Told 'ja so...
 

On Nov 4, 9:38*am, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore.....

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* *publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.

If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".

Told 'ja so...
 

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.

Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Told 'ja so...
 

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.

Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

Just keep negating anything and everything liberal. That'll help your
credibility.

Told 'ja so...
 

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.

Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Did you not read the articles? There is more now than back in the 70's,
how does that square with your theory?

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.


Cite?

He cited several times yesterday, where were you?

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

You just keep talking like there is only two people against it, this is
just not true. It is just plain stupid for laymen like us to
definitively say, "my scientists are right, yours are wrong". Here, at
least skim through this one..

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Then, tell me "my scientists are better than yours.... It is not settled
science, even if "your" talking heads say so...


And there you go!! NOWHERE in that article do any scientists say that
global warming isn't happening.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.
What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.

Well, I guess somebody here was wrong, wonder if he can admit it like I
did the other day when I was wrong... This is gonna' be interesting.
Somehow I think these facts are going to be ignored... Next!?

Uh, the above is horse****.

Told 'ja so...
 

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:55:12 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)


You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.

She can't seem to understand the concept of a scam, and that the noble
Nobel folks are in it up to their eyeballs.

Told 'ja so...
 

JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:38 am, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore....
I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.
Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.
If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".

Show me where in that article where any scientist has claimed global
warming isn't happening.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.
Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Did you not read the articles? There is more now than back in the 70's,
how does that square with your theory?


Uh, it's not the amount of freon in use, it's the amount of freon in the
air that matters as far as the ozone layer goes. It's now recycled. Used
to be just let out into the environment.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.
What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.

Cite?

He cited several times yesterday, where were you?

I don't see it. Please show me. I really need to see statistics where
there is more Freon IN THE AIR now than before the ban.

Told 'ja so...
 

On 11/4/09 9:43 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:38 am, wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore....

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.

If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".


The tulsa beacon is a fundamentalist, right-wing, anti-science rag.

From wiki:

The Tulsa Beacon is a weekly newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was
founded by Charles and Susan Biggs under the corporate name Biggs
Communications, Inc. The first paper was published in April, 2001.

The Tulsa Beacon features news from Tulsa and the surrounding area. It
includes local columnists, a recipe page, church news, columns by Dr.
Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson, local editorials and letters to the
editor, syndicated columnists (Robert Novak, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen
and Walter Williams), local sports, television listings, movie reviews,
classified ads and legal notices. The Tulsa Beacon is a legal newspaper
and a member of the Oklahoma Press Association. The Tulsa Beacon has a
conservative editorial policy with an evangelical Christian slant. For
example they promote the teaching of creation science and intelligent
design as equal alternatives to evolution

Yet another dimwit cite by the newsgroup's resident dimwit, using his
JustHate ID here.

Told 'ja so...
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because all the scientists who are publishing are getting millions nay
billions of $. They make big oil execs look like pikers. (Let's see who
agrees with this.)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Told 'ja so...
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:01:24 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/4/09 9:43 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:38 am, wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...ronment/03gore....

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.

If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

Did you read this yet?
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
I have posted it several times.... Your scientists are no smarter than
"mine". And it is far from "settled science".


The tulsa beacon is a fundamentalist, right-wing, anti-science rag.

From wiki:

The Tulsa Beacon is a weekly newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was
founded by Charles and Susan Biggs under the corporate name Biggs
Communications, Inc. The first paper was published in April, 2001.

The Tulsa Beacon features news from Tulsa and the surrounding area. It
includes local columnists, a recipe page, church news, columns by Dr.
Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson, local editorials and letters to the
editor, syndicated columnists (Robert Novak, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen
and Walter Williams), local sports, television listings, movie reviews,
classified ads and legal notices. The Tulsa Beacon is a legal newspaper
and a member of the Oklahoma Press Association. The Tulsa Beacon has a
conservative editorial policy with an evangelical Christian slant. For
example they promote the teaching of creation science and intelligent
design as equal alternatives to evolution

Yet another dimwit cite by the newsgroup's resident dimwit, using his
JustHate ID here.

Purposeful ignorance.

Told 'ja so...
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:55:12 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

You just keep talking like there is only two people against it, this is
just not true. It is just plain stupid for laymen like us to
definitively say, "my scientists are right, yours are wrong". Here, at
least skim through this one..

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Then, tell me "my scientists are better than yours.... It is not settled
science, even if "your" talking heads say so...


And there you go!! NOWHERE in that article do any scientists say that
global warming isn't happening.

And nowhere in the article does it say that pigs can't fly. But, guess
what, they can't.

Told 'ja so...
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:55:12 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.
Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.
You just keep talking like there is only two people against it, this is
just not true. It is just plain stupid for laymen like us to
definitively say, "my scientists are right, yours are wrong". Here, at
least skim through this one..

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Then, tell me "my scientists are better than yours.... It is not settled
science, even if "your" talking heads say so...

And there you go!! NOWHERE in that article do any scientists say that
global warming isn't happening.

And nowhere in the article does it say that pigs can't fly. But, guess
what, they can't.

Uh, the article was about a specific subject, global warming.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and
are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if
and when it comes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?

If you are not willing to stand up and defend your data and your
conclusions in front of your critics then you aren't too confident in
your data and nobody else should be either.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:43 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
Where in that article does it say that global warming isn't happening
and is a scam?
The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)
You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Quit now. There is scientific research to back that up, and a lot of
conservatives just don't like that. They just need a talking head to
tell them that that isn't the case.

Team up with the Plum. That'll help your credibility.

Do you disagree with my statement that there are reams of research to
back up the claim that changing refrigerants has worked?

Worked what?

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.


Cite?

The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:45:24 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:43:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The scam is what activists are saying we need to do to "fix" it.
Basically, what ever their agenda was 30 years ago is now revived to
stop global warming. (higher gas taxes, stop eating meat. ban cars,
ZPG or whatever)

You mean like not using Freon? That actually worked, and the ozone hole has
been greatly reduced. FYI, a woman's effort.

What nobody says is they made more freon after the "ban" than they had
before it. China never stopped and they made close to a billion R-12
(the worst stuff) refrigerators after the ban. Mexico was still
selling R-12 for many years after the ban (and probably still are)
A few years ago I read an article about the gray market in it.
You can still get R-22 but the end of US manufacture is this year I
believe.

A rational person who actually understands how much freon was made and
released would have to say that ozone hole was a natural cycle that
cycled the other way ... all by itself.


Cite?


Which part?
That China and India are still making massive amounts of R-12?
Go look yourself. There are dozens of articles about it.

The US is still making R-22 and will be allowed to until 2020.
They can even manufacture new R-22 systems until 2020, as long as the
freon in them is recycled but they can still make new freon for
servicing existing systems.
Jan 1, 2010 is the deadline for new systems with new freon tho.

How can anyone say how well "it" (the ban) is working when "it" never
happened?

Some just read with a skewed filter and ignore anything that does not
fit their preconceived notions..

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:


The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.

We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.

So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

On Nov 5, 8:52*am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:

The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.

We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.

So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.

Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.

Told 'ja so...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:38:53 -0500, NotNow wrote:

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because nobody is getting grant money to publish a study that doesn't
support the global warming theory.



The oil/coal companies have deep pockets and are certainly funding that
effort.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Told 'ja so...
 

On 11/5/09 1:00 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:38:53 -0500, wrote:

I guess it's easier for a liberal to pretend it's not a scam then to
admit to the possibility that he (or she) may have been wrong.

Just think. This is the *NEW YORK TIMES* publishing this, not the
Washington Times, Harry's favorite paper.


If global warming is nothing but a scam, how come there is SO much
scientific data that it is, indeed occuring?


Because nobody is getting grant money to publish a study that doesn't
support the global warming theory.



The oil/coal companies have deep pockets and are certainly funding that
effort.


....along with the U.S. senator from Oklahoma they own...

Told 'ja so...
 

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

Told 'ja so...
 

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

lol
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.


cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.

WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!


But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.

cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.
WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

Yep, there you go, forgo good science in favor of what the RNC tells you.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...
But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

I can see it now. A liberal waving a Treaty saying "but we have a signed
treaty." As the opposing country's army shoots him dead.

Told 'ja so...
 

In article ,
says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.

cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.
WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!

But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?

Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

Yep, there you go, forgo good science in favor of what the RNC tells you.

The exact same could be said for you...

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Ignore the science in favor of what the DNC tells you.

--
Wafa free again.

Told 'ja so...
 

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?
Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

I can see it now. A liberal waving a Treaty saying "but we have a signed
treaty." As the opposing country's army shoots him dead.

Reminds me of the lad and his mom walking in a parking lot the other
day. The lad starts crossing a right of way and his mom yells out watch
where you are going. He yells back "This is a cross walk. I have the
right of way" just as a car zooms by right in front of his nose. He'll
make a fine liberal when/if he grows up. He kind of reminded me of our
friend Plum.

Told 'ja so...
 

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:29 -0500, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:54:01 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:52 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:50:40 -0500, BAR wrote:
The ozone hole gets bigger and the ozone hole gets smaller. All you have
to do is to take your measurements at the time of year that best
supports your conclusion.
We didn't even know there was an ozone layer until the early 20th
century and we didn't really have a good way to measure it until we
had satellites so we don't have a clue whether holes are normal and
how they act.
So then, how do we know it's us that are causing the fluctuation, could
it just be normal like the re-disbursement of temperatures on the
earth...

--
Wafa free again.
Simple. The ozone layer deteriorated faster where the highest
concentrations of particulates in the air were.
cite?

Are you saying that the most freon was vented in Antarctica? You would
think it would be over North America or at least the northern
hemisphere if freon was the cause.
The fact that the hole closed up and freon didn't stop being released
sort of debunks the whole theory.
As I said before, virtually all freon eventually leaks out. That is
why most systems get repaired or replaced. There is no reason to think
releases have dropped in the last 30 years.
WHOOOOSH.........

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5149840...one-layer.html

Which states in part:
The most widely known damage to the ozone layer from CFCs is the ozone
hole over the Antarctic continent, first discovered in the 1980s.
Contrary to its name, the ozone hole is not actually a hole in the ozone
layer but is a thinning of the layer itself. The ozone layer has also
been found to be damaged over industrialized areas and throughout most
of the world. As the damaging effects of CFCs continue to be studied,
measures are being taken to limit or ban the use of CFCs in order to
protect the ozone from further damage.

Did you notice the part about "damaged over industrialized areas...." or
just choose to ignore that?

What! Theres more!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the...eing_destroyed

Which states in part:
Chlorine and chlorine-based compounds, create a surface on which ozone
can be broken apart or destroyed. This is mainly why CFC's
(chloro-fluoro-carbons) were banned by law, because they destroyed
ozone. Note that the prefix chloro is in chloro-fluoro-carbons, meaning
that the reason ozone was destroyed by CFC's was due to the fact that
CFC's were chlorine-based compounds.

And many, many more!
But if the Chinese and Indians continued to produce and lose freon for
the last 30 years, along with plenty we made, how did the hole get
better if freon causes it?

Are you saying it was simply having a toothless treaty that did it?
Yes, words are everything. All you have to do is say it, and it's true
and settled... Don't bother me with opposing facts or I will call you an
entertainer, and pass laws to stifle your speech... Like threatening
insurance companies during the health care debate...

Yep, there you go, forgo good science in favor of what the RNC tells you.

The exact same could be said for you...

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Ignore the science in favor of what the DNC tells you.


Please, do show me....where in that article does it say that global
warming is not happening. Then show me in that article where it says
that man has NO contribution to global warming. I'll be waiting.