🚀 go-pugleaf

This post fails to add anything of value to this discussion, and is
not worthy of sci.environment, or any other ng which is not dedicated
to pointless abuse.

bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

>  Yep,  eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Thu, 30
>Jan 1997 22:47:23 GMT about:
>   Bashford says: Ozone confuses me. 

>I hate to allow Ebeling to lower me to his level, but it seems 
>some response is needed.  I was hoping for more from him. 
>It seems Ebeling's just another general purpose anti-environmental
>pro-nuke troll like a bead on a string.  

>Well, I'd suspected it all along.  After Ebeling's storm in a teapot
>thread disintegrated in confusion, I attempted to get an ordered
>argument from him, even made some suggestions how to present one
>by changing the topic to "Ebeling sez: "the ozone ban is bad"?".
>I was searching for a logical ordered argument, hopefully in
>the form of syllogisms.   Some honest truth-seeking.
>Instead of responding to that, he went on a childish ad hominem
>attack of me with; "Bashford says: Ozone confuses me."   Sigh.  

>>Since Doug Bashford, in his epic  "middle-of-the-road extremist"
>>eco-nazi enviro-whackos, vs the evil nature-hating Limbaughists

>ya, ya...  And in fact, my attempt at order was utterly destroyed.

>>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

>>>Ebeling's main argument is "storm in a teapot", which I interpret
>>>to mean: "ozone bans are bad".  
>[...]
>>>I'm not interested in continuing the debate unless he states firmly
>>>that if his claim "Ozone depletion does NOT cause biological harm" 
>>>(or some other hypothesis) is falsified, he will admit his position 
>>>of "ozone bans are bad" is falsified (and admit defeat?).

>He failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis.  

>What he deleted and ignored:
>>>Mr Ebeling's duty is to present a falsifiable hypothesis.
>>> I suggest simple syllogism in the form
>>>of A, B, C, and D  therefore: "the ozone ban is bad".
>>>Each of A, B, ,C and D being an argument or axiom.

>>>I other words, present an ordered and thoughtful argument
>>>BEFORE the terms are debated. 
>[end insert]

>>>The following is a repost where Ebeling failed to reply.

>>Perhaps Doug's newsreader didn't pick it up.  The reply to Doug's
>>pointless rehash of circular arguments unrelated to the topic of
>>discussion is in "Re: Ozone hole still raging in my teacup".

>In fact, mine did not, nor did DejaNews, nor did Alta Vista search
>engines. There were only two responses to your mystery post, both
>from Australia.  How odd.

>>>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.  

>>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").

>It seems your lack of understanding of the philosophy of science
>is showing.  If it is rubbish, then please tell us how that statement
>could be falsified.  If you cannot....  Simple science.  Simple logic.
>Matters unfalsifiable are outside the realm of science.
>And in your own words, that is your "whole point!", your entire
>argument is unscientific.  

>I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because you raised
>some informed questions.  It seems you quickly recognized
>that your arguments would not stand in a logical presentation
>so you resorted to this.  Mass confusion, obfuscation, and captious,
>contumacious arguments again. 
>We'll not be giving you that benefit again.  You had your second
>chance and failed.  Oh well.  Some of us just wanted to be sure you
>had no arguments worth considering.  You lose.

>-    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@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
>Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
>http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

>