The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

quote:

---

The scientific theory behind the entire environmental agenda pertaining to the atmosphere, since the late 1980's, has been the theory of a vulnerable ozone layer, subject to depletion by man-made chemicals and carbon dioxide, as evidenced by the "ozone hole" over the northern region of Antarctica. Yet this theory is discredited, if not dis-proven entirely, by this one simple statement:
​
"The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special meteorological and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe." - NOAA Chemical Sciences laboratory

---

This is wholly untrue. The ozone hole is a reality, it was growing and due to measures taken to reduce the release of the gases responsible the situation is recovering.The idea that the layer was thinning “nowhere else” fails to deal with the fact that the extent was increasing. As we should expect since the atmosphere is not static.The fact that it is free chlorine that causes the damage obviously negates the idea that simply counting the amount of chlorine released into the atmosphere that matters. It must be shown that that chlorine reaches the lower stratosphere in a form capable of causing harm. Volcanoes can cause some damage, but that does not last.Also we must consider that the atmosphere is a dynamic system. Ozone is continually being created and destroyed - but increasing the rate of destruction runs the risk of upsetting the balance as clearly occurred.Simply throwing unsubstantiated accusations in the face of the evidence is hardly a sign of good science. Again, the evidence speaks for itself. The hole was growing, after measures were taken to protect the atmosphere that stopped and the situation began to improve.I suggest that your sources are desperate to discredit this environmental success because they prefer the dangers of climate change to the cost of working to mitigate it - even if that cost is not high.

How can you say this:

quote:

---

I am well aware of the difference between a metaphor and what is literal. I am also aware that it is not honest to use metaphorical language as a literal description, in an area of life such as science where it is known that the people reading or listening wouldn't know the difference. The area referred to as "the ozone hole" is not actually a hole, and it is not to be described as such in order to further a certain narrative.

---

And then say this:

quote:

---

Isn't it interesting that after the 'hole' was first announced, scientists immediately determined its exact cause, and that this cause was supposedly the small amount of chlorine resulting from ground-level industry?

---

It was not chlorine production that was fingered as the issue at all.
You complain about loose language in describing the issue - even though the potential problems caused by depletion of the ozone layer are very real. Why spend time on pointless quibbles if you are going to make serious errors yourself?(BTW chlorine production worldwide is not so tiny - 65,000,000 tonnes per year Wermac)

quote:

---

The theory of "global warming" is the ozone depletion theory. They are one and the same.

---

You’d think that your Satanic masters would supply you with better lies. I realise that they want the truth suppressed, and that they want all the suffering and death that would result from inaction. The question is why you’re going along with it. Is it just because you’re ignorant, irrational and too dim to understand even the basics?

quote:

---

The theory of "global warming" is the ozone depletion theory. They are one and the same.

---

Ozone depletion is the breakdown of ozone caused by CFCs releasing free chlorine in the lower stratosphere. This effect is regional and seasonal because it requires particular conditions for the effect t0 be more than minor.Global warming is a worldwide phenomenon where the Earth retains more heat through the greenhouse effect. While a number of gases can cause a greenhouse effect the main sources are methane and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the bigger problem since it is more stable and lingers for a longer time.Clearly they are different things. Anyone even vaguely informed knows that much.Global warming is already killing people - heatwaves are getting more extreme (see Message 25 for an example). Sea level rise, a consequence of global warming is already starting to cause problems. We’ve seen unusually destructive wildfires in California and Australia, because climate change is affecting conditions there. We can expect - and seem to be getting - more destructive hurricane seasons. And that is just the start it IS going to get worse. What do you propose to do about it that would be better than the Green New Deal?

quote:

---

If you really knew much about Christianity, you would know that Christianity hold's stewardship of the environment as very important

---

So Christianity AGREES with the tenets of the environmentalist movement. But you say you don’t.

To be fair it needs to be read in parallel with Matthew 7: Are these people not believers? Are they not among the goats?

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that the Church Folk are the equivalent of the modern Pharisees?
​
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
​
Drag Queen story hour at the local library does by and large *not* produce good fruit. It simply displays a secular ideology and LGBQT Rights. I would think twice before letting my kid immerse themselves in progressive culture.

---

Hello Faith. Still whining that people dare to defy the tyranny of lying bigots? You make the Pharisees look good.