🚀 go-pugleaf

khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) wrote:

>Note what argument is actually going on here.

>One person is involved in proving "it is possible that X because I saw
>X". The other is (as usual) trying to prove "it is not possible that
>X because I didn't see X" (note, please don't confuse with
>"it is possible that Not x because I saw Not x" that is actually valid).

>For many years it amazed me that people would invert if's, try to
>prove impossibility based (as in this case) on a single example (not
>that more will do ;-), etc.

>But now Science (doffing cap) is littered with them.

I am NOT trying to prove that Antactic ozone depletion does not result
in increased UV.  Jon is welcome to his anecdotal evidence of such,
and I do not contest it.

What I am trying to show is that UV increases due to ozone depletion
at populated lattitudes are (if they exist at all) too small to be
relevant to health effects.  Such effects are overwhelmed by human
behavioural patterns (eg deciding to go skiing, forgetting to wear a
hat or sunscreen, etc).


...Greig