The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

Who exactly is this salesmen of the Green New Deal and exactly when did they start trying to sell the Green New Deal? Why not name them? Which certain chemicals are you talking about? Why not name it?I would think that what would be an important part of the discussion would be what chemists have to say.First you say: and then you say: So the data has been available for many years and it's hidden from the public. Which is it? And just exactly who are these willful environmentalists? I guess no one found it very interesting after 1990. The garden club talk sounds riveting.

It's the atheist environmentalists!

But why doesn't he know that this problem was solved decades ago when the whole planet cooperated and found less harmful alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and that there is no connection between the ozone depletion by CFCs and the Green New Deal political movement.

Yep toxic!

This just confirms you have no supporting evidence, because one thing is clear, if someone has evidence they would present it to prove their case, otherwise it (their argument) can be considered bullshit.You need to up your game a whole bunch!

This just doesn't make any sense at all...why are you upset about something that was solved 25+ years ago?Are you a time traveler from the past? It's ok, you can tell us.

I don't know what fire you are talking about, but are you saying that halon fire suppression systems can survive having jet airliners full of fuel being flown into them?I think you are being deceptive implying that the 9-11 attacks would have turned out differently if halon fire suppression was available.Are you saying that no that in 2024 there is no way to put out fires? Sometimes the easiest solution is just too costly.

If you are claiming that if the NYCFD had access to CFCs they could have prevented the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9-11, then I call bullshit!I am still baffled why you want to post here about any of this. What does it have to do with the evolution/creation debate?

So, your responses continue to seem to confirm that you have been in a coma for the last 40 years, which would explain your faulty memory about, well, everything.

That's because science doesn't consider CFCs as green house gas emissions and if they were referred as such in the scientific literature it is an error. Yep, I pointed out that for some obscure reason you were pretending they were a secret. And now you are trying to pretend that the ozone hole and CFCs are the same as greenhouse gases and global warming and you are incorrect. This is also incorrect and the supporting evidence is clear that additional CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and leaking methane from wells is causing the planet to warm and is acidifying our oceans.You are trying to spread bullshit to a bunch of science nerds who know it's bullshit. The question is why you feel the need to post your bizarre bullshit here at EvC?

It seems unlikely.The bizarre thing is coming in here spoiling for a fight about something that really hasn't been an issue for 25 years.And how could he be completely unaware of the past 30 years of climate science data, collected in multiple disciplines?

Nope, repeating incorrect statements doesn't make them less incorrect. CO2 reflects infrared and causes heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and is not a threat to the stratospheric ozone layer.A completely different manmade molecule, CFC was found to destroy stratospheric ozone molecules letting more UV reach the Earth's surface potentially causing damage to living systems, but is not causing global warming.These are 2 unrelated issues caused by 2 completely different chemicals having 2 completely different affects on the planet. Lots and lots and lots of new facts have been discovered in the 30+ years since the facts you are relying on were last paid attention to. New facts showing lots of your facts are incorrect or incomplete.Thousands and thousands of masters and PhD dissertations on the chemistry and physics of these subjects have been researched and published and then those scientists went on and spent their careers studying and publishing more of their data.And also during that time millions of more chemical sensor and weather reporting stations have been connected to the growing array of climate and atmospheric and oceanic monitoring networks that also include thousands of satellites monitoring our planet continuously!Whole new technologies have been developed for all this monitoring as well as hooking up some of the planets most powerful computer systems to crunch the data.Do you really think you have credible evidence that it's all bullshit? That the silly crap you've written here refutes all that?

The depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs was pretty much solved when CFCs were banned internationally.

And CFCs were banned so they don't play a role in the global warming issue.

You have not demonstrated that, but why are you here going on and on to us here about something that was finished decades ago?Are you on a mission to teach your version of history to random strangers on internet forums? It's old news, who cares?