In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know that you believe they aren't...but I also know that you don't know shit...so....?

[Drich]

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Which makes some in 'science' say we have no idea why the hole is or as there and why it is seal. but if the hole is seal then there is no way for the CFC's to split if less time cause the reduced saturation let alone regeneration of the O3 layer. This is not chemically possible.

A more sensible theory has to do with solar winds.. when the sun's output is very high it bombards the earth with actual particles of solar energy which could indeed break down O3 into O2 or just O (o3 being ozone into just oxygen) but you can't tax the sun and duponte (the makers of cfc refrigerant) isn't gong to pay the government billions to make people buy the 'new stuff' because the cfc they were making patent ran out...

Oh, guess what else! the Chfc/HFC (the stuff we converted to in the 90s to save us from the CFC of the 60 70 and 80) you know the stuff we used to replaced the cfc that ate a hole in the ozone???, That 'new stuff of the 1990s patents are running out, and guess what is next on the government chopping block for bad refrigerants! YES the SAME Chfc and HFC's that saved us from the ozone hole, are now global warming/climate change contributors so we have to stop using them Just as Duponts patents and licenses agreements are expiring! and guess who use has a newer replacement?!?! That right DUPONTE!!!! Dupont's new replacement which will be good for 20+ years until those patent run out are here to save us from our own.....  It just cost 10x as much!!! plus the pressures are crazy/more repair bills and home a/c system change out time cut in 1/2!! plus it is crazy toxic and some said highly flammable as it contains a high amount of natural gas.

And here are the non-mad facts.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Ozone facts
What is ozone?
Ozone is a colorless gas. Chemically, ozone is very active; it reacts readily with a great many other substances. Near the Earth’s surface, those reactions cause rubber to crack, hurt plant life, and damage people’s lung tissues. But ozone also absorbs harmful components of sunlight, known as “ultraviolet B”, or “UV-B”. High above the surface, above even the weather systems, a tenuous layer of ozone gas absorbs UV-B, protecting living things below.
What is a Dobson Unit?
The Dobson Unit (DU) is the unit of measure for total ozone. If you were to take all the ozone in a column of air stretching from the surface of the earth to space, and bring all that ozone to standard temperature (0 °Celsius) and pressure (1013.25 millibars, or one atmosphere, or “atm”), the column would be about 0.3 centimeters thick. Thus, the total ozone would be 0.3 atm-cm. To make the units easier to work with, the “Dobson Unit” is defined to be 0.001 atm-cm. Our 0.3 atm-cm would be 300 DU.
What is the ozone hole?
Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”. The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units. The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979. Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.

the zone facts do not change what i said... I came at this subject from 2 angels. you are answering angel one with info addressed to angel two. maybe try again.

Meaning I am not doubting the scientific findings.. I am just dumbing it down so you understand it and can see how fortuniate we are that dupont spent millions of dollars to provide you with allof these numbers inorder to out law their own product which would bring western civilazation to it's knees (no refrigeration/no cities) but we were double fortunate that duponte also made a replacement that did not make holes in the ozone. It just cost 10times more. so they use 'science' to compell everyone to but the new stuff for 25 years..

NOW they are doing the very same thing with the stuff that saved us from the ozone hole.. now the stuff that saved us is more dangerous to global warming than anything man has ever done. but thankfully we do not have to abandon our cities because duponte has newer stuff.. and it only cost 10x more than the last new stuff.

Get it???

Dupont patents ran out on the first refrigerant they put out, so they paid millions to various scientist to find and force the governments of the world to out law .99cents a lb refrigerant, and make everyone buy 10.00 to 14.00 a lb refrigerant. and everything was good till this refrigerant patents ran out.. now these are being billed as being more dangerous than the original cfc based stuff. Now the replacement gas costs between 100 and 125 dollars a pound.

bottom line?

I am showing 'science' is a whore.

This is no different than big tobacco paying doctors to say smoking was good for you in the 1950s

This again is another leap of faith that the science you believe in is not being slanted because some big corporate monster is not paing them to push you towards a product.

When you put your faith in the scientific model then you are most likely to be manipulated by anyone smart enough to package information in that same model. most of you will accept it no questions asked because the info makes all the right check points.. Me telling you about duponte is proof/an example of a big corporation spending millions in the scientific community to make trillions in return, and all the while give you the warm and fuzzies

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[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.

[Drich]

you guys aren't even taking the time to read what I write. I honestly have 2 other web sites I write on.. if you can't be bother to read what I write and respond to it then i will just be a disruption like you are to me. I'll blindly accuse you of lying or I will take what you say out of context build this whole big story and then call you a liar till you rage quit.

---

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

Does the atmosphere, even..like..mix..bro?  

F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry, answers:

"This is indeed a persistent question--so much so that the most recent report of the World Meteorological Organization, entitled 'Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994,' included it among a list of common questions that have been persistently raised and long since answered. Susan Solomon of NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder and I are listed in the document as the Coordinators of Common Questions about Ozone. We had as many as 22 of them, but pared them down to the most frequently asked ones.

"The response to this particular question reads as follows."

HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY'RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?

Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.
Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 kilometers) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone.

"The measurements of CFC-11 in the stratosphere were first described in 1975 by two research groups in Boulder, Colorado, and have been similarly observed innumerable times since. The uniform mixing of CF4 versus altitude was reported from balloons around 1980 and many times since, and from an infrared instrument aboard the space shuttle Challenger (which exploded in 1986) in 1985. My own research group has measured CFC-11 in hundreds of air canisters filled while flying in the NASA DC-8. We once did a descent directly over the North Pole and found uniform mixing in the lower atmosphere, and slightly less CFC-11 in the stratosphere.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...bons-cfcs/

Just for you....sport, lol.

Take extra care to notice the dates.  24 years ago, that was already a question answered 19 years prior.  Itself an example of something known since before chemistry split off from alchemy.  Suspension.

ITS NOT THE CFC MORON! It is the chlorine the 1st C in the CFC. the idea being the sun decays the molecule and splits the C-F-C molecule into it's decayed components Chlorine being one that does not degrade, and it is the Chlorine that eats ozone
http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/enviro...estroy.htm

The C while attached to the FC is inert 

The articles I posted showed it would take far far longer for the sun to break down the cfc molecule releasing the chlorine... Which was the first article (hole in ozone not chemically possible)  but here the real question moron. If chlorine is the problem and it is not contain at the ground level then why not ban unchained chlorine? unless chlorine can't get to the upper atmosphere!

Has that retarded brain kicked over yet? will you even bother to read that I made an allowance for the eventual mixing of the two components? it was the very next paragraph
I said:

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Do you see what I wrote in the quote box? I said we were told it would take 75 years for the break down of the cfc to occur. meaning I know the refrigerant should would eventually be exposed to the ozone but through atmospheric saturation and not BS winds. meaning the counts would be n the parts per billions which is why it would take so long to see the effect... This is what they told us in the 90s, get it? any change to this time line only further proves my point!

Not only that the second half just completely blows you out of the water! in that Duponte is the one who funded the research you are now quoting according to the second link I posted. they spear headed the condemnation of their own product so they could sell the same stuff for 10x more! that is what makes this crimminal and what makes 'science' the whore/willing to sell it self for 'funding' of almost any kind. You can find a desperate scientist to almost say whatever you pay them to say and find some sort of 'evidence' to back themselves up! 

Again big tobacco is a prime example
The people who sold asbestos as a miracle insulation
the whole pot thing is another example of 'science' being used to sell you people on what you want to hear. first pot was a Zombie maker and now it is the purest form of compassion/morality embodied and science lead the charge
global cooling, then warming and now climate change and yes hole in the ozon to sell more freon. In truth that last one is making me rich so... maybe yall shut up and do you part sealing the hole in the ozone while I use my old cfc air conditioner and pay 1/2 what you do in electric

[Angrboda]

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 table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count. And that's not including the citation from 1953. Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face. And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication. Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject. It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before. Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man. I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count. Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice. If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers. Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier. I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken. You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are. You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise. Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims. Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims. You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so. I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been. And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant. All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.

[Angrboda]

Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.

I don't understand your division. Sin is a stain. if you do not want the stain you have it removed. the only way to remove the stain is through atonement. so Not wanting sin not wanting the stain having the stain removed are all the same as they all channel through atonement. how can you separate atonement though this process?

 The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.

no.. that is claiming you don't want sin.. it is like me giving you a vanilla ice cream and you want strawberry, then I say if you want straw berry then come to the table and get it your self...

You may prefer strawberry but if you want is not great enough you will not get up and get it.

The same is true here when I say want I mean the type of want a man 2 days in the desert wants water or a man on fire wants the fire put out.. I'm not speaking of a lackadaisical preference that has no power of motivation.

Lets say your going out and you are wearing your favorite shirt, but notice a 18" round stain on your shirt. can I assume you hate stains? to the point where you would change your shirt, and if you favored your shirt you would make an effort to remove said stain. Otherwise who could claim they hate a stain on a nice shirt if they did nothing to fix it, and wore it out?

Your sin is that stain, atonement is the oxyclean. again how can you hate a stain and not make any effort to do anything? here the only thing that can be done for a hated stain is to attone.

A psychologist by the name of Victor H. Vroom postulated what came to be known as Vroom's expectancy theory (see here and here). The point of his theory was that there are additional factors determining motivation and action beyond simply the desirability of the goal involved. For example, if I believe that my boss might retaliate against me for reporting a grievance, I may be inclined to not report the grievance even if I want to do so. Stronger motives may overrule lesser motives and interfere with the link between desire and action. Additionally, the person has to believe that they possess the "instrumentality" necessary to achieve the desired end. Thus a therapy client may want to change their behavior, yet not believe themselves capable of making the necessary changes or developing the relevant discipline to do so. Among other things, Vroom's expectancy shows that there is not a straight line between wanting something and acting so as to satisfy that want. At a minimum, this shows that simply wanting something is not necessarily in and of itself enough. Your claim was that just wanting not to sin was sufficient to motivate the belief which Jesus states is clearly required. As noted, if I don't believe that believing in Jesus will effect the removal of my sin, then no matter how much I may not want sin, I will not be moved to believe in Jesus any more than I did previously, which is not believing in Jesus at all. Your examples are defective, it has long been recognized that simply wanting something, no matter how dire, is not necessarily sufficient to motivate behavior. It is the behavior, believing in Christ, which is required, not simply the desire. I would also note that you're assuming that a person who already believes in the efficacy of the atonement of Christ will be motivated to believe in the atonement of Christ. That's rather redundant and irrelevant. The question is rather are people always going to seek atonement through Christ when they don't want sin, and the answer to that is a resounding no. Plenty of devout Muslims have a genuine desire not to want to sin, yet none of them are going to seek atonement by believing that Christ was God and that his sacrifice could wash away their sin.

In terms of your examples, if I want strawberry ice cream and believe that no matter what I do, I will not get strawberry ice cream, I will not be motivated to act. (Suppose the person telling me to come and get it is evil, and is just teasing, and won't let me reach the strawberry ice cream.) If I want water after two days in the desert, yet there is the grand canyon to jump, an ocean to swim, thirty rabid bears, one hundred ravenous lions, and a brigade of U.S. soldiers standing in my way, I'm not likely to make the attempt. Wanting not to wear a stained shirt may be irrelevant if I'm required to wear a shirt, and the only shirt I have access to is the stained one. Or perhaps it was a gift from my rich uncle, and he will write me out of his will if I am seen not wearing it. In short, you've provided examples where a desire may in fact lead to an action, but that's not really relevant. I'm not debating that wanting not to sin may be sufficient to motivate belief and atonement. I concede that point. What is relevant are the counter-examples such as the Muslim who genuinely wants not to sin, yet will not atone in the way Jesus requires. Quibbling about the strength of the desire is simply a red herring, in addition to being an additional constraint which wasn't originally claimed and so technically would be moving the goalposts. But no mind, I don't think it saves your argument anyway.

[KevinM1]

Wait.

There is a person actually named Victor Vroom?

That's amazing. Stan Lee couldn't do better.

Okay, carry on.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

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!

Stahp.  OFC it was, the forums exist.  They didn't disappear between now and when you last posted.  Don't try to sell the dumbest lie in the history of lies.  Just accept that you're an idiot and move on.

It's not as if it would matter.

[Fireball]

---

THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID!

Stahp.  OFC it was, the forums exist.  They didn't disappear between now and when you last posted.  Don't try to sell the dumbest lie in the history of lies.  Just accept that you're an idiot and move on.

It's not as if it would matter.

See this right here, the drip is using the fire hosing thing, again. People like him have been subjected to so much fire hosing that they think they can do it too. And they DO. People show them the error, and they turn on the fire hose again. I personally realized that religious people had this propensity, early in my life (when I was 11, and my mom got her driver's license at the age of 29, when we could finally afford a second car (POS Dodge Lancer wagon), and we got subjected to religious indoctrination. Though I did not know what it was called. All I knew was that it was lying.