🚀 go-pugleaf

Just what is Ebeling's "point"? 

CC: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) and Usenet
  Yep,  Greig Ebeling wrote on Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:03:09 GMT about:
   Re: Bashford says: Ozone confuses me. 

>Dennis Nelson <innrcrcl@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>Or, it could have been caused by the British atmospheric atomic and hydrogen
>>bomb testing in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, with a similar latency
>>period.  Since these tests were conducted to the west of the major population
>>centers the fallout would have been caried by the prevailing winds over the
>>cities in the East.

[...]
> Since skin cancer incidence
>correlates strongly with proximity to the tropics ie high surface UV,
>and exposure, rather than proximity to Adelaide, it is rather unlikely
>that your theory is valid.  >...Greig

Well whack my pee-pee!  So when nukes are threatened, Slippery
Ebeling changes his tune once more.  Ho-hum.   So now it's "high
surface UV, *AND* exposure" is it?   <laughing!!!!!> 

from 10 Feb: Subject: Re: Ebeling just a troll -- 
 Bashford wrote:
>>>The only possible defense that I see is (loosely):
>>>  "Increased surface UV-B does not correlate with
>>>   increased  human exposure."
>>>That cannot be falsified, therefore is an unscientific 
>>>statement.  A non sequitur.  Plus it is silly. 

Just what is Slippery Ebeling's "point"? 

Slippery Greig Ebeling:
>>Oh rubbish. It is the whole point!  If ozone depletion cannot be
>>correlated with increased human exposure to UVR, then this whole ozone
>>depletion debate is (as I say) a "storm in a teacup" (for Doug's
>>benefit - "unimportant").
 
Is Slippery Greig Ebeling just another dukem-nukem general purpose
anti-environmentalist who will twist and squirm "reality" so it fits
his notions d'jour?

Just what is Ebeling's "point"?  Is it dogma at work?  First, on 
97/Feb/15 Re: Bashford says: Ozone confuses me, Greig Ebeling said:
 "That is my point.  Ozone depletion does not result in unusually 
  high levels of UV."
That was his "point"!  Again, he was proved wrong.  So slippery 
Greig now smoothly slides in with a differnt "point":
  "Jay, you are missing the point.  That ozone depletion results
   in increased UV is irrelevant."    [Read that again.] 

If the past is any indicator, in a few days he will be back again
pushing "point" one.  Is calling slippery Greig Ebeling's argument,
"confused";  just being polite? 

  What we seek is a path that leads to beauty, abundance, wholeness,
  and wildness. We look for the big outside instead of empire, we
  seek wolf tracks instead of gold, we crave life rather than death.
-   Growthmania consumes what it promises.  Ecology delivers.
--  Douglas   bashford at psnw dot com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.