Climate Change Arguing

[NSWCROW]

 

[Crankitup]

How is there even conjecture about whether the ozone layer was being depleted by CFCs?

"hOlE wAs nEvEr tHeRe"

View attachment 753859
View attachment 753861

Yeah, looks pretty depleted to me.

"yEaH bUt tHaTs nOt a LITERAL hOlE" fu** off

View attachment 753860


Oh look, we phased out CFCs and now it's improving, what are the odds?!?

Have you actually taken a look at your graphs other than a cursory glance? They're not saying what you think they're saying.

The first one for instance. From 1980 to 1984 (a period of time when CFC use was still accelerating) ozone levels went up! Then from 1985 to 1986, years before any ban on CFC's, ozone levels went up again (by 12.9%). From 1989 to 1990 what happened? Ozone levels went up again, this time by 48.6%, still years before any ban on CFC's. See a pattern here? The pattern here is the absence of a pattern. The levels were jumping all over the place regardless of CFC levels.

I know it's hard to accept seeing that you've been hoodwinked all these years. Don't take my word for it though. I'll give you two other opinions. The first one is short and relatively simple, the second one is long and more complex. I think I know which one (if any) you'll choose to read.

Opinion 1

The Ozone 'Hole' peak size hasn’t changed since the CFC ban was implemented, but it never mattered anyway. Here is why. It forms every year during 24 hours of darkness in the Antarctic winter, and disappears as soon as the sun returns in spring.

The scare story about the Ozone 'Hole' is that increased UV reaching the surface of the Earth will cause more skin cancer. But given that the Ozone 'Hole' only appears when there is little or no solar radiation, that argument was always a total fraud, like everything else the left believes.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/the-ozone-hole-never-mattered/

Opinion 2

There is not now and never was a “hole in the ozone.” The phrase was a public relations construct to mislead and exploit fear as the basis for a political agenda. The procedure used in the exploitation of environmental and climate for a political agenda is to take normal patterns and events and present them as, or imply, they are abnormal. It works because most people don’t know what is normal. Global warming became the largest exploitation of this practice, but it was based on the knowledge gained from reported ozone depletions over Antarctica. The ozone deception served as a forerunner, a practice run, for the global warming deception to follow.

Background
The objective is to link the normal change or event to human activity to form the basis for a political agenda culminating in control of people. The change must be global to bypass national governments and establish the need for a world government. A 1974 Club of Rome comment said, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.” Their anti-humanity theme continued in the 1994 Club of Rome book, The First Global Revolution. It was written in 1994 but is more reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Why do we need “a new enemy”? First they create the false or exaggerated problem, and then, they offer the solution. It is wrapped in the guilt that ‘you caused it’, but they offer salvation. Give us control and money so we can save you and the planet. Like all religious leaders, they claim the power of absolution. Pass the collection plate.
There is and always was an area of thinner ozone over Antarctica that is totally due to natural causes (Figure 1).


Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the level in Dobson Units explained in Figure 2. As with CO2, it is important the public understand the volumes and distributions so involved. Applying the information in Figure 2 against the conditions in Figure 1, you can see that the global average of 300 Dobson Units means if you compressed the ozone down to the surface at 0°C and one atmospheric pressure you have a layer 3 mm thick. The level over Antarctica in Figure 1 is 150 DU or half the average – thinner, but not a hole.



Figure 2
The entire story of ozone depletion due to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was just that, a story, a scientifically created deception. It was a forerunner and template for the much larger deception of global warming entirely due to human produced CO2. Now, the evidence, much of which was known at the start but deliberately ignored, is emerging.

Sins Being Exposed
A recent headline illustrates the problem created by the deception that CFCs were causing Antarctic ozone depletion. Sir Walter Scott’s observation about tangled webs applies.

At a total extent of 28.2 million square kilometres, this year’s ozone hole was surpassed by only Sept 24, 2003 (28.4 million sq km), Sept 24, 2006 (29.6 million sq km) and September 9, 2000 (29.9 million sq km).
Why did the ozone hole grow so large this year? It was a combination of just how persistent ozone-depleting chemicals are in the atmosphere, and just how cold the atmosphere got over Antarctica during the past month.

Gradually they are presenting arguments that approximate the truth without disclosing they were wrong. They hope nobody will notice. NASA GISS is at the center of the strategy. Consider the following bureaucratese waffle.

