Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation
(UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.)
(UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.)
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
What I said was:
:Some activists '''claimed''' that this ozone layer has been '''threatened''' in recent decades by the release of [[chlorofluorocarbons]], '''on the theory that''' these act as [[catalyst]]s to break down the O<sub>3</sub> molecules.
You have to take all three emphasized words together. They claim there was a threat to the atmosphere. Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation.
It's like some of the evolutionary claims about biochemistry: someone theorizes that the flagellum or the eye '''could''' come into being as the result of gradual accumulation of helpful mutations. It's just a theory - not a [[fact]] - until it is proven.
Newton's theory of gravitation is also based on a formula:
<math>F = GMm/r^2</math>
But it can't be called a "Law" of motion unless it fits the observed facts (see [[astronomy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)