"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:

It seems that you have a propensity to accept conspiracy theories that I
lack - perhaps its genetic. I begin to think that we are not going to
agree on much.

Please note. All these itmes can be found on the internet.
Google any sentence:

One thing that happened last time re exploitation.
The so called fluorocarbon used for refrigeration...
Replaced by a more safe refrigerant that would help the ozone layer.
The fact that DuPont's patent on this manufactured gas was about to
run out was a coincidence of course.
From Wikipedia
The Ozone depletion layer has been increasing, or shown no sign of
recovery of course.

You didn't read the whole Wikipedia article, the recovery is not expected
to take place for some time.

" It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go
from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there
for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules
during that time."

but it is starting

"Since 1981 the United Nations Environment Programme has sponsored a
series of reports on scientific assessment of ozone depletion. The most
recent is from 2007 where satellite measurements have shown the hole in
the ozone layer is recovering and is now the smallest it has been for
about a decade"


The year 2008 saw the longest lasting hole on record, which remained
until the end of December.[89] The hole was detected by scientists in
1985[90] and has tended to increase over the years of observation.
The ozone hole is attributed to the emission of chlorofluorocarbons
or CFCs into the atmosphere, which decompose the ozone into other
gases

From Duponts site
DuPont led the industry in the phaseout of CFCs and transition to
environmentally acceptable alternatives. At the time, DuPont
estimated that more than $135 billion of existing equipment in the
United States alone depended on CFCs. In January 1991, DuPont was the
first company to launch a family of refrigerant alternatives that met
performance, safety and environmental criteria and could be used in
existing as well as new equipment, thus minimizing the transition
cost to thousands of businesses and consumers around the world. The
company invested more than $500 million to develop and commercialize
CFC alternatives. CFCs accounted for less than 2 percent of the
company's revenues.
Not from their site, based on suspicion...There is considerable
evidence that the ban on R -12 is based on bogus information and

Please tell me where to find the considerable evidence of the bogus
information or who said that it existed.

orchestrated by Dupont because their patent on Freon was running out.
It's unlikely the decision will ever be reversed but it's just one
more example of how big business is wagging the dog.


It is odd to have DuPont accused of making it all up when they denied it
was happening.

Also from Wikipedia

"The Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of
the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The Chair of the Board of DuPont
was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction
tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense"."

Of course they wouldnt want it to look like they had nothing to do with it.
But its rather "strange" that refridgerant that is cheaper to use wont be
used as its "flammable"
What is this gas Dupont doesnt have a patent on thats flammable?
Standard barbeque LP gas! Its used in James Bond films and pressure pack
dispensers as the propellant.
Its so dangerous, that they use in in those kind of cans, but they cant use
it in refridgeration?

Ah yes, it might explode. In a sealed refirdgeration unit? Im "bloody"
possible.
Coming from the refridgeration industry I know.
So was it about patents or not.
Oh yes, where is my source. Im the source. As are others from Popular
Science who also touted the idea.
It was all about making money from an unsuspecting public.


If the link between CFCs and ozone depletion were all phantom why did so
many countries sign the Montreal agreement? Are you saying all their
scientists were under the thumb of big business?

YES

Also from Wikipedia

"At Montreal, the participants agreed to freeze production of CFCs at 1986
levels and to reduce production by 50% by 1999. After a series of
scientific expeditions to the Antarctic produced convincing evidence that
the ozone hole was indeed caused by chlorine and bromine from manmade
organohalogens, the Montreal Protocol was strengthened at a 1990 meeting
in London."

As I wrote, the ozone hole is still huge...2009 /09 will show the same. See
the above^^^ top of page...
Will it ever get smaller?
Probably not. But when those who have forgotten about what they forecast,
it wont matter.

"Jonno" wrote in message
...


"SG1" wrote in message
...
Snip
I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had
recently are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are
saying is that existing climate factors that can bring drought like ENSO
are likely to get more powerful or more frequent. So the first part of
the reason for denial is the confusion between shorter term events like
weather, middle term events like ENSO and the long term.
snip

WTH is ENSO?????
Answer: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
OK thanks for that. Never seen that acronym b4 and spent 29 years with the
BoM. Had it said SOI or similar i would have twigged. But El Ninyo
(pronuciation) b4 it had me stumped. Too long out of the bureau.
Thanks Jim

"SG1" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...


"SG1" wrote in message
...
Snip
I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had
recently are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are
saying is that existing climate factors that can bring drought like
ENSO are likely to get more powerful or more frequent. So the first
part of the reason for denial is the confusion between shorter term
events like weather, middle term events like ENSO and the long term.
snip

WTH is ENSO?????
Answer: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
OK thanks for that. Never seen that acronym b4 and spent 29 years with the
BoM. Had it said SOI or similar i would have twigged. But El Ninyo
(pronuciation) b4 it had me stumped. Too long out of the bureau.
Thanks Jim

Thats OK. I never worked for the BOM, and until you asked, I didnt know
either.
Teachers learn from qeustions. Glad you asked.... I learnt something
too.....

