What ever happened to the big scary hole in the ozone layer? Make a list of all the past lib scares - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What ever happened to the big scary hole in the ozone layer? Make a list of all the past lib scares (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 8/10/2007 11:41:51 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

You gonna back that up?????

Because NASA disagrees with you.

And we all know NASA is infallible, right?

So you are more qualified??

I am just curious as to what instrument you currently have in your house, you know, since you can observe the Ozone layer and all.

I am qualified to realize that NASA is not god and they are not infallible. I am qualified to see that you like to take a position of authority, yet no one here knows anyone else, so why should anyone listen to you?

So NASA was wrong the whole time? They literally made the whole thing up??? Let me get this straight. You think NASA is soooo incompetent that they literally messed the WHOLE ozone thing up???

Nobody forces you to listen to me, or respond to my posts for that matter.

NASA is a bureacracy that has to fight for money. Dire Earth killing causes get money thrown at them.

Probably a true statement. However, the data is still there, perhaps they just over state the danger. Like I said, I have no idea what effects the hole actually has. Just that it IS still there and that was the point of the thread.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:13:15 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

You gonna back that up?????

Because NASA disagrees with you.

NASA has been taken over by libs. Remember the guy that spoke out about GW and got beat down and had to retract?

OK, but that doesnt make the data any less incorrect. The original poster asked about the ozone hole and it IS still there. As to what effect it is having on climate or anything else....I have no idea. Is it caused by CFC's? probably. Is there maybe some natural aspects that may cause it? Probably. Your political affiliation doent mean anything in science. Only when you get into the political aspects. Not the actual data.

As a side note: I often wonder if a republican canidate was as outspoken as Al Gore about GW, and if Al Gore didnt exist, how ARFCOM would approach GW. I imagine it would be MUCH different. So in a way I guess I do kinda see your point that political affiliation does control your scientific thoughts, only not in the way you were trying to show.

The data is bullshit, just like all the other "The Earth is in danger!!" bullshit data.

There is no ozone hole nor was there ever one. There is a thinning of the ozone layer DURING THE WINTER, because their is no sun. And O3 requires a high energy enviornment to stay together and not beome O2. Guess where that energy comes from and what happens when it is taken away?

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:48:16 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

I always wondered why it was ok for NASA to emit them in large quantities, but not ok for me to use R-12?

Duponts patent for R-12 ran out.

That's why the Ozone scare was created.

Myth. Patents expire after 8 years. And R12 was discovered in the 1930s.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:54:34 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

Ozone blocking UV is the biggest strawman in science EVER. A CLASSIC case of FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT. No one has ever proved ozone blocking is reduced below the supposed "ozone hole". In fact, no one can show the extinction coefficient of oxygen or ozone independently BECAUSE UV MAKES OZONE FROM OXYGEN! And UV also makes oxygen from ozone.

Ozone LIKES to become oxygen, given molar volume differences. It is only the energy from UV that thermodynamically allows ozone to form.

But again, no one ever measured ANY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increase in UV due to any "ozone hole" And faulty cause and effect is REALLY BAD SCIENCE.

Posted: 8/11/2007 6:55:05 AM EDT

[#5]

The "ozone hole" was not known until NASA started looking in recent times. It may have been there in 1832, or in 1607, or in 2000 BC... but who knows? No one was looking. So they don't have enough data to know if it is recent, or has been there all along.

But NASA should have more funding to study the situation.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:27:33 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

The article you posted seems kinda Junk to me. It hardley even metions DDE which is what causes the egg shell problem. As of 2000 the mechanism has been found....look it up. It stops calcium fixation.

Also, they mention DDT in the breast milk when in fact DDE is ONLY secreted in breast milk as it is stored in fat.

Imagine that, an article on junk science is actually junk.

You are incredible, you bring new meaning to willful ignorance… did you bother to look at the damn footnotes.

You as always when you don’t want to face facts retreat in to a cloud of ignorance… you don’t want to see or hear something then it must be made up…. You will tolerate nothing that interferes with the myths and pre conceived BS you have been programmed with. Well dispute the sources, actually read and understand the damn footnotes.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:28:13 AM EDT

[#7]

double tap.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:29:28 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

I always wondered why it was ok for NASA to emit them in large quantities, but not ok for me to use R-12?

Duponts patent for R-12 ran out.

That's why the Ozone scare was created.

Myth. Patents expire after 8 years. And R12 was discovered in the 1930s.

I'm pretty sure I remember Dupont's patent on R12 expiring in the late 1980's, plus or minus a couple of years.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:31:30 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Face it bro, you got fuckin owned.

Ah a fellow traveler ding dong chimes in... you apparently cannot comprehend what you read either.

Yea I got owned by the guy that took two months to figure out water vapor is a gas.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:36:59 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Oh ya, I forgot about the acid rain. How did I live through that one?

It seems like every one of the big scares was always the american capitalist way of life fault.

+1...that one had slipped my mind also!

What fucking retards there are in this world!

I just saw a stat that the average temp has risen 1 degree over the last 100 years....whoopdy-fuckin-doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:34:32 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

You gonna back that up?????

Because NASA disagrees with you.

Is this the same NASA that cannot run the Space Shuttle Program with any competence after 25 years of trying?

Is this the same NASA that loses whole space craft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars because they cannot cross check for simple programming errors?

Is this the same NASA deploys a space telescope with what amounts to astigmatism?

Is this the same NASA that uses bad data to create the “hockey stick” graph?

Is this the same NASA that had to have bloggers point out they were using bad temp data this week?

Is this the same NASA that still cannot show a link between CFC and the “ozone hole” after 20 years?

