🚀 go-pugleaf

CC: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) and Usenet

  Yep,  Greig Ebeling wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 1997 about:
   Re: Bashford says: Ozone confuses me. 
[...]
>This is obvious from the fact that
>skin cancer has a long latency period.  Also, ozone depletion has only
>occurred at a significant degree in the last 10 years.   Any
>correlation between UV-B exposure and increases in cancer would need
>to show a recent increase. This is not shown in the data I have seen.
>...Greig

I don't doubt that that you have not seen that data.
You did you just say; ">skin cancer has a long latency period."
   Did you not?!
Tell us Craig?  Are you stupid?  Or do you think we are stupid?

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? 

-    We are seeking to increase individuals' wealth and freedom
-   rather than stimulating the economy.  We look to abundance
-    and wholeness instead of so-called; "economic growth".
-   Growthmania consumes what it promises.  Ecology delivers.
--  Douglas   bashford at psnw dot com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
  See Mother Nature getting pissed off and showing her tits:
  http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-ma-nat.html