134a Refrigerant

I tried, but I learned long ago gasoline will extinguish a burning
match.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> So Bill, how did you make out with the gasoline experiment I suggested?
> As I haven't seen any fireballs out west I am guessing you are too
> chicken**** to stand in the middle of a puddle of gasoline and light a
> match, even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline
> vapors are heavier than air. BTW, while the actual effect of CFCs on
> ozone are still somewhat uncertain, the presence of CFCs in the
> stratosphere has been measured in samples taken during high altitude
> flights. Also, FWIW, even though freon is much lighter than water, it
> has been measured in the deepest parts of the ocean. This is the source
> of much of the uncertainty in the ozone depletion models: They assumed
> no natural sinks, whereas the the oceans, and the ground itself absorb
> and sequester CFCs, and there is some evidence for bacterial breakdown
> as well.
> --
> jeff

"jeff" > wrote in message
news:W0jue.2431$G4.1408@trnddc09...
> even though the "preponderance of the evidence" is that gasoline vapors
> are heavier than air.

ridiculous because the force of the explosion would force the burning vapors
up, much like the VOLCANIC ERUPTION would do the same thing.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> . ..
> > ... to promote my *science* agenda..
>=20
> youre "science" agenda was nothing more than "could be's" from self =
serving=20
> governmental agencies.

The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:

<>
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" =
....
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and =
justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, =
then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...This is a =
fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues =
of the person asserting it.
</>

Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> > You asserted that
> > you would change your mind if given good evidence...
>=20
> so give me something _conclusive_ that doesnt come from a self serving =

> governmental agency.

Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
world is wrong, while you're at it.
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> . ..
> > Sporting? > ) Who said this had to be sporting?
>=20
> exactly. this is about promoting your liberal agenda just as youve =
been=20
> taught to do.

No, it's about looking smart in front
of a dummy... big ego boost. Your
politics are just the icing on the cake...
Logic comes before politics, at least,
in *my* book.... : ) ... not so much
in yours, I can tell.

> > I have a hard time
> > believing that one post a day, apiece, is tearing you
> > guys up.
>=20
> ****, we agree on something! :-)

Look! We dragged some others in... and
Bill's on with the hemishpere thing again! =20
This thread lives! : )
__
Steve
..

"Peter Pontbriand" <TRIMsprocketATstormDOTcaTRIM> wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> . ..
>=20
> > Try reasoning with Nate... I'm sure you'll find him much more
> > reasonable than I am.
>=20
> That's just it - to me the preponderance of evidence is against there =
being
> a point bothering to try to reason with such an unreasonable =
individual.
> Continuing to butt your head against a rock in plain view of all of us =
is
> undermining my opinion of your own reasonableness.

Dude.. you're a Pussy. Go and sit on the porch. The
New Liberal Scientist is *not* a Pussy. As Newt said:
"Go Negative Early... Never Give Up".

BTW, thanks for sorta chiming in on my side... sorta.
__
Steve
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
. ..
> The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.

horse****. explain the difference!

> Now *you* have to
> post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
> the ozone layer

i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. i said that cfcs cant reach
the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight and i provided links from your
engineers that validated my statement.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> . ..

>>The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
>>Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
>>science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
>>the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:
>>
>><>
>> Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" =
....
>>The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, =
and justify your >>refusal by criticizing the person who made the =
statement, then you are guilty of >>abusive argumentum ad hominem. =
....This is a fallacy because the truth of an >>assertion doesn't depend =
on the virtues of the person asserting it.
>></>
>>
>>Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> horse****. explain the difference!

Explain the difference in what? Is there something
that you don't understand about the sentence "the truth of an=20
assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it"?

>>Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
>>out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
>>post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
>>the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
>>world is wrong, while you're at it.

> i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. =20

Notice: neither did I. I said "don't". Please
read carefully.

> i said that cfcs cant reach=20
> the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight=20
> and i provided links from your=20
> engineers that validated my statement.

The NOAA article clearly states that man-made
CFC's were measured in the stratosphere...
and everywhere else in the atmosphere.
The article goes on to explain the ratios, how
they've grown since first detection in the 1950's,
and how they've started to fall after CFC's were
discontinued.

All you posted was the user's manual from
your leak detector, and a page from an
online HVAC tech course. Don't bring
a pea-shooter to a shootout, Nate...
get some evidence with balls, or give up.
If what you say is true, then there's some
scientific evidence for it. That's what we're
waiting for.
__
Steve
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...
> Explain the difference in what?

both the epa and noaa are self serving. ive asked you for conclusive
evidence from a credible source and you gave me links with "proudliberal" in
the url as a credible source. lol.


>All you posted was the user's manual from
> your leak detector, and a page from an
> online HVAC tech course.

exactly! links from your ENGINEERS that are actually from WITHIN the hvac
industry! they have nothing to gain or lose by the environmental issues and
are telling you how to use the tools effectively. both clearly state to
check for leaks below the source because refrigerant is heavier than air and
falls which is what ive told you from the beginning.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
seminar liberals are taught to
> never _ever_ let an opposing view get the last word (yes, i know how it
> works) no matter what.

Funny, seminar conservatives must use the same playbook....time to let it go
for both of y'all.

Funny, if (when?) it's a Republican saying similar things against Democrats,
I suspect many rank and file GOPers would stand and applaud. Instead, the
Dems distance themselves from him, not wanting to offend anyone. Sheesh.

From what I see, it looks like Hillary is being seriously considered for
2008. I guess the Dems have really decided that they don't want to occupy
the White House for the next dozen years or so.

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "L.W. ("ßill") Hughes III" > wrote in message
> ...
>> have you listened the Howard Dean
>> lately, his the best promotion the Republicans have ever had.
>
> lol for sure. i really hope he's the next democratic presidential
> nominee.
>
> --
> Nathan W. Collier
> http://7SlotGrille.com
> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
>