Obama acts to reverse Bush climate moves

[billvon 3,118]

>There are now climate chemists that say they got the chemistry wrong
>and that they think the CFC's had less than 1/10 of the impact reported
>back then.

Unfortunately for them, eliminating CFC's really did stop the growth of the hole. Thus the theory that reducing CFC emissions will reduce damage to the ozone layer has been proven.

You could propose a theory where there's a second, secret mechanism that just happened to coincide with the release of CFC's (and damage to the ozone layer) and then also coincided with the halt of CFC production and the end of the damage. But the burden of proof would be firmly on your shoulders there.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>There are now climate chemists that say they got the chemistry wrong
>and that they think the CFC's had less than 1/10 of the impact reported
>back then.

Unfortunately for them, eliminating CFC's really did stop the growth of the hole. Thus the theory that reducing CFC emissions will reduce damage to the ozone layer has been proven.

You could propose a theory where there's a second, secret mechanism that just happened to coincide with the release of CFC's (and damage to the ozone layer) and then also coincided with the halt of CFC production and the end of the damage. But the burden of proof would be firmly on your shoulders there.

Well use the word unfornately all you want. As I remember the article the two who were writing it were two of the main group who said CFC's were the main culprit.

Unfortunately for you, they now say they were mistaken. They are saying they were wrong back then. Maybe you are now?

I will look again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

>There are now climate chemists that say they got the chemistry wrong
>and that they think the CFC's had less than 1/10 of the impact reported
>back then.

Unfortunately for them, eliminating CFC's really did stop the growth of the hole. Thus the theory that reducing CFC emissions will reduce damage to the ozone layer has been proven.

You could propose a theory where there's a second, secret mechanism that just happened to coincide with the release of CFC's (and damage to the ozone layer) and then also coincided with the halt of CFC production and the end of the damage. But the burden of proof would be firmly on your shoulders there.

Well use the word unfornately all you want. As I remember the article the two who were writing it were two of the main group who said CFC's were the main culprit.

Unfortunately for you, they now say they were mistaken. They are saying they were wrong back then. Maybe you are now?

I will look again

You're cherry picking unspecified data from two scientists that you can't actually name out of a consensus of scientists and you expect to be taken seriously?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billvon 3,118]

>Unfortunately for you, they now say they were mistaken.

Right. They can say whatever they want. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED was that we stopped most CFC production and the damage to the ozone layer ended. And what actually happens generally trumps someone's theory.

It's like going to a doctor because you're very sick. He may say "it is most likely pneumococcal meningitis, so we're going to start you on cefodizime; that's effective against that." You take the antibiotic and it cures you.

Now, ten years later, someone may come along and say "you know, I don't think you had meningitis! I think you had cancer." Sure, it's possible. But since the cefodizime cured you, it's very, very unlikely. And if you get the same disease again, the smart money is on cefodizime, not chemotherapy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Unfortunately for you, they now say they were mistaken.

Right. They can say whatever they want. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED was that we stopped most CFC production and the damage to the ozone layer ended. And what actually happens generally trumps someone's theory.

It's like going to a doctor because you're very sick. He may say "it is most likely pneumococcal meningitis, so we're going to start you on cefodizime; that's effective against that." You take the antibiotic and it cures you.

Now, ten years later, someone may come along and say "you know, I don't think you had meningitis! I think you had cancer." Sure, it's possible. But since the cefodizime cured you, it's very, very unlikely. And if you get the same disease again, the smart money is on cefodizime, not chemotherapy.

This is part that is nuts for me. You say that just because is was stated it was going to happen that the CFC scare was correct. I say bull.

I say (much like the global warming thing) that cycle happen. You catch a cycle, make some changes, the cycle changes back and you claim victory?? Come on billvon

What the chemists are saying is removing the CFC's had little effect on the reduction of the ozone hole

Now, I not saying I am right but, you sure as hell aint right if these two climate chemists are right. Right being that the CFC's had 10% or less of the impact the alarmists stated 20 years ago and that the change happened regardless of DuPont killing their own product giving them the patent to the product that took over.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

> You say that just because is was stated it was going to happen that the
>CFC scare was correct.

No. I am saying that because it DID happen the science was correct.

If you predict something will happen, and it does happen, that tends to add credence to your prediction.

>Now, I not saying I am right but, you sure as hell aint right if these two
>climate chemists are right.

