I am always right" attitude, there is no way to debate with you.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants So now we're turning this debate into the conspiracy theory realm (however much you want to dress it up, that is what you're positing). Somehow you think that they're all just commie schemes out to destroy capitalism even though capitalism has been thriving all this time and will continue to do so. There is more at stake than money you know, the welfare of our descendents for a start. I can see though that with your "I am always right" attitude, there is no way to debate with you.

You claim that there is no anti capitalist agenda at work in the first sentence and then the rest of your post is aimed at explaining that there are more important things than money, that the welfare of our decendents is at stake yet the information that you have given me so far from your sites is in error.

First you claim that my take on the "true believers" is nothing but a conspiracy theory, then you do exactly what I said that the "true believers" do. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Then you claim that there is no debating with me.

I don't have an "I am always right" attitude. I thoroughly research any topic that I might engage in before I jump in. My position is the result of a great deal of research. I don't just look for sites that agree with me then form my position, I look for genuine science first then form my position based on fact...not what I wish, or what I want, but on the facts. If they (the facts) don't agree with my position, then I alter my position to reflect the facts.

If you think that amounts to an "I'm always right" attitude, then I don't know what to say to you but it is clear that you have not researched beyond what your web sites tell you as evidenced by your claim that O3 absorbs UV radiation into the UV C wavelengths. That is simple chemistry that doesn't take much research to verify and you clearly have not done it. If you are willing to believe whatever is handed to you without any further research, then you clearly choose your position based on your political philosophy. That being the case, one would wonder if there is any point in discussing the topic with