In response to:

A Real State of the Union

Idahoser Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 11:12 AM
any time you run into some imbecile wanting to tax you to death to stop "global warming", just remember why you can't buy hairspray anymore in aerosol cans. Remember why you have to pay somebody a fortune to work on your car's air conditioner instead of just filling it yourself with freon. Why the Columbia astronauts died when the foam applied to their external fuel tank came off because the aerosol application was outlawed. Global Cooling is the reason. Those morons wanted to tax us to death in order to sprinkle carbon dust on the poles to RAISE the temperature of the planet. Human activity may have some teeny affect on temperatures. That's not what this is about. It's about taking your money and controlling your life.
Cepat2 Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 9:38 PM
So here is a question: where does the ozone go when it is "destroyed"? Our entire atmosphere is captured around our planet by gravitational force, as witnessed by the fact that we don't spring leaks of oxygen, CO2, H2O etc into space. So where does the ozone go? And what takes it's place?
Just asking?
OneForFreedom Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 5:58 PM
TommyMaq, why did the Challenger's o-rings become brittle when they were cold? Why weren't o-rings used that would not have this defect?

You'll find that it's directly traceable to EPA requirements (I believe in the cases of the Challenger and Columbia, the EPA waived the requirements, but NASA wanted to "do the right thing.")
TommyMaq Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 4:18 PM

The problem only happened when the o-rings got too COLD.

Geez, Richard frikkin' Feynman proved it on national tv with an O-ring and a glass of ice-water!
TommyMaq Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 4:16 PM
Sorry, no; CFC's were banned because of the loss of ozone.

(Ozone and global warming are nowhere near directly related)

1) The evidence showing a loss of ozone isn't in question. Speak to anyone who spent many years in the paint or tarp industry for some strong anecdotal evidence; why did they have to keep *increasing* the UV protection if the ozone wasn't getting depleted?

2) Banning CFC's worked; the ozone isn't dropping like it was.

and perhaps it goes without saying;

0) the chemical mechanism explaining the effects of CFCs on stratospheric ozone is well-understood, the complete opposite of the "industry->increased CO2->increased average temp" 'theory.'
evie10 Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 3:50 PM
I thought I was the only one who knew about Challenger and Columbia and the CFC free putty for the O-rings and the foam for the big tank. Yes, those 14 astronauts can be counted as Global warming victims.
We've heard another State of the Union speech, and my president said grand things like:

"Think about ... a future where we're in control of our own energy ... I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China ... I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning ..."

Actually, he said that in 2012. I write before this year's speech, but he says basically the same thing every year: With more spending, government can fix everything.

But I have this dream -- one where my president walks to the podium, and he instead...