So? Lots of "experts" think that the moon landing was faked, and that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by a government plot. And if you think Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11, you sure as hell ain't right if any of those experts are right!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> You say that just because is was stated it was going to happen that the
>CFC scare was correct.

No. I am saying that because it DID happen the science was correct.

If you predict something will happen, and it does happen, that tends to add credence to your prediction.

>Now, I not saying I am right but, you sure as hell aint right if these two
>climate chemists are right.

So? Lots of "experts" think that the moon landing was faked, and that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by a government plot. And if you think Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11, you sure as hell ain't right if any of those experts are right!

Look, I know what DID happen. You say just because it was predicted that science was correct. Maybe so, but you are dealing with cycles, medicine men knew of eclipse cycles and used them to their advantage. (not saying CFC's are not the probem here but) You seem to be doing what those medicine men did. Use cycles to scare and control.

I am still looking for the article. Again, I do not know if these two are crack pots or what but, all info is worth consideration

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

> You say just because it was predicted that science was correct.

No. Because what they predicted happened (twice) their theories are more valid than someone who predicted an event that did not happen. That's experimental verification. Fortunately, the final outcome of the experiment was one that was beneficial to us.

>Use cycles to scare and control.

Do you really feel under my control? Cool! Fortunately, I don't know of anyone else who is scared by atmospheric chemistry, or who feels as if they are under control by evil scientists.

[rushmc 23]

Do you really feel under my control? Cool! Fortunately, I don't know of anyone else who is scared by atmospheric chemistry, or who feels as if they are under control by evil scientists.

[billvon 3,118]

>Why do you twist shit like this. You know the point I was making.

No, I really don't. If you really mean what you're saying, and think that atmospheric scientists had some sort of evil plot to "scare and control" people - well, you may have been listening to Rush for too long.

>If CFC's play a much smaller part then what was first thought wouldnt you want
>to know that?

Sure I would.

>Wouldnt you want to know what is really going on?

Yep. The difference between you and I, I think, is that I don't really care whose political point any given bit of science represents. I don't get my views on science from Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Why do you twist shit like this. You know the point I was making.

No, I really don't. If you really mean what you're saying, and think that atmospheric scientists had some sort of evil plot to "scare and control" people - well, you may have been listening to Rush for too long.

>If CFC's play a much smaller part then what was first thought wouldnt you want
>to know that?

Sure I would.

>Wouldnt you want to know what is really going on?

Yep. The difference between you and I, I think, is that I don't really care whose political point any given bit of science represents. I don't get my views on science from Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

Limbaugh has nothing to do with this and if you think that only deniers are on the side of politics then you are the denier......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I am still looking for the article. Again, I do not know if these two are crack pots or what but, all info is worth consideration

Maybe you just dreamed it. Neither you or anyone else seems to have come up with anything concrete concerning "these two" supposed scientists.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

I am still looking for the article. Again, I do not know if these two are crack pots or what but, all info is worth consideration

Maybe you just dreamed it. Neither you or anyone else seems to have come up with anything concrete concerning "these two" supposed scientists.

Just another example of rushmc denying anything that points to man made climate changes. He grasps any straw that supports his viewpoint and presents it as fact and uses it to discredit any study that suggests that the climate is effected by man.

Totally pointless discussion...

[434 2]

I agree with you Rushmc! Let us just use the resources available we have left, and let the nature deal with it! It is not going to affect us much. More people in the 3. world will die (doesnt matter, there is not a living place to notice anyway) There will be more wars about the resources! The strongest link will survive, and we will start all over again! Just let the next genaration deal with the problem. a quick search about the perma frost gives you some interesting things to read about!

Lets party on, and get finished!


http://verden.abcsok.no/index.html?q=siberian+permafrost+%2B+methane&x=0&y=0&lr=

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I agree with you Rushmc! Let us just use the resources available we have left, and let the nature deal with it! It is not going to affect us much. More people in the 3. world will die (doesnt matter, there is not a living place to notice anyway) There will be more wars about the resources! The strongest link will survive, and we will start all over again! Just let the next genaration deal with the problem. a quick search about the perma frost gives you some interesting things to read about!

Lets party on, and get finished!


http://verden.abcsok.no/index.html?q=siberian+permafrost+%2B+methane&x=0&y=0&lr=

Thats the spirit!!!

We are on the brink of Destruction!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln