From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Antarctica as edited by Dexter111344 (Talk | contribs) at 20:50, April 17, 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Global warming stuff:

The stable upper atmospheric (stratospheric) air mass over the continent has been seriously altered by synthetic chemicals that arrived via natural atmospheric circulation from the world's industrial areas, resulting in the creation of the well-known Antarctic ozone hole. Ice core records provide evidence that atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane have increased markedly during the past 200 years and are presently more prevalent than at any time in the past 160,000 years. These records also show that low temperatures of the ice age occurred when greenhouse-gas concentrations were low.

Is it a scientific fact that synthetic chemicals created the "ozone hole"?

And I think the but about "the past 160,000 years" is misleading, especially if we have information going back millions of years. By the way, how far back does the CO2 record go?

Worse, it ignores the fact that correlation is not causation to imply that gases drive temperature. I hear it's actually the other way around. --Ed Poor Talk 00:25, 8 December 2007 (EST)


"New Scientist" is a liberal rag. It takes more support than that to make a far-fetched claim.--Andy Schlafly 15:33, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It also uses the "cooling proves warming" unscientific nonsense. Global warming is a non-falsifiable theory - everything, no matter how contradictory, is said to prove it. Thus, it is bad science. Jinxmchue 17:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, I agree. Those "respected scientists" are nothing but dirty liberals. --Dexter111344 16:50, 17 April 2009 (EDT)