Yea boy they can be trusted...

Not even to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel

Added the last part for ya

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:25:34 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I always wondered why it was ok for NASA to emit them in large quantities, but not ok for me to use R-12?

Duponts patent for R-12 ran out.

That's why the Ozone scare was created.

Myth. Patents expire after 8 years. And R12 was discovered in the 1930s.

I'm pretty sure I remember Dupont's patent on R12 expiring in the late 1980's, plus or minus a couple of years.

Bullshit. Robert McNary et al working with Frigidair division of GM discovered it in 1928. Patents do NOT last 60+ years.

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:35:51 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

I always wondered why it was ok for NASA to emit them in large quantities, but not ok for me to use R-12?

Duponts patent for R-12 ran out.

That's why the Ozone scare was created.

Myth. Patents expire after 8 years. And R12 was discovered in the 1930s.

I'm pretty sure I remember Dupont's patent on R12 expiring in the late 1980's, plus or minus a couple of years.

Bullshit. Robert McNary et al working with Frigidair division of GM discovered it in 1928. Patents do NOT last 60+ years.

Correct... Patents ran out decades before the "ozone hole" became a issue but that does not stop people from repeating this nonsense. Kinda like DDT and bald eagles myths die hard.

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:49:33 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

You gonna back that up?????

Because NASA disagrees with you.

Is this the same NASA that cannot run the Space Shuttle Program with any competence after 25 years of trying?

Is this the same NASA that loses whole space craft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars because they cannot cross check for simple programming errors?

Is this the same NASA deploys a space telescope with what amounts to astigmatism?

Is this the same NASA that uses bad data to create the “hockey stick” graph?

Is this the same NASA that had to have bloggers point out they were using bad temp data this week?

Is this the same NASA that still cannot show a link between CFC and the “ozone hole” after 20 years?

Yea boy they can be trusted...

Not even to pour piss out of a boot.

Is this the same NASA that employs Hansen? [burn]

Every time that hack's name is brought up, one must temper his government teat-sucking largesse with some sage wisdom of Dr. Roy Spencer.

According to Spencer, the upper atmosphere is COOLING. What this means is the Earth is COOLING because the ONLY way heat leaves the Earth is by radiation. And the only way for it to radiate is through the insulating effects of the many layers of the atmosphere. It stands to reason that COOLER temps at altitude, as measured by Spencer, mean we are LOSING heat faster. Which can only lead to one conclusion, that being we are receiving MORE solar radiation.

Posted: 8/11/2007 10:22:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Gotta add three more, one has been touched on:

All nations must convert to the metric system (late 1960's)

Capitalism is bad (late 1930's, I think)

Second-hand smoke (1980's, I think)

Posted: 8/11/2007 11:43:50 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Gotta add three more, one has been touched on:

All nations must convert to the metric system (late 1960's)

Capitalism is bad (late 1930's, I think)

Second-hand smoke (1980's, I think)

I wish we would all convert to the metric system. It would make things A LOT easier. Actually, pretty much all science already uses the metric system. I cant tell you how long it has been since I recorded temperature in my lab notebook as Fahrenheit or length in something other then meters. Volume is ALWAYS recorded in liters.

And yes, second-hand smoke is bad. Actually, any smoke in your lungs is bad.

Posted: 8/11/2007 11:46:54 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The hole is still there. It varies in size, and theres no strong agreement on what influences it.

It is a fact that CFC's do break down ozone, and very efficiently. Regardless of what natural influences there are on ozone levels, it's clear that humans can be a very strong one. We really don't want to cause any trouble with the ozone layer, so cfc's are still a no-no.

-Local

Bullshit.

You gonna back that up?????

Because NASA disagrees with you.

Is this the same NASA that cannot run the Space Shuttle Program with any competence after 25 years of trying?

Is this the same NASA that loses whole space craft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars because they cannot cross check for simple programming errors?

Is this the same NASA deploys a space telescope with what amounts to astigmatism?

Is this the same NASA that uses bad data to create the “hockey stick” graph?

Is this the same NASA that had to have bloggers point out they were using bad temp data this week?

Is this the same NASA that still cannot show a link between CFC and the “ozone hole” after 20 years?

Yea boy they can be trusted...

Not even to pour piss out of a boot.

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:18:49 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

You could not get a yard stick straight.

Owned by the water vapor denier

You read those footnotes yet… did you look at any of those studies, do you know what the World Health Organization is yet?

BTW I see you are falling back to you old ways... somebody makes a point and you avoid it by coming back with a cheap childish evasion like “You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?”. Nobody said any such thing and you know it if you could actually read and comprehend what you read.

The argument is on what causes the hole and sherrick13 is 100% correct the fact is NASA after 20 years can STILL not show CFCs have one damn thing to do with the hole.

NO ONE has been able to show CFC have any reall effect on the ozone hole and the fact we now know the hole was there decades before CFCs were first used undercuts the whole theory.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:24:52 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I still want to know what happened to acid rain. Remember that? Hell with the expanding economy it should have gotten worse, right?

Power plants installed SO2 scrubbers, mitigating the problem.

Which I'm sure was perfectly followed in every country on Earth, correct?

Every powerplant, THEY ARE BUILDING EVERY WEEK, in China has the shit, right?

You do realize that acid rain is somewhat localized, don't you? If you're upwind of a powerplant, the SO2 from that plant isn't going to dribble on you as rain (unless the smoke gets all the way around the globe without a rainstorm). If you're downwind of the powerplant on a rainy day, it will.

This is the "rain" component of "acid rain". The "acid" component is the SO2 from the smokestacks.

