LOL lets discuss why THEY have stopped referring to the HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER.

Thread summary:

Scientists were absolutely correct about ozone. By being correct, they prevented much harm to people and the world.

That triggers the cultists, who would have rather have seen many humans die than admit their cult had lied. Their cult is very unfriendly to the human race.

Like denialism, ozone-theory-denial isn't the actual cult. The actual cult is extreme-right-wing-fringe authoritarianism. Global warming denial and ozone depletion denial are two of the many idiot conspiracy theories which the cultists are ordered to chant.
 
Lol, that is what they will do. There was never a problem and the left are taking credit for repairing it.

LOL

So fucking predictable.
 
Wait. So there was no Ice Age in the 1970's?

Despite all the predictions of the global warming deniers, no.

In contrast, the competent climate scientists were predicting warming in the 1970s.

So, thanks for that example. Climate scientists have been getting it consistently correct for over 40 years now, while right wing political hacks have been doing faceplants on all the science over that same period.

Funny thing is, the right-wing-cult is still getting that wrong. Predicting an ice age is a mantra they're commanded to chant, so many of them predict an imminent ice age every year. Their Holy Ice Age never arrives, but their faith in an Icy Armageddon remains undimmed.
 
That was "In Search Of", one of the stupidest pieces of crap to ever besmirch TV land.
 
Thread summary:

Scientists were absolutely correct about ozone. By being correct, they prevented much harm to people and the world.

That triggers the cultists, who would have rather have seen many humans die than admit their cult had lied. Their cult is very unfriendly to the human race.

Like denialism, ozone-theory-denial isn't the actual cult. The actual cult is extreme-right-wing-fringe authoritarianism. Global warming denial and ozone depletion denial are two of the many idiot conspiracy theories which the cultists are ordered to chant.

Can you provide a paper in which the natural factors which have profound effects on both O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and ruled out before jumping straight to the claim that CFC's, present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION were the cause? Just one?

Didn't think so..
 
Can you provide a paper in which the natural factors which have profound effects on both O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and ruled out before jumping straight to the claim that CFC's, present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION were the cause

Obviously yes, I could. After all, you've seen such data before. Everyone knows that. You're always been given many examples of what you ask for, then you lie and pretend it didn't happen.

If you want me to do yet another time, you'll need to now offer up a sincere buttkissing apology for the disgusting behavior that you've been engaging in for years. I educate those willing to learn for free, but I don't waste time on cult liars.
 
Last edited:
Obviously yes, I could. After all, you've seen such data before. Everyone knows that. You're always been given many examples of what you ask for, then you lie and pretend it didn't happen.

No...you can't... why do you wackos always make claims that you can't support...there are no papers regarding ozone layer depletion or the ozone holes which seriously consider the natural factors which profoundly effect O3 production or depletion...

What has been provided is alarmist claptrap which does not examine natural factors and goes straight to blaming CFC's present at a whopping concentration of 3 parts per billion when natural catalysts for O3 are present at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million...

As always, though, it is interesting to see how low the bar is set for what can fool you.
 
What has been provided to you are time series plots of all the different factors that cause ozone depletion and the only one with any correlation whatsoever with ozone levels is CFC's. It is an empirical observation that falsifies your hypothesis. Comprende?
 
What has been provided to you are time series plots of all the different factors that cause ozone depletion and the only one with any correlation whatsoever with ozone levels is CFC's. It is an empirical observation that falsifies your hypothesis. Comprende?


If you think you have provided any such thing, you are even more stupid than I thought...and I have always figured you were pretty stupid...I didn't see anything there regarding variable solar output...nor did I see anything about N2 or NO..,.so clearly you are just a liar or to f'ing stupid to know what has been posted...or both..
 
It's your claim. Show us some evidence asshole.

Hmm... that rhymes with
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's your claim. Show us some evidence asshole.

Hmm... that rhymes with

the fact that you can't provide a single paper in which the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and discarded for cause makes my case...if I were wrong, you could produce the studies...you can't because they were never done...all that was done was alarmist bullshit for no other purpose than to support a narrative...
 
Dozens of links and data plots regarding CFC's role in ozone depletion and the lack of any correlation among other depleting agents has been put up here by your opponents. You have not presented a single piece of evidence to support your claims. Not one. We all know that is because your claims are completely false. And we all now know that although you'll continue to spew on this topic, you will never make a valid argument because you haven't the slightest desire to do so. The only thing you want to do is wind people up for your entertainment. To make yourself look clever in your own eyes.

TROLL
 
Dozens of links and data plots regarding CFC's role in ozone depletion and the lack of any correlation among other depleting agents has been put up here by your opponents. You have not presented a single piece of evidence to support your claims. Not one. We all know that is because your claims are completely false. And we all now know that although you'll continue to spew on this topic, you will never make a valid argument because you haven't the slightest desire to do so. The only thing you want to do is wind people up for your entertainment. To make yourself look clever in your own eyes.

TROLL

Dozens? Really? So you can't count either? Of the few you provided, none of them examined the natural factors that effect O3 production or depletion in any real way...every single one of them jumped straight to the alarmist narrative... And the fact that there is no paper makes my case...I claimed that there were no studies that really looked at natural factors and you keep proving my point by not producing studies that really look at natural factors...all there is out there is alarmist claptrap which supports an alarmist narrative...
 

Forum List

Back
Top