Twenty years after the Montreal Protocol, Antarctica’s ozone hole isn’t growing substantially larger each year, but it isn’t actually –recovering – clearly growing smaller each year – yet, either. Atmospheric scientists reported that conclusion on December 11, 2013 to an audience of Earth scientists at the 2013 American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. These scientists presented results of two new studies, indicating that variations in temperature and winds drive year-to-year changes the size of the ozone hole. Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland presented this work, saying:
Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline.

… meteorology [not chemistry] was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated.

The trouble is ten years earlier a 2003 report said,

The rate at which ozone is being destroyed in the upper stratosphere is slowing, and the levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in that layer of the atmosphere have peaked and are going down — the first clear evidence that a worldwide reduction in chlorofluorocarbon pollution is having the desired effect, according to a new study.

The Ozone Layer
Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere in a process called photodisassociation. When ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is a small part of the total electromagnetic energy from the sun, strikes free oxygen molecules (O2) (Figure 3). The molecules are split into single oxygen molecules (O), which combine with other O2 to create ozone (O3). (Figure 4) Ultraviolet is critical because it is the major factor in the creation of O3. Ultra means ‘beyond’ so it is light that is beyond the violet (400 nanometers) on the visible protion of the spectrum. It is visble because it is detectable by the human eye.
Formation of ozone occurs between 15 and 55 km above the surface with maximum concentration between 15 and 30 km. Densities vary horizontally and vertically, so levels over any region change hourly with air movement in the upper atmosphere. The Ozone Layer is self-healing because as UV penetrates further into the atmosphere it encounters more free oxygen.



Figure 3



Figure 4
Solar rays strike the atmosphere at a gradually decreasing angle from 90° at the equator to 0° at the poles. In his September 20, 1995, Congressional testimony Professor Fred Singer explained,

“A projected 10 percent UV increase from a worst-case global ozone depletion is the equivalent of moving just 60 miles closer to the equator….New Yorkers moving to Florida experience a more than 200 percent increase in UV because of the change of latitude.”

External Societal Dynamics of Deception
An important point to raise at this juncture relates to my first threatened lawsuit. It followed a radio debate with a dermatologist who made dire threats and urged use of sunblockers. I pointed out that humans require ultraviolet radiation to limit scrofula, a form of tuberculosis, that is created by a bacteria that is killed off by the UV. It also creates vitamin D that is necessary to prevent rickets, a form of bone disease. I told the audience that keeping children out of the sun and reducing the amount of UV exposure was potentially dangerous. This demonization of UV ignores its benefits. The same situation is true of CO2 and its essential role in the life of plants and all life.
It was additionally problematic because until recently the blockers only worked for UVB. Here is a comment from 2014.

Sunscreens are important skin-care products used to prevent photoaging and skin cancer. Until recently it was believed that blocking UVB radiation and sunburn were the only measures needed to prevent sun damage. The SPF rating was developed to measure the ability of a sunscreen to block UVB radiation.
Now we know that UVA radiation also damages the skin. Although the FDA has proposed a rating system that lets you know how well a sunscreen blocks UVA, that proposal has not been approved yet.

The dermatologist disagreed with my comment that sunscreen producers were a major promoter of the dangers. Recent revenue from just three US companies was $355 million with a 2.6% annual growth. Increased lifespan explains the increase in skin cancer, not ozone thinning. Save money, put on a hat.

False Assumptions
Global warming and ozone thinning each began with a hypothesis and in both cases were supported by completely false assumptions designed to predetermine and isolate a human cause. With warming, it was the assumption that an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. The only place in the world where that is true is in the IPCC computer models. With ozone thinning, the assumption was that solar energy and, therefore, ultraviolet radiation is constant. Since ozone is created by the interaction between UV and oxygen, assuming UV is constant eliminates it as an explanation for variation in ozone levels. It eliminated the most obvious natural variation, which is precisely what they wanted. It also required identification of a man-made product, even if it also occurred naturally like CO2, to blame. In the case of ozone, the product was chlorine, which is part of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) commercially known as Freon.
Keeling and others, in conjunction with the IPCC, identified human produced CO2 as the problem. Crutzer, Molina and Rowland produced the science necessary to point the finger at CFCs. They, like Gore and the IPCC, received a Nobel Prize for their work. Their award reads in part,

“…for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone”.