BTW, you've heard about what an environmentalist paradise China is nowadays, right?

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:29:12 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

You could not get a yard stick straight.

Owned by the water vapor denier

You read those footnotes yet… did you look at any of those studies, do you know what the World Health Organization is yet?

BTW I see you are falling back to you old ways... somebody makes a point and you avoid it by coming back with a cheap childish evasion like “You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?”. Nobody said any such thing and you know it if you could actually read and comprehend what you read.

The argument is on what causes the hole and sherrick13 is 100% correct the fact is NASA after 20 years can STILL not show CFCs have one damn thing to do with the hole.

NO ONE has been able to show CFC have any reall effect on the ozone hole and the fact we now know the hole was there decades before CFCs were first used undercuts the whole theory.

Perhaps you should go read my other posts where I mention that I dont care, or know what causes the hole. The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Oh, and the most recent reference in your "footnotes" WAS FROM 1982!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and look up the mechanism like I mentioned above. There is A LOT more NEW research about DDE.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:33:50 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

I always wondered why it was ok for NASA to emit them in large quantities, but not ok for me to use R-12?

Duponts patent for R-12 ran out.

That's why the Ozone scare was created.

Myth. Patents expire after 8 years. And R12 was discovered in the 1930s.

At the time, patents expired after seventeen years from grant.

Currently, patents expire twenty years from filing, which is typically more than seventeen years from grant.

Posted: 8/11/2007 12:48:35 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

You could not get a yard stick straight.

Owned by the water vapor denier

You read those footnotes yet… did you look at any of those studies, do you know what the World Health Organization is yet?

BTW I see you are falling back to you old ways... somebody makes a point and you avoid it by coming back with a cheap childish evasion like “You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?”. Nobody said any such thing and you know it if you could actually read and comprehend what you read.

The argument is on what causes the hole and sherrick13 is 100% correct the fact is NASA after 20 years can STILL not show CFCs have one damn thing to do with the hole.

NO ONE has been able to show CFC have any reall effect on the ozone hole and the fact we now know the hole was there decades before CFCs were first used undercuts the whole theory.

Perhaps you should go read my other posts where I mention that I dont care, or know what causes the hole. The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Oh, and the most recent reference in your "footnotes" WAS FROM 1982!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and look up the mechanism like I mentioned above. There is A LOT more NEW research about DDE.

Another evasion

Please show us where in the question below the OP says the hole does not exist… Please be exact in pointing that out… but then you cannot can you?

Anyway, is that big whole still up there? is it going to end life on earth as we know it?

Where does he or I say there is no hole in the ozone... well we all know you cannot show us.

That was just ANOTHER one of you evasions. Local and sherrick13 were addressing cause which was what YOU jumped in the middle of not the OPs post. And now as usual you have no idea what cause what… See you really could not keep a yard stick straight.

1982 Duh… the most recent footnote is from 1982 because this question was settled then… DUH do you think science has a expiration date like bread… You better go back and fix Newton’s work he is dead you know so his stuff may have expired.

You did not actually check out the studies or might that disturb your cone of calm.

You had best get to fixing all that expired science now.

You are your own worst enemy... expired science, what a guy I love Hoody I really do, the gift that keeps giving.

Posted: 8/11/2007 1:09:41 PM EDT

[#23]

"And yes, second-hand smoke is bad."

Sure, its bad but not as bad as the Lib's state. At most, 1/5th of a smoked cig per shift. On a relative scale, you do more harm to your lungs/body pushing or riding a gas powered lawn mower for an hour, IMO.

See: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Concerning:

"At the time, patents expired after seventeen years from grant."

"Currently, patents expire twenty years from filing, which is typically more than seventeen years from grant."

Sure the ORIGIONAL patent expires in 17/20 years but all the company needs to do is change the formula slightly and get a brand new patent for another full term. Nobody wants to go with the old formula. Pharms do it all the time.

Posted: 8/11/2007 1:34:52 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Another evasion

Please show us where in the question below the OP says the hole does not exist… Please be exact in pointing that out… but then you cannot can you?

Anyway, is that big whole still up there? is it going to end life on earth as we know it?

Where does he or I say there is no hole in the ozone... well we all know you cannot show us.

That was just ANOTHER one of you evasions. Local and sherrick13 were addressing cause which was what YOU jumped in the middle of not the OPs post. And now as usual you have no idea what cause what… See you really could not keep a yard stick straight.

1982 Duh… the most recent footnote is from 1982 because this question was settled then… DUH do you think science has a expiration date like bread… You better go back and fix Newton’s work he is dead you know so his stuff may have expired.

You did not actually check out the studies or might that disturb your cone of calm.

You had best get to fixing all that expired science now.

You are your own worst enemy... expired science, what a guy I love Hoody I really do, the gift that keeps giving.

Are you really that slow?????

He asks "Anyway, is that big whole still up there?" You even quoted it!!!! So somehow you think in your little brain that me saying yes it still there is not relavent to this thread. WTF!! Somtimes I worry about you. When Keith_J isnt in a thread holding your hand you fall face down.

If you could please show me where I said that the OP said there was NOT a hole anymore. In fact, you quoted me as saying

The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Now clearly I am not as smart as you, but please show where I said that the OP said there was NOT a hole. He was asking if it was still there...........

Doing what you do best on your own I see.......taking things out of context or just plain adding your own twist.

You said:

1982 Duh… the most recent footnote is from 1982 because this question was settled then… DUH do you think science has a expiration date like bread… You better go back and fix Newton’s work he is dead you know so his stuff may have expired

No sorry, I looked at MORE RESCENT studies. I wouldnt expect you to know this, but believe it or not, science, especially chemistry, advances in the things it knows. In the study you quoted, there was hardley ANY mention of DDE. Which is LIKELY the cause of the brittle egg shells. Please try and keep up on your own.

Posted: 8/11/2007 2:22:19 PM EDT

[#25]

screw it

Posted: 8/11/2007 2:22:50 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Are you really that slow?????

He asks "Anyway, is that big whole still up there?" You even quoted it!!!! So somehow you think in your little brain that me saying yes it still there is not relavent to this thread. WTF!! Somtimes I worry about you. When Keith_J isnt in a thread holding your hand you fall face down.

If you could please show me where I said that the OP said there was NOT a hole anymore. In fact, you quoted me as saying

The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Now clearly I am not as smart as you, but please show where I said that the OP said there was NOT a hole. He was asking if it was still there...........

Doing what you do best on your own I see.......taking things out of context or just plain adding your own twist.

You said:

1982 Duh… the most recent footnote is from 1982 because this question was settled then… DUH do you think science has a expiration date like bread… You better go back and fix Newton’s work he is dead you know so his stuff may have expired

No sorry, I looked at MORE RESCENT studies. I wouldnt expect you to know this, but believe it or not, science, especially chemistry, advances in the things it knows. In the study you quoted, there was hardley ANY mention of DDE. Which is LIKELY the cause of the brittle egg shells. Please try and keep up on your own.

You managed again not to address anything in question. How do you generate that much verbiage without saying anything of substance?

Asking a question is not saying something exists. But once again you did not even jump in to the OPs post did you? More evasion.

PLEASE show us these recent studies where are they, or do they exist only in your head?

OK simple task for you…
1. Show us where I said or sherrick13 said there was no ozone hole… again do you understand asking a question is just asking a question and not a decleration but then the OP was not in our dispute until you brought him in to hide behind.
2. PLEASE show us the “recent” studies… not talk about but show us.

Now stop dancing and ducking and actually address the questions. I know you think your poking at me will divert people’s attention from the fact you can back up nothing you say but it will not. Now address the questions.

And quit digging the hole you are in is deep enough now.

Posted: 8/11/2007 2:55:42 PM EDT

[#27]

ozone hole. Settled

Posted: 8/11/2007 3:04:54 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

You managed again not to address anything in question. How do you generate that much verbiage without saying anything of substance?

Asking a question is not saying something exists. But once again you did not even jump in to the OPs post did you? More evasion.

PLEASE show us these recent studies where are they, or do they exist only in your head?

OK simple task for you…
1. Show us where I said or sherrick13 said there was no ozone hole… again do you understand asking a question is just asking a question and not a decleration but then the OP was not in our dispute until you brought him in to hide behind.
2. PLEASE show us the “recent” studies… not talk about but show us.

Now stop dancing and ducking and actually address the questions. I know you think your poking at me will divert people’s attention from the fact you can back up nothing you say but it will not. Now address the questions.

And quit digging the hole you are in is deep enough now.

Standard Max_Mike argument. "You didnt address the question." Which I find funny. Actually, you never even asked ME a question!!!! I burn you on one point and then all you say is....you avoided the question. Why dont you just help us both out and just lay out all the questions in a nice order for us so we are both CLEAR as to what that ACTUAL question is. This way you cant magically say I avoided anything.

Heres a start since you apparently are unable of thinking outside your junkscience mind......

www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/html/toxprofiles.htm#pest

Dramatic declines in the populations of numerous bird species occurred during the decades following the wide-scale use of DDT for insect control in the United States and other countries around the world. Upon examination, DDE, the major metabolite of DDT was associated with altering the physiological process of eggshell formation that subsequently led to eggshell thinning and population declines of numerous avian species, particularly raptors and shorebirds [see review by Lundholm (1997)]. These studies indicate that the supply of calcium to the eggshell gland is not impeded by DDE, but rather this organochlorine contaminant disrupts calcium transport within the eggshell gland (Lundholm 1997). In addition, prostaglandins (PGs) have been implicated in eggshell thinning because DDE disrupts PG synthesis, which reduces bicarbonate transport in the duck shell gland lumen, thereby reducing calcium transport.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9490182

Posted: 8/11/2007 3:51:42 PM EDT

[#29]

Hole or not, we are only talking about a few ppm change in O3 concentration in the strat...

Now HERE IS THE KICKER. Not ONE SHRED of MEASURED UV INCREASE WAS NOTED UNDER THIS "HOLE".

Now what was the doom and gloom all about? We had a hole yet no measured increase of UV...

The IDIOTS will CLAIM (especially the Aussies, and yes, they are IDIOTS for linking) that the incidence of skin cancer is proof. Well, la de freaking da. People WERE EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO MORE SUN IN THE #) YEARS PRIOR TO THE "discovery" of the "hole" in the "ozone layer".

Drive on Senior Quixote. Also, the phrase "was associated with" is a classic case of unproven conjecture. Show me the biological pathways that DDE inhibits shell formation. Corelation is not causation.

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:01:43 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
ozone hole. Settled

Again, a LACK of EFFECT of any "hole" in the "ozone layer". Where is the PROOF more UV reaches the Earth's surface?

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:03:43 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Hole or not, we are only talking about a few ppm change in O3 concentration in the strat...

Now HERE IS THE KICKER. Not ONE SHRED of MEASURED UV INCREASE WAS NOTED UNDER THIS "HOLE".

Now what was the doom and gloom all about? We had a hole yet no measured increase of UV...

