Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument: "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"
A: Whack-job
Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument: "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"
A: Whack-job
But yet? It's happening....you can keep screaming "It's your fucking car that is killing Mother Gaia!!!! to the hills and back but you are just pissing into a rather strong breeze. Owning the weather and using it as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance has always been something that the military industrial complex has coveted.
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.
This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report
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.
Are you some kind of a retard.
The thing was, that because we banned CFC, the damage done to the Ozone layer was reversed. Ozone is created through a natural process of sunlight converting normal oxygen (O2) into Ozone (O3). The reason why it is thinner at the poles is that those areas get less sunlight for a large portion of the year.
So we banned CFC's, and the problem as solved...
You know, wow, we put aside greed and fixed a problem. This is what horrifies the right. They think all problems can be fixed with greed and Jesus.
The ozone hole is not, and was not fixed...it never was a man made issue. While it is true that CFC's can break an ozone molecule, CFC's at the time the montreal protocols were instituted existed in the stratosphere at a concentration of a touch over 3 parts per BILLION....that according to the graph provided above...CFC's aren't the only thing ozone reacts with...ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which exists in the stratosphere at about 780,000 parts per million...now tell me, which is likely to break more ozone molecules, CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION or nitrogen at 780,000 parts per MILLION.
This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report
Oh, is that what it is?
So when I see that the climate here in Chicago, where we used to have really cold winters and now some winters, we are lucky if we see snow at all... this is all a conspiracy by the shadowy club of Rome or whoever you see when the medications aren't working.
It is always a losing proposition to rely on your own memory for climate information. It never fails that your short view of history will turn out to be dead wrong. Here, have a look at the snow fall history of chicago since 1884....your short view of the snowfall history of chicago is terribly flawed.
The ozone hole is not, and was not fixed...it never was a man made issue. While it is true that CFC's can break an ozone molecule, CFC's at the time the montreal protocols were instituted existed in the stratosphere at a concentration of a touch over 3 parts per BILLION....that according to the graph provided above...CFC's aren't the only thing ozone reacts with...ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which exists in the stratosphere at about 780,000 parts per million...now tell me, which is likely to break more ozone molecules, CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION or nitrogen at 780,000 parts per MILLION.
AGAIN, I'll take the word of scientists over someone who listens to hate radio all day, thanks.
It is always a losing proposition to rely on your own memory for climate information. It never fails that your short view of history will turn out to be dead wrong. Here, have a look at the snow fall history of chicago since 1884....your short view of the snowfall history of chicago is terribly flawed.
again, going to believe my own eyes rather than some twit who listens to Hate Radio all day.
And you said less sun hit Antarctica in its winter than hit the Arctic in its winter. How can it get more hilarious as an explanation to the larger ozone 'hole' over Antarctica?3. The "hole's" in the ozone are larger during the winter months....this is because O3 production is reduced because there is less UV entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter.
Not a student of history huh? Do some reading sometime. Historically speaking, with no scientific education whatsoever, you stand a better than even chance of being right if you choose the opposite side of a scientific arguement than that supported by the consensus in any relatively new field of science...climate science being one where the surface has barely been scratched.
And you said less sun hit Antarctica in its winter than hit the Arctic in its winter. How can it get more hilarious as an explanation to the larger ozone 'hole' over Antarctica?3. The "hole's" in the ozone are larger during the winter months....this is because O3 production is reduced because there is less UV entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter.
Not a student of history huh? Do some reading sometime. Historically speaking, with no scientific education whatsoever, you stand a better than even chance of being right if you choose the opposite side of a scientific arguement than that supported by the consensus in any relatively new field of science...climate science being one where the surface has barely been scratched.
Look, buddy, I know that the Koch brothers spend a lot of money getting you to ignore science and stuff, but again, I really don't have time to waste with you luddites.
Unbelievable. He doubled down on Antarctica receiving less sunlight than the Arctic! Because of the Earth's tilt was the explanation, as I recall!!!That is one factor.
The "holes" vary in size from summer to winter over each pole with them being larger during each respective winter...and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.
My ribs, my ribs!Actually, my position is based on science
My ribs, my ribs!Actually, my position is based on science