The award is arranged to give their work political credibility, a practice that makes the Prizes a mockery.
Notice it does not specify destruction of ozone in the Ozone Layer. They didn’t and couldn’t simulate atmospheric conditions in the Ozone Layer. With the pseudoscientific evidence, the political agenda could proceed. With both CFCs and CO2, they abandoned the scientific method and determined to prove rather than disprove their hypotheses. The imperative was to ban CFCs not to test the theory. Like the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, the consensus was determined before the research began, and contradictory or conflicting research ignored.
They ignored variations in ultraviolet radiation, which we now know is the major cause of variation. They also ignored the effect of other gases, especially water vapor in the form of ice crystals. They ignored the properties and effects of other gases at the extreme temperatures of -70°C and colder (see Strahan’s comments above). These crystals created what were initially ignored, namely Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC). In 1998, the University of Cambridge said,
“the precise chemistry and details of PSCs are not fully understood…” “We do not yet fully understand the mechanism for PSC freezing, and this remains one of the largest uncertainties in stratospheric ozone modelling.”
This revelation is ten years after the “science was settled” with the signing of the Montreal Protocol.
Another parallel between the CO2 and CFC deception was production of a “wanted list” of similar planet destroying chemicals. It is another form of the consensus argument; if there are many, it must be true. With CFCs the list identified Ozone Destroying Chemicals (ODC). With CO2 the list identified Global Warming Potentials (GWP). The UNFCCC list identified dozens of GWPs but does not include water vapour, which they eliminated by their limiting definition of climate change for the IPCC.

By 1987, the manipulators persuaded over 190 countries to sign the Montreal Protocol. It called for elimination of ODCs by countries that signed, committing them to limiting all production. Interesting differences with the Kyoto Protocol resulted in similar political outcomes. The US and other industrialized nations ratified the Montreal Protocol. Later AGW promoters argued it was proof that the Kyoto Protocol would work. However, two countries, India and China said, you reduced your food losses by 30 percent through the refrigerant CFCs that you said was an environmentally safe neutral gas. Now, you are saying that we can’t reduce our food losses by using the same refrigerant. They proposed that the developed nations reduce their use and allow them to raise their level. The proposal was rejected. It was another example of what Paul Driessen wrote about so effectively in his book Eco-Imperialism, which Wikipedia defines as follows.

Eco-imperialism is a term coined by Paul Driessen to refer to the forceful imposition of Western environmentalist views on developing countries.
Another parallel involved the challenge of separating the human-produced chemical from the natural. Chlorine was the active ingredient in CFCs that they claimed destroyed ozone in the high atmosphere. They claimed the chlorine from CFCs was different than natural chlorine.
Susan Solomon became interested in stratospheric chemistry and did her thesis research with Paul Crutzen of Nobel fame. Later from lab work at NOAA Susan Solomon produced a theoretical paper about the role of chlorine dioxide and the destruction of ozone. There has never been, to my knowledge, in situ evidence. Solomon went on to work as a contributing author for the IPCC TAR (2001) and co-chair of working Group I of the FAR (2007). These were two of the most influential IPCC Reports on policies driving the recent Paris Conference.

The false science was exposed in “The Holes in Ozone Hoax” As they wrote
“Omitted from this story of mass destruction is the fact that the amounts of chlorine contained in all the world’s CFCs are insignificant compared to the amount of chlorine put into the atmosphere from natural sources”

The CO2 equivalent to the chlorine deception involved claiming that the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels differed from “natural” CO2. Similarly, the volumes produced by humans are within the error of the estimate of at least two major non-human sources. It would be an insignificant amount, even if it were causing global warming. The only way the IPCC was able to claim human CO2 was the major factor involved eliminating almost all other possible sources of change. Promoters of the CFC fiasco did the same earlier and achieved their goal. No wonder they tried it again with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Have you actually taken a look at your graphs other than a cursory glance? They're not saying what you think they're saying.

The first one for instance. From 1980 to 1984 (a period of time when CFC use was still accelerating) ozone levels went up! Then from 1985 to 1986, years before any ban on CFC's, ozone levels went up again (by 12.9%). From 1989 to 1990 what happened? Ozone levels went up again, this time by 48.6%, still years before any ban on CFC's. See a pattern here?

Wasn't it just yesterday you typed about how there was also a seasonal variation in ozone thickness and now you're pretending this doesn't exist in the attempt to prove there's no pattern? That's a bizarre angle.

The pattern here is the absence of a pattern. The levels were jumping all over the place regardless of CFC levels.

