Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

reply to post by jdub297

Modern cancer epidemics? What about ancient ones? DNA analysis in now revealing that people died from all of the "modern" cancers thousands of years ago. FAIL.

I am not being funny but you dont have a clue what you are tapping about...

Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

www.physorg.com...

As for ozone delpetion. CFCs are know to cause a catalytic reaction reaction. That means in general they remain intact after the reaction to take place.....

Here is a little reading so you can educate yourself on the ozone layer...

www.wunderground.com...

reply to post by john_bmth

So what about the details of oil industry funding I managed to find for the papers that JohnnyBGood posted? I think having the industry line your pockets would also bias your results, right?

AGW advocates seem to think that a few millions here and there to schools or think tanks that also happen to publish the occasional skeptical paper is scandalous.

They overlook the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in finding, or fixing, "man-made global warming."
In the US, a single program from a single agency recently approved more than $16,000,000,000 to fight AGW.

Funding sources do not change the results of good, legitimate science. AGW skeptics are more than willing to share their information, data, tests and conslusions.

In the AGW religion, doubt or questions are met with shrieks of outrage and claims of bad motivation.
With AGW, this isn't theory and analysis, it is doctrine and theocracy. If you are not a believer, you must be rooted out and destroyed.

Most true scientists welcome challenges to their theories; not in AGW-ism.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by beckybecky

 

OH JESUS, HERE WE GO AGAIN...

In case you're too uneducated to know this already- THE ORIGINAL "CLIMATEGATE" EMAILS WERE PROVEN TO SHOW NOTHING THAT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS DENIERS CLAIM THEM TO BE. THREE SEPARATE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED THAT WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE EMAIL, AND THE ONLY COMPLAINT THEY HAD WAS THAT THE SCIENTISTS WERE SLIGHTLY SLOPPY WITH SOME DATA AND THAT THEY WERE OVERLY SUSPICIOUS OF FOIA REQUESTS (from deniers). THERE WAS NO WRONG-DOING IN THE HACKED EMAILS, EVERYTHING THAT DENIERS SAY ABOUT THEM IS COMPLETE BS, IT'S CHERRY-PICKED, EXAGGERATED, PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC, LACKING PROPER CONTEXT, RIFE WITH PROPAGANDA/FOSSIL FUEL FUNDING, AND FABRICATIONS.

This, I'm sure is just a REPEAT of the same old denier crap. Cherry-picking, exaggerations, lies, propaganda, pseudo-science, failure to note context, misuse of words, and fabrications all in the name of discrediting an INNOCENT field of science whose science was largely settled DECADES AGO. The only reason people debate the existence of global warming is because A) Solutions threaten the establishment and wealth/power brokers of this planet; and B) These elites have injected anti-scientific propaganda into politics and the media in order to deceive idiots into thinking AGW is a hoax. I HAVE RESEARCHED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MORE THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS WEBSITE, AND I GUARANTEE IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A HOAX. I HAVE RESEARCHED EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT AND THEY'VE ALL PROVEN COMPLETELY FALSE, ALL OF THEM.

Holy Bob Whaler, WHAT CAPS!

You always can tell when people are on the defensive and can't really back up their position/s, THEY SHOUT!

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

BP alone has invested 550 million into AGW causes.

There is a lo of bull # coming out in this thread you have that the wrong way round it is well documented...

Here is one example for you....

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'

www.guardian.co.uk...

Time for you to do some reading.

sppiblog.org...

Good to see this out there... all the Propaganda by the UN / NWO "experts" that we are told we must believe

When the ruling elite take a natural occurrence such as climates changing every few thousand years - something the entire universe is actually experiencing not just earth - and try to manipulate it for Control and Personal Gain you have really wonder, and to think how many people actually buy into it is the sad thing, Fear is a powerful thing, and then to try & add a "tax" on top of it is just mind numbing

Granted we should take much better care of our Planet instead of acting like we are separate from Nature, but the global warming scheme is not the way to go about it, the Corporations and Governments are making huge profits off the Green Movement instead of actually benefiting the ALL it benefits the few who rule. Business as usual

Seems even Camerons green guru doesn't buy it - in real life I have met very very few people who actually do - despite wall to wall pro AGWspeak oozing from MSM.

Newsbytes: BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists, prime minister “green guru” publicly doubts climate change. Posted on November 27, 2011 by Anthony Watts Steve Hilton,


the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change. ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ — The Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed................................................ ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’

wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by purplemer

Go and have a look at the change in temperature at the Arctic in the last hundred years.

*sigh*

What makes you think I haven't?

It is well documented. Some of these changes may seem small but remember last time we were in an iceage the average temp on the planet only fell a few degrees.

What was used to measure the temperature?

What time(s) of day was(were) the temperature data collected each day?

Has the number of stations remained consistent?

These are very important factors to consider in the field of statistics.

What makes you think the only method used to measure the results of climate change are temperature.

There is considerable difference between "climate change," "global warming," and "anthropomorphic global warming."

There are many factors involved in climate change that can be factorised ie. bioregional flucations,

Which... can change for any reason under the sun.

ocean salinity,

Again - can change for many reasons.

jet streams velocity,

Indeed, a part of the climate - can be influenced by many things.

past environments (ice cores readings for example.)

Ice cores are all well and good - however, we all know that the air in Egypt is considerably different from that in the arctic (talking about directly measuring the air bubbles in ice cores). The other issue is that their estimates for global temperature are "calibrated" based on current climate conditions around the world (derived from the same fundamentally flawed data regarding temperature) and recent ice sheets. There's some monkeying with the numbers according to someone's model or another... but it all starts on the presumption that we can take an average temperature, currently; then take a reading elsewhere in the world and derive an average temperature from that reading.

It's creative and resourceful... but it has to be seen for what it is: a shot in the dark.

What you are failling to see here is that there is a good consensus across a range of specialised facilities across a range of national and international bodies.

No, there's really not.

This has been discussed, already in this thread.

Further - I really couldn't care. I'm something of an egotist - it comes from my status among the 99 percentile in metrics of intellectual performance. I'm not overly concerned with what average people holding a degree think - they are irrelevant spare for the knowledge they hold - which is a resource to be extracted and utilized by people of my caliber.

That's delivered in an overly blunt manner - but there's a reason I think the way I do and come to the conclusions I do - it has proven to place me well above and beyond the average (and even the above-average) population.

I'll put it to you pretty directly - you do not have the knowledge or the intelligence to put my concerns regarding this issue to rest. You simply don't know enough about the processes used to generate the data used in these models.

I see repeated ad nauseum that big oil is funding GW sceptics and that therfore their views should be automatically dismissed.

Fact is the really big oil money is going to pro GW groups, not to mention the stupendous amounts from other sources

detailed here: sppiblog.org...

or the US GOV:

The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com...
The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage and yet insisted all the while that the exact opposite was the case is troubling. It tells us a good deal about their intellectual rigour. About their character. And about their ability to distinguish fact from fiction. If there really is a climate crisis, if our grandchildren’s future really is imperiled, these aren’t the people to lead us out of the wilderness.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by jdub297

 

Modern cancer epidemics? What about ancient ones? DNA analysis in now revealing that people died from all of the "modern" cancers thousands of years ago. FAIL.

I am not being funny but you dont have a clue what you are tapping about...

No, you are not funny, and that is what is so sad.
You seem to just spout what you are told or try to copy and paste without understanding.

Your source is comparing different populations, to begin with. Cancers of every modern type have been identified going back eons, even though there were only 10% of today's population then extant.

As for ozone delpetion. CFCs are know to cause a catalytic reaction reaction. That means in general they remain intact after the reaction to take place.....

Stratospheric chlorine has been in decline by at least 1% per year for more than 20 years.
www.environment.gov.au...

