The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

Some substance, not just random sniping.Offical admin warning.Adminnemooseus

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.

This a perfect example of the inability of fundies to comprehend science. Science is not static. Science changes. The sources you cite are from 1990 and 1968. The atmosphere and the understanding of the science has changed dramatically since then,
Bible bangers like you refuse to understand that scientific understanding changing is a good thing.
All that aside you are extremely and very wrong about almost everything in this post. I will start pointing things out but I am sure I will get tired quickly as there is so much wrong. This is like a super strawman. Global climate change and the "ozone" hole are different things. There is no direct relation other than the fact that both are the result of human behavior and both can be resolved by changing human behavior. Have you heard of the word metaphor? Do you know what a metaphor is? So Jesus can be dismissed as the in your "holy" books he is metaphorically called "lamb of god"?
From NASA.

quote:

---

As the images show, the word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units. Using this metaphor, they can describe the hole’s size and depth. These maps show the state of the ozone hole each year on the day of maximum depth—the day the lowest ozone concentrations were measured.

---

World of Change: Antarctic Ozone Hole This is pure unadulterated bullshit. You seem to reference to the Non estimable Hugh Elsaesser. Hugh was (I assume he is dead now) was a meteorologist. IHis expertise was weather. He might have been very good with weather but he was seemingly always wrong about climate. The source I reference above clearly shows the metaphorical hole completely over all of Antarctica and at times extending as far as the tip of South America. South America is further north than Antarctica. Also, the ozone "hole" has direct effects on Australia.

quote:

---

The Antarctic polar vortex is a stratospheric wind pattern. It blows strongly around the earth at about the latitude of the Antarctic coast. It is strongest in the colder times of the year and is driven by the temperature difference between the cold pole and the warmth of the lower latitudes.

​

Unlike the northern polar vortex, the Antarctic polar vortex has a very consistent shape. This is because the northern hemisphere has big mountain ranges at the right latitudes to stir the air and interrupt the flow (the Rockies, the Alps and the Urals). The flatness of the southern hemisphere mid latitudes allows the polar vortex to hold its shape.

​

The lack of disturbance in the southern polar vortex has a consequence for our lives in Australia. The consistent shape of the polar vortex holds springtime ozone depleted air in place and is the reason there is a southern hemisphere ozone hole and not a northern hemisphere one. Then, when the ozone hole breaks up and its remnants pass over us, it is time for extra sunscreen.

---

From the katabatic to the polar vortex – Australian Antarctic Program
Do you have the text of Mr Elsaesser's talk to National Council of State Garden Clubs? I am sure it is riveting and full of lots of science.Hugh W. Ellsaesser - DeSmogTired now. Too exhausting to deal with this much propaganda, lies and disinformation this early.
Damn. Sucked in again.Who are Robinson, Clemitshaw and Apkarian? What are their credentials. What other papers have they written? How was this paper received by their peers?
Here is the modern science.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022: Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer

quote:

---

Natural sources of chlorine and bromine. There are a few halogen source gases present in the stratosphere that have large natural sources. These include methyl chloride (CH3Cl) and methyl bromide (CH3Br), both of which are emitted by oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very short-lived source gases (defined as compounds with atmospheric lifetimes typically less than 0.5 year) containing bromine such as bromoform (CHBr3) and dibromomethane (CH2Br2) are also released to the atmosphere, primarily from biological activity in the oceans. Only a fraction of the emissions of very short-lived source gases reaches the stratosphere because these gases are efficiently removed in the lower atmosphere. Volcanoes provide an episodic source of reactive halogen gases that sometimes reach the stratosphere in appreciable quantities.

​

Other natural sources of halogens include reactive chlorine and bromine produced by evaporation of ocean spray. However, these reactive chemicals play no role in stratospheric ozone depletion because they readily dissolve in water and are removed in the troposphere.

​

In 2020, natural sources contributed about 17% of total stratospheric chlorine and about 56% of total stratospheric bromine (see Figure Q6-1). The amount of chlorine and bromine entering the stratosphere from natural sources is known to be fairly constant over time and, therefore, cannot be the cause of the ozone depletion observed since the 1980s.

---

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

I appreciate being welcomed by the moderators and that they decided to copy this message to another area of the forum. There are many responses that could be given to the postings here; Certain objections have been raised, and maybe some of them deserve an answer.It is not possible to include information about specific people, all the objectives, or the specific things restricted all in one message on a forum. This is why they weren't included- not because they aren't real or known.
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.
The ozone hole theory, and certain related words are not directly mentioned in Green New Deal legislation, because legislative and regulatory papers are not generally the area in which the scientific theories behind their existence are mentioned. This is much the same with the U.S Constitution. God is not specifically mentioned in the U.S Constitution except in the Preamble, because its purpose is to outline/detail the form of government, not describe its origins.
The Green New Deal is not an original, standalone plan. It is simply the latest version of a long political continuum, which has much of its genesis in the late 1980's with the announcement of the ozone hole. 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 seems more likely that the reason you did not include links, was that those links would show that you were posting bullshit.But it doesn't matter. The regular participants on this forum can already tell that your post is nonsense. More bullshit.Yes, it was not actually a hole. This was well known and well described at the time. Why are you even bringing this up. You seem to be trying to make it out that this was a deception. There was no deception. This is more bullshit.The Green New Deal was about global warming. It was not about the Ozone hole. Maybe you should try going back to 1962, when Rachel Carson wrote her book "Silent Spring". By contrast, the ozone hole was a mere blip.

So, you are not going to defend your OP, just repeat the lies and bullshit. Good to know.
Good day, Sir.

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)

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.

It is interesting that CFC's were mentioned. The ban on CFC's meant, for example, the ban of halons. There is no comparable replacement to Halon 1301 in its use in extinguishing fires, large and small. Prior to 1990, it was used on more than 20,000 Army combat vehicles, including the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank and the M2/3 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicle. It was used in both the military and fire departments alike, because it extinguishes fires in nearly a quarter of a second and does no harm to crewmen, does not short out electronic equipment, and does not corrode machinery. In 1969, the Army accepted halon over conventional fire extinguishers such as automatic sprinklers, carbon dioxide, dry chemicals or foam, and its success prompted NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration to use halons to stave off fires in the space shuttle and commercial aircraft. The use of CFC's can spell the difference between a small problem and a complete disaster, including the fire in Maui, Hawaii, and many lives which could have otherwise been saved during the 9/11 terrorist attack. The 'alternatives' used in its place are both inferior and often a hazard to health. The problem of finding alternatives has not been solved, and it won't be until there is simply freedom to once again use CFC's.

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.

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

How exactly do you figure this? Can you explain why you assert or think this to be the case?

Fire departments cannot prevent a problem, but the freedom to use CFC's can prevent it from becoming larger than it otherwise would be. Much of the fire, and as a result, possibly even the collapse of the buildings themselves, could have been prevented, saving many lives.