Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. I picked them and cut and paste the links. They lead me back to such incredible websites as NOAA, AGU - American Geophysical Union, and other questionable sites.
Well now you've stooped to flat out lying. I guess when you have nothing else you lie. None of these took me to NOAA. Where do you come up with this s***?
Well now you've stooped to flat out lying. I guess when you have nothing else you lie. None of these took me to NOAA. Where do you come up with this s***?
For a man of science, you are obviously clueless about this invention called the Internet. You've been brainwashed that anything from any source not approved by your master is bad. Let me explain how it works:
NOAA or NASA posts a graph. Or a set of data. They post it on their web server. Maybe some other guy wants to link to the data. He might hot link. He might direct link. The risk is that web servers and pages change frequently. Or maybe he wants to annotate the data. Another option is to print the data and source the data on the graph or citation. Scientists do this - it's called a bibliography. He can then post the data on another server. If you click on it, it might not point to NOAA anymore. Guys like you look at where it's hosted and immediately trash the source. You use terms like "denier" or "blogger" or even "conspiracy nut". You discount the data because of the messenger or where it's hosted. It's still valid data.
I don't expect you to understand something as complicated as the Internet - Al Gore invented it and it's really complicated.
For a man of science, you are obviously clueless about this invention called the Internet. You've been brainwashed that anything from any source not approved by your master is bad. Let me explain how it works:
NOAA or NASA posts a graph. Or a set of data. They post it on their web server. Maybe some other guy wants to link to the data. He might hot link. He might direct link. The risk is that web servers and pages change frequently. Or maybe he wants to annotate the data. Another option is to print the data and source the data on the graph or citation. Scientists do this - it's called a bibliography. He can then post the data on another server. If you click on it, it might not point to NOAA anymore. Guys like you look at where it's hosted and immediately trash the source. You use terms like "denier" or "blogger" or even "conspiracy nut". You discount the data because of the messenger or where it's hosted. It's still valid data.
I don't expect you to understand something as complicated as the Internet - Al Gore invented it and it's really complicated.
If what you say is true, then why don't the graphs you link to match the ones found on the sites you say is the source?
The fine print at the bottom says source globalresearch.ca, and also says additional info added by c3headlines. Both of these are denialist blogs...This graph is bs, as are the others you linked to.
For a man of science, you are obviously clueless about this invention called the Internet. You've been brainwashed that anything from any source not approved by your master is bad. Let me explain how it works:
NOAA or NASA posts a graph. Or a set of data. They post it on their web server. Maybe some other guy wants to link to the data. He might hot link. He might direct link. The risk is that web servers and pages change frequently. Or maybe he wants to annotate the data. Another option is to print the data and source the data on the graph or citation. Scientists do this - it's called a bibliography. He can then post the data on another server. If you click on it, it might not point to NOAA anymore. Guys like you look at where it's hosted and immediately trash the source. You use terms like "denier" or "blogger" or even "conspiracy nut". You discount the data because of the messenger or where it's hosted. It's still valid data.
I don't expect you to understand something as complicated as the Internet - Al Gore invented it and it's really complicated.
Oh ok now they suddenly don't point to where you said they pointed. Got it.
The ozone hole, however, is not the mechanism of global warming. Ultraviolet radiation represents less than one percent of the energy from the sun—not enough to be the cause of the excess heat from human activities. Global warming is caused primarily from putting too much carbon into the atmosphere when coal, gas, and oil are burned to generate electricity or to run our cars. These gases spread around the planet like a blanket, capturing the solar heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space. (For more detail on the basic mechanism of global warming, see carbon dioxide FAQ.)
Because our atmosphere is one connected system, it is not surprising that ozone depletion and global warming are related in other ways. For example, evidence suggests that climate change may contribute to thinning of the protective ozone layer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