The IDIOTS will CLAIM (especially the Aussies, and yes, they are IDIOTS for linking) that the incidence of skin cancer is proof. Well, la de freaking da. People WERE EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO MORE SUN IN THE #) YEARS PRIOR TO THE "discovery" of the "hole" in the "ozone layer".

Drive on Senior Quixote. Also, the phrase "was associated with" is a classic case of unproven conjecture. Show me the biological pathways that DDE inhibits shell formation. Corelation is not causation.

Don't threaten HoodyHoo's beliefs.

We should respect other people's religion on this site.

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:18:13 PM EDT

[#32]

We are at the minimum of a solar cycle. The ozone hole should be at a minimum. It will open again as the number of sunspots increase.

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:24:14 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Hole or not, we are only talking about a few ppm change in O3 concentration in the strat...

Now HERE IS THE KICKER. Not ONE SHRED of MEASURED UV INCREASE WAS NOTED UNDER THIS "HOLE".

Now what was the doom and gloom all about? We had a hole yet no measured increase of UV...

The IDIOTS will CLAIM (especially the Aussies, and yes, they are IDIOTS for linking) that the incidence of skin cancer is proof. Well, la de freaking da. People WERE EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO MORE SUN IN THE #) YEARS PRIOR TO THE "discovery" of the "hole" in the "ozone layer".

Drive on Senior Quixote. Also, the phrase "was associated with" is a classic case of unproven conjecture. Show me the biological pathways that DDE inhibits shell formation. Corelation is not causation.

Don't threaten HoodyHoo's beliefs.

We should respect other people's religion on this site.

Please re-read my posts. I have never one time mentioned anything trying to say that I disagree with what Keith_J posted.

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:33:48 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ozone hole. Settled

Again, a LACK of EFFECT of any "hole" in the "ozone layer". Where is the PROOF more UV reaches the Earth's surface?

Playing devils advocate:

We found that in the spring of 1997, despite frequent cloud cover, the passages of the ozone hole over Tierra del Fuego (55° S) caused concomitant increases in solar UV and that the enhanced ground-level UV led to significant increases in DNA damage in the native plant Gunnera magellanica.

Yet, direct links between ozone depletion and biological impacts have been established only for organisms of Antarctic waters under the influence of the ozone "hole;"........

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/26/15310

Posted: 8/11/2007 4:55:53 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You managed again not to address anything in question. How do you generate that much verbiage without saying anything of substance?

Asking a question is not saying something exists. But once again you did not even jump in to the OPs post did you? More evasion.

PLEASE show us these recent studies where are they, or do they exist only in your head?

OK simple task for you…
1. Show us where I said or sherrick13 said there was no ozone hole… again do you understand asking a question is just asking a question and not a decleration but then the OP was not in our dispute until you brought him in to hide behind.
2. PLEASE show us the “recent” studies… not talk about but show us.

Now stop dancing and ducking and actually address the questions. I know you think your poking at me will divert people’s attention from the fact you can back up nothing you say but it will not. Now address the questions.

And quit digging the hole you are in is deep enough now.

Standard Max_Mike argument. "You didnt address the question." Which I find funny. Actually, you never even asked ME a question!!!! I burn you on one point and then all you say is....you avoided the question. Why dont you just help us both out and just lay out all the questions in a nice order for us so we are both CLEAR as to what that ACTUAL question is. This way you cant magically say I avoided anything.

Heres a start since you apparently are unable of thinking outside your junkscience mind......

www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/html/toxprofiles.htm#pest

Dramatic declines in the populations of numerous bird species occurred during the decades following the wide-scale use of DDT for insect control in the United States and other countries around the world. Upon examination, DDE, the major metabolite of DDT was associated with altering the physiological process of eggshell formation that subsequently led to eggshell thinning and population declines of numerous avian species, particularly raptors and shorebirds [see review by Lundholm (1997)]. These studies indicate that the supply of calcium to the eggshell gland is not impeded by DDE, but rather this organochlorine contaminant disrupts calcium transport within the eggshell gland (Lundholm 1997). In addition, prostaglandins (PGs) have been implicated in eggshell thinning because DDE disrupts PG synthesis, which reduces bicarbonate transport in the duck shell gland lumen, thereby reducing calcium transport.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9490182

Other than the fact that study takes two species of birds and one shows no effects from DDE and one does… the study also used concentrations far in excess of anything that would be encountered in nature… Lets also ignore (but not completely) the fact lead and mercury have far stronger association with egg shell thinning.

OK Hoody assuming that is correct despite the many other studies... explain why eagle populations were increasing 20 years before DDT was banned?

Explain why bald eagles were threatened with extinction 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

Explain why U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked mercury to eagle reproductive problems and NOT DDT.

Explain why bald eagle population grew 25% between 1940 and 1060.

Explain why in the 1960s ten years of all the dead eagles tested by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not one death was linked to DDT.

Come on explain it all away... keep digging.

Do you have links like you force me to give????

Then I will answer.

Posted: 8/11/2007 5:12:04 PM EDT

[#36]

You know what Max_Mike, I have no fucking clue about the questions you asked. Guess what, I am not a biologist. This initially started because you posted a BS link to BS science and I called you on it. DDE does have an effect on the egg shell strength. How much does this reduce population compared to other stuff? I have no fucking clue.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont know, and really, I dont care. What WE were talking about was DDT and DDE. The population increasing during the 40's through the 60's could have been caused by anything (assuming you didnt make it up). This has NO bearing on wether or not DDE affects calcium fixation, and has nothing to do with the crappy info you gave earlier in the thread. The other questions you asked you are going top have to go to a biologist.

Typical of you. You just plain change the ENTIRE direction of our conversation.

Go ahead and post those links though. Im sure you have them.

