william.scherk

Brant, I hope you will forgive me for harping on this point, but here are your exact words on OL:** "he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS" Here are your exact words on SOLO last November: "Didn't Foucault go to Mexico to have sex with boys while dying of AIDS?" I would respect you so much more if you just said you fucked up and repeated a rumour/fancy/confabulation/misremembrance. All the dancing about with "oh, I never meant that. I meant the other thing, the nice thing, the non-sleazy gossip thing" -- all this is not credible. Why not just say you were wrong, and you are sorry and we can move on, all of us? ___________________ ** The original OL post has been deleted ("Honey, somebody let the horses out! They are all gone! What? Shut the door? Okay, Okay! Just as soon as I call the horse thief hotline."). If anyone ever seaches the whole wide internets a few years from now, the earliest places they will find "sex with Mexican boys Foucault AIDS death" is here and at SOLO.

Seymour is so sloppy that he left an italic code unclosed over there. This is one of those sins that Lindsay has said he does not tolerate. I am sure Lindsay will not edit the bullshit out of Seymour's demented paste-job, but he may edit the shit out of my angry, vituperative response: http://www.solopassi...#comment-105286 Somewhere in the mists of Seymour's gassy effusions are a few useful and discutable things/angles/observations. But his emotional lability, excessive self-regard, and inability to respond like a human being and not an Envigilator of the Endless Examination -- this just poisons the message. It is surely unfair and somewhat demeaning (for us) to do such a dogpile on you, Seymour. There is still a well of goodwill and good humour here. If only you know how to tap something like that, to have a conversation instead of a rant. Rants are good, life-enobling, smashing good fun, but we cannot rant constantly and still keep out of the bughouse. Surely there are places that know you and love you and welcome you, warts, breast implants, false buttocks, amalgam fillings, horsehair wiglet and fall, adult party-pants and all. You maybe oughta go play with them for a while, refresh yourself, build yourself up. Because the pool of goodwill seems to be shrinking.

Seymour, slop is slop. You are sloppy, unfocussed and all-too-often reactive and irresponsible in your posting here -- that is why I have you on 'ignore' (though I did wish to see if you would admit a mistake in running with the murky 'boys' theme ...). I offer corrections when folks fall down the rabbithole, shrug off 'facts,' recount history from the bottom of their faulty remembrance, or otherwise assume an authoritative voice that does not suit them. As I sad before, I am glad you have a hobby and are an enthusiastic reader. That not everyone is interested in following your sloppier and more peevish posts, I should think this is obvious. As an educator, you make a good dishwasher ... If you do not like being accused of slop and a looseness with facts, or wish to be excused from critical attention paid to your murky and sometimes incoherent rants, then you can alter your own behaviour. Try not being so belligerent and chauvinistic, and resistant to correction -- if you do not wish to be dismissed as a bizarre crank.

Quoting Seymour: "And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back." Seymour has a hard time with facts. Aside from your mention of "Mexican boys" and Seymour's acquiescence to your 'boys,' there is nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING that suggests Foucault was a pedophile. Nothing in the Faux Roman (which I linked to above) nor in his numerous biographies (or biographical sketches) suggests he had sex with boys. It is appalling the amount of sleaze and rumour that gets ladled out here at times.

Dennis May non-answered my latest post. Bob Kolker says, Fucking Muslim Bastards. Dennis is not in the game .... http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11719&view=findpost&p=155758

Thanks, Stephen. You are quite right. AZT is a nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitor. I appreciate the correction -- and the experience of someone who has battled both AZT and illness. Glad we had AZT and the combination therapies, and that we still have you to kick around. It disturbs me that Brant is such a Know-Nothing about HIV/AIDS, or is so resistant to correction, or is just not in the mood to have his knowledge updated. But I am glad we have him to kick around too ...

As for the cause, prove away--good luck with that. So, I take this for a large NO to understanding more about AIDS and HIV.

That's the rub, innit, though? Which is the "problem">? If the problem is, as I alluded to, pure hoax or fraud, I want it out, I want it punished, I want it expunged. That is what you do with a problem like hoaxing or fraud. If the "problem" was a grievously misinformed media during the first public notice and concern about Ozone depletion, we have to look. If publicly financed bodies (NASA) alerted media to a scientific 'alarm' bell, then we should not only look to media depictions but also the actions and statements of those bodies. Any special-pleading or foot-on-gas/brake testimony in political arenas and policy-making deliberative bodies should be examined and acknowledged. If some heretofore responsible scientists made a big noise about Ozone depletion, and coerced national governments to commit to the Montreal Protocol -- while knowing that their prognostications were based on error/fudged stats/whimsy/fraud -- then I want to know their names also. The problems grow larger if we do conclude, tentatively, that humankind cannot effect climate or the atmosphere in a destructive way. If it is not scientifically possible for humans to pump catalytic agents into the atmosphere that will degrade Ozone, then something fishy indeed is going on. I think this is the null, the default, the Objectivish anti-environmental activism starting point. The problem. The problem that never was, then, is the problem remaining. Was there a problem in reality? Was there a danger in CFCs and other banned substances? Do measurements tell us anything about the course of Ozone levels over our recent history? Now, in an exchange on Atlantis II, Michael DeVault wrote argued with our Dennis May. He said, "Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud." And our Dennis said, "not all of it. Graphing fraud [...]" So, does anyone see fraud in the graph presented above, or these graphs below (click through to source)? Average October ozone levels at the Halley station (in Antarctica) between 1955 and 2006. The thick line represents October values; dots represent the seasonal variation of ozone concentration for the months from August to April

Brant, what you say is not true. The name AIDS was first put up publicly in September 1982' The 4-H disease, or GRID, "gay related immune deficiency. Brant, you are all over the map with this. Some is wrong, some is out-of-sequence, some is debatable at least. If you cannot be bothered to check your assumptions, why should we give your remembrances the ring of truth? Wondering is fine -- if you cannot or will not read and understand the virology, and if you do not look at the evidence, you can believe what you feel like. The 'misuse of recreational drugs' was put forward by the AIDS denialist Duesberg. His contentions have never recieved a bit of support. No one has been able to demonstrate his muffly theorized epidemiology. Why oh why do Objectivish folks get so gullibilized on the issue of AIDS? It was again the outlier Duesberg who put forward this assertion. It has not borne out in any way ...It was never "implicated" as a cause or instigator of immune deficiency. Duesberg's assertions have been disproved, Brant. AZT retards the infections like PCP and Kaposi's sarcoma that are the hallmark of AIDS infection. AZT saved lives as the very first of the useful protease inhibitors anti-viral agents, preventing development of opportunistic infections I think it would help your sense of wonder if you understood the retrovirus a bit more, and if you understood what a protease inhibitor is designed to do. The 'cocktail' today (or rather cocktails) are an attempt to prevent the retrovirus from replicating and overloading the immune system. The problem with this particular virus (and other retroviruses) is that they have no 'corrective' in their replication; they mutate widely and wildly, and become 'resistant.' As with hospital-brooded multiply-resistent strains of pneumococci (and others) and staphylococci (and others), the cocktail is designed to head off replication by closing multiple doors in its complicated machinery. I do not mean to be rude or abrasive unduly, Brant, but your knowledge banks need tending, brother. You have missed some important information. You have got to be kidding. Just because you haven't understood AIDS does not mean that other rational inquirers do not. You seem to be throwing over an entire multivalent, multiyear, multicentre approach to understanding AIDS. This is not 'alarmist' variations on the wobble edge of science. Look a little, brother. Don't be satisfied with half-baked notions and wonderment and suspicion. Retroviral theory is necessarily complicated, but it is not beyond us. That is the situation today; AIDS is no longer a death sentence, as it was for Michel Foucault and many of my friends from 1983 onward. If you like, I can direct you to some resources for understanding AIDS. It will help you discard the woolier of the debunked Duesberg-style errors. [Edited to correct line about AZT /ht Boydstun]

