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]

[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]

[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]

[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.