Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[moon]

Why? What's that got to do with what I stated?

Simple. Holes in the ozone layer ARE a threat to humanity- unless you consider cancer not to be.

 

[Truth Detector]

You're the JPP kindergarten kid.
Dumbass

Projection from the America hating, terrorist loving mental case.

 

[moon]

Australia isn't at the south pole, Moonbat.

Coming from a self-obsessed oaf who states that Sweden is NOT to the east of the UK...............................................how do you explain the Antarctic wombat ?


Haw, haw.....................................haw.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I prefer using historical track records first in things like this. The same bunch of 'climate scientists' told us that the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole was an existential threat to humanity and that to close it we had to get rid of CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons). If we did this the hole would "heal" and close. They put a timeframe on that analysis.

Well, we got rid of CFC's and the time for the hole to have healed is now long past. It's still there, still just as big, and sometimes bigger. It's pretty damn clear that CFC's were not the cause.

That's one example of many, where science got it wrong, and politics pushed bad science resulting in a major cost to society. So, in my view, the idea that the world is going to end or some similar nonsense in a decade or two if we don't up end society and world economies because the global temperature is rising slightly is something I say put the brakes on because the scientists and environmental types screaming for this have a proven, poor, track record of being right in the past. That's for starters.

Did they predict everyone was going to move to the south pole?

What happened to the world's ozone hole?

Back in the 1990s, the hole in the planet's ozone layer was a pressing global crisis – if we had ignored it, today there would be several.

www.bbc.com

Had the world not banned CFCs, we would now find ourselves nearing massive ozone depletion. "By 2050, it's pretty well-established we would have had ozone hole-like conditions over the whole planet, and the planet would have become uninhabitable," says Solomon.
...
Based on scientific assessments, the ozone layer is expected to return to pre-1980 levels around the middle of the century. Healing is slow because of the long lifespan of ozone-depleting molecules. Some persist in the atmosphere for 50 to 150 years before decaying.

When we take an action that prevents something from getting worse that doesn't mean that it would have not gotten worse if we didn't take the action. Science didn't get it wrong. You are assuming that results of taking an action would be the same as not taking action. Do you think if you are speeding toward a brick wall and you apply the brakes to stop it is the same result as if you hadn't hit the brakes? That seems to be the stance you are taking.

 

[moon]

Projection from the America hating, terrorist loving mental case.

AW, Trooofie is fixated on his buzz-word again.

Haw, haw.......................................haw.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Australia isn't at the south pole, Moonbat.

Ozone isn't only over the south pole. The south pole is where the hole in the ozone layer occurs. A hole doesn't have to occur for the ozone layer to thin and reduce protection from UV.

But you probably are confused by that because you think electromagnetic radiation only consists of visible light.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You cannot blame YOUR problem on IBDaMann, me, or anybody else, Poorboy.

Word stuffing and word games isn't going to work, Poorboy. No one ever said black holes don't exist.

You cannot trap light. Not even a black hole can trap light.

Actually, I can blame my problem on you since you are the problem.

You make accusations and then fail to support your accusation which means that -
Into the Night is lying.

 

[Into the Night]

I prefer using historical track records first in things like this. The same bunch of 'climate scientists' told us that the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole was an existential threat to humanity and that to close it we had to get rid of CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons). If we did this the hole would "heal" and close. They put a timeframe on that analysis.

Well, we got rid of CFC's and the time for the hole to have healed is now long past. It's still there, still just as big, and sometimes bigger. It's pretty damn clear that CFC's were not the cause.

That's one example of many, where science got it wrong, and politics pushed bad science resulting in a major cost to society. So, in my view, the idea that the world is going to end or some similar nonsense in a decade or two if we don't up end society and world economies because the global temperature is rising slightly is something I say put the brakes on because the scientists and environmental types screaming for this have a proven, poor, track record of being right in the past. That's for starters.

Science did not get anything about the ozone wrong. The Church of the Ozone Hole denies science, including chemistry and the Chapman cycle.
Science has nothing to do with the Church of Global Warming either. They routinely deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

BOTH religions preach Gloom and Doom. None of it has happened, of course.

The Earth is still here, there are lots of people on it, it still rains and crops grow, the Maldives and all the little Pacific islands that are little more than a sandbar still have the runways on them we built in WW2, the oceans are still alkaline, the Coral Reef is still there and growing, the known polar bear population is still increasing in Canada, and the Sun still rises and sets.

 

[Into the Night]

Ozone isn't only over the south pole.

Never said it was, Poorboy. Stop word stuffing.

The south pole is where the hole in the ozone layer occurs.

A "hole" occurs at each pole during the winter of that pole. I've already explained why.

A hole doesn't have to occur for the ozone layer to thin and reduce protection from UV.

There is no UV from the Sun during the winter at a pole.

But you probably are confused by that because you think electromagnetic radiation only consists of visible light.

Word stuffing again. I never said any such thing. Stop making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, I can blame my problem on you since you are the problem.

You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Poorboy. They are YOUR problems. Only YOU can do something about them.

You make accusations and then fail to support your accusation which means that -
Into the Night is lying.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Never said it was, Poorboy. Stop word stuffing.

A "hole" occurs at each pole during the winter of that pole. I've already explained why.

There is no UV from the Sun during the winter at a pole.

Word stuffing again. I never said any such thing. Stop making shit up.

Is your explanation about the ozone layer like your explanation that light consists of only visible light?

Australia isn't at the south pole. You seem really confused.

 

[Into the Night]

It isn't "lying," it's just unsupported nonsense.

It is supported by his own posts. He continue to try to deny he made them.

Both ITN and IBDM have a poor to nonexistent understanding of science.