FarmI wrote:

There is a second part which I believe it is another common origin of
climate change denial in country districts. The way that it works
is that when you are on the land you are taught to be a survivor, to
find methods of coping, to fix the problem if you can and to endure
it if you cannot do anything about it. This is admirable and makes
much sense in the environment. The problem comes when attitudes
that go with the philosophy are extended beyond their useful scope. In
learning to be Stoic and to endure whatever nature throws at you,
you are taught not to whinge. To whinge is a sign of weakness, a
sign of a pointless attitude that you wish the world to be as you
desire it and that you are too stupid to accept it as it really is.

If you blame drought on an external agency like climate change you
are whingeing, blaming somebody or something else instead of taking
responsibility and getting on with the job. If you are a self
sufficient farmer whose pride keeps you going in tough times then
emotionally you cannot blame climate change because that is
admitting you cannot cope. Therefore it doesn't exist. The sad
thing is that if they did accept that something bigger than them was
going on and put their coping skills to use in new ways they
would be better off. We may not have time to wait until younger
sons and granddaughters take over with newer attitudes. These are some
observations of part of rural NSW that you might find
interesting. I am not trying to suggest that any of this necessarily
represents you or your situation.

Yep. Fits in with the Beyond Blue campaigns etc too. But I also
think that is both a bit overly pessimistic and a bit too global in
how some of our farmers are learning to cope/adapt/innovate. I
certainly see where you're coming from though.


In laying out two ways to get to denial I wasn't suggesting that these
opinions are universal. There are some really thoughtful and flexible
people around who are planning how they are going to deal with longer
droughts, heavier rain events and who are thinking there has to be a better
way to make stuff grow than just pouring on superphosphate.

There are also too many who feel trapped and powerless (for various reasons)
who do themselves harm in a variety of ways, mostly men, including refusing
to see a doctor and self medication with alcohol.

I was a bit glib when I threw in my 'stuffed' comment. I should have
made more effort to explain. As a gardener, I tend to look at
growing things and plants that have died. It's when you see trees
that must be hundreds of years old dieing or dead or in stress that
make you wonder what is going on. These trees have withstood droughts
before, have been stressed before and yet have managed to survive -
till now. Isolated trees will die but when you see huge numbers dead
or so far gone that you know thye won't recover, it rings alarm bells.

Dead trees bother me too.


I do know that our Fed politicians have been told that the future
will bring much drier conditions to both the south east of Oz and the
south west. That's our food growing areas so not a pretty picture.

If I read the figures right the wheat belts, particularly the south west,
are the reason that Oz is a net exporter of food. If those become marginal
the current trend of digging up good farmland in wetter areas to make
suburbs for urban sprawl and to get the coal underneath will need serious
rethinking. It might be better if our fearless leaders thought about this
before it happens.

David

David Hare-Scott wrote:
FarmI wrote:

There is a second part which I believe it is another common origin of
climate change denial in country districts. The way that it works
is that when you are on the land you are taught to be a survivor, to
find methods of coping, to fix the problem if you can and to endure
it if you cannot do anything about it. This is admirable and makes
much sense in the environment. The problem comes when attitudes
that go with the philosophy are extended beyond their useful scope.
In learning to be Stoic and to endure whatever nature throws at you,
you are taught not to whinge. To whinge is a sign of weakness, a
sign of a pointless attitude that you wish the world to be as you
desire it and that you are too stupid to accept it as it really is.

If you blame drought on an external agency like climate change you
are whingeing, blaming somebody or something else instead of taking
responsibility and getting on with the job. If you are a self
sufficient farmer whose pride keeps you going in tough times then
emotionally you cannot blame climate change because that is
admitting you cannot cope. Therefore it doesn't exist. The sad
thing is that if they did accept that something bigger than them was
going on and put their coping skills to use in new ways they
would be better off. We may not have time to wait until younger
sons and granddaughters take over with newer attitudes. These are
some observations of part of rural NSW that you might find
interesting. I am not trying to suggest that any of this necessarily
represents you or your situation.

Yep. Fits in with the Beyond Blue campaigns etc too. But I also
think that is both a bit overly pessimistic and a bit too global in
how some of our farmers are learning to cope/adapt/innovate. I
certainly see where you're coming from though.


In laying out two ways to get to denial I wasn't suggesting that these
opinions are universal. There are some really thoughtful and flexible
people around who are planning how they are going to deal with longer
droughts, heavier rain events and who are thinking there has to be a
better way to make stuff grow than just pouring on superphosphate.

