Liberals versus Deodorant
- Thread starter TheDanold
- Start date
Dano's definitely smarter than BB. Honesty, well you may have a point there.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
This is false. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere
Correct
No that's why I used the word roughly. I understand the effect of a CFC molecule's destruction of O3 molecules but what you are saying is that they would somehow rise right through the troposphere passing up all THOSE O3 molecules and then once they get to the stratosphere THEN start destroying THOSE O3 molecules? It makes no sense, it's not like CFC molecules have a brain, they are going to destroy the O3 molecules at lower levels first.
By the way, less O3 molecules is theorized to induce cooling so maybe Lorax and other global warming alarmists should revisit the cost/benefit ratio of allowing products with CFCs.
ROFLMAO!!!
Because you CAN'T. You tried, I have no doubt of it - you googled your little fingers of trying to find something, ANYTHING, to counter the solid, universally accepted science that there is a big difference between stratospheric ozone & tropospheric ozone, and how that completely undermines the argument you so poorly attempted to make here.
What a loser. Fuck off, DeMano - don't give me any of your "Lorax never debates the science" BS again. I pretty much always debate the science, and you ignore me as long as you can, or at least until I give up & the thread just mercifully goes away for you.
Mkay?
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I just did refute it, stupid, you just piggybacked off of Watermark's comments and I refuted what Watermark said, thus refuting you.
You never made a point, Watermark noted some things he thought were different and you just said they are different without explaining how or why. As usual you made no point and somehow convinced yourself you did.
You don't have any original thought, you rarely have facts and you just buzz around making the same feigned incredulousness over and over, that your pea brain seems to somehow have confused as an actual argument needing to be refuted.
Lierax is taken out again like yesterday's trash. Keep trying kiddo!
Give me a break; go back on this thread - I was the FIRST one to talk about the fact that Ozone is a toxic substance at the tropospheric level, but a benefit at the stratospheric level. You ignored it the 1st time I brought it up, and then said I was only "parrotting" when I brought it up again.
Which, btw, still doesn't have that much to do with your refutation of Watermark's point.
Your original contention that it made no sense to ban the substance in deodorant when we're trying to prevent the ozone depletion in the stratosphere makes absolutely no sense when you KNOW & consider the difference between stratospheric & tropospheric ozone. You still haven't addressed that, not by a long shot.
You are pathetic!!!
Just because you don't seem to remember your original argument:
"Anyone note the irony of how the left 15 years ago was obsessed over loss of ozone that they introduced regulation against products which reduced ozone like aerosols. NOW they pass regulation to reduce ozone itself under the same guise of protecting us from the harmful consequents?"
Now - does this make any sense when you KNOW that tropospheric ozone is toxic & destroys living tissue, while stratospheric ozone benefits us by blocking ultraviolet radiation?
Think, kiddo - use that little noggin' of yours....
"Anyone note the irony of how the left 15 years ago was obsessed over loss of ozone that they introduced regulation against products which reduced ozone like aerosols. NOW they pass regulation to reduce ozone itself under the same guise of protecting us from the harmful consequents?"
Now - does this make any sense when you KNOW that tropospheric ozone is toxic & destroys living tissue, while stratospheric ozone benefits us by blocking ultraviolet radiation?
Think, kiddo - use that little noggin' of yours....
TheDanold
Unimatrix
God you are dense.
Yes their effect on people is different depending on where ozone is in the atmosphere is, so what? That has nothing to do with my point that CFCs will reduce ozone first in the troposphere before getting to the stratosphere.
It's an O3 molecule no matter where the fuck you find it buddy. A CFC molecule floating upwards slowly is not going to treat O3 molecules in the troposphere differently than O3 molecules in the stratosphere based on how helpful or harmful they are to humans. I mean holy shit, that is beyond ROFLMAO!
This is why you shouldn't be debated Lorax, you find a moral argument in science and then just go with that the whole way through as if science gives a shit about that.
One last time.
Ozone produced by humans is in the troposphere and CFCs produced by humans will destroy the ozone in the troposphere, so it does ROUGHLY balance itself out, just like banning products that release both would ROUGHLY balance itself out.
YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED. This is what you said:
""Anyone note the irony of how the left 15 years ago was obsessed over loss of ozone that they introduced regulation against products which reduced ozone like aerosols. NOW they pass regulation to reduce ozone itself under the same guise of protecting us from the harmful consequents?""
This is typical Dano science. You are trying to spin it now. What are you saying - instead of banning the ozone-producing chemicals we manufacture (which have nothing to do w/ the naturally occurring ozone layer in the statosphere), we should allow CFC's again, so they can destroy the ozone that is manmade at the tropospheric level?
Aren't you dizzy? God, but you're fucking stupid....
""Anyone note the irony of how the left 15 years ago was obsessed over loss of ozone that they introduced regulation against products which reduced ozone like aerosols. NOW they pass regulation to reduce ozone itself under the same guise of protecting us from the harmful consequents?""
This is typical Dano science. You are trying to spin it now. What are you saying - instead of banning the ozone-producing chemicals we manufacture (which have nothing to do w/ the naturally occurring ozone layer in the statosphere), we should allow CFC's again, so they can destroy the ozone that is manmade at the tropospheric level?
Aren't you dizzy? God, but you're fucking stupid....
TheDanold
Unimatrix
And if the left had just left both alone the CFCs produced by man would be destroying the ozone produced by man. Don't know why this is so hard for you Lorax.
The left makes government the saviour to a problem it caused by being the saviour before.
Ah Lorax, try not to bust a gasket over this, you may not have had any preventative care to know the risks of how much your weak heart can take.
"And if the left had just left both alone the CFCs produced by man would be destroying the ozone produced by man. Don't know why this is so hard for you Lorax."
Um....AND it would be destroying the stratospheric ozone, you moron. And don't try to pretend that you knew the difference between both kinds of ozone at the onset of this thread. Way too transparent.
Dano's plan? Instead of banning a toxic substance, reinstate the use of another toxic substance that destroys it (even though that other toxic substance will destroy the "good" ozone, as well).
Do you ever hear yourself?
Um....AND it would be destroying the stratospheric ozone, you moron. And don't try to pretend that you knew the difference between both kinds of ozone at the onset of this thread. Way too transparent.
Dano's plan? Instead of banning a toxic substance, reinstate the use of another toxic substance that destroys it (even though that other toxic substance will destroy the "good" ozone, as well).
Do you ever hear yourself?