Posted: 8/11/2007 5:34:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
You know what Max_Mike, I have no fucking clue about the questions you asked. Guess what, I am not a biologist. This initially started because you posted a BS link to BS science and I called you on it. DDE does have an effect on the egg shell strength. How much does this reduce population compared to other stuff? I have no fucking clue.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont know, and really, I dont care. What WE were talking about was DDT and DDE. The population increasing during the 40's through the 60's could have been caused by anything (assuming you didnt make it up). This has NO bearing on wether or not DDE affects calcium fixation, and has nothing to do with the crappy info you gave earlier in the thread. The other questions you asked you are going top have to go to a biologist.

Typical of you. You just plain change the ENTIRE direction of our conversation.

Of course you are not going to answer the questions... but why?

I take that as what it sounds like… to mean you actually looked and know you stepped in your own dog pile and cannot answer the questions without showing yourself up.

As for me supposedly changing the entire direction of our conversation I will call bullshit on that as well and remind to go back and actually read the damn thread… How the fuck could I change my own subject YOU were responding to me not vice versa.

The topic was and is about DDT and eagle populations, if you did not want to discuses DDT and bald eagles you should have kept your nose out of posts ABOUT DDT and bald eagles, but then you didn’t did you. You really want me to embarrass you by posting proof of your butting in to MY post responding to another poster about DDT… do you really want your nose rubbed it. The proof of YOUR actions are on page two you need me to get them.

Keep digging.

Posted: 8/11/2007 6:55:45 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know what Max_Mike, I have no fucking clue about the questions you asked. Guess what, I am not a biologist. This initially started because you posted a BS link to BS science and I called you on it. DDE does have an effect on the egg shell strength. How much does this reduce population compared to other stuff? I have no fucking clue.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont know, and really, I dont care. What WE were talking about was DDT and DDE. The population increasing during the 40's through the 60's could have been caused by anything (assuming you didnt make it up). This has NO bearing on wether or not DDE affects calcium fixation, and has nothing to do with the crappy info you gave earlier in the thread. The other questions you asked you are going top have to go to a biologist.

Typical of you. You just plain change the ENTIRE direction of our conversation.

Of course you are not going to answer the questions... but why?

I take that as what it sounds like… to mean you actually looked and know you stepped in your own dog pile and cannot answer the questions without showing yourself up.

As for me supposedly changing the entire direction of our conversation I will call bullshit on that as well and remind to go back and actually read the damn thread… How the fuck could I change my own subject YOU were responding to me not vice versa.

The topic was and is about DDT and eagle populations, if you did not want to discuses DDT and bald eagles you should have kept your nose out of posts ABOUT DDT and bald eagles, but then you didn’t did you. You really want me to embarrass you by posting proof of your butting in to MY post responding to another poster about DDT… do you really want your nose rubbed it. The proof of YOUR actions are on page two you need me to get them.

Keep digging.

Soooo, are you gonna post your sources or what?????

Also, I will call bullshit as well. Your questions have NOTHING to do with DDE and DDT. As I said, we were arguing your crappy link. The answers to your questions could have nothing to do with DDT.

Why has the population of eagles increased in the 40's/60's?

Perhaps the study that you refuse to post a link to only took the eagles from a certain poplulation into account. Perhaps a population not exposed to DDT.

I could use this answer to ALL of your questions. Post the links!!!

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:16:21 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
just think, in 15 years people will have a new eco-fad.
When I was in grade school, the Earth was headed for a new Ice Age.
In college, it was the Ozone Hole
Now it's "Climate Change" (not just global warming anymore)

I'm going to guess that you are between 42 and 50 years old...I heard the Ice Age stuff also.

I college I learned about some hole but it wasn't Ozone.

Posted: 8/11/2007 7:29:28 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Global cooling fad died and was replaced by the ozone hole.

Ozone hole fad died and was replaced by global warming.

I think I am detecting a pattern here.

Ja think

1970s new Ice Age… OMG we are all going to die.

1980s Acid rain… OMG we are all going to die.

1990s Ozone hole… OMG we are all going to die.

2000s Global warming… OMG we are all going to die.

2010s XXXXXXXXXXX… OMG we are all going to die.

Almost.

it is more like:

1970s new Ice Age… You must obey us or we are all going to die.

1980s Acid rain… You must obey us or we are all going to die.

1990s Ozone hole… You must obey us or we are all going to die.

2000s Global warming… You must obey us or we are all going to die.

2010s XXXXXXXXXXX… You must die for the greater good.

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:05:37 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ozone hole. Settled

Again, a LACK of EFFECT of any "hole" in the "ozone layer". Where is the PROOF more UV reaches the Earth's surface?

Playing devils advocate:

We found that in the spring of 1997, despite frequent cloud cover, the passages of the ozone hole over Tierra del Fuego (55° S) caused concomitant increases in solar UV and that the enhanced ground-level UV led to significant increases in DNA damage in the native plant Gunnera magellanica.

Yet, direct links between ozone depletion and biological impacts have been established only for organisms of Antarctic waters under the influence of the ozone "hole;"........

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/26/15310

They did not report STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increases in UVB.

So, you took some old 1987 Lake City M193 and drilled three rounds into a a quarter inch clover leaf at 300 yards. That does NOT make your Olympic A15 a 1/12th MOA tack driver.

Statistics, learn them soon.

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:48:51 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Face it bro, you got fuckin owned.

Ah a fellow traveler ding dong chimes in... you apparently cannot comprehend what you read either.

Yea I got owned by the guy that took two months to figure out water vapor is a gas.

Don't forget this "scientist" also didn't know microwaves were radio waves.

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:52:18 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I still want to know what happened to acid rain. Remember that? Hell with the expanding economy it should have gotten worse, right?

Power plants installed SO2 scrubbers, mitigating the problem.

Which I'm sure was perfectly followed in every country on Earth, correct?

Every powerplant, THEY ARE BUILDING EVERY WEEK, in China has the shit, right?

You do realize that acid rain is somewhat localized, don't you? If you're upwind of a powerplant, the SO2 from that plant isn't going to dribble on you as rain (unless the smoke gets all the way around the globe without a rainstorm). If you're downwind of the powerplant on a rainy day, it will.

This is the "rain" component of "acid rain". The "acid" component is the SO2 from the smokestacks.

BTW, you've heard about what an environmentalist paradise China is nowadays, right?

Exactly, China is an environmental hellhole and there aren't all the sixteen legged frogs over there. The Acid Rain scare was all bunk, just like all the other captialist hating motivated scares.

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:54:16 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I still want to know what happened to acid rain. Remember that? Hell with the expanding economy it should have gotten worse, right?

Power plants installed SO2 scrubbers, mitigating the problem.

Which I'm sure was perfectly followed in every country on Earth, correct?

Every powerplant, THEY ARE BUILDING EVERY WEEK, in China has the shit, right?

You do realize that acid rain is somewhat localized, don't you? If you're upwind of a powerplant, the SO2 from that plant isn't going to dribble on you as rain (unless the smoke gets all the way around the globe without a rainstorm). If you're downwind of the powerplant on a rainy day, it will.

This is the "rain" component of "acid rain". The "acid" component is the SO2 from the smokestacks.

BTW, you've heard about what an environmentalist paradise China is nowadays, right?

Exactly, China is an environmental hellhole and there aren't all the sixteen legged frogs over there. The Acid Rain scare was all bunk, just like all the other captialist hating motivated scares.

You really think this is what acid rain does?????!!!!!!

You talk about microwaves and then chime in with this beauty.....

Dont make me look up MANY of your quotes we had from the long Gas/vapor thread....

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:54:37 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

You could not get a yard stick straight.

Owned by the water vapor denier

You read those footnotes yet… did you look at any of those studies, do you know what the World Health Organization is yet?

BTW I see you are falling back to you old ways... somebody makes a point and you avoid it by coming back with a cheap childish evasion like “You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?”. Nobody said any such thing and you know it if you could actually read and comprehend what you read.

The argument is on what causes the hole and sherrick13 is 100% correct the fact is NASA after 20 years can STILL not show CFCs have one damn thing to do with the hole.

NO ONE has been able to show CFC have any reall effect on the ozone hole and the fact we now know the hole was there decades before CFCs were first used undercuts the whole theory.

Perhaps you should go read my other posts where I mention that I dont care, or know what causes the hole. The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Oh, and the most recent reference in your "footnotes" WAS FROM 1982!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and look up the mechanism like I mentioned above. There is A LOT more NEW research about DDE.

There is not and never was a HOLE. There is a thinning in certain parts. Usually where the sun has not shined for a while. Thus the O3 degrades to O2. The other thin areas are, I would bet, due to natural causes and nothing we have done. Again, definatelty not a reason to disrupt whole industries.

Posted: 8/11/2007 8:59:02 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So let me get this straight. You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?

And yes, you got owned by someone who can tell you the difference between a gas and vapor without using google. They are not the same. Funny that you keep showing your ignorance when you bring it up. Perhaps you should look into it more.

You could not get a yard stick straight.

Owned by the water vapor denier

You read those footnotes yet… did you look at any of those studies, do you know what the World Health Organization is yet?

BTW I see you are falling back to you old ways... somebody makes a point and you avoid it by coming back with a cheap childish evasion like “You think that there IS NOT a hole in the ozone?”. Nobody said any such thing and you know it if you could actually read and comprehend what you read.

The argument is on what causes the hole and sherrick13 is 100% correct the fact is NASA after 20 years can STILL not show CFCs have one damn thing to do with the hole.

NO ONE has been able to show CFC have any reall effect on the ozone hole and the fact we now know the hole was there decades before CFCs were first used undercuts the whole theory.

Perhaps you should go read my other posts where I mention that I dont care, or know what causes the hole. The WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD WAS TO SHOW THAT YES, THERE STILL IS A HOLE. As to what it causes or doesnt cause, I have no idea and never made any claims as such.

Oh, and the most recent reference in your "footnotes" WAS FROM 1982!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and look up the mechanism like I mentioned above. There is A LOT more NEW research about DDE.

There is not and never was a HOLE. There is a thinning in certain parts. Usually where the sun has not shined for a while. Thus the O3 degrades to O2. The other thin areas are, I would bet, due to natural causes and nothing we have done. Again, definatelty not a reason to disrupt whole industries.

I assumed we ALL already knew that............"hole" is the commonly used term when describing the "thin" part.

Blue- I agree...

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:00:58 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I still want to know what happened to acid rain. Remember that? Hell with the expanding economy it should have gotten worse, right?

Power plants installed SO2 scrubbers, mitigating the problem.

Which I'm sure was perfectly followed in every country on Earth, correct?

Every powerplant, THEY ARE BUILDING EVERY WEEK, in China has the shit, right?

You do realize that acid rain is somewhat localized, don't you? If you're upwind of a powerplant, the SO2 from that plant isn't going to dribble on you as rain (unless the smoke gets all the way around the globe without a rainstorm). If you're downwind of the powerplant on a rainy day, it will.

This is the "rain" component of "acid rain". The "acid" component is the SO2 from the smokestacks.