There are also too many who feel trapped and powerless (for various
reasons) who do themselves harm in a variety of ways, mostly men,
including refusing to see a doctor and self medication with alcohol.

Helplessness caused by government inaction on logical methods of
fighting the climate change?
Creating situations where they have to sell out their farms?
Things like huge ocean going milk tankers importing milk into Australia?
I cerainly would self medicate drinking milk either.

I was a bit glib when I threw in my 'stuffed' comment. I should have
made more effort to explain. As a gardener, I tend to look at
growing things and plants that have died. It's when you see trees
that must be hundreds of years old dieing or dead or in stress that
make you wonder what is going on. These trees have withstood droughts
before, have been stressed before and yet have managed to survive -
till now. Isolated trees will die but when you see huge numbers dead
or so far gone that you know thye won't recover, it rings alarm bells.

Dead trees bother me too.


I do know that our Fed politicians have been told that the future
will bring much drier conditions to both the south east of Oz and the
south west. That's our food growing areas so not a pretty picture.

If I read the figures right the wheat belts, particularly the south
west, are the reason that Oz is a net exporter of food. If those become
marginal the current trend of digging up good farmland in wetter areas
to make suburbs for urban sprawl and to get the coal underneath will
need serious rethinking. It might be better if our fearless leaders
thought about this before it happens.

David
This situation of building homes in good farming areas has been seen by
me since I was ten.
As far as pollution goes, these motor companies, when hit by a loss of
revenue, due to increased fuel prices all of a sudden CAN produce much
more fuel efficient petrol motors.
Where is their conscience?
Shouldnt technology be used under all circumstances to improve fuel
consumption, in the same process, creating less pollution?
Me I'm accused of
conspiracy theories, when in fact they are all around in business
circles....
Who is blind to that? Who is running the counytry? Big business, backed
by them PM's get elected, and voters are fooled...

David Hare-Scott wrote:
FarmI wrote:

There is a second part which I believe it is another common origin of
climate change denial in country districts. The way that it works
is that when you are on the land you are taught to be a survivor, to
find methods of coping, to fix the problem if you can and to endure
it if you cannot do anything about it. This is admirable and makes
much sense in the environment. The problem comes when attitudes
that go with the philosophy are extended beyond their useful scope.
In learning to be Stoic and to endure whatever nature throws at you,
you are taught not to whinge. To whinge is a sign of weakness, a
sign of a pointless attitude that you wish the world to be as you
desire it and that you are too stupid to accept it as it really is.

If you blame drought on an external agency like climate change you
are whingeing, blaming somebody or something else instead of taking
responsibility and getting on with the job. If you are a self
sufficient farmer whose pride keeps you going in tough times then
emotionally you cannot blame climate change because that is
admitting you cannot cope. Therefore it doesn't exist. The sad
thing is that if they did accept that something bigger than them was
going on and put their coping skills to use in new ways they
would be better off. We may not have time to wait until younger
sons and granddaughters take over with newer attitudes. These are
some observations of part of rural NSW that you might find
interesting. I am not trying to suggest that any of this necessarily
represents you or your situation.

Yep. Fits in with the Beyond Blue campaigns etc too. But I also
think that is both a bit overly pessimistic and a bit too global in
how some of our farmers are learning to cope/adapt/innovate. I
certainly see where you're coming from though.


In laying out two ways to get to denial I wasn't suggesting that these
opinions are universal. There are some really thoughtful and flexible
people around who are planning how they are going to deal with longer
droughts, heavier rain events and who are thinking there has to be a
better way to make stuff grow than just pouring on superphosphate.

There are also too many who feel trapped and powerless (for various
reasons) who do themselves harm in a variety of ways, mostly men,
including refusing to see a doctor and self medication with alcohol.

Helplessness caused by government inaction on logical methods of
fighting the climate change?
Creating situations where they have to sell out their farms?
Things like huge ocean going milk tankers importing milk into Australia?
I certainly wouldn't self medicate drinking milk either.



I was a bit glib when I threw in my 'stuffed' comment. I should have
made more effort to explain. As a gardener, I tend to look at
growing things and plants that have died. It's when you see trees
that must be hundreds of years old dieing or dead or in stress that
make you wonder what is going on. These trees have withstood droughts
before, have been stressed before and yet have managed to survive -
till now. Isolated trees will die but when you see huge numbers dead
or so far gone that you know thye won't recover, it rings alarm bells.

Dead trees bother me too.


I do know that our Fed politicians have been told that the future
will bring much drier conditions to both the south east of Oz and the
south west. That's our food growing areas so not a pretty picture.

If I read the figures right the wheat belts, particularly the south
west, are the reason that Oz is a net exporter of food. If those become
marginal the current trend of digging up good farmland in wetter areas
to make suburbs for urban sprawl and to get the coal underneath will
need serious rethinking. It might be better if our fearless leaders
thought about this before it happens.