No pattern? Look, I'll even draw the trendline for you.


"absence of a pattern" lol

I know it's hard to accept seeing that you've been hoodwinked all these years. Don't take my word for it though. I'll give you two other opinions. The first one is short and relatively simple, the second one is long and more complex. I think I know which one (if any) you'll choose to read.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/the-ozone-hole-never-mattered/



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

No thanks, the opinions of those two sources aren't worth a pinch of shit and I have no desire to read them. Please post something reputable and peer-reviewed by actual scientists if you want to support your argument.

 

[JackOutback]

Have you actually taken a look at your graphs other than a cursory glance? They're not saying what you think they're saying.

The first one for instance. From 1980 to 1984 (a period of time when CFC use was still accelerating) ozone levels went up! Then from 1985 to 1986, years before any ban on CFC's, ozone levels went up again (by 12.9%). From 1989 to 1990 what happened? Ozone levels went up again, this time by 48.6%, still years before any ban on CFC's. See a pattern here? The pattern here is the absence of a pattern. The levels were jumping all over the place regardless of CFC levels.

I know it's hard to accept seeing that you've been hoodwinked all these years. Don't take my word for it though. I'll give you two other opinions. The first one is short and relatively simple, the second one is long and more complex. I think I know which one (if any) you'll choose to read.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/the-ozone-hole-never-mattered/



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

Ah, yes, the old ‘it’s a global conspiracy involving thousands of unrelated scientists for... reasons’.

 

[Crankitup]

Wasn't it just yesterday you typed about how there was also a seasonal variation in ozone thickness and now you're pretending this doesn't exist in the attempt to prove there's no pattern? That's a bizarre angle.

Firstly, I never said any such thing. All I said was that there was never a hole. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Secondly, are you saying that the measurements taken on your graph weren't taken at the same time of year each year and therefore don't allow for seasonal variations, and are therefore not worth a pinch of shit? FMD you provided the graph FFS. If it's defective why did you offer it up?

No thanks, the opinions of those two sources aren't worth a pinch of s**t and I have no desire to read them. Please post something reputable and peer-reviewed by actual scientists if you want to support your argument.

Whine, whine, winge, winge, moan, moan. FFS harden up princess. If you'd even glanced at the second one for a few seconds you would've realised that it was a guest piece by a climate scientist. What do I care though, don't engage, just jog on and take your attitude with you.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

View attachment 753915

Nice boomer meme

Firstly, I never said any such thing. All I said was that there was never a hole. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Nah I've got your number.

Secondly, are you saying that the measurements taken on your graph weren't taken at the same time of year each year and therefore don't allow for seasonal variations, and are therefore not worth a pinch of s**t? FMD you provided the graph FFS. If it's defective why did you offer it up?

It's simply the annual minimum dobson unit value taken whenever that event occurs in the year. It allows for seasonal variations in the same sense that September 26th doesn't have the same weather year-in, year-out.

Whine, whine, winge, winge, moan, moan. FFS harden up princess. If you'd even glanced at the second one for few seconds you would've realised that it was a guest piece by a climate scientist. What do I care though, don't engage, just jog on and take your attitude with you.

Oh I'm not whinging, I'm just saying your sources suck which I can tell just by looking at the url. Truth be told I'm not overly invested in what you can be assed to type on this forum but if you're going to post blogs that have to get a GUEST CLIMATE SCIENTIST on-board for any shred of credibility, you deserve to be mocked for it. Go and read a research study on ozone depletion, or even better, pick up a year 12 chemistry textbook and learn the chemistry behind chlorine atoms and O3 molecules.

 

[Crankitup]

Nah I've got your number.

So, no apology for your misrepresentation of me then. Thought as much.

It's simply the annual minimum dobson unit value taken whenever that event occurs in the year.

Yes, I know. The questions I posed were rhetorical. I was taking your stupid idea to the nth degree in order to ridicule it. You're obviously too dim to pick up on such subtlety. I'll be more direct with you in future. That is if you hang around long enough. Since you're unprepared to read anything that challenges your precious presuppositions, I'm guessing you won't.

Before you go for good maybe you can muse on this question. If the banning of CFC's has been so good for the Ozone 'Hole' why was 2015's 'hole' the 4th largest on record? Is it because (as some believe) the Chinese have largely ignored the ban on CFC's and still pump thousands of tonnes into the atmosphere? Or is it because Antarctica's active volcano at Mt Erebus plays an important role as some peer reviewed Russian scientists believe? I have a third theory, but I haven't subjected it to peer review as yet so you would no doubt have no interest in hearing it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Nonsense. You cant even comprehend the basis of the discussion so like the unhinged Swedish nutter you just scream "science".

There is stuff all scientific about compute models which have been shown to have no predictive value.

So NASA is wrong? Can I see your workings to show that NASA is wrong?

 

[The Passenger]

So NASA is wrong? Can I see your workings to show that NASA is wrong?

Surely you've seen the YouTube video ClimateCrusader made the other day?

 

[Lebbo73]

She can say what she wants. However, her parents should be charged with child abuse.

 

[Cleavy]

 

[Lebbo73]

Wasn't it just yesterday you typed about how there was also a seasonal variation in ozone thickness and now you're pretending this doesn't exist in the attempt to prove there's no pattern? That's a bizarre angle.


No pattern? Look, I'll even draw the trendline for you.
View attachment 753912

"absence of a pattern" lol


No thanks, the opinions of those two sources aren't worth a pinch of s**t and I have no desire to read them. Please post something reputable and peer-reviewed by actual scientists if you want to support your argument.

A consensus that is peer reviewed isn’t fact.

It is all about keeping the plebs scared and relying on government to save us and keep us safe. This is also more effective if we’re divided. Together we stand and divided we fall.

 

[pugsville]

Nonsense. You cant even comprehend the basis of the discussion so like the unhinged Swedish nutter you just scream "science".

There is stuff all scientific about compute models which have been shown to have no predictive value.



pfft.

So you choose to disregrad rteh vast majority of the planet;s science and scientific organizations.

Like you personally know better. That you are a better expert of climate.

You reject science. Well thats you choice just do not expert any rational person to take your seriously.

do you claim the earth is flat too?

Juts basic denial of reality.

 

[NSWCROW]

She can say what she wants. However, her parents should be charged with child abuse.

That you miranda devine ?

 

[Lebbo73]

That you miranda devine ?

You think it’s alright to use a kid with OCD to talk about something she knows nothing about? What about the fact that they’ve brainwashed her into believing we’re all going to die if we don’t shut down everything that produces CO2. I know of plenty of credible climate scientists who have stated that humans influence on the climate is minor. The last 50 odd years of lies is testimony to this fact.

 

[NSWCROW]

You think it’s alright to use a kid with OCD to talk about something she knows nothing about? What about the fact that they’ve brainwashed her into believing we’re all going to die if we don’t shut down everything that produces CO2. I know of plenty of credible climate scientists who have stated that humans influence on the climate is minor. The last 50 odd years of lies is testimony to this fact.

Look at you go bro !!!!!

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

Greta lovers: It doesn’t matter that she’s a child, you should still listen to her!
Also Greta lovers: Stop criticising her, she’s only a child!

 

[sdfc]

He isnt arguing re science. He is talking about economics. He is hardly a climate change "denier".

Having done a bit of modelling in my time, you can quite often get the answer you want by tweaking the assumptions. How is he accounting for the effects of possibly catastrophic global warming? Climate is a chaotic system after all.

 

[medusala]

So you choose to disregrad rteh vast majority of the planet;s science and scientific organizations.

Like you personally know better. That you are a better expert of climate.

Tol was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group !!!!

Juts basic denial of reality.

Basic denial of grammar.

 

[medusala]

Having done a bit of modelling in my time, you can quite often get the answer you want by tweaking the assumptions. How is he accounting for the effects of possibly catastrophic global warming? Climate is a chaotic system after all.

"The twenty-two studies cited above all agree that the impact of climate change is small relative to economic growth. This was found in studies by Professor William Nordhaus and Professor Samuel Fankhauser. It was confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from its Second Assessment Report, in a chapter led by the late Professor David Pearce, to its Fifth Assessment Report, in a chapter led by me. Even the highest estimate, the 20% upper bound by Lord Professor Nicholas Stern of Brentford, has that a century of climate change is not worse than losing a decade of economic growth. "

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

So, no apology for your misrepresentation of me then. Thought as much.

Nah, I don't care. I'm sorry I'm not sorry.

Yes, I know. The questions I posed were rhetorical. I was taking your stupid idea to the nth degree in order to ridicule it. You're obviously too dim to pick up on such subtlety. I'll be more direct with you in future. That is if you hang around long enough.

