Prev: Can light be described as infinitesimal distortions of spacetime?
Next: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks
From: GW Bollocks on 15 Jul 2010 21:34
leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote

> I'm an insane old fart who can't afford my meds. I have AIDS


There are three types of people that you can not talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the rightist religious fanatic, and the evil rightist.

1-The right wing stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you
say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they don't
agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the right wing religious fanatic If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it means
their death."

3- There is no way to reform evil Not in a million years. There is no way to
convince the right wing terrorists, anti-science anthropogenic global warming
deniers, serial killers, right wing paedophiles, and predators to change
their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but that knowledge
didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.


From: Peter Webb on 16 Jul 2010 22:22

And you still don't feel the need to be in the least bit sceptical of
the preconceived notions born from your ignorance of the subject?

____________________________________

Ummm... I'm the skeptical one. Perhaps because I remember the great global
cooling scare of the the 1970s.


From: Peter Webb on 16 Jul 2010 23:52

"bringyagrogalong" <sofala(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:73282955-f5f7-40e8-bbac-c1883b6b3c84(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
"Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Ummm... I'm the skeptical one. Perhaps because I remember the great global
> cooling scare of the the 1970s.

You and other anthropogenic global warming sceptics are probably the
same clowns who were anthropogenic ozone depletion sceptics.

___________________________________

I see. When faced with the simple fact that climate scientists got it wrong
about global cooling in the 1970s, you change tack and claim they were right
about CFCs.

However, you provide no evidence of this.

Have you any links to any research undertaken after the ban on CFCs that
shows that the ban was justified or a good idea?

No?

Funny how the only example you show of climate scientists ever getting
anything right has not been vindicated by subsequent research ... pretty
funny really that you use this as an example, when nobody has actually
demonstrated that it was a good idea, even with the benefit of hindsight.

Now, returning to what we are discussing, and assuming that you are old
enough to remember, did you believe in global cooling in the 1970s? And if
you aren't, would you have believed?


From: bringyagrogalong on 17 Jul 2010 03:44
"Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>
> I see. When faced with the simple fact that climate scientists got it wrong
> about global cooling in the 1970s, you change tack and claim they were right
> about CFCs.

Is that all you've got? LOL

The fact is, there was no scientific consensus with regard to "global
cooling".

> However, you provide no evidence of this.

Here you go,...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html

> Have you any links to any research undertaken after the ban on CFCs that
> shows that the ban was justified or a good idea?

Yep! The hole is closing...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html

From: Bill Ward on 17 Jul 2010 15:25
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:44:39 -0700, bringyagrogalong wrote:

> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> I see. When faced with the simple fact that climate scientists got it
>> wrong about global cooling in the 1970s, you change tack and claim they
>> were right about CFCs.
>
> Is that all you've got? LOL
>
> The fact is, there was no scientific consensus with regard to "global
> cooling".
>
>> However, you provide no evidence of this.
>
> Here you go,...
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html
>
>> Have you any links to any research undertaken after the ban on CFCs
>> that shows that the ban was justified or a good idea?
>
> Yep! The hole is closing...
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html

Your 2002 link says it was predicted to begin closing in 2005:

"While the hole grew and contracted from year to year because of climatic
factors, Dr Fraser was confident it would begin shrinking steadily from
as early as 2005 and should close by 2050.

Here's the record as of 2009:

<http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png>

It doesn't seem to be "shrinking steadily". What do we do with
hypotheses that don't predict accurately?




 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Can light be described as infinitesimal distortions of spacetime?
Next: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks