Wow, $30 for an article...OK, no jokes about badly you must've wanted that article. Seriously, that is...scarily impressive.
I wasn't implyling that you're lying about the article, and you know that. It was more like throwing my hands in the air at the absurdity of trying to discuss an article to which only you have access. What else is there to discuss but the political context in which you presented the article? (Or, rather, reported on the existence of the article.)
The political context implies a subtext: If the conclusion that flourocarbons caused ozone depletion is wrong, then surely all the other science about all the other problems with the atmosphere are discredited too.
Right?
But is that really a logical conclusion? Possibly, if you're presenting a conspiracy theory involving "leftie" scientists. Is that what you're trying to say here?
Current Events » in reply to The article cost me thirty bucks.
re: The article cost me thirty bucks.
The whole thread (41 posts)
- CFCs and the ozone hole. Oops?
- Never ask a chemist to do a physicists job. ;-) (n/t)
- And 40% is in man's control. What's the issue? (n/t)
- Going off half-cocked again?
- You can barely contain your glee, can you?