My mistake, I thought you were having a hard time understanding a very simple premise which, given you seem to love picking and choosing when the scientific method is worth taking seriously, is a pretty easy mistake to make.

Since you're unprepared to read anything that challenges your precious presuppositions, I'm guessing you won't.

This is next-level irony.

Before you go for good maybe you can muse on this question. If the banning of CFC's has been so good for the Ozone 'Hole' why was 2015's 'hole' the 4th largest on record? Is it because (as some believe) the Chinese have largely ignored the ban on CFC's and still pump thousands of tonnes into the atmosphere? Or is it because Antarctica's active volcano at Mt Erebus plays an important role as some peer reviewed Russian scientists believe? I have a third theory, but I haven't subjected it to peer review as yet so you would no doubt have no interest in hearing it.

How about instead, we look at something far simpler (should be much easier for you to understand) and something that can actually be proven beyond doubt; simple chemistry.

(1) CFCs = CFCl3 . 1 carbon atom, 1 fluoride atom, 3 chlorine atoms.
(2) UV Light breaks down CFCl3 into CFCl2 + Cl, ie. a chlorine atom is released and is now free
(3) Chlorine reacts with ozone (O3) to create chlorine monoxide and diatomic oxygen (ClO + O2)

Since you don't accept that CFCs break down Ozone, which one or more of these points do you believe are incorrect? Are CFCs not made up of fluoride and chlorine atoms? Does UV light not break down CFCs? Does free chlorine not react with ozone?

Is your third theory that ozone depletion is part of a massive global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and seemingly dates back to the 19th century when the scheme could be written in to chemical law without raising suspicion? Because that sounds like a great story, I'd love to hear it. Maybe they'll even make it into a movie some day.

 

[TimmeT]

Greta lovers: It doesn’t matter that she’s a child, you should still listen to her!
Also Greta lovers: Stop criticising her, she’s only a child!

Greta lovers you can't criticise her cause she's a child.

 

[pugsville]

Tol was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group !!!!

NASA and CSIRO you think your a better judge of science ?

That some how almost all the scientists in the world somehow got this one wrong and your just smarter than everyone?

 

[Crankitup]

Since you don't accept that CFCs break down Ozone, which one or more of these points do you believe are incorrect?

Misrepresenting me again. All I said was there was never a 'hole'. There is a seasonal thinning due to natural forces.

If however you are insistent on looking for sources of ozone depleting chlorine why would you ignore a 2 mile high active volcano (Mt Erebus)? Much higher chance of that chlorine getting high enough into the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to munch on ozone than man made CFC's which are several times heavier than air. If a similar volcano was present in the Arctic and absent in the Antarctic I'm sure the 'hole' would be over the North Pole rather than the South Pole. It's also true that CFC use in the northern hemisphere dwarfed it's use in the southern by a large magnitude.

To my knowledge no lab has ever been able to replicate Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina's hypothesis. The only two recipients of the Nobel prize ever to be protested by other scientists.

The truth is easily found if you follow the money. Outlawing CFC's allowed DuPont et al to monopolise production of their replacements. The patent on freon's like F12 & F22 had expired. F12 & F22 had been brought in to replace natural gases like butane and propane after DuPont lobbied Western governments to outlaw their use. When the patents for the present replacements expire they will once again be demonized and new more profitable chemicals endorsed.

Consider also that according to presently accepted time scales, oxygen has been present in our atmosphere for at least 1.4 billion years. UV has been forming ozone since then. If ozone wasn't so unstable and was therefore being produced at a rate higher than it's decomposition, our atmosphere would be full of it. What we have instead is a dynamic equilibrium.

Further reading here - peer reviewed journal article

And another

 

[sdfc]

"The twenty-two studies cited above all agree that the impact of climate change is small relative to economic growth. This was found in studies by Professor William Nordhaus and Professor Samuel Fankhauser. It was confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from its Second Assessment Report, in a chapter led by the late Professor David Pearce, to its Fifth Assessment Report, in a chapter led by me. Even the highest estimate, the 20% upper bound by Lord Professor Nicholas Stern of Brentford, has that a century of climate change is not worse than losing a decade of economic growth. "

That the impact of climate change is small relative to economic growth is a sweeping statement. Let's break it down in to figures.

GDP is around $80T so 10-years of growth at 4% is around $40T. Are they really saying that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than $40T over 100 years? It doesn't seem plausible.