[jaguar]

Props to slang, syc and wolf, funny stuff guys =)

Stupidity can be hard on the eyes, so for the good of everyone else I’ve broken up Cairo’s drivel into multiple parts. It's also barely understandable, so breaking it help can help decipher what these jumbled inarticulate rambles are meant to mean.

*Rolls eyes* First you say,” What the article says is yes, the ozone hole got smaller this year, due to extremely unusual weather conditions. That is all.” Then you say,"...the fact that we are responsible for the severe damage we have inflicted on it."

Now that was the most logical thing I think Cairo has ever stated, mostly because he's merely quoting others. Sadly it only gets worse.

So...you disagree with NASA, or you think that we control the weather! Either way you're wrong. If we control the weather, why are the forecasters always wrong? And why don't we just turn on the sprinklers over drought areas? And whoever is in charge of my area's temp. dial...keep it set on 72, K? No more of this 102 in the summer and 32 in the winter!(end of sarcasm)

Can anyone, at first read, actually make any sense of this? At all? Dear Cairo, what are you on about now?

Now i hate to bore the rest of you but this petulant, mentally unarmed opponent of mine needs at least a rudimentary understanding of why there is an ozone hole where there is. Which, to be brief is because of certain stratospheric wind patterns which carry CFCs down to the area in which the hole is located.

Now the relevance of this is that the fact that we do/have done damage, and the fact that due to freak weather conditions, the damage was not in the usual places or the usual strength are not intertwined. The damage is not due, or have much relation to the weather, the weather is what carries to where the hole is, it is not responsible for the damage itself. Which in other words mean Cairo here as has, once again metaphorically shitted on the carpet, bad puppy!

Hmmmm, "True scientists have no faith in science."
So by your own admission your "basic scientific fact" isn't a fact because science keeps evolving with new data that leads elsewhere. You refuted it yourself!

*sighs* You really are just plain dumb aren't you? It's like arguing with a small, rather whiney child. It's a scientific fact today, correct, tomorrow it might not be, but today it is. Can you grasp that one?