🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5dgb4i$sj$1@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:
>Jonathan Shanklin <j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>I can vouch from personal experience the link between low ozone values
>>and increased uv having just returned from the Antarctic.  When I left
>>the UK in early November data was suggesting that the ozone hole was
>>nearly over.  Whilst carrying out cargo work at Port Lochroy on a day
>>with much cirrostratus and thin altostratus most of the ship's company
>>suffered sun-burn to a greater or lesser extent, even those wearing
>>blocking cream.  A subsequent radiosonde flight revealed low
>>stratospheric temperatures suggesting that the ozone hole had returned
>>and on my return to the UK inspection of satellite imagery showed that
>>the ozone hole was over the area at the time.
>
>This is contrary to my own experience.  Whilst visiting Cradle
>Mountain in Tasmania during January, I experienced an unusually clear
>day, just some cirrus clouds.  On that day, Tassie papers were
>reporting extreme UV, and on returning to Sydney, I checked the latest
>satellite imagery, which showed that the breaking up of the ozone hole
>was forcing ozone poor air north over Tasmania.

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.
-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym