Globull Warming
- Thread starter Lionfish
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The question isn't if the climate is changing, it does that. The cause of that change is the question. I for one don't buy the anthropogenic CO2 version the Left and so-called "Climate scientists" are peddling. The same bunch of scientists told us that the hole in the ozone layer was going to fry the world or some such nonsense. They claimed that CFC's were the cause and that if we got rid of them in 20 to 30 years the hole would mend.
Well, we got rid of CFC's and we're going on 50 years now. The hole's still there, its the same size, and now they've found a new even bigger one. They didn't get that right. The IPCC has been making all sorts of dire predictions about the seas rising, millions fleeing "climate change," heat waves, and all sorts of other nonsense. They've been wrong on just about everything they predicted. Hell, a psychic could do better...
Yet, we're supposed to believe this bunch of charlatans and quacks and upend our whole economic system, impoverish billions, and swallow their crap whole without question. Fuck them. They've been wrong too many times to listen to.
BartenderElite
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I guess in your case something you know nothing about...
The ozone hole is still there
https://www.dw.com/en/ozone-hole-is-shrinking-but-its-still-there/a-63105455
NASA Ozone Watch
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Today, the ozone hole still exists
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole
Scientists found a massive new hole in the ozone layer that could affect 50% of the population
https://bgr.com/science/scientists-...layer-that-could-affect-50-of-the-population/
Claims of new 'tropical ozone hole' raise controversy
https://www.livescience.com/debunker-new-hole-in-ozone
BartenderElite
Verified User
Do you read the articles before you post them?
I don't think they say what you think they say. I just picked one, the bbc article. It supports exactly what I said.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Actually, all of those articles (the ones I could open) support what I said.
But, apparently, they're supposed to prove that I know "nothing" about the topic.
But, apparently, they're supposed to prove that I know "nothing" about the topic.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
No, the BBC article doesn't support you. I deliberately chose it as an opposed opinion. It grudgingly admits what I stated then tries to make--weakly--a case for the hole closing sometime in the next few decades because of 'stuff' if you will. In other words, it weasels the scientific community out of being wrong in the same way apologists for Gorebal Warming do for the failure of their "scientists" to make anything close to an accurate prediction.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Here was your original statement:
"Well, we got rid of CFC's and we're going on 50 years now. The hole's still there, its the same size, and now they've found a new even bigger one. They didn't get that right."
The articles you posted refute that. They state that the bans were not just effective, but absolutely necessary, and need to remain in place so things can continue to improve.
It's in black & white. I don't think you read the articles, but I'd have to take your word for it if you said you did. I'd urge you to read them again. You said the scientific community was wrong about CFC's - but they were right. And the articles confirm that.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The article admits straight out that the hole is still there. I even quoted that from it. What it then tries to weasel out is that it takes more time than originally planned to make it close, except that like I pointed out, we're going on the 50 years the article says is then next point where it should close. The article also blames chlorine and fluorine instead for it not closing (moves the goal posts). The scientific community was wrong about CFC's.
Why do you think it's trying to "weasel out". A ship plots a course. It continues to update its course. Why would you think that's weaseling out?
Why fault people for doing the best they can even if they are a little off or course corrections need to be made?
BartenderElite
Verified User
Why would you post an article that tried to "weasel" out of the point you were trying to make? And the DW article is also very clear on the topic.
Heck, the BBC article even states it in the headline. If you wanted to support the idea that the CFC ban was ineffective and that science was wrong - you chose bad articles to do that. And I don't really buy that you posted those articles deliberately as an "opposing" opinion. You would have stated that or indicated it when you posted them.
The articles indicate the opposite: the science was right, the CFC ban was effective, and saved us from much more dire circumstances. And the ozone hole fluctuates, btw. It IS shrinking, and is on track to be completely gone sometime between 2050 - 2070.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Because it was an opposed opinion you moron. I already stated that. One of the surest ways to win a debate is find sources that try to support the opposing argument and fail.
BartenderElite
Verified User
You didn't state that when you posted it. Only after I told you that the articles stated the opposite of your claim.
Nice ad hom, btw. I thought you were all about not using those?
BartenderElite
Verified User
Here is the original post. All articles were presented as backing up your claim, and proving that I knew "nothing."
BartenderElite
Verified User
People always try to debunk science and make the scientific community seem bumbling, just to support inaction.
That "ice age" article from the '70s always gets cited. But there have been so many more predictions from the scientific community that HAVE come to pass. Look at the world today; so much habitat is gone. Pollution has wreaked havoc on some of our waterways. We're in the middle of a mass extinction.
It's all been so gradual, no one notices. But if you could have traveled to this day 30 or 40 years ago, it would be jaw-dropping. The planet is screaming at us right now.
As someone pretty famous has stated - our house is on fire.
That "ice age" article from the '70s always gets cited. But there have been so many more predictions from the scientific community that HAVE come to pass. Look at the world today; so much habitat is gone. Pollution has wreaked havoc on some of our waterways. We're in the middle of a mass extinction.
It's all been so gradual, no one notices. But if you could have traveled to this day 30 or 40 years ago, it would be jaw-dropping. The planet is screaming at us right now.
As someone pretty famous has stated - our house is on fire.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I don't need to, and that isn't ad hominem, it's an insult. Learn the difference, dumbass.
BartenderElite
Verified User
I don't need to, and that isn't ad hominem, it's an insult. Learn the difference, dumbass.
A difference without a distinction (which is why I said it, btw - the fact that you try to make it so is head-scratching, considering how you reference it on this board).