not 100%, no.

But so much is natural we cannot break out of variability

The ozone is a self building, self opening mechanism.

Let me describe it another way.

A single ant is representative of mankind. A horse is representative of the Ozone. The ant can try to eat the horse, and keep bitting. But it will never get past the leather exterior.

I edited the front post, I had taken the post, inserted a LOT of links, removed typos (it was originally typed on my smart phone), changed the structure a bit, and reposted it here as well as posted it elsewhere.

These guys will always pad. That's the problem.

"Well this experiment proved my theories were bunk, I do apologize for alarming you, spending ten million on non-returnable custom equipment" just is not going to give them a future.

So when they are wrong they have to save face. They will find a way to save face and keep on the public tit for funds.

Remember they, not others, cried wolf in the Ozone Hole. A small group that got the funds for the most part.

So you have to be a critical thinker and examine their claims, their supposed findings, and reality.

When they find something like this, contrary to their whole structure... and twenty years passes without a growth to the hole that we can decisively control... you have to start wondering eventually.

Remember when you educate a population on a dangerous issue more will show up for treatment. Including the guy having a drug overdose nexr week, the lady crashing her car into a parked semi, and the guy committing suicide by cop.

As we advance how long people live, as we make medical advancements to which make examining for more issues easier, we increase statistics gathered per capita. This increase also brings awareness that may not have been able to happen before.

The Aborigines have a unique dark skin, unlike Africa or Asia. Why would this be? Can you make a potential connection?

Just consider what I have shown, what I have proven.

I think my intentions here have been completely misunderstood, I am not trying to argue for AGW, and I'm not trying to argue that certain specific things have or have not been observed. My point is that the review of evidence by Flint is flawed and biased. The apparent thickening of Antarctic ice sheets is an interesting case example, the sources given were either trash e.g. someone's blog, weren't about what Flint claimed they were, or as well as reporting increase ice thickness in Antarctica (which is not necessarily an indication of increased volume btw) also reported that temperature elsewhere had risen and that there was a decrease in ice in the Arctic. The points which which reinforce Flint's original bias and prejudice e.g. increase in Antarctic ice thickness are highlighted, while anything that contradicts Flint's existing prejudice is completely dismissed.

Another example of double standards is satellite data. Flint "the Satelite data is flawed (proven)". Also Flint " satellite images from the Antarctic summer have shown the largest sea-ice extent on record". So is satellite data reliable or not? The answer is that it is reliable when it suits Flint's pre-existing conclusions and unreliable when it suggests something different.

And even despite all my criticism you are still posting crappy sources e.g.
http://s12.invisionfree.com/ppl_from_PHC_camps/ar/t221.htm

^^ A post on a forum titled "Chatting Uselessly > Conspiracies"

You post hundreds of links that maybe you know nobody has time to read and inspect. Perhaps you genuinely believe they are good sources or perhaps you just bank on people not reading them, because as soon as they are inspected they turn out to be trash. Posting trash links weakens not strengthens your argument and undermines any valid points you may be making. What I have been trying to say all along is post fewer sources, post better sources, explain their relevance and make sure they say what you say they do.

There are many satelites in question.

1970's tech, 1990's tech, and more recent launches.

The older satelites were very inaccurate.

As for blogs. When a blog is citing a scientist, or is written by a scientist, or is citing a news article... but dismissing such is classic by you.

The people with the most to gain or lose are the ones crying wolf. Those specific individuals will see their careers ruined if proven wrong. They won't be able to do anything but flip hamburgers with something this big.

Examine my last two links.... Ozone case closed

Flint: you miss the point, your links don't show what you think and are not as strong as you seem to think... but then you want them to say what you think and therefore think they are case closed.

"Oh and mind you... those 6 links were chosen randomly.

Entirely at random.

Not even so much as viewing them."

^^ Exactly!