The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.

[Crick]

You do know Crick stole the key DNA pic from rose Franklins notebook?

I stole what from where?

OOOhhhh, Crick of Crick and Watson. Sorry. It never occurred to me I was using his name. Completely unintentional. Oi!

 

[mamooth]

ever hear of Fermilabs? What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.

So you think gravity might not really exist?

Interesting. I suggest you cling to railings when you walk, lest you possible float away.

The point is that, yes, much science really is settled.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid. There are stupider people out there - people who actually believe you know what you're talking about. But you're down there. A long ways. Really, really, really stupid.

Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid. But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll. You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.

You are stinging all the time aren't you skidmark...reduced to following me around calling names...

And you still can't produce a single paper in which the natural factors effecting both the formation of O3 and the depletion of O3 are seriously considered and ruled out...all you can provide is alarmist claptrap which blames O3 depletion on a molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION when there are natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million, and it is well known that the output of the sun in the UV range responsible for O3 formation fluctuate wildly...

No papers examining those factors with any seriousness...they all jump straight into the alarmist narrative...SCAM is the word that describes the state of science doing the "investigation"..

 

[SSDD]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

I missed where you got your climate degree?
After all, what does nasa know compared with our PhD poster here?

Logical fallacy...how completely unoriginal....

You should know.
The consensus already debated facts.

Really? Lets see the resulting paper which explained how CFC molecules present in the stratosphere at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than NO...a natural catalyst for O3 which exists in the stratosphere at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million. If the consensus is based on fact, and thorough examination of the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion, surely there are papers...lets see them.

Lets see the paper resulting from a thorough discussion of how a CFC molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone layer than N...a natural reactant for O3 present in the stratosphere at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million. If the consensus is based on fact, and thorough examination of the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion, surely there are papers...lets see them.

Lets see the paper resulting from a thorough discussion of the fact that the output of UV from the sun in the wavelengths responsible for he formation of O3 vary wildly...as much as a factor of 10 from year to year...lets see the paper which discusses that fact regarding the formation of O3...if it is what the consensus is based upon, then surely there are papers..

That's how you come to a concensus.

So lets see the papers in which the natural factors effecting the formation and depletion of O3 were studied and ruled out as a cause of either the ozone hole, or ozone depletion...surely they exist if the consensus is based on a thorough study of the facts... So far, all anyone has produced is alarmist papers which ignore the profound natural factors and jump straight to a lonely CFC molecule which is only present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION...not million, but BILLION.

I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.

And I am quite sure that there is considerable research that demonstrates quite conclusively that chloroform has 5 atoms....lets see the considerable research that ruled out the natural factors effecting the formation and depletion of O3

Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all

I keep asking for the papers in which the natural factors that profoundly effect the formation and depletion of O3 were seriously considered and ruled out as a cause, either completely or partially for the ozone holes, or ozone depletion...No one seems to be able to produce anything at all but papers which ignore the natural factors and jump straight to an alarmist narrative claiming the lonely CFC molecule which exists at a concentration in the stratosphere of only 3 parts per BILLION. You claim that the consensus is based on a thorough study of al the factors...lets see the studies which rule out natural variability...in real science, whenever you are looking at an occurrence in nature, the first thing you do is either confirm or rule out natural factors...so lets see the science where that was done.

 

[SSDD]

Logical fallacy...how completely unoriginal....

You should know.
I suspect you think the evolution debate is unresolved
The consensus already debated facts.
That's how you come to a concensus.
I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.
Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all

science doesn't use consensus, nothing is ever settled in science, it is always under debate. See, that's why you don't do science, your consensed.

Nothing is settled but some things are agreed on, that's what consensus means, like choroform has 5 atoms.
Dare I look up the def of consensus?

not in science, nothing is ever considered consensus. That's why it is never settled.

Consensus = general agreement.?
Can we agree 99% of chemists agree chloroform has 5 atoms and it isn't settled?

You really think that is a valid argument and ends the discussion on what is going on in the ozone layer? Is that really the best you can do? Not so long ago, there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and I would imagine, some controversy at some time over how many atoms were in a chloroform molecule...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

 

[SSDD]

ever hear of Fermilabs? What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.

So you think gravity might not really exist?

Interesting. I suggest you cling to railings when you walk, lest you possible float away.

The point is that, yes, much science really is settled.

Tell us hairball...what is the mechanism by which gravity operates...there are multiple hypotheses on what causes gravity...and as long as we have known about gravity...and been able to predict its effect on matter...we still are a long way from understanding what causes it....Is that really the best argument you can manage? If so, chalk up another failure by the hairball..

 

[jc456]

ever hear of Fermilabs? What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.

So you think gravity might not really exist?

Interesting. I suggest you cling to railings when you walk, lest you possible float away.

The point is that, yes, much science really is settled.

so you're saying scientist knows how it works? so there is no research on it? LOL. proves you don't know shit.