Do you have a source for that?I started to Google it and see you mentioned it to this same poster in almost the same words back in September of last year on SLOP. I'm not interested enough in Foucault to devote much time to digging, but if you have a source, I would be interested in looking at the controversy. It was over 20 years ago. Maybe 15. Primitive Internet. You can Google him and get all sorts of supportive material, but so far I can't find that again. I'll keep looking, but I won't be buying any bios. Foucault died in June 1984. AIDS was IDed by the CDC in 1982. It was tied to HIV first in 1983, and the first bathhouse closures were ordered in San Francisco in 1984. The first antibody test came in 1985. Foucault's death was not attributed to AIDs or complications from AIDS in initial death announcements, but rumours attended his death (emerging from the Gay community and subcommunities). Rumours coalesced around practices assumed to be habitual with Foucault: bath house cruising, unprotected sex. These rumours were confronted in a biographical terms in a roman faux, and in a biography, 'The Passion of Michel Foucault,' by James Miller. Of all the rumours, the notion of him deliberately infecting Mexican boys is new to me. I can find no reference to Mexican boys and Foucault except here on OL. The only Mexican boys reference I can dig up is the final denouement in the film Suddenly Last Summer, where the Sebastian character -- who trolled the Mexican beaches for sex with boys -- was cannibalized by those he had used ...

I found some great, if fluffy, answers to 20 Ozone questions ... Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2010 Update Contents What is ozone and where is it in the atmosphere? How is ozone formed in the atmosphere? Why do we care about atmospheric ozone? How is total ozone distributed over the globe? How is ozone measured in the atmosphere? What are the principal steps in stratospheric ozone depletion caused by human activities What emissions from human activities lead to ozone depletion? What are the reactive halogen gases that destroy stratospheric ozone? What are the chlorine and bromine reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone? Why has an “ozone hole” appeared over Antarctica when ozone-depleting substances are present throughout the stratosphere? How severe is the depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer? Is there depletion of the Arctic ozone layer? How large is the depletion of the global ozone layer? Do changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions affect the ozone layer? Are there controls on the production of ozone-depleting substances? Has the Montreal Protocol been successful in reducing ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere? Does depletion of the ozone layer increase ground-level ultraviolet radiation? Is depletion of the ozone layer the principal cause of climate change? Have reductions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol also protected Earth’s climate? How is ozone expected to change in the coming decades?

I will be blogging my findings during my week away. Beyond blathering about meta-argument and blowing off the burden of proof, you are just not very interesting to discuss with at times, rather bluntly do you disregard my concerns. So I will discuss my findings with myself and see where I get to, off the main rink ... having slayed the dragon here, you may continue declaiming and expostulating without fear of contradiction.

Hurrah! Seriously, and more pointedly, a question for Ellen. I appreciate what she may be trying to do -- that each of us is trying to do -- ID particular points of contention and give them a workover. I am game. Dennis has done it all before and considers it settled, so he is probably not game at all. So, you, dear lady, are you in this game, or merely keeping score and scolding? Will you be putting forward any argument about Ozone depletion yourself? Are you on a particular side here, or part of the Neutral Observer mission? Yes, I think most of us here would get on the same page that A Claim Needs Evidence to support it. As I remarked above, and as Ellen has magnificently listed, there are some issues that lay between you and acceptance. I understand that. I understand that you yourself will be no help in pinpointing those issues. I hope I use my week well. I shall be concentrating on that which most interests me, the unremarkable observation that "Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion." I will report back on this. But, again, just to say it one more time: Dennis, you charged fraud and hoax. Adam and I are asking: who should be coming up with evidence of fraud and hoax in Ozone depletion? You, me, him, Ellen, Santa? This question you do not answer ....

You come late to the opera, Ellen. The dance of the veils is indeed Dennis's, since I have attempted to pinpoint just where he claims hoax and fraud. I am doing a two-step (and with your help, a square-dance) with Dennis, asking him to put some flesh on the bones of his claims of fraud and hoax. Thank you for the presentation of the list of contentions. It may be that I and only I must rove on in trying to find the 'falsifications' -- since Dennis (and you, now) tell me that this is my job. Like I say, I will come back in a week or so and see what material has been adduced by the Ozone Hole Fraud Squad. But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.' Ultimately, I want some facts, If we have so far outlined some facts and facts possibly in dispute, I have done well so far.

