The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

So much error, inaccuracy and bare assertions with not a single link. The most important missing link is this one:The Green New Deal (House Resolution 109 of the 116th Congress). Take a look. The word "ozone" doesn't appear once. Neither does the word "hole." Nor "layer" nor "thinning." Nor even "Antarctica".The Green New Deal was primarily about greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, climate change and destruction of the environment. It was never adopted. Why do you care about it so much that you're willing to make up lies about it?You also say this: Obviously you had a source for this when you cut-n-pasted it into your message. Why no link? Anyway, it can be found at: The ozone hole, a localized but significant thinning of the ozone layer, is unique to the Antarctic, but ozone depletion is global. Ozone depletion could lead to adverse health and environmental effects (see Ozone Depletion Effects at Wikipedia). These concerns led to the banning of CFC's and other similar chemicals. CFCs are familiar to many as the fluid that was once employed by air conditioners. As a result of the ban the global ozone layer has begun to recover and the ozone hole has gradually diminished in size, though neither to preindustrial levels. So far the only fear and deceit being practiced here is by you. The Green New Deal was never adopted. How is this failed resolution a problem? This seems more true of you than anyone else here. Why are you carpet bombing this discussion board with fallacies, lies and insults? And you're doing it right out of the box, before you've exchanged a single word with anyone except administrators.--Percy

It might help if a moderator request were extended to USA 1776 to support his claims with links to the websites he's using as his source of information. He has not as yet posted a single link. The references he provided in Message 1 (sans links) were about the ozone layer. They provided no connection to climate change.In other words, USA 1776 is repeatedly making the same claim that ozone depletion was the root cause of concern about climate change without any evidence except his say so. When every response is met by yet another unsupported repetition of this claim, what are his fellow debaters to do? Jefferson claimed that ridicule was the only proper response to unintelligible propositions.Put another way, only when USA 1776 starts making sense and treating the people here with the respect they deserve by supporting his claims by evidence and argument rather than by repetition does he deserve to be treated with respect in return.Has anyone yet examined the references he did provide? Not found anywhere on the Internet, but there were five or six webpages that referenced it, but as being from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory at 20 pages and not an address to a national garden club council. Hugh W. Elisaesser appears to have been a respected researcher.
​ There's a typo in the title. OCIO should be OClO, also expressed as ClO₂. I found it at On the relevance of OClO photodissociation to the destruction of stratospheric ozone.

Abstract:

---

The gas phase photodissociation of chlorine dioxide has been examined to elucidate its role in the destruction of stratospheric ozone. The existence of the photodissociation channel, OClO + hv → Cl + O2, which could in principle catalyze the destruction of ozone, has recently been reported (E. Rühl et al., 1990). We establish here that the quantum yield of this process, in the spectral range 359–368 nm is less than 5×10−4 and therefore too small to significantly perturb the stratospheric ozone budget.

---

This is contradicted by modern research. This is from Chlorine Dioxide | Earthdata (part of NASA):

quote:

---

ClO2, a radical, undergoes photodecomposition in the stratosphere where the products of this reaction react with ozone. Since this is a photochemical reaction it only takes place while the sun is up. Experiments over Antarctica have shown a direct relation between polar ozone loss and the increase in halocarbon chemistry, which comes from anthropogenic sources. Scientist are currently looking at the molecular behavior of chlorine dioxide in the atmosphere in order to understand its role in depletion of ozone more thoroughly.

---

This can be found at Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: a History.

Abstract:

---

The development of research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford is traced from the year 1922, when one single instrument was used there to make measurements of the total ozone, to 1966, when some hundred instruments were distributed all over the world. In recent years an important advance has been made by the measurement of the vertical distribution of the ozone in the atmosphere. A digression, covering the war years, describes the measurement of the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere which, however, proved to have a bearing on the effect of the ozone on the temperature of the upper atmosphere.

---

Two of his references were 34 years old, the other 56 years old. They predate the banning of CFCs in 1994. The one from 1990 concluding that ClO₂ didn't pose a threat to the ozone layer was probably an outlyer even then, because efforts at world legislation to outlaw CFC's had already begun in 1987.--Percy

It seems a pretty safe bet that you're confusing ozone depletion with global warming. They're separate topics. The main threat of a thinning ozone layer is not to the environment but to human health, such as skin cancer, cataracts, respiratory effects of increased ground level ozone and higher levels of vitamin D. There are similar effects on animals. Crops have limited ability to adopt to increased levels of UV light, as do plants in general. See Ozone Depletion Effects, a link I also posted earlier. Just to make sure that an important distinction is clear, CFC's are a greenhouse gas because their presence in the atmosphere can trap heat and make the planet warmer, but this is rarely mentioned these days because they were banned under the Montreal Protocols because they cause ozone depletion. Again, the Green New Deal was a House resolution that failed to pass. Why do you keep blaming it for anything? What is the "Rowland Molina ozone theory"? Ozone depletion is a separate effect from global warming.--Percy

There's no contradiction. You're just not reading carefully enough, plus you chopped off the rest of what I said. CFCs are no longer considered green house gas *emissions* because the Montreal Protocols banned them. That doesn't change the fact that they still have the quality of a greenhouse gas.You left a couple questions unanswered.The Green New Deal was a House resolution that failed to pass. Even if it had passed, it was a resolution, not a bill. Resolutions are not laws. They're aspirational. Why do you keep blaming it for anything?What is the "Rowland Molina ozone theory"?--Percy

That's quite a creative spelling effort. Congratulations! Corrected your spelling for ya. Because the size of the ozone hole changes every year, trending larger until around 2000 when it roughly stabilized, why would you expect a permanent change? Has a single molecule of anything ever been traced on its journey through any atmospheric layer? Why would you expect such a thing? But when manmade gases such as CFC's are found in the stratosphere then they could only have gotten there by passing through the tropopause. Well, you're inherent dishonesty already makes you a poor representative of Christianity, but why are you trying to mix science and religion anyway?Most of the people here accept facts and perspectives gathered and constructed using the scientific method. Your approach doesn't appear scientific at all. I would describe it as misrepresenting and distorting information while making it clear that you will insult anyone who disagrees with you.--Percy

Your message is a mess, providing no clue who said what and chopping off portions of quotes that make clear there are no contradictions. Everyone here but you sees this the same way: CFC's are a banned greenhouse gas that are one of a group of chemicals that are destructive of the ozone layer that protects the planet's surface from the most harmful of UV rays. Since the ban the ozone layer has begun to recover, for example as shown is this graph of ozone minimums over Antarctica: --Percy

You didn't even mention CFC's in Message 1, which was thoroughly rebutted. For instance: As has already been explained elsewhere, detection of the growing ozone hole season-to-season caused concerns that led to studies of the ozone layer that revealed that it was thinning. Please share away, by all means. Will this information, like your other information, be 34 or more years old and well outside any modern scientific consensus?--Percy

No, it's not a fact and it is deception. The NYFD was not able to conduct any firefighting efforts between the time the towers were hit and their collapse. The availability of halon would have made no difference, and there are modern replacements for halons, like halotron.But fighting fires 100 floors above ground level on a scale of what happened at the World Trade Center isn't really possible.--Percy

And he doesn't seem to realize that efforts to clean up and protect the environment predate our discovery of the ozone depletion problem. The EPA was founded in 1970, but there were efforts to clean up pollution even before that. Pittsburgh, where I went to grad school, had a small skyscraper on campus called the Cathedral of Learning which was black on the windward side due to pollution from steel mills. They would clean it every five or ten years.There are famous pictures of downtown Pittsburgh taken at midday from earlier in the century. Here's are two pictures of the Federal Building in Pittsburgh, both taken during the day, one on Black Tuesday in 1939, the other in November of 1940 after the passage of the smoke laws more than 30 years before the founding of the EPA: When they built the U.S. Steel building they used a steel material designed to rust so that the dark rust color would hide the accumulated soot.When I was recruited to attend grad school in Pittsburgh I didn't know anything about the pollution problems, but my prospective adviser felt the need to mention that I should ignore anything I heard about pollution there, that it was much better now. But if I cracked my window open at night for air then in the morning there would be a layer of soot on the window sill. This was in the mid 1970s.With the decline of the steel industry the pollution problem in Pittsburgh became less and less, and they no longer have to clean the Cathedral of Learning. USA 1776 seems to want to ignore the long history of human putting gasses into the air that are bad for the environment, and to pretend that nothing ever happened regarding ozone depletion, and to pretend that nothing is happening now regarding climate change. By the way, we'll be experiencing 4 consecutive 90 degree days this week, no records, but consistent with having more warm days during the summer.--Percy