I understand science quite well. I will state that I think IBDaMann understands it even better.
Both of us have stated the theories of science that Poorboy is ignoring. I even stated the equations to him.

Now he tries to change the equations by adding and subtracting terms, or denying the equation even exists.

A theory of science speaks for itself. That IS the supporting argument in science. There is no other.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that anthropomorphic climate change (aka Gorebal Warming) is some existential threat to humanity.

What global warming? No gas or vapor has even the slightest capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Poorboy. They are YOUR problems. Only YOU can do something about them.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

You make accusations and then fail to support your accusation which means that -
Into the Night is lying.


Still waiting for you to link to any of my posts where you think I said the things that you fantasized. It seems you are completely incapable of providing any support for the garbage your regurgitate here.

 

[Into the Night]

Is your explanation about the ozone layer like your explanation that light consists of only visible light?

Australia isn't at the south pole. You seem really confused.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[IBDaMann]

The only thing I did was point out that your claim of "none" was wrong. I didn't claim the light I put in was the same that came out.

That was the requirement of the experiment that you insisted you were following.

Look, the good news is that you can always clarify and adjust your execution of the experiment to do it right. Just try again. The objective is to establish the truth value of the Light-Speed Conjecture that "Light cannot be trapped/contained/hogtied" which is more technically expressed as "Light can only travel at the speed of light or it is destroyed". You insist that light can, in fact, be trapped/contained/pinned-to-the-mat because you have allowed yourself to be made to believe religious dogma that all depends on your particular belief that light can, in fact, be trapped/contained/gift-wrapped.

So you are going to conduct my experiment that aims to falsify the Light-Speed Conjecture. Grab a light source; any one you want. The one you have been using is fine, but you will be responsible for keeping track of all light from that source. Visible light flashlights are recommended due to their simplicity, availability, low cost and straightforward results. Grab an enclosed, empty container that is devoid of fluorescent or phosphorescent materials (which have already been shown do not emit energy in the form that was absorbed but that nonetheless emit energy that could confuse your results and waste your time, effort and resources) and begin filling the container with light from the light source. Stop when the container is roughly half full. Then seal the container and store the container for 15 minutes in a cool, unlit closet.

Remove and unseal the container. How much light from your original source remains in the container?

Why is this the appropriate point in the experiment to ask you if the quantity is "none"? Answer: It's the initial hypothesis of the experiment.

Enjoy.

 

[Into the Night]

You make accusations and then fail to support your accusation which means that -
Into the Night is lying.


Still waiting for you to link to any of my posts where you think I said the things that you fantasized. It seems you are completely incapable of providing any support for the garbage your regurgitate here.

Denying your own posts is YOUR own problem, Poorboy. I don't need to prove what your posts already contain. Anyone can go read them for themselves.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I understand science quite well. I will state that I think IBDaMann understands it even better.
Both of us have stated the theories of science that Poorboy is ignoring. I even stated the equations to him.

Yeah. You understand science so well that you think Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to a container.
You understand science so well that you think "light" only refers to visible light and doesn't include infrared light and ultraviolet light.

It would seem this claim by you that you understand science quite well is more evidence that -

Into the Night is lying.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah. You understand science so well that you think Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to a container.

Never said any such thing, Poorboy. Stop making shit up.

You understand science so well that you think "light" only refers to visible light and doesn't include infrared light and ultraviolet light.

Never said any such thing, Poorboy. Stop making shit up.

It would seem this claim by you that you understand science quite well is more evidence that -

Into the Night is lying.

Stating a theory of science isn't lying, Poorboy. I even gave you the equations you are denying.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That was the requirement of the experiment that you insisted you were following.

Look, the good news is that you can always clarify and adjust your execution of the experiment to do it right. Just try again. The objective is to establish the truth value of the Light-Speed Conjecture that "Light cannot be trapped/contained/hogtied" which is more technically expressed as "Light can only travel at the speed of light or it is destroyed". You insist that light can, in fact, be trapped/contained/pinned-to-the-mat because you have allowed yourself to be made to believe religious dogma that all depends on your particular belief that light can, in fact, be trapped/contained/gift-wrapped.

So you are going to conduct my experiment that aims to falsify the Light-Speed Conjecture. Grab a light source; any one you want. The one you have been using is fine, but you will be responsible for keeping track of all light from that source. Visible light flashlights are recommended due to their simplicity, availability, low cost and straightforward results. Grab an enclosed, empty container that is devoid of fluorescent or phosphorescent materials (which have already been shown do not emit energy in the form that was absorbed but that nonetheless emit energy that could confuse your results and waste your time, effort and resources) and begin filling the container with light from the light source. Stop when the container is roughly half full. Then seal the container and store the container for 15 minutes in a cool, unlit closet.

Remove and unseal the container. How much light from your original source remains in the container?

Why is this the appropriate point in the experiment to ask you if the quantity is "none"? Answer: It's the initial hypothesis of the experiment.

Enjoy.

Oh.. Look. I found that I can trap light -

A new way to trap light

MIT researchers discover a new phenomenon that could lead to new types of lasers and sensors.

news.mit.edu

A New Understanding of How to Trap Light

A newly published study from MIT reveals the mechanism responsible for trapping the light, showing that this trapped state is much more stable than had been thought. Researchers at MIT who succeeded last year in creating a material that could trap light and stop it in its tracks have now develope

scitechdaily.com

 

[Libhater]

The percent from the last 150 years may be lower than current attempts to calculate it but even these articles show that the anthropogenic forcings are increasing over time and will continue to increase unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

I suggest the most appropriate and most effective way to reduce the earth's CO2 would be to force Algore and John Kerry
to sideline their jets and to paddle their rowboats overseas to their attend their many global elitist climate change meetings.