BTW, you've heard about what an environmentalist paradise China is nowadays, right?

Exactly, China is an environmental hellhole and there aren't all the sixteen legged frogs over there. The Acid Rain scare was all bunk, just like all the other captialist hating motivated scares.

You really think this is what acid rain does?????!!!!!!

You talk about microwaves and then chime in with this beauty.....

Dont make me look up MANY of your quotes we had from the long Gas/vapor thread....

I'm making fun of all the acid rain stupidos. If acid rain is such a big problem why is it not talked about anymore.

Guess what, in 20 years Global Warming will be talked about as much as acid rain is now. Becuase it is bullshit and the freaks will have moved on to something else. And you probably will be still arguing for them.

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:04:41 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ozone hole. Settled

Again, a LACK of EFFECT of any "hole" in the "ozone layer". Where is the PROOF more UV reaches the Earth's surface?

Playing devils advocate:

We found that in the spring of 1997, despite frequent cloud cover, the passages of the ozone hole over Tierra del Fuego (55° S) caused concomitant increases in solar UV and that the enhanced ground-level UV led to significant increases in DNA damage in the native plant Gunnera magellanica.

Yet, direct links between ozone depletion and biological impacts have been established only for organisms of Antarctic waters under the influence of the ozone "hole;"........

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/26/15310

They did not report STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increases in UVB.

So, you took some old 1987 Lake City M193 and drilled three rounds into a a quarter inch clover leaf at 300 yards. That does NOT make your Olympic A15 a 1/12th MOA tack driver.

Statistics, learn them soon.

Taken from the results section:

These results indicate that, in spite of the large day-to-day variations in cloud cover, the passage of the ozone hole over the southern tip of South America causes large increases in biologically effective UV radiation at the ground level.

Nice try........and believe me, I have had my share of stats.

Have to agree with the UV levels. It really does effct skin burn times.

Trust me, when you live at the sharp end of reduced Ozone (or a ozone hole, or whatever) area the difference is noticeable.

The classic here is visitors from other countires, (such as Australia) who get burnt so much faster than they do at home. I had the same thing, spent 3.5 years in Australia, When you come back to New Zealand, you notice (although the courty is a lot colder) how much stronger the sun is.

For me it's an observable effect. You don't hear about it up north, 'cos is was flavour of the month a few years ago, but because it doesn't have an effect on North America, it therefore it doesn't exist anymore [If the media don't report on it, it must have gone away, rather than no one cares].
The shock/horror effect of the media only really works (sells airtime and papers, etc.) when it effects the people you are selling to.

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:06:58 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ozone hole. Settled

Again, a LACK of EFFECT of any "hole" in the "ozone layer". Where is the PROOF more UV reaches the Earth's surface?

Playing devils advocate:

We found that in the spring of 1997, despite frequent cloud cover, the passages of the ozone hole over Tierra del Fuego (55° S) caused concomitant increases in solar UV and that the enhanced ground-level UV led to significant increases in DNA damage in the native plant Gunnera magellanica.

Yet, direct links between ozone depletion and biological impacts have been established only for organisms of Antarctic waters under the influence of the ozone "hole;"........

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/26/15310

They did not report STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increases in UVB.

So, you took some old 1987 Lake City M193 and drilled three rounds into a a quarter inch clover leaf at 300 yards. That does NOT make your Olympic A15 a 1/12th MOA tack driver.

Statistics, learn them soon.

Taken from the results section:

These results indicate that, in spite of the large day-to-day variations in cloud cover, the passage of the ozone hole over the southern tip of South America causes large increases in biologically effective UV radiation at the ground level.

Nice try........and believe me, I have had my share of stats.

Have to agree with the UV levels. It really does effct skin burn times.

Trust me, when you live at the sharp end of reduced Ozone (or a ozone hole, or whatever) area the difference is noticeable.

The classic here is visitors from other countires, (such as Australia) who get burnt so much faster than they do at home. I had the same thing, spent 3.5 years in Australia, When you come back to New Zealand, you notice (although the courty is a lot colder) how much stronger the sun is.

For me it's an observable effect. You don't hear about it up north, 'cos is was flavour of the month a few years ago, but because it doesn't have an effect on North America, it therefore it doesn't exist anymore [If the media don't report on it, it must have gone away, rather than no one cares].
The shock/horror effect of the media only really works (sells airtime and papers, etc.) when it effects the people you are selling to.

Now you did it!!!!!

Keith_J:
But, But, But..........its not statistically relevant................its just a scare tactic of the libs.......they only want money.....

Posted: 8/11/2007 9:22:47 PM EDT

[#50]

Oh and in case you're wondering why New Zealanders don't get more upset about this.....

Well, it's pretty much accepted as fact, nothing much we (Kiwi's) can do about it, so ya live with it, no different to Volcantic erruptions, earth quakes, Hurricanes, etc. Just another dangerous thing in the world *Shrug*

Edit: Kiwi Attitude :
"Ruapehu is one of the world's most active volcanoes. The deep crater lies between its peaks and fills with a lake between big eruptions"
Crater lake bursts banks under scientists' noses

"Ruapehu is largely composed of andesite and began erupting at least 250,000 years ago. In recorded history, major eruptions have been about 50 years apart,[1] in 1895, 1945 and 1995-1996. Minor eruptions are frequent, with at least 60 since 1945"
Mount Ruapehu

But New Zealanders have built three (only) Skifields on this mountain. *Shrug*, it's a bit dangerous, bit very good skiing to make up for that

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What ever happened to the big scary hole in the ozone layer? Make a list of all the past lib scares (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us