Gravity Research Foundation

First site to pop up.

We know the earth is warmed by the sun. after that, the rest is all still not known.

 

[SSDD]

Mass deflects space-time.

F = (G x m1 x m2) x d^2

Troll

You really are one of the stupidest people I have encountered on one of these boards...You think that formula says anything at all about the fundamental mechanism of gravity? Are you that far behind the curve? .....tell me skidmark...is the curvature of space time caused by gravity, or is it what causes gravity? Any idea? Surely there is a Nobel in in for someone who can answer that question...is it gravitons? You are a moron..

 

[ph3iron]

You should know.
I suspect you think the evolution debate is unresolved
The consensus already debated facts.
That's how you come to a concensus.
I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.
Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all

science doesn't use consensus, nothing is ever settled in science, it is always under debate. See, that's why you don't do science, your consensed.

Nothing is settled but some things are agreed on, that's what consensus means, like choroform has 5 atoms.
Dare I look up the def of consensus?

not in science, nothing is ever considered consensus. That's why it is never settled.

Consensus = general agreement.?
Can we agree 99% of chemists agree chloroform has 5 atoms and it isn't settled?

You really think that is a valid argument and ends the discussion on what is going on in the ozone layer? Is that really the best you can do? Not so long ago, there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and I would imagine, some controversy at some time over how many atoms were in a chloroform molecule...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

I just go on the opinion in hundreds of science journals, not an old white fart forum where no one has an advanced degree.
Chloroform took months of presenting all sides, not exactly this forum.
Scientists do not blindly believe, they write thesis based on experimental facts
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
I did point out that you quote science stealers such as Crick?

 

[ph3iron]

Mass deflects space-time.

F = (G x m1 x m2) x d^2

Troll

You really are one of the stupidest people I have encountered on one of these boards...You think that formula says anything at all about the fundamental mechanism of gravity? Are you that far behind the curve? .....tell me skidmark...is the curvature of space time caused by gravity, or is it what causes gravity? Any idea? Surely there is a Nobel in in for someone who can answer that question...is it gravitons? You are a moron..

Nice foul mouth.
Trump U?

 

[ph3iron]

You should know.
I suspect you think the evolution debate is unresolved
The consensus already debated facts.
That's how you come to a concensus.
I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.
Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all

science doesn't use consensus, nothing is ever settled in science, it is always under debate. See, that's why you don't do science, your consensed.

Nothing is settled but some things are agreed on, that's what consensus means, like choroform has 5 atoms.
Dare I look up the def of consensus?

not in science, nothing is ever considered consensus. That's why it is never settled.

Consensus = general agreement.?
Can we agree 99% of chemists agree chloroform has 5 atoms and it isn't settled?

You really think that is a valid argument and ends the discussion on what is going on in the ozone layer? Is that really the best you can do? Not so long ago, there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and I would imagine, some controversy at some time over how many atoms were in a chloroform molecule...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

Who knows what's going on in the ozone layer?
Certainly not old white fart forum boys who search desperately for items that fit their made up minds.
Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause.
This reminds me of the evolution debate.
Guy on one side of the table believing.
Guy on other side disbelieving
Treated as equally believable

 

[jc456]

science doesn't use consensus, nothing is ever settled in science, it is always under debate. See, that's why you don't do science, your consensed.

Nothing is settled but some things are agreed on, that's what consensus means, like choroform has 5 atoms.
Dare I look up the def of consensus?

not in science, nothing is ever considered consensus. That's why it is never settled.

Consensus = general agreement.?
Can we agree 99% of chemists agree chloroform has 5 atoms and it isn't settled?

You really think that is a valid argument and ends the discussion on what is going on in the ozone layer? Is that really the best you can do? Not so long ago, there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and I would imagine, some controversy at some time over how many atoms were in a chloroform molecule...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

Who knows what's going on in the ozone layer?
Certainly not old white fart forum boys who search desperately for items that fit their made up minds.
Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause.
This reminds me of the evolution debate.
Guy on one side of the table believing.
Guy on other side disbelieving
Treated as equally believable

all of the money thieves

 

[mamooth]

I am pretty sure all you would need are:

1. Some scientific groups, hand picked by government officials to receive lucrative grants, and make sure they know that those grants will keep coming so long as there is or most is an AGW/climate change crisis that government needs to address.

If every bit of data didn't contradict you and your wild-eyed authoritarian political cult, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such paranoid conspiracy babbling.

But it does, so you do.

This is another reason why it's good to be part of the rational side. All of the data backs us up, so we never need to fake conspiracy fables.

If the data ever does contradict our politics, we change our politics.

If the data contradicts your politics, you try to fudge the data.

 

[jc456]

I am pretty sure all you would need are:

1. Some scientific groups, hand picked by government officials to receive lucrative grants, and make sure they know that those grants will keep coming so long as there is or most is an AGW/climate change crisis that government needs to address.

If every bit of data didn't contradict you and your wild-eyed authoritarian political cult, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such paranoid conspiracy babbling.

But it does, so you do.

This is another reason why it's good to be part of the rational side. All of the data backs us up, so we never need to fake conspiracy fables.

If the data ever does contradict our politics, we change our politics.

If the data contradicts your politics, you try to fudge the data.

or not

 

[SSDD]

The same is true for retreating glaciers...about the time sea level was increasing some 36 feet, ice nearly a mile think was melting off the great lakes area..melting ice is what is to be expected when a planet exits an ice age...or even experiences a climactic optimum between glacial periods. Again..nothing there suggests mankind is in any way responsible...

The claim of decreased snow cover is hardly accurate but climate science has a history of being quite loose with the data...but again...decreased snow cover should be expected as a planet exits an ice age...

We already looked at sea level...certainly nothing unusual about the rate of sea level increase...and nothing whatsoever to link our activities to the increase...

Declining Arctic Sea ice...refer to the graph above...there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Are we to blame for that as well?

There are no more "extreme" events in weather now than there have ever been...there are just more people to be effected by bad weather..If you would like a list of published papers which shred media claims associated with extreme weather, I will be happy to provide them...

Ocean acidification is one of the most ridiculous claims of all...considering that for the vast bulk of earth's history, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 1000ppm, how do you suppose life in the oceans ever managed to survive?

Here is what natural variability of ocean PH looks like over the long term...Hardly anything for us, or ocean life to worry about insofar as pH levels go. pollution? that is another issue altogether.

So we see like most alarmist publications, this one doesn't mention natural variability...it takes every natural event and simply claims that mankind is to blame without offering up even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...unfortunately, that sort of reporting is good enough to fool far to many people who perceive themselves to be less intelligent than climate scientists...

Clearly, that sort of reporting is good enough to fool you and I seriously doubt that you even noticed that they didn't present a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports their claim of man induced climate change over natural variability...

I did point out that you quote science stealers such as Crick?

No idea what you are talking about.

 

[SSDD]

Mass deflects space-time.

F = (G x m1 x m2) x d^2

Troll

You really are one of the stupidest people I have encountered on one of these boards...You think that formula says anything at all about the fundamental mechanism of gravity? Are you that far behind the curve? .....tell me skidmark...is the curvature of space time caused by gravity, or is it what causes gravity? Any idea? Surely there is a Nobel in in for someone who can answer that question...is it gravitons? You are a moron..

Nice foul mouth.
Trump U?

Interesting..you think pointing out stupidity on a level he achieves is foul?

 

[Crick]

When YOU ask stupid questions - particularly given that you're a complete and total TROLL - feel free to expect stupid answers.

 

[SSDD]

Who knows what's going on in the ozone layer?[;/quote]

What is not going on in the ozone layer is a lonely molecule that exists at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION destroying it.

Certainly not old white fart forum boys who search desperately for items that fit their made up minds.

So you have nothing but name calling...You claimed that science had thoroughly researched the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion and that was how the consensus came to be...guess you were just pulling that claim out of your ass..

Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause.

So lets look at this one...before I go though....I will make a prediction that there will not be a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

What do you know...they start off with a bunch of lies.... record breaking temperatures, humidity, seal level rise...hardly...history has shown us that what we are seeing in terms of climate aren't even close to the boundaries of natural variability within the present interglacial... that paper is nothing more than a propaganda piece talking about consensus as if that were a scientific term...Not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

I appreciate the link though...it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of climate alarmists...

This reminds me of the evolution debate.[/.quote]

Not me...there is a hell of a lot more evidence of evolution than there is for man made climate change...

Your side of the table is one of belief...my side of the table is asking for evidence...just a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't even produce that....yet you believe...and belief is all you have since it is clear that you can't produce an observed, measured evidence to support your claims.

Sorry, I can't substitute faith for evidence in matters of science...either you can produce convincing observed, measured evidence, or you can't...my bet is that you can't and the best you will be able to do is go on about consensus as if that means anything at all in science...

 

[SSDD]

When YOU ask stupid questions - particularly given that you're a complete and total TROLL - feel free to expect stupid answers.

What's the matter skid mark? Still stinging? Sucks to keep having your ass handed to you huh...sucks to be reduced to a stalker following someone around calling them names...sucks for them to know exactly what you can and can't produce before you even make the claim doesn't it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid. But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll. You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.

Exactly. This results from what I known as "backward think". This ignorant moron decided the accepted climate theories are false, based on nothing but his own fetishes, neuroses, and superstitions. So, that's his stating point, not his endpoint. Having bought into this idiotic fantasy 100%, he now must make anything and everything fit this idiot paradigm. In doing so, there is no thought given to consistency, or honesty. So, he finds himself contradicting himself every few minutes.