In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

And then there's the following from 1953  (cited in the comments of your article):



I think you misread the realclimate.org article.  It says, «Not only has the current spate of global warming been going on for about 35 years now, but also the term “global warming” will have its 35th anniversary next week. On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" in the journal Science. That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the ISI database of journal articles).»  Note that this is claiming that Broecker's paper was the first to use the term "global warming," not that it was the first paper to predict global warming.  Even if that is true, that is not of any importance to your claim that the graph and paper cited in the Wikipedia article you quoted is wrong.  Additionally, you claimed "hundreds" of papers citing global cooling in that Wikipedia article, yet a close reading of that article reveals something else entirely.  Very few papers extolling global cooling are cited in that article.  And your claim that the Wikipedia entry supports your claim that global cooling was "scientific fact" in the 70s is simply false.

then answer this how many papers/articles (Because the above is an article) by 1980 were there on global warming considering the three points of references we are using? I count 3. So How many on global cooling using the same references? I have 9 written down so tell me how I am wrong. remember one of the three sources voting for co2 warming is media related.

---

The man who was certain that cfc's couldn't get into the stratosphere, based on his extensive experience in the industry, doesn't doubt scientific findings.

It's just that there's this giant conspiracy, for the benefit of duponte. Also, something something something, leap of faith.  -And Whores, also, too.

THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID!

I POINTED TO the people funding this scientific research! OF COURSE THEY WILL FIND WHAT EVER DUPONTE TELLS THEM TO FIND!

---

What I said about CFC's is they are heavier than air and in their current form are harmless!

So even if they find CFC-11 in the ozone layer it means nothing as that gas is inert!

It is when the particle breaks down that it destroys the ozone!

When the CFC becomes C and FC The C or chlorine become like a free radical and attaches itself to one of the O3 molecules making it an O2 by stealing one of the oxygen... turning ozone/o3 into o2

I also said back then they said it would take 75 years for us to see or experience any reduction on cfc levels or because it takes that long to break down.. which is what they said 35 years ago.

Now the article I posted said it takes much longer for the break down to occour, which means the initial hole and it's subsequent seal is not effected by any of the regulations we put in place. the article 'it is not chemically possible explains this. We would not see any real result till 2090 or later if new science can be trusted.