🚀 go-pugleaf

Since Doug Bashford, in his epic  "middle-of-the-road extremist"
eco-nazi enviro-whackos, vs the evil nature-hating Limbaughists
struggle to the death, seems to be a little confused, I have reposted
with an appropriate title to the thread.

bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

>Ebeling's main argument is "storm in a teapot", which I interpret
>to mean: "ozone bans are bad".  

Actually the expression is meant to imply that ozone depletion is
unimportant, and I give the reason: that it causes no harm.

>More precisely; "the cost!" is too high.    

Any amount of money, spent on something unimportant, is too much.

>He's had countless assumptions
>defeated by his own admission, yet this has had NO EFFECT on his
>"ozone bans are bad".  

This is because :

- the actual magnitude of natural stratospheric chlorine burden
- that DuPont was not engaged in a political conspiracy
- that there is a natural sink for HCl at the tropopause,

are not critical issues.  They are minutae, which I found interesting
to discuss, but are otherwise irrelevant.  It is hardly surprising
then that these issues do not effect the conclusion that ozone
depletion causes no bio harm.

>I'm not interested in continuing the debate unless he states firmly
>that if his claim "Ozone depletion does NOT cause biological harm" 

Go back to the original post and you will see "Ozone depletion does
not cause biological harm" is clearly stated.  

>(or some other hypothesis) is falsified, he will admit his position 
>of "ozone bans are bad" is falsified (and admit defeat?).

The statement "ozone depletion does not cause biological harm" is not
intended to be a statement of undeniable scientific truth (eg heat
always travel from the hotter to the cooler), but an observation.  If
anyone has observed something else, then lets talk.

>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".

>The only possible defense that I see is (loosely):
>  "Increased surface UV-B does not correlate with
>   increased  human exposure."

...along with a questionable relationship between ozone depletion and
increased surface UVR, and the magnitude of any potential increase
relative to natural variations...

>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").

>You never did explain the motivation for this science
>conspiracy of yours?  Or? was it that you are just so
>much smarter than all the scientists?  Or is that you're
>not crazy, everybody else is?  I believe that covers all
>the possibilities, does it not?  Did I leave anything out?

I have never suggested this is a science conspiracy.  It is just an
issue which has grabbed media attention, and been blown out of
proportion, particularly in terms of public perception.  

Unlike you, Doug, I do hold a degree in a scientific discipline, and
most of my fellow scientists agree with me regarding the
inappropriateness of media reporting.  I don't think I am any smarter
or saner than them, and I admit many are more knowledgable than myself
on this issue.  My only weakness is that I am incurably sceptical of
high profile pseudo-environmental issues, because of my negative
experience with nuclear power and uranium enrichment in Australia.

What's your excuse, Doug?


...Greig