The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

[T. A. Gardner]

Do you not think CFC's harmed the ozone layer? Interesting.

The climate scientists said some 40+ years ago that banning CFC's would seal the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole in 30 years. It's still there, still the same size, and now they've found an even larger one over the S. Atlantic.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-into-november

Other climate scientists are now saying it'll take another 50 years (they'll be retired or dead by that time so they won't have to take a hit for being wrong).

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/...als-drop-by-50

So, if CFC's were the cause, wouldn't the hole they predicted would be gone be gone and they wouldn't be finding a new even bigger one?

https://bgr.com/science/scientists-f...he-population/

These guys are clueless. Their "science" is so sloppy and porous it isn't worth paying attention to them.

[PostmodernProphet]

We're all fucked. I thought DTE was kidding about renewable energy until the brownouts hit. These people are absolutely fucking serious, don't think they're not.

why are those who don't live in California fucked?.....

[Saint Guinefort]

The climate scientists said some 40+ years ago that banning CFC's would seal the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole in 30 years. It's still there, still the same size, and now they've found an even larger one over the S. Atlantic.

Actually the Montreal Protocols are generally considered a success. Even NASA (whom you quote) also thinks that:

Measurements show that the decline in chlorine, resulting from an international ban on chlorine-containing manmade chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has resulted in about 20 percent less ozone depletion during the Antarctic winter than there was in 2005 — the first year that measurements of chlorine and ozone during the Antarctic winter were made by NASA’s Aura satellite.

“We see very clearly that chlorine from CFCs is going down in the ozone hole, and that less ozone depletion is occurring because of it,” said lead author Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...chemicals-ban/

Fun factoid: eons ago I was working as an oceanographic chem tech and one group at the facility I worked at used CFC's dissolved in sea water as a chemical tracer to track water movement in the ocean. After the early 1990's they started to see significant decreases in the level of various CFC's that were used as tracers and it was getting to be difficult to use them as tracers because of the MOntreal Protocol.

[AProudLefty]

climate ideology is a destructive force.

he's correct.

How so?

[AProudLefty]

EV's are not a 'technology advance'. The planet does not need 'saving'. It's quite big enough to take care of itself.

Buzzword fallacy.

[AProudLefty]

This assumes they are correct, which they aren't. That's the rub. If those claiming climate change is due primarily to human activity are wrong, then they are harming humanity with many of their forced solutions. The problem for those claiming human activity is to blame is they have no way to prove that their actions will solve the problem. They don't know.

However, we do know that those same people made claims in the past like with the hole in the ozone layer where their actions were taken only to see them fail utterly and completely. It doesn't argue well that they're correct this time on climate change.

Forced how?

[AProudLefty]

EV's are not a 'technology advance'. The planet does not need 'saving'. It's quite big enough to take care of itself.

I suppose you think computers are not a technology advance.

[T. A. Gardner]

Forced how?

The clear example of that is they claimed eliminating CFC's would fix the problem. It didn't. In fact, they found more problems. Now they've changed their tune and are claiming the replacement for CFC's, HCFC's or HFC's are a "greenhouse gas," something they initially didn't claim, and need to be eliminated for that reason. This is after decades of the same idiots claiming CO2 is the problem and needs to be eliminated.

The climate change alarmists and such keep changing their story while accomplishing nothing. How many times will we listen to them cry "wolf?"

[AProudLefty]

The clear example of that is they claimed eliminating CFC's would fix the problem. It didn't. In fact, they found more problems. Now they've changed their tune and are claiming the replacement for CFC's, HCFC's or HFC's are a "greenhouse gas," something they initially didn't claim, and need to be eliminated for that reason. This is after decades of the same idiots claiming CO2 is the problem and needs to be eliminated.

The climate change alarmists and such keep changing their story while accomplishing nothing. How many times will we listen to them cry "wolf?"

Someone here already explained that.

[AProudLefty]

Geology isn't a course.

I think you'll find the Church of Green disagrees with you.

There is no such thing. Heat is not a budget. Heat is not contained in anything.

Special pleading fallacy.

Buzzword fallacy. Wordstuffing. Trolling.

[Into the Night]

The climate scientists said some 40+ years ago that banning CFC's would seal the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole in 30 years. It's still there, still the same size, and now they've found an even larger one over the S. Atlantic.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-into-november

Other climate scientists are now saying it'll take another 50 years (they'll be retired or dead by that time so they won't have to take a hit for being wrong).

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/...als-drop-by-50

So, if CFC's were the cause, wouldn't the hole they predicted would be gone be gone and they wouldn't be finding a new even bigger one?

https://bgr.com/science/scientists-f...he-population/

These guys are clueless. Their "science" is so sloppy and porous it isn't worth paying attention to them.

The Church of the Ozone Hole routinely denies the Chapman cycle and chemistry.

[Into the Night]

Actually the Montreal Protocols are generally considered a success.

...at what?????!?

Even NASA (whom you quote) also thinks that:

NASA is not a proof nor science. It is a government agency.

Fun factoid: eons ago I was working as an oceanographic chem tech and one group at the facility I worked at used CFC's dissolved in sea water as a chemical tracer to track water movement in the ocean.

Lousy tracer, since CFCs in water just vent into the air.

After the early 1990's they started to see significant decreases in the level of various CFC's that were used as tracers and it was getting to be difficult to use them as tracers because of the MOntreal Protocol.

Nah. They just vent into the air. It's a lousy tracer.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

How so?

it's putting farmers out of business in the netherlands.

you ever watch the news?

farmers grow food. People eat food so they don't die.

less food = more die.



green policies are killing people.


and they blew up the fuel source.

usa just fucked europe over, to guarantee a war.

[Saint Guinefort]

...at what?????!?

NASA is not a proof nor science. It is a government agency.

Lousy tracer, since CFCs in water just vent into the air.

Nah. They just vent into the air. It's a lousy tracer.

STFU. Thanks.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The clear example of that is they claimed eliminating CFC's would fix the problem. It didn't. In fact, they found more problems. Now they've changed their tune and are claiming the replacement for CFC's, HCFC's or HFC's are a "greenhouse gas," something they initially didn't claim, and need to be eliminated for that reason. This is after decades of the same idiots claiming CO2 is the problem and needs to be eliminated.

The climate change alarmists and such keep changing their story while accomplishing nothing. How many times will we listen to them cry "wolf?"

cfc's and such ARE real pollution.

cleaning them up was a good.

the co2 thing is a farce though.