Yet the ozone holes persist and grow.

You really have no idea what you are saying, do you?

deny ignorance

jw

The real reason behind a lot of these schemes (Debt based money system, suppression of free energy, intentional increase of medical expenses, food, financial burdens such as carbon taxes etc.) is the creation of "Artificial Scarcity" in order to justify government and to keep people stressed so they cannot see they are enslaved. Everyone should watch Zeigeist Addendum.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

READ THESE:

www.minnpost.com...


blogs.discovermagazine.com...


www.telegraph.co.uk...


www.newscientist.com...


www.realclimate.org...

>> Well, I FIGURED that the only thing NEW this time, would be that the Hacker would not make the same mistakes. It's as bogus a "gate" as the first ClimateGate was....

... but it doesn't really matter how lame it is -- it's merely more "grist for the mill." The Rumor and Propaganda Mill that is Main Stream Media -- lead by Fox News. They merely need to REPORT on some reporting, or controversy, and they can produce hours of programming of doubt with little content. Their viewers appreciate the emotional angst and self-righteous tone with predigested rhetorical questions; "Is Climate Gate a Conspiracy to Tax the Planet?" The existential fear of what MIGHT be, apparently is scarier to some than the reality being even worse.

>> WITHOUT AGW -- we still have acidification of the oceans. It's a simple PH test that is hard to fake. We've got 40% depletion of Phytoplankton in 50 years -- that's the stuff that produces Oxygen. And, as far as has been reported, somewhere around a 70% die off of Krill -- small creatures that depend upon Arctic sea ice to grow -- and in turn, are eaten by larger sea predators like Whales.

We've got progressively worse "Algae Blooms" also known as Red Tides, they last longer and are more devastating year after year -- now with a more toxic variant that produces an asphyxiating mist -- based on a type of marine organism that almost killed the planet a billion of years ago when Oxygen-producing organisms first took over (which wiped out most of the life that was preeminent, that breathed Methane and Ammonia).


>> It's like these "Free Market Capitalists" who act like FREE MARKETS always produce a panacea of growth -- but they started their watches just after FDR fixed a few things (like putting HUGE restrictions on Capitalism and taxing the hell out of the rich). Anyone looking at the history of the USA, would realize that MOST OF THE TIME, the vast majority of people have toiled away and only a very few prospered. Capitalism is mostly the story of Charles Dickens -- NOT the latter part of the 20th Century.

And the story of the earth, is that organisms DO GET WIPED OUT -- tipping the balance due to human activity, is probably a very stupid move. Economies can come and go -- but we do not know what we are messing with if we change the chemistry of our Ecosystem.


>> I don't NEED the propaganda of AGW to tell me that Human activity has an impact. We've got an island larger than Texas in the Pacific made of trash.

Capitalism, is pretty much like a metastasizing Cancer -- and it can only live by growing unchecked and taking over the host system -- which means the system eventually dies. No wonder some of the top Capitalists have put their money behind destroying Representational government in the USA and in lying about the Environment. They cannot help themselves -- being a deadly parasite is in their nature.

>> We are fools if we think we can negotiate with a disease -- and listening to fools rather than wise people, will kill us off, and "I told you so" is dim consolation to telling your children stories about Dolphins they will never see.

The MEDIA has a FEW stories about Global Warming. The most coverage of GW is actually on Fox News --- and that's usually to throw doubt its way.

>> If the rest of the PLANET is trying to fool me -- it's being very clever -- because if Fox News is against something -- it's often the truth. Knowing what Sean Hannity or some other propagandist is promoting, is usually a good wind vane for which way the BS is flying.

AGW is no joke -- and sure, I think there are conspiracies that abound. The idea that someone wants MORE power in government - yeah, as long as they are in control. But the "Conspiracies" I see most, is that when we get MORE government -- it does less for us. The Military wants wars because special interests want resources. We invade, and some corporation gets access to goods and the indigenous people get poor.

Take a look sometime of the "hot zones" on the planet -- and almost in every case, wherever there are Plentiful Natural Resources -- the people are more exploited and miserable. There are very few exceptions except where Women have rights and there is more education. These are also the places where there is more pollution -- abuse of people goes hand-in-hand with abuse of the environment.


>> The idea that AGW is going to somehow allow for a "New World Order" is kind of silly, since the CURRENT World Order can destroy Greece, get the US to invade Oil Rich nations, and can allow banks to foreclose millions of homes in the USA while asking teachers to buy students pencils -- and then the bailed out bank gives a few Million in Bonus to each executive. How much BETTER can it get for the people running the game than the current scam?

Sure, Oil Companies are investing; but they are trying to privatize Clean Water. Push lower standards on Government, and then people will buy "safe water" from the people who polluted it. They will be supporting Alternative Energy when they can control the spigot to the sun.

YES, many of the biggest polluters are actually financing a lot of the "Environmentalist Groups" now -- but that's all about "Controlling the Opposition." Nobody has made more money for our US military than Al Qaeda. And other than groups like Green Peace and Earth First -- many naturalist groups have been infiltrated by corporate money. It's only to make them tame -- it doesn't mean that "polluting less" is going to make us all slaves -- it's kind of ignorant to work 50 hours a week, afraid you will lose your job, investing in a 401k that has no guarantees, and spending a Quarter Million Dollars to put a kid in college and still have no job and a debt -- you know it's pretty hard not to realize you ALREADY ARE A WAGE SLAVE.

Afraid to protest or lose your job, afraid to get sick, tired all the time,... we have too much things we fear losing to rock the boat -- so we go with the flow.

Solar Power jobs are going to mean more money in more people's hands and fewer drops of ancient sunlight in the ground needing to be dug up. If NOTHING else changes -- that is an improvement, and I think it's an uphill battle to argue that Taxing Pollution and reducing dependency on carbon is somehow going to make us less in control or the earth sicker -- I think we are already living in the "certain doom" scenario.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

>> WITHOUT AGW -- we still have acidification of the oceans. It's a simple PH test that is hard to fake.

It's not about faking or not faking. It's about getting numbers to tell the story you want them to - which is exactly what a number of lead climate scientists have been doing (note: that does not mean the "best" - that means the ones who actually draft reports funded by government agencies and paraded around).

www.rationaloptimist.com...

Incidentally, the pH of the ocean varies hugely, being below neutral in some inshore areas influenced by run off from the land. On some coral reefs it goes as low as 7.5 at night and as high as 9.4 in the day (Revelle and Fairbridge 1957). Remarkably there are parts of the sea with pH already far lower than it can possibly go as a result of carbon emissions. In one hydrothermal spot off Iceland, it is 5.36-7.29.Yet four-decade-old mussels have learned to cope with even this acidity, though growing half as fast as in normal waters (Tunnicliffe et al 2009, Nature Geoscience 10.1038).

We've got 40% depletion of Phytoplankton in 50 years

Based on one study.

Which has been fairly heavily criticized both mathematically and due to their reliance on the Secchi disk for records predating satellite measurement methods. Further, the specifics regarding each of the measurements with that device are not really known - times of day, seasonal factors, localized weather conditions, etc.

And, as far as has been reported, somewhere around a 70% die off of Krill

Before I even look this one up - I'm going to postulate a tad on what the cause of this measurement is.

Let's say I develop a new toy - a satellite capable of giving me fairly accurate accounts of how many fish are in a given region. It works on magic (quantum-something) for all intents and purposes. I start taking measurements with this device, taking random samplings across the Earth's oceans... then I get the idea to compare this to previous records of how many fish are in the ocean.... but they didn't have the same technology back then.... and the records were mostly kept by fishermen - people who were using fish-finders for an entirely different purpose.

The fishermen are going to 'hunt' fish and high populations of them.

The scientists will conduct random samplings of areas and at times you'd never catch a fisherman trying to catch fish in.

This applies to the above issue with plankton, as well.

I've tried searching for your figures, there - but haven't found a study supporting such a large die-off - and no time scale is given.

We've got progressively worse "Algae Blooms" also known as Red Tides, they last longer and are more devastating year after year -- now with a more toxic variant that produces an asphyxiating mist -- based on a type of marine organism that almost killed the planet a billion of years ago when Oxygen-producing organisms first took over (which wiped out most of the life that was preeminent, that breathed Methane and Ammonia).

Okay.

You've been alive for, what, ten years? All you ever year about is how things are "progressively worse" - until they get better, and then there's no reason to raise alarm over it.

>> It's like these "Free Market Capitalists" who act like FREE MARKETS always produce a panacea of growth

Save it for the proper forum.

but they started their watches just after FDR fixed a few things (like putting HUGE restrictions on Capitalism and taxing the hell out of the rich).

Not really, there was the whole era pre 1910 that was pretty damned good, all things considered.

And the story of the earth, is that organisms DO GET WIPED OUT

Why do you think I look favorably upon eugenics?

Face it - most of you all have no business being alive and your children will never amount to anything - quit consuming the resources my genetics and legacy can use to do something useful.

Seriously.

Capitalism, is pretty much like a metastasizing Cancer

Yes, capitalism is to blame.

That yellow haze Korea has to worry about wafting over from China is better for your health than Leninade and has double the amount of communism.

The problem isn't an economic model. The problem is people being lazy and lacking ambition to achieve ideals.

Fact is we are being railroaded by hyped up environmental scare stories into implementing a stealth NWO agenda.

Here is a list of the other 129 false climategate scares and scandals notrickszone.com...

So if the earth warms, then doom and chaos will ensue? This is what proponents of global warming suggest. This is just a ploy that enables those in power to capitalize off our taxes. This end of the world garbage gets pushed by capitalizing on the narcissism of the weak(minded) and lazy. Sheeple get to feel good about themselves and look down on other people, this is what global warming is really about.

If people really thought global warming was going to be the end of the world, they would stop refering to junk articles and skewed statistics on the internet that tell them what they want to hear and actually pick up a book. Climate changes can be found throughout history, believe it or not! Unfortunatly, many man-made climate change enthusiasts are leftists and lazy, meaning the world begins and ends in their lifetime and conveniently forget history because it usually does not fit their narrative.

At the end of the mini ice age(early 1800's) the climate was cold enough to change the density of trees and air in populated areas. Is it preposterous to think this cannot go the other way? AHHHH, but it has. At the beginning of the 800 AD and ending in the 1300's, there were massive increases in temperatures, so much so that crops were able to be grown in lands they were previously unable to be grown in. The result?

Well the ice caps did not melt and kill all people and animals. In fact, just the opposite happened, because of the abundance of crops, at least in europe, a population boom tripled the population from an estimated 25 million to 75 million people. This is just ONE example, history is full of them.

Global warming is a simple tool that is used to gain money, or for one person, or group of people, to tell other people what to do. It has very little to do with science and alot to do with money and power.

reply to post by beckybecky


I am NOT surprised with any of the ppl on this planet lying, and lying some more.

It has been the way the ppl at the top control the ppl at the bottom for a VERY long time.

I do not expect the Neo-Malthusians will change their ways because they are made
the way they are and their actions are consistent as sociopaths and psychopaths.

There are so many events that have happened that show what are rulers are like, but I'd say
if you want a good benchmark consider the nearly 300 million killed in the last century.

From Bhopal the Ken Saro Wiwa, killing ppl has just been part of business for the round table groups.

The round table groups are the ppl calling the shots, not the place holders we elect in our
charade called governments.

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Yeah right... NASA study that shows Venus and Mars are experiencing global warming and the sun is to blame. WRONG, DEAD WRONG. This study doesn't exist.

