Global Warming

[Neferti]

SN, could you also, please, tell Boxhead to get a Life. He is becoming my favourite troll. I think it is the smell of lanolin and the lack of ordinary conversation.

[boxy]

Lay off the booze, old girl

[Neferti]

TROLL!!!

[boxy]

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

[Neferti]

Hey, Boxhead.

We all luv ya, mate. I/we all need you!

[boxy]

I wonder how many Australians the "skepdics" killed, by delaying action on ozone? Melanoma murderers... but all is fair in love and forum wars

[Rorschach]

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

Yet another disaster that never happened... good point poxy.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Last year,due to a big drought in Central America,I predicted flood/s for OZ's East coast this summer.
Then going on BOMinfoI recanted.
Seems I should have stuck with my originalprognostication.
Not because it rained virtually every day in January and a fair bit this month, but because apparently there's a cyclone forming up north. So we may just get our flood after all.
If so, that would be 3 floods in 5 years for Bundy. Not bad for a place that's supposed to be dry.

[IQS.RLOW]

Even better was that it was accurately predicted by Dorothea MacKeller in 1904 before any panic merchants had started soiling themselves.

[Neferti]

Even better was that it was accurately predicted by Dorothea MacKeller in 1904 before any panic merchants had started soiling themselves.

Core of my heart, my country. Indeed.