Another Anti-science Dufus

So, another Gish Gallop of unsupported republican fossil fuel anti-science bullshit. I'm sure he will raise the level of discourse at EvC.

Yup, pathetic and so dumb he doesn't realize that the best possible scenario regarding global warming is is it is all the result of mankind.If that were the case then there is at least a glimmer of hope despite the Christian Cult of Ignorance that we might just live through the next century.

I assume this is a comment on the new PNT by USA 1776.It is nonsense.As far as I know, the "Green New Deal" has always been about climate change. It was never about the Ozone hole.He thinks the Ozone hole idea is refuted, because it isn't really a hole, it is only a thinning of the ozone layer. And it is partially caused by meteorological conditions.I don't know which rock he has been living under, but we always knew this.

Shame on you, making me look at that mess by mentioning an ozone layer claim.Refer to my unlinked-to page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER, detailing my 1998-2011 "discussion" with a creationist (ie, they never discuss anything, but rather assert baldly and then run away) about his ozone layer claim (he hadn't written it himself, but rather had stolen it from another creationist as they are wont to do). As I discovered immediately, the "questions that scientists cannot answer" had been lifted directly from NOAA's list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) which NOAA answered completely. That was back in 1998 and now it shows up again.For example, he tries to blame natural sources of chlorine like the oceans and volcanos, but since free chlorine is highly soluble in water, all of that chlorine gets washed out of the air before it can reach the ozone layer. But chlorine that's bound in a stable molecule like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, a refrigerant) can avoid getting washed out the air and reach those altitudes where solar and cosmic radiation can break them apart, releasing the chlorine.The other part of the claim is to deny that CFCs are present at those altitudes, but if that's the case then why do air samples taken directly from those altitudes (AKA, empirical data which creationists always exalt over "just theories") find those molecules there? From my page (where I was mainly quoting from the NOAA page -- this was originally in an email):

quote:

---

How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're Heavier than Air?

​

Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft, and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 km) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.

​

Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9% of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 km) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone.

---

The cited diagram depicting the concentrations by altitude can be found on the NOAA page linked to.Add this one to our list of PRATTs.

These days I have to consider this a disruption campaign by one of those bot houses. I cannot consider this a legitimate human participant. We'll see in further interactions.

That's my impression as well. World wide cooperation to ban problematic CFC's was done well before the Green New Deal. From 1989:

quote:

---

The European Community yesterday took a big step in defence of the world’s threatened ozone layer by agreeing to a complete ban on the production of a range of chlorofluorocarbon industrial gases (CFCs) by 2000.
https://www.theguardian.com/...-europe-save-ozone-layer-1989

---

I wonder if he/she will turn out to just be a drive-by troll or a continuing nonsense troll.

As a Cradle Creedal Christian from birth I always find it depressing how much damage the perversion called Fundamental Evangelical Christianity (The Christian Cult of Ignorance) has done to the minds of pathetic souls like this.Pathetic, Pitiful and Pointless.

Yep, seems pretty damaged to me.ABE: You know, it does seem like most of the people who fall for this are gullible dupes who are going to be be sucked into one kind of cult or another. I don't know if the U.S. is unique but it seems like 40-50% of our population fall into this category, more if you include everyone who is religious.I personally see religion as a mass delusion of the majority of humans, that just might try to kill me if I point this out too vigorously.
​

A bit unrelated to your topic, but I thought you might be interested in this:Watch: Dragonfly Swarm Blankets Rhode Island Beach - Videos from The Weather Channel

"all the result of mankind"? The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling, so how do know global warming isn't partly natural?

My understanding is that it most definitely is partly natural. Perhaps jar is suggesting that if the "Christian Culture Of Ignorance" is neutralized as a political force and cultural influence, humans may have a hope of survival.Of course, I disagree with his flippant dismissal of Christians who (as he would put it) "park their brains at the door" because it has been my experience that the rest of the people have their sins too. In other words, humanity is likely to be wrestling, fighting or fiddling while Rome burns.So how is the politics and global outlook from down under? I once read a book in school called On The Beach written by Neville Shute two years before I was born.The two men most likely to escalate World War III to a nuclear conflict remain the heads of Russia and. or the United States. Do you ever see such a possible scenario or do you think, as I do, that society could mess itself up through many means other than nuclear war.Are you a Hawk or a Dove? Or a bit of both?

Of course, it is partially natural. But the natural effects right now are either changing by insignificant amounts or changing by tiny amounts in the direction of cooling (e.g., the sun energy contribution).But the rapid increase in average temperature is definitely, for sure, really, really not from natural causes.Your reply to Dredge should have been:What parts are natural? How big is their effect and in which direction? How do you know?That is how you need to carry on this kind of discussion. Take it as a learning opportunity for you.

These data charts for global warming are from IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Summary for Policy Makers from 2021:

Click to expand

They show that humans make both positive and negative contributions to global warming that on net are positive. The leftmost chart shows the observed warming, the center chart shows assessments from attribution studies, and the rightmost chart shows assessments from radiative studies. See the summary itself for details, and we can discuss this to whatever level of detail you wish.There's much other useful information in the summary's pages.--Percy

With all the evidence this world is showing us the reality is clear. Unlike you, who should have already studied the data and know this answer, the world scientific community is not stupid and know, with certainty, today’s climate change problem is all the result of mankind.No amount of evidence will convince you since you, politically, religiously, do not want this to be despite the glaring reality. If you had been paying attention these many years you too would know this climate change is anthropic and no amount of stupid is going to change this.Take a few hours to dredge up the overwhelmingly easy to find evidence of anthropic climate change. Stop being intellectually lazy, lift the scales from your eyes and see the reality your god set in front of you. The present rush to climate change on this planet, change that will cause the extinction of many millions of species, including all mammalia, is man made.