Globull Warming

[T. A. Gardner]

Here is the original post. All articles were presented as backing up your claim, and proving that I knew "nothing."

Yep, you know nothing, because you can't critically read articles based on science obviously, based on your responses to date.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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).

Wrong. One is a logical fallacy, the other is an insult. Big difference. Ad hominem means you have no worthwhile response. An insult is just that, independent of the response.

 

[BartenderElite]

Yep, you know nothing, because you can't critically read articles based on science obviously, based on your responses to date.

Nope. All you're saying now is, "I can't admit when I'm wrong."

I don't think you read the articles before you posted them, and I think your "opposed" opinion thing was just an attempt to save face.

At least 3 of the articles stated that the CFC ban was not only effective, but incredibly necessary. And your contention that it has made no difference in the size of the ozone hole displays no understanding whatsoever about the dynamics of the ozone hole.

The CFC ban worked. Science was right. Thank you for posting the articles that back that up.

 

[BartenderElite]

Wrong. One is a logical fallacy, the other is an insult. Big difference. Ad hominem means you have no worthwhile response. An insult is just that, independent of the response.

Nah. You always say people are using "ad hom" when they go either route. And you cite it in a way that indicates the USE of it is a weakness in someone's argument.

Which is eminently true here. You started insulting/ad homing as soon as you realized your arguments had no merit.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nope. All you're saying now is, "I can't admit when I'm wrong."

I don't think you read the articles before you posted them, and I think your "opposed" opinion thing was just an attempt to save face.

At least 3 of the articles stated that the CFC ban was not only effective, but incredibly necessary. And your contention that it has made no difference in the size of the ozone hole displays no understanding whatsoever about the dynamics of the ozone hole.

The CFC ban worked. Science was right. Thank you for posting the articles that back that up.

Sure it did... That's why the hole at the South Pole is still there and a second bigger one in the tropics has been found...

 

[BartenderElite]

Sure it did... That's why the hole at the South Pole is still there and a second bigger one in the tropics has been found...

Again, I would urge you to read the articles you posted.

And again: they state that the CFC ban WORKED, and was necessary. How consistent is that w/ your original contention?

You're wrong on this one.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nah. You always say people are using "ad hom" when they go either route. And you cite it in a way that indicates the USE of it is a weakness in someone's argument.

Which is eminently true here. You started insulting/ad homing as soon as you realized your arguments had no merit.

I say people are using ad hominem when they are using ad hominem. I don't point out when they are using insults. That would be like arguing over sliced bread or the Sun coming up in the East every day on this board. Ad hominem and insults are NOT the same thing.

 

[BartenderElite]

I say people are using ad hominem when they are using ad hominem. I don't point out when they are using insults. That would be like arguing over sliced bread or the Sun coming up in the East every day on this board.

Nah. I'll show you the next time you do it.

And it doesn't matter. The main premise of why you say that is that there is a weakness in someone's argument. It's the same w/ insults.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow...so conservatives STILL don't understand what climate change entails?

That's kind of astounding.

Okay... define 'climate change', right here, right now. NO Holy Links. YOU define it. Right here. Right now.

Beware the circular definition. I will call you on it if you try it again.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow....so conservatives don't understand at all that there is a difference between that, and the kind of accelerated change we've seen since the Industrial Revolution?

I sometimes wonder if any conservative has read anything on climate change, or if they just take their talking points from Fox.

What 'change'?? Define 'climate change'. Right here. Right now. No Holy Links. YOU define it. Right here. Right now.

 

[Into the Night]

What possible history has anything comparable to the Industrial Revolution and the current population level?

Sounds like you might want to read up on it a bit more, in the context of the times. But thanks for admitting you don't know much about climate change.

What is 'climate change'. Define it.

 

[BartenderElite]

Okay... define 'climate change', right here, right now. NO Holy Links. YOU define it. Right here. Right now.

Beware the circular definition. I will call you on it if you try it again.

It's when our flat earth tilts ever so slightly.

 

[Into the Night]

Like people such as yourself ignore the
Mid-Holocene Warm Period, the Penultimate Interglacial Period. the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Period and the warming that occurred between 1910 and 1940.

What 'warming'?? Europe isn't the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay. That doesn't make any of what we do TODAY sustainable.

It isn't. It's impossible to ignore that.

Define 'sustainable' in this context.

 

[Into the Night]

The question isn't if the climate is changing, it does that.

Climate has no value associated with it. What's 'changing'?

The cause of that change is the question.

What's 'changing'?

I for one don't buy the anthropogenic CO2 version the Left and so-called "Climate scientists" are peddling.

Good. After all, CO2 has no magickal ability to create energy out of nothing or to reduce entropy or to trap light.

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,

Not surprising because the reason the ozone 'hole' exists in the first place. It has nothing to do with CFCs and never did. See the Chapman cycle.

Ozone is created by the action of UVb light on oxygen, which largely takes place just above the tropopause in the stratosphere. This is an endothermic reaction, which cools the air around it. This is the coldest point in our atmosphere (until you get out beyond the exosphere).
Ozone is destroyed by the action of UVc light on ozone, converting it to oxygen. This takes place largely at the top of the stratosphere. This is why the stratosphere sees a temperature inversion with altitude.

The ozone 'hole' occurs at each pole in the winter of that pole. Sunlight is needed to create the ozone, and there is no sunlight at that pole in winter. Big hairy deal.

As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

If you put CFCs in a tank full of ozone, nothing happens. There is no chemical reaction.

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...

The Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Covid all depend on fear mongering. They must get more radical of the 'cost of sin' as time passes. These are all fundamentalist style religions.

They all stem from the Church of Karl Marx...another fundamentalist style religion.

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.

Agreed. ALL of these religions deny and discard science and mathematics. ALL of them preach tyranny as the 'solution'.

 

[Into the Night]

It's the religion of Global Cooling/Warming/ClimateChange/Warming/Cooling/Warming/ClimateDisaster/...or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves. I just call it the Church of Global Warming now.

 

[Into the Night]

Huh?

The CFC ban worked. What are you talking about?

You obviously discard chemistry as well.
CFCs do not reach with ozone.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

No, it says the opposite of what you said. YOU said there was no more ozone hole. The BBC disagrees with you.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Discard of science. You are AGAIN ignoring the Chapman cycle and chemistry, particularly photochemistry.

 

[Into the Night]

You didn't state that when you posted it.

Yes you did, liar. Don't try to deny your own posts. ANYONE can go read them for themselves.