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

[jc456]

You must have SO much SS time on your hand you don't quote the hundreds of organizations that support GW.
But ONE who doesn't believe we landed on the moon
"Principal Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a ..."

Well, you could go to UCLA
Climate Science Major | Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
You might just learn something

well post the quote from the link that will make me smarter. always just a link, never the actual verbiage. Makes you a loser.

Verbiage = actual education which you apparently don't have
Try this
Graphs no good?
Google "global temperatures by year."
100 yrs of data?
Do I call you a loser?
Giveaway for zero college?

so nothing as usual and expected. board sure is a waste of time when the opposition can't produce evidence to back their claim.

Really??
No point in arguing further with a zero college rube

bye

 

[ph3iron]

Well, you could go to UCLA
Climate Science Major | Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
You might just learn something

well post the quote from the link that will make me smarter. always just a link, never the actual verbiage. Makes you a loser.

Verbiage = actual education which you apparently don't have
Try this
Graphs no good?
Google "global temperatures by year."
100 yrs of data?
Do I call you a loser?
Giveaway for zero college?

so nothing as usual and expected. board sure is a waste of time when the opposition can't produce evidence to back their claim.

Really??
No point in arguing further with a zero college rube

got nothing like I said. dude, you made the claim post the information. just adding a link isn't proving anything. you need to post the quote from the material in the link.

You mean you are not capable?
Just look at the graph darlin

 

[jc456]

well post the quote from the link that will make me smarter. always just a link, never the actual verbiage. Makes you a loser.

Verbiage = actual education which you apparently don't have
Try this
Graphs no good?
Google "global temperatures by year."
100 yrs of data?
Do I call you a loser?
Giveaway for zero college?

so nothing as usual and expected. board sure is a waste of time when the opposition can't produce evidence to back their claim.

Really??
No point in arguing further with a zero college rube

got nothing like I said. dude, you made the claim post the information. just adding a link isn't proving anything. you need to post the quote from the material in the link.

You mean you are not capable?
Just look at the graph darlin

i don't do wild goose chases. I already stated that. you post your evidence.

 

[Crick]

How else will those intent on achieving a "New World Order" and/or the "One World Government" that they desire get it done? They must come up with some massive global issue that threatens all of human kind to gain our complacency and get us to fall into line and convince enough people in power to help them. And others are more than willing to personally capitalize on the effort and rake in all that lovely money that they use for theories and 'scientific evidence' in order to make the gullible and uncurious willingly complicit in the scheme.

The process is to gradually confiscate or remove our access to our resources and personal wealth and slowly, one by one so we don't really notice and/or are not alarmed, take away our individual liberties. Until one day we realize we are no longer a free people in control of our own destinies.

So when the opportunists are no longer able to capitalize in any way on the whole global warming schtick, they will quickly move on to something else to use for their purposes.

On what do you base all these ideas?

You would have to have tens of thousands of scientists from every nation on the planet (ie, with lots of different political viewpoints) all engaged in the same conspiracy (to form a New World Order, you claim) and not one has ever been caught or confessed to their actions. Every other climate scientist - the ones who USE that data for their own work would have to either also be in the conspiracy or be perfectly fooled by these supposedly manufactured data because THEY NEVER COMPLAIN. Your suggestion is simply meritless nonsense.

Right wing paranoid nonsense is what you've got.

 

[Foxfyre]

How else will those intent on achieving a "New World Order" and/or the "One World Government" that they desire get it done? They must come up with some massive global issue that threatens all of human kind to gain our complacency and get us to fall into line and convince enough people in power to help them. And others are more than willing to personally capitalize on the effort and rake in all that lovely money that they use for theories and 'scientific evidence' in order to make the gullible and uncurious willingly complicit in the scheme.

The process is to gradually confiscate or remove our access to our resources and personal wealth and slowly, one by one so we don't really notice and/or are not alarmed, take away our individual liberties. Until one day we realize we are no longer a free people in control of our own destinies.

So when the opportunists are no longer able to capitalize in any way on the whole global warming schtick, they will quickly move on to something else to use for their purposes.

On what do you base all these ideas?

You would have to have tens of thousands of scientists from every nation on the planet (ie, with lots of different political viewpoints) all engaged in the same conspiracy (to form a New World Order, you claim) and not one has ever been caught or confessed to their actions. Every other climate scientist - the ones who USE that data for their own work would have to either also be in the conspiracy or be perfectly fooled by these supposedly manufactured data because THEY NEVER COMPLAIN. Your suggestion is simply meritless nonsense.

Right wing paranoid nonsense is what you've got.

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.

2. A government hand picked group of writers, most without scientific expertise, choosing what scientific opinion from those hand picked scientific groups will go into something called a "Summary for Policymakers." It is that document that a lot of media uses for its 'expert' analysis of the AGW/ACC 'crisis'.

3. A lot of people who desperately want that 'crisis' to be real because it is so useful to them to demonize people they don't like and further their own agendas and who will flood social media, message boards, etc. with the statement over and over and over again that the majority of scientists believe AGW/ACC is a 'crisis' that the government must address immediately.

And then the government has all the license it needs to eliminate its critics, gradually reduce resources available to the people, and one by one eliminate individual liberties.

 

[SSDD]

Indiana, you are 100% correct. Whatever you find, SSDD will just call it bullshit and reject it. He will NEVER admit that anyone has ever produced material he has claimed doesn't exist because SSDD is a fucking TROLL !!!

still can't produce one study, eh? still waiting on the answer of what is larger. still nothing.

Funny how he has started talking in big bold red all caps...he has become as unhinged as rolling thunder....goes around calling me a troll because I keep handing him his ass at every turn...what a goob....

 

[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....

 

[SSDD]

well then post one of those studies.

Instead ,I posted a link to hundreds of them. As requested. If you are too lazy to click the link and too stupid to understand a scientific paper, that's a "you" problem, and it's conclusive evidence that your opinions on this topic are worth less than nothing.

People who post links and don't bring the information forward are just talking out of their asses...they do that because they have no idea what is in those links...if they did, then they could bring the information forward to make their point...you never do that...because by your own admission, you are uneducated and ignorant and simply must place your trust in someone...and you place that trust in people you perceive as more intelligent than your self...you have no idea whether they are or not..but that is where you place your trust...

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[ph3iron]

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.
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

 

[jc456]

Indiana, you are 100% correct. Whatever you find, SSDD will just call it bullshit and reject it. He will NEVER admit that anyone has ever produced material he has claimed doesn't exist because SSDD is a fucking TROLL !!!

still can't produce one study, eh? still waiting on the answer of what is larger. still nothing.

Funny how he has started talking in big bold red all caps...he has become as unhinged as rolling thunder....goes around calling me a troll because I keep handing him his ass at every turn...what a goob....

yep, he is losing it. when facts can't support what he wants them to and his fake can't fool us, it's all he has left. I feel bad for him.

 

[ph3iron]

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....

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

 

[jc456]

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.
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.

 

[ph3iron]

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.
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?

 

[jc456]

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.
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.

 

[ph3iron]

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.
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?

 

[jc456]

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?

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

 

[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?

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

Of course, never settled can ever be 100%
Would you agree on 99%

 

[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?

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

I thought Fermi was a place, not a theory

 

[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?

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

I thought Fermi was a place, not a theory

they test theories. they wouldn't exist if science was settled.