more scary stuff

[Roanon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.
If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

That's why I have stopped answering to Posts of Fyron a long time ago, and most of the time don't even bother to read them.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Core samples from glaciers in Greenland and Antartica. The gases caught in the ice enable researchers to measure the ratio of gases in the atmosphere.

Anyway - You are right natural effects will eventually overwhelm anything humans can do but that wasn't the issue.

The issue was that Fyron wrote - as it if were self-evident - that:

quote:

---

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

Even your two links refute that myth.

---

Have you heard of the term hyperbole? Obviously that statement had its intended affect.

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.

The only person that made an unequivical statement was Fyron. (I'll repeat what he wrote for effect)

quote:

---

we just did not cause the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. That was caused by massive volcanic eruptions.

What Fyron wrote seems unambiguous (even taken in the context that it was written) - at least to me.

Even Fyron's links don't make the assertions that Volcanoes cause the hole in ozone layer. All they suggest is that Volcanoes made the hole worse not that they were the cause of the hole.

If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

---

I fail to see how responding to Roanan's statements has degenerated anything into a debate of semantics. I see no debate of semantics in this thread. Very few Posts I make have anything to do with semantics. On occasion it is necessary to clarify terms used when they get misinterpreted, but that is hardly a "degeneration into semantics." Since you are looking for a scapegoat, Roanan is the one that called links into question, you (Rex) are the on that brought politics into this. Don't blame me for what others have said. I was fine discussing ozone depletion. You two veered the discussion away from that.

[solops]

Edit my Last post for dogmatism...

[rextorres]

Hyporbole? Maybe you can define it for me. Last time I used that word - in a different debate - you accused me of misusing it.

Anyway - since you seem to want to argue the semantics of your Posts . . . I certainly didn't detect any hyperbole in them, maybe others can correct me.

[geoschmo]

Perhaps it's post-facto hyperbole. It's a little known use of the term that when applied correctly allows any previously uttered statement of fact to be instantly transformed into mere exageration for effect once it's been demonstrated to be provably false. It allows the speaker to avoid such uncomfortable situations as having to admit any sort of error.

[Puke]

a while ago i read a really cool article on global warming and ocean currents.

if you accept that the globe is warming and climates are changing and ice is melting, then we can move forward. its not really important WHY its happeing, at least not for the purpose of the theory. it could be normal periodic climate change, the evils of industry, volcanoes, divine punishment, or the butterfly effect. doesn't matter at all. there is a general concensus among the global scientific community that we are getting warmer, and the only people saying otherwise are.. well, nevermind that. lets procede:

the short Version is that we get warmer, ice caps melt thus shifting cold water currents in the atlantic ocean, thus altering the main climate regulating mechanism on the globe. what we end up with, is an ice age. possibly one that can occur during our lifetimes, and Last for several hundred years.

the actual article was very detailed and the research seemed thorough, but I just cant remember enough of it to give a proper description.

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
How come is it that anytime there is a debate with Fyron involved it degenerates to a debate of semantics.
If Fyron wants we can continue to argue the meaning of words, the sources of links, the politics of the posters or the appropriateness of the Posts. It certainly won't be a debate about Ozone depletion.

That's why I have stopped answering to Posts of Fyron a long time ago, and most of the time don't even bother to read them.

---

yeah, a sharp guy with alot of good ideas. but he's often too pleased with himself and either cant conceed, or agree to disagree. even if you assume that he is right 100% of the time, he often has problems admitting that he is actually in agreement with someone else whom is arguing for his side - usually because of semantics. The only larger arse on the entire forum is, well, me.