ICANT and Ringo may be in the same place now. Could be very interesting.--Percy

I am *not* going to post my comments on moderation to a thread with the subtitle "The Whine List." My comment on moderation appeared in Message 40 in reply to your Message 34. USA 1776 is stating baseless claim after baseless claim, making many mistakes, ignoring all feedback, and then merely repeating them again, while at the time not posting a single supporting reference or link, nor quoting anything he is responding to. As long as this is permitted to continue you are unlikely to have any order in this thread.Jar's comment is actually the most appropriate to Message 106. I intend a response that addresses the points made, but it will be a wasted effort, as have been almost all responses to USA 1776.--Percy

This is broadly untrue. Science is never static, and the reality of the greenhouse effect has become more and more firmly established over time as more data is gathered and our understanding improves.Board moderation should be requiring you to support statements like this with evidence and argument that are in turn supported by references, preferably ones that are available online. You're being permitted to repeat the same fallacies over and over, responding to all challenges with more repetition. This excerpt from Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia is a brief overview of what we know about the greenhouse effect:

quote:

---

The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet's atmosphere insulate the planet from losing heat to space, raising its surface temperature. Surface heating can happen from an internal heat source as in the case of Jupiter, or from its host star as in the case of the Earth.
...
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about −18 °C (−0.4 °F), which is less than Earth's 20th century average of about 14 °C (57 °F), or a more recent average of about 15 °C (59 °F).
...
All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit thermal radiation. The wavelengths of thermal radiation emitted by the Sun and Earth differ because their surface temperatures are different. The Sun has a surface temperature of 5,500 °C (9,900 °F), so it emits most of its energy as shortwave radiation in near-infrared and visible wavelengths (as sunlight). In contrast, Earth's surface has a much lower temperature, so it emits longwave radiation at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths. A gas is a greenhouse gas if it absorbs longwave radiation. Earth's atmosphere absorbs only 23% of incoming shortwave radiation, but absorbs 90% of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface, thus accumulating energy and warming the Earth's surface.

---

Now that that information is in place, let's examine what you say next: The burning of carbon based fuels has added significant amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, far more than plant life can remove. Here are a couple helpful graphs showing how atmospheric CO₂ levels began rising with the beginning of the industrial revolution and have accelerated rapidly since. The first graph is since 1960, and the second graph is longer term and is since 800 AD. Moving on: You continue to be confused about CO₂ and ozone depletion. They are at best only very loosely linked.You are also incorrect about the evidence for CO₂'s influence on the greenhouse effect. There are two lines of evidence. One is that CO₂ is a gas that absorbs longwave radiation, and its presence in the atmosphere absorbs such radiation from the planet's surface and transmits the heat back to the atmosphere, thereby heating the planet. This was understood well over a century ago.The other line of evidence is direct satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation. At How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? you will find this:

quote:

---

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

​

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs & Harries 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen et al. 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO₂ bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO₂ is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

---

Moving on: More plants would help to only a minor extent. We're swamping the atmosphere with excess CO₂. Do you understand nothing? We provided that history to help you see that environmental concerns long predate discovery of the expanding ozone hole. Even your Green New Deal Salesmen doppelganger that Theodoric found understood this. The pollution problem's been solved? Good to know. The banning of leaded gasoline is one of many things that improved the environment and contributed to human health for which the EPA is responsible. I assume you're referring to the Montreal Protocol, which reversed the thinning of the ozone layer which, had it continued, would have contributed significantly to human health problems and also impacted animal and plant life. Apparently Congress felt the same way. Many of the rest of us would like government to take human influences on climate seriously. There are no lies in The Green New Deal. If you think there are, find them and quote them. Everything we see online says that your characterizations are wrong. CFC's are an extremely minimal greenhouse emission at this point, having been banned some time ago. The emissions are not zero because some applications are still permitted and some older devices are still in operation. They were never a significant contributor to global warming because they break down in the upper atmosphere to leave behind free chlorine, which is what wreaks havoc with the ozone layer. I wonder how many accusations of idiocy Adminnemooseus is going to tolerate while allowing you to continue this rampage of error. Thinning ozone and climate change are correlated only very loosely at best, and they are separate problems. Thinning ozone with the accompanying increased intensity of UV rays at the most harmful frequencies is a direct threat to life. Climate change is a threat to the environment, which then in turn is a threat to life. They are not on some continuum of threat. They are different types of threat, just as pollution is a different type of threat. Aren't you just the font of tolerance!Atheists are a tiny fraction of the world population. They are not responsible for religious prejudice, or racism or bigotry, either.What does this have to do with your misconceptions about the environmental movement and its history? Why are you still mixing science and religion, and now sociology as well. Yes, yes, find a group to hate and then blame everything on them! Bigots of the world unite against the atheistic menace! You could start by requiring them to stitch a big yellow "A" on their clothing.--Percy

You have a number of replies addressing your claims about the environment and you choose to focus on halon, a minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor, minor side detail? And you don't even address the elephant in this tiny off room, that halon could not have been effectively employed on 911 to save the towers or lives. And halotron has replaced halon. It wouldn't have helped the towers, either.From Halotron I - Wikipedia:

Wikipedia on Halotron I:

---

[Halotron I] was originally introduced in 1992 to replace the severely ozone-depleting Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane). Halon 1211 has a global warming potential of 2,070,[2] whereas Halotron I's GWP is 77, a 96 percent reduction.

​

In December 2011, Halotron I was tested against "hidden fires", spurred by the effectiveness its predecessor demonstrated on an in-flight fire aboard a Delta L-1011 flight on March 17, 1991. The test was conducted at UL, and demonstrated similar effectiveness as Halon 1211, with significantly less human and global harm.[4] Although the fire extinguishing effectiveness is similar, Halotron I requires a larger chemical volume to get the same ratings as Halon 1211.

---

Please address the replies showing that your major claims are wrong. I'm referring to those claims you made about The Green New Deal generally and pollution, the ozone layer, and climate change specifically.And include links to where you're getting you're information from. Including links is just the easiest thing in the world. The link to this forum, https://www.evcforum.net/Threads.php becomes EvC Forum: All Topics. And there are tons of dBCodes described at dBCode Help. Try 'em, you'll like 'em, and they'll jazz up your rather dry messages a little.--Percy

Boy, talk about not getting it. Jar was saying the exact opposite. I'll try to approximate what Jar was actually saying, which I think is that it is you and fundamentalist evangelicals in general who have perverted Christianity by using God as your excuse for imposing your religious views on others regarding a wide variety of things, from the environment to gender to marriage to abortion. Aren't the "tenets of the environmental movement" to just follow the science? Isn't the weather the nation and the world is experiencing at this very moment evidence of the general trends that science said would happen if we didn't get greenhouse gases under control? Hasn't ignoring environmental concerns led to all kinds of problems, such as polluted groundwater that forces people in some areas to use only bottled water for drinking and cooking? "Such a movement"? You mean a movement that seeks to keep the planet livable? What is it you're seeking to use? Are you seeking to dump pollutants willy nilly into the atmosphere, waterways and ground? Do you want to burn more coal? How about a nice nuclear waste dump next door to your house? Do you want to drive a bigger pickup or SUV and send even more greenhouse gases up into the stratosphere to make the planet even hotter?And why are you singling out environmental efforts for telling you what to do? What about all the traffic laws that tell when you can go and when you must stop, as well how fast you can go. What about all the building codes that tell you how many studs you need or that you must have GFCI outlets in the bathrooms and how insulated it must be and how the plumbing must be vented and on and on? What about fire codes that tell you when you can burn on your own property? Are you against all these kinds of constraints, too? You have it all wrong. I think jar might agree that your brand of Christianity has left God.--Percy

It was very logical and extremely sincere and very much on the mark. It was a rebuttal of your claims that halon remains essential, among them that had it been available in 2001 the World Trade Center towers would not have collapsed. It is the height of irony that someone who has never quoted the text he's responding to, who responds to less than a quarter of the messages to him, who ignores rebuttals and responds by merely repeating what was just rebutted, who never supports his claims with evidence, and who has never provided a single link, is making accusations of degenerating a discussion.--Percy