Here's a helpful bit of exposition from a summary article at Wikipedia. This gives a little further edge to unremarkable science, but perhaps sharpens our focus on just what it is that Dennis May considers fraudulencing and hoaxeronony: [T]he primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). In the rest of this comment, Emphases added. Bold for claims by Dennis May. Bold blue for unremarkable scientific findings. Red bold for iffy-ish statements IDed by Dennis's sniffs, clues from earlier statements on OL and Atlantis II, And yet, and yet! As yet, no reference to the specific data presentation fraud in re the Ozone Hole! So, back to what we think we may know so far ... Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.' Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms). Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia). There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood. Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to: an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere) a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere. The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole." This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens. Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS). Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light. The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide. The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated. In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s). Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right. Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion. It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge So, if upon my return from Mount Research, Dennis has advanced some evidence against the red items, all will rejoice. For 16, Dennis can adduce some evidence showing robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, how it is produced and how it is depleted For 21, Dennis can presumably find some evidence against the discovery of 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens. For 22, Dennis may be able to find research findings or observations that supplant the accepted measurements, that atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens. For 23, Dennis may be forthcoming with evidence against the scientific finding that atmospheric Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Again, this is atmospheric chemistry, a measurement and an observation. The claim is that human-manufactured refrigerents enter the atmosphere and leave catalytic derivatives (atomic halogens) that act to 'crack' Ozone. Two things must be disproved to disprove the conclusions of 23. Can Dennis do this? For 24, Dennis can no doubt find multiple instances in which the halocarbons (Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined to have no role to play in the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, and thus show evidence that the halocarbons should not be seen as Ozone-depleting substances (ODS). For 27, it is not clear what Dennis may take issue with. If Ozone Holes do expose the surface of the earth (and its living biota) to increased amounts of UVB -- AND -- if a causal connection can be demonstrated between ODS and Ozone depletion in the stratosphere, sone certainly would argue that such increased harmful radiation is a cause for concern -- especially if the connection dials back to human-produced catalytic substances. Now 28, perhaps Dennis can show something from the atmospherics and climatological literature that features clashes, disagreements, disarray and confusion with regard to Ozone holes. The fact is there isn't much confusion in re Ozone holes to be found. I suspect that Dennis does not bother reading any literature in these areas. 29 is fairly straightforward. It notes overlapping concerns with CFCs in climatology. I have no idea what is wrong with that observation. That CFCs are part of what are called 'greenhouse gases' is hardly counterfactual. If Dennis can find otherwise, supercalifragilistic. Finally, in 31, Dennis seems to look down his nose at the notion that the fellow who charges Fraud and Hoax should be able to present evidence in support of the charge. That just makes me sigh for him, his wife, the local feedlot staff, and for the future of armchair de-hoaxerology.

Like I said, I will take a break. We two are not the only participants in discussion. If you find in these last statements some whiffs of fraud or hoaxing, I fully expect you to denote one of the numbered points for critique. Your roundabout Phil Coates-ish Dance of Veils is tiresome and obvious. I expect you, Dennis, to support your contentions of Fraud and Hoax. I mean, I expect a reasonable, reasoning person who objects to some aspect or finding of Ozone chemistry to put forward his objections. I do not accept that you cannot (since you have written that you can), so I must accept that you will not. So, I will give it a few days and check back to see if you are still stuck in non-response mode. It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge.

Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.' Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms). Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia). So far you have presented generic background information - please continue. You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this. In my own experience the lesson is learned best when you discover the problems for yourself. If you start heading the wrong way - I will be happy to point you in the right direction so you can discover the errors for yourself. OK. So, I will fall back onto trusting you to come out of the bushes and screech a warning if I or anyone should begin to tumble off the One True Path. So far, everyone is safe. Let us continue: There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood. Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to: an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere) a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere. The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole." This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens. Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociatin" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS). Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light. The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide. The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated. In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s). Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right. Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion. It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge. Of course. Some fifteen twists of the thread back, however, you were claiming FRAUD and HOAX, without specifying just where this fraudulous hoaxerogations had been accomplished, without attaching a name or statement or other ID to this horriblocity. I accept that you are not making any proposals at all in the last turns of this thread: you have challenged me to lay out what I believe is known; you are then going to possibly give hints to me and simpler and bluster and hide behind the veils and dance along without engaging in good faith ... I accept the learning-by-torture formulation of your Lesson Plan. Please continue with the hinting and gurning and "Not Me" and general all-round fun. Ass is as Ass does, methinks, Mr Teacher Expert. Asses/Donkeys are known for their stubbornness, also for the sterility of their cross-bred hybrids via horses, Mules. Mulishness would better describe your lumbering avoidance of specifics entombed in your Ozone FraudHoax charge.

Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.' Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms). Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia). So far you have presented generic background information - please continue. I think I will take a break, Dennis. I had assumed a discussion, not a Philip Coates-style learning-by-torture session, full of Teacher sighing, "I am waaaaaiiiiiting, class ...." tap tap tap. Come on, Dennis, no one will steal your lunch if you discuss. The blackboard is yours to teach, to show how Ozone Fraud Hoax was manifest ... You stipulate for the assembled, that nothing listed above rises above 'background' knowledge? I will hold you to this. If there is anything in the above claims that sniffs the least little bit like hoaxerizing or fraudulization, this is your chance to tell us, sir. The bell rings at 3 so we can go home. The chalk is on the ledge.

Ellen helps reveal some facts -- that Atlantis II at Yahoo is not quite reachable by all OL members. This is as it should be, I guess. I accepted the challenge to go search for your arguments about Ozone and found what I quoted above. The rest is cloaked from general view until you or I reveal it. But let's put that aside. Let me play my part as prescribed by you. Above you tell us what I haven't done, from your point of view. I have not presented anything specifici to be discussed on the Ozone Hole. So, I must present something specific, open up something for discussion. That is probably right. So, how about some specific statements? Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.' Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms). Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia). +++++++++++++++++++ So, there are a few specifics, laid out in assertion form, Phil-style, ready for refutation. They are ready to be picked off as evidence of Fraud or Hoaxing. And I have not even got started in fairly blandly laying out background material sufficient to understand Ozone ... So, Dennis -- the subject is Ozone. Ozone, Ozone depletion, Ozone generation, Ozone, Ozone, Ozone. Not the blacks or the QM mafias or da Jooz or the evul sciences that have opprossed you. This makes me think of the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do. My fantastic, lurid, garish, even burlesque 'claims' are just above. Choose your weapon and attack. Yabba Yabba Do Dabba Do, baby. I am sure I speak for the entire class, Mr May, when I say I really look forward to your axe-work on the Hoaxery and Fraudulizing contained above. I want to see your axe-work as you set out to smash the rather ho-hum knowledge humans have garnered in re Ozone, your veddy skeddy bugaboo.

I have become a reader of Atlantis II at Yahoogroups, that fine platform for science discussion. I have come across Dennis May's opinions in several threads, threads of discussion turned up by "searches" as recommended. Yes, I searched for what I hoped to find, somebody giving an argument about ozone. "The Ozone Hole was a fraud, a hoax" -- that is what I sifted out. The same loosey-goosey ranting over-generalization you have peddled in this thread. If I am a crank just because I ask you to give your argument, give an argument to back up your assertions about Ozone, then I am just a crank. But it seems to me that the person who evades giving simple answers to straight-up inquiry would be the crank, the crackpot, the Phil. However, I bow to the record at Atlantis II, especially because you rolled back your claim upon someone checking your excesses: >Michael DeVault wrote: >"Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud." >Not all of it - just portions. Graphing fraud, >links to amphibian declines fraud, hiding data >that does not support the consensus fraud, >sweeping generalizations fraud [banning similar >but never tested chemicals never used in >significant quantities anyway]. Like global >warming every politically popular abuse went in - >another politial abuse of science leading to >uncertainty in the quality of the science and the >results presented. In both cases it will take >generations to sort truth from fraud - and only >then if science actually recovers. Jeepers, Dennis. You do not even remember your own caveats ... I am shocked. Shocked, I say. Such claims! Such Thoses, too! Them, nameless theys and those. Such and so and so and bad people, but no names and no cites and no papers and so I rest my case, counsellor. Yours are assertions and charges and allegations -- and not much case. Not much to examine, after all. Thanks for being so churlish, so small, so pontifical and misremembering of your own rants from yesterday. I had not wanted to mis-sort you into the crackpot file, and I do what to give you an opportunity to lay out some coherent argument concerning Ozone, ozone depletion, CFCs, Montreal ban, stats, current research and knowledge-base ... and so on. I leave open the possibility you continue to follow scientific debate on these issues. But hey, this is OL, and if we get a Gawd indwelling in J Neil, we can get a Fraud/Hoax squad. If you want to play inplacable anti-AGWA Fraud halfback on the team, great. Present it all openly, yes. Yes. Here is where it was presented openly for all to see, at Atlantis II: Ozone Hole scientific fraud in data presentation is what got me started watching "Global Warming" as it became the new religion. Yes. Although I still search for more than bold assertions, for a summary of the fraud, for some notes on the hoax, I would like you to sum up, list, underline the whole awful Ozone 'thing' that we should all gnash our teeth and froth our mouths about. Yes. Somewhere over that rainbow, however ...