Educate yourself:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Ok I'll see your anti-skeptic site and raise you the original reports on warming on pluto
www.space.com...

and an excerpt of the original article on the mars global warming
www.canada.com...

sorry the original full article on Mars is in russian and I can't find a full copy of it in english.

And here is an article on the nasa findings on gloabal warming on triton
www.scienceagogo.com...

Lastly an article on solar radiation being the primary cause of global warming
www.canada.com...

Do you even read or research the things/sources you post?? I think you're just throwing crap against the wall hoping it'll stick.

NONE OF YOUR ARTICLES actually states that the entire solar system is heating up during the same period and at the same rate as Earth is. Furthermore NONE of them actually blame an increase in solar radiation, except the last article... which is a total JUNK article based on poor science. The sun has DECREASED in irradiance over the last 3 decades.

TRY AGAIN.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by beckybecky

 

OH JESUS, HERE WE GO AGAIN...

In case you're too uneducated to know this already- THE ORIGINAL "CLIMATEGATE" EMAILS WERE PROVEN TO SHOW NOTHING THAT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS DENIERS CLAIM THEM TO BE. THREE SEPARATE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED THAT WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE EMAIL, AND THE ONLY COMPLAINT THEY HAD WAS THAT THE SCIENTISTS WERE SLIGHTLY SLOPPY WITH SOME DATA AND THAT THEY WERE OVERLY SUSPICIOUS OF FOIA REQUESTS (from deniers). THERE WAS NO WRONG-DOING IN THE HACKED EMAILS, EVERYTHING THAT DENIERS SAY ABOUT THEM IS COMPLETE BS, IT'S CHERRY-PICKED, EXAGGERATED, PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC, LACKING PROPER CONTEXT, RIFE WITH PROPAGANDA/FOSSIL FUEL FUNDING, AND FABRICATIONS.

This, I'm sure is just a REPEAT of the same old denier crap. Cherry-picking, exaggerations, lies, propaganda, pseudo-science, failure to note context, misuse of words, and fabrications all in the name of discrediting an INNOCENT field of science whose science was largely settled DECADES AGO. The only reason people debate the existence of global warming is because A) Solutions threaten the establishment and wealth/power brokers of this planet; and B) These elites have injected anti-scientific propaganda into politics and the media in order to deceive idiots into thinking AGW is a hoax. I HAVE RESEARCHED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MORE THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS WEBSITE, AND I GUARANTEE IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A HOAX. I HAVE RESEARCHED EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT AND THEY'VE ALL PROVEN COMPLETELY FALSE, ALL OF THEM.

Holy Bob Whaler, WHAT CAPS!

You always can tell when people are on the defensive and can't really back up their position/s, THEY SHOUT!

Wrong, you're using false logic. What those caps mean is that I'M PISSED OFF AND FED UP WITH INSANE PROPAGANDA. It's like somebody walking into a scientist's presentation and calling him a liar and accusing him of bogus claims and using completely fabricated BS to try and disrespect/disprove him in the middle of serious/sober/legitimate conference. You deniers are doing just that to the ACTUAL science. You're a bunch of clowns and what I've always found is that YOU cannot back up your claims except with complete BS and pseudo-science that you read on some right-wing conspiracy blog.

I'm yelling because you're behaving like children regarding a very serious matter.

reply to post by 5andman

There is, but there is also evidence that the hole in the ozone layer fluctuates naturally as well as the climate. They've only been observing the hole since the 70's and it's pretty much the same size now as it was then, with variations from year to year. But in the end we have not been studying it long enough to have any definitive conclusions on our effect on it, so don't buy people saying we caused THAT too lol

reply to post by pyramid head
You don't have to marginalize people into left-right, I'm usually on the left on a lot of things, but I also own guns, and think "man-made global warming" is a hoax. So it's not a left or right thing, it's has to do with common sense versus "argument from authority" in my opinion.