David
This situation of building homes in good farming areas has been seen by
me since I was ten.
As far as pollution goes, these motor companies, when hit by a loss of
revenue, due to increased fuel prices all of a sudden CAN produce much
more fuel efficient petrol motors.
Where is their conscience?
Shouldn't technology be used under all circumstances to improve fuel
consumption, in the same process, creating less pollution? The computer
industry is forced to do so for good reason. So should car makers.

Me I'm accused of creating conspiracy theories, when in fact they are
all around in business circles....
Who is blind to that? Who is running the country? Big business, backed
by them PM's get elected, and voters are fooled...

"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

I do know that our Fed politicians have been told that the future
will bring much drier conditions to both the south east of Oz and the
south west. That's our food growing areas so not a pretty picture.

If I read the figures right the wheat belts, particularly the south west,
are the reason that Oz is a net exporter of food. If those become
marginal the current trend of digging up good farmland in wetter areas to
make suburbs for urban sprawl and to get the coal underneath will need
serious rethinking. It might be better if our fearless leaders thought
about this before it happens.

Sadly they won't given that election cycle and other things. But I do agree
whole heartedly.

Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/

I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly tickled
your fancy?

David

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/

I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David

You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?

"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/

I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David

You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim

SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David
You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim


Sometimes the obvious escapes people. (Government policies have been
applauded even on Wikipedia as part of their job to sway public opinion.
Welcome to the world of internet undercover work)
I actually meant to ask David Hare-Scott this question.
Sorry.
Me, I'm not. Just a concerned member of the genera public who refuses to
be hood winked when its obvious that for the most part its about
revenue! This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it
wornt do any good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm
very cautious about its cause.

Jonthe Fly wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read
this..... http://www.junkscience.com/

I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David

You really do show cynicism.

How? The site in question deals with many issues. Would you like to know
what I think of the health effects of side stream tobacco smoke? It's there
but off topic to this NG.

I will admit to scepticism (and I believe there ought to be more of it)
which is not that same as cynicism.

You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?

What does my occupation have to do with anything? What are the
characteristics of public servants that you are interested in?

Ah now I see your reply to SG1. Thankyou for suggesting that my material is
so good that I could get paid for it but sadly I don't. I am not a public
servant and I don't get anything from anybody for anything I post on usenet.
Yes I do have a vested interest in spending my time doing this. The welfare
of my children and those to come.


David

"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David
You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim


Sometimes the obvious escapes people. (Government policies have been
applauded even on Wikipedia as part of their job to sway public opinion.
Welcome to the world of internet undercover work)
I actually meant to ask David Hare-Scott this question.
Sorry.
Me, I'm not. Just a concerned member of the genera public who refuses to
be hood winked when its obvious that for the most part its about revenue!
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do any
good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm very
cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere
was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the temperature increased
by a similar amount? the average is about 290Kelvin why is it not
330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????

SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
SG1 wrote:
"Jonthe Fly" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" Apparently you have never wanted to read this.....
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have read some of it actually. It's a big site, what particularly
tickled your fancy?

David
You really do show cynicism.
You haven't answered the public servant question.
Are you one?
I used to be, ah memories of stainless steel in the back. Why is it
important to now if a poster has a particular occupation???? The topic
is/was gardening with a few diversions into obscurly related fields.
Occupation is not relevant to digging a hole.
Jim


Sometimes the obvious escapes people. (Government policies have been
applauded even on Wikipedia as part of their job to sway public opinion.
Welcome to the world of internet undercover work)
I actually meant to ask David Hare-Scott this question.
Sorry.
Me, I'm not. Just a concerned member of the genera public who refuses to
be hood winked when its obvious that for the most part its about revenue!
This Vehement CO2 policy will bankrupt Australians. And it wornt do any
good
I concede that we have a world temperature increase perhaps! But I'm very
cautious about its cause.

Many years ago, well in the last 30 any. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere
was 300ppm + or - 10 now it is 350ppm why has not the temperature increased
by a similar amount? the average is about 290Kelvin why is it not
330-3340K????? Why am I a skeptic?????


Youre not. Others are.
The relation ship between increase in CO2 and Degrees kelvin would
hardly have a similar relationship though.
Its the saem as saying, if I have one window, which increases the
temperature by say 20 degrees, two windows will increase the temperature
to 40 degrees. It bears no relationship.
But there could be an increase of some sort. How much depends on the
characteristics of the gases or water vapour involved.
As it is , CO2 production which is man made is minor compared to natural
CO2. As is the part it plays as the "window" where CO2 affects climate
change.
This is a very small "window" after which temperature does not increase
if CO2 is increased. This is where the political lie comes into affect.
More CO2 will cause greenhouse affect?
What about other gases?