Are you kidding me? That is the best you can do to advance your argument or to direct us to your argument? Tell us to go search for it? No thanks, but I understand the attitude. I have seen that attitude before. I have seen the old trick of - you do all the hard work while I do none - trick in many on-line arguments before. If you have a specific topic you want to discuss lay it out with specifics. Tricks. Tricks. Interlocutor Dennis May says "Ozone Hole Hoax Fraud Junk Science." I say, "Oh yeah, where is your Argument, please? Dennis says, over there somewhere, go look for it where I wrote it ...." I say, "No. If you cannot make your argument here, and you cannot direct to the argument elsewhere, then all we have is your huffing and puffing and conclusions." The hard work is presumably going through some endless stream of Yahoogroups conversation between (who, Climate Scientists?) Objectivish ranters. The easy work would be you giving an indication of where all this momentous intellectual labour is presented. Not 'over there somewhere.' Really, dude. You are insulting and now petty and Phil-like. This is distinctly unimpressive, Dennis. If you have specifics in re your assertions Ozone Hole Fraud Hoax Junk Science, great, as I said. If you are too lazy and unwilling to support your assertions with argument, that reflects on you, nobody else.

Go to Atlantis_II on Yahoo Groups and do a search. Are you kidding me? That is the best you can do to advance your argument or to direct us to your argument? Tell us to go search for it? No thanks, but I understand the attitude. I have seen that attitude before.

In the last big on-line discussions I had about the Ozone Hole I traced back some of the junk science and found that they neglected the surface chemical storage properties of dusts and colloidal suspensions rendering most of their claims about chlorine compounds in the air and various chemical pathways useless - and as of about 3 years ago none of that junk science has been corrected. I suppose you can't go to the trouble to reference any of this, but ... how about it, Dennis? If you have wrassled with the hoaxers before, and vanquished them (at least in the big online discussions), give it up -- just direct me there that I may read your previous arguments.

I will address specifics if you wish to discuss them. If you can give a non-polemic, straightforward narrative of the Ozone Hoax/Fraud, great. That would be -- from my point of view -- a much more useful post than one in which you simple charge, conclude and assume a hoax and a fraud. I have only seen assertion, opinion and heightened language from you on this subject.

Chinese IQ is 108, the Ashk Jewish IQ is ~119, some African groups [67-71] , and blacks in the USA 87. Europeans are known to have a wide curve of high and low - some Asians a tighter and higher average distribution, other Asians a different story. To veer off [ ... ] into flat-out racist Superiour Intelligence/Dark Continent Doomed Subspecies world ... this disturbs me even more. As I said - society is not ready to discuss QM, intelligence, or able to fight the disinformation machine available when you're looking at the biggest wealth transfer scam in human history. Rant about your struggles to overturn bad QM theory in your QM thread. Rant about Racial Intelligence in a Racial Intelligence thread, if you must. Rant about Global Warming hoaxes here, where you introduced the topic. And if you want to make a connection between black IQs, 'disinformation machine,' and related scams, bring it on. As it is, they seem like greasy little racialist side-issues to me. I am interested in a non-polemic challenge to AGWA, or even a straightforward narrative of the terrible Ozone Hoax Fraud. Spell it out, do not just assume it and mutter darkly about darkies and plots and QM. You will turn into Seymour before you know it.