Patterico's Pontifications

8/23/2006

BBC: Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

Filed under: General — Justin Levine @ 4:27 am



[posted by Justin Levine]

The headline is my own creation – but its a fair conclusion to be made based on this article.

The good news: We’re well on our way to fixing the hole in the ozone layer.

The bad news: In the process of doing so, we’ve apparently “contributed heavily to global warming”.

Key passage –

The NOAA said the improvement in the ozone layer was caused largely by the phasing out of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) from products such as aerosol sprays and refrigerators.

The production of these chemicals was restricted by the Montreal Protocol which became effective in 1987 – and is deemed a success.

However, the chemicals brought in to replace CFCs are themselves not benign, and are thought to contribute heavily to global warming.

This can be described as…How shall I say?…An Inconvenient Truth??

— Justin Levine

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Dafydd ab Hugh had more on this topic in this post. And, note to readers . . . when a post says:

[Posted by Justin Levine]

that means I didn’t write it.

30 Responses to “BBC: Environmentalists Cause Global Warming”

  1. Was there anyone who actually claimed there was a “hole” in the ozone layer? I do believe that was originally an MSM misrepresentation of the report of the scientists.

    seePea (e5dd40)

  2. So your point is… what? Because we humans are not omniscient, we should just give up? We should wait until a river catches on fire before we do anything about it?

    I think that giving up the CFCs was at least a step in the right direction, as the article seems to imply.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  3. Actually I was in Antarctica in the early 90’s and attended a lecture there by a professor who was researching the “Ozone Hole”. That is how he referred to it.

    As he explained it the hole was nothing to worry about because there was enough Ozone produced in other areas to naturally replenish a hole at the equato, say. The reason it wasn’t replaced in Antarctica was an environmental one, Catabaric (sp?) air currents prevented the ozone from repleshing the lost ozone in the hole.

    chad (582404)

  4. So your point is… what? Because we humans are not omniscient, we should just give up?

    No, the point is that we shouldn’t fall all over ourselves trying to enforce solutions we can’t comprehend the impact of on problems we don’t really understand. Environmental management shouldn’t be conducted in a panic.

    So, if you see Algore, tell him to put a cork in it. He’s PLAYING ON OUR FEARS!!!!

    Pablo (efa871)

  5. The ‘hole’ is not a hole. It is a region where the concentration or amount of ozone falls below a certain level. How was that level determined? It was rectally extracted.

    The first time we looked, we found this hole. There is no evidence to say the hole wasn’t there before. Lower concentrations of ozone at those locations seems inherently possible without man’s intervention. The earth’s spin which affects the height of the atmosphere and a lower concentration of sunlight may be two contributing factors for the lower ozone in those regions.

    And since the ‘level’ which is deemed to qualify as part of the hole is arbitrary with no historical database of what is normal, this has to have been one of the best scams from environmentalists ever. Especially with the third world contributing as much harm to the ozone today as we ever did.

    jpm100 (6dd049)

  6. Enviromentalists cuase global warming by always keeping the big fat pieholes flapping and that also mean AL GORE and his junk science film A INCONVENENT TRUTH so why dont HOOT AIR AL keep his piehole shut and put duct tape over it and that also gose for the idiots at GREENPAACE

    krazy kagu (f63577)

  7. …And if there was a hole, or even a global “thinning” of ozone, so what?

    …And if there is an increase in global warming, so what?

    …Should we worry about “the world we are leaving our children”? If we have children, we have already committed the greatest damage to the environment that it is possible to commit. If we do not have children, the question is …metaphysical.

    To determine ones actions upon consideration of events or consequences that are predicted to occur only after ones death is the quintessential quality of…religion.

    AliAbDab (73c1dc)

  8. be careful patterico, if you’re ever going to run for office, “environmentalists cause global warming” could come back to bite you, akin to reagan’s “trees are a major source of air pollution” except that you’re one or two notches south of rr on the charisma scale.
    in the eyes of the world, commenters 4, 5 and 6 represent the combination of ignorance and arrogance with which america has come to be associated.
    the word chad is looking for is “katabatic”. since his professor was unconcerned, i’m guessing the professor didn’t live in the southern regions of chile or australia, where the medical consequences of the ozone hole are manifested in higher skin cancer rates.
    psyberian at least has the right attitude. good on him.

    assistant devil's advocate (b52ae5)

  9. @aliabdab:
    you got it buddy, apres moi, le deluge! your post exemplifies neocon thinking in so many other areas, budget deficits came first to mind. please, please don’t reproduce, you have the selfishness gene all right, but you’re missing the critical thinking gene!

    assistant devil's advocate (b52ae5)

  10. Shortwave UV forms ozone, longwave UV destroys ozone. And what might the source of the uv that hits the upper atmosphere be? Why that would be the sun of course.

    Silly me to assume the sun causes the ozone hole, and destroys the ozone hole, causes global warming and other things, and trees are now a known source of green house of pollution, when we all have been told it is man who is doing it. If only we were that powerful.

    Want to know where the hurricanes have gone, look up, the sun has been quite as a mouse this season, and no one knows why :-)

    Of for the want of the simpler days, when Greenland was green, sigh.

    bill (26027c)

  11. in the eyes of the world, commenters 4, 5 and 6 represent the combination of ignorance and arrogance with which america has come to be associated.

    And in the eyes of people with brains your comments represent the ignorance and arrogance of a dying political movement.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  12. I’m an actual environmental chemist. First off, a few points.

    – Yes, there was an anthropogenically created ozone depletion over the polar vortex. This is not up for dispute. It was not noticed the first time measurements were done, or for several years afterward for that matter, due to remote data collection issues. This was linked to the free halogen radicals which short-circuted the ozone cycle. It was primarly situated over the polar regions due to the trapping effects of the polar vortex and the presence of high altitude clouds composed of frozen nitric acid.

    – The phasing out of CFC-11 and CFC-12 was a tremendous accomplishemt. The Montreal Protocol did what it was supposed to; halt the emission of the too stable compounds. It worked, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere have peaked and are expected to decline as they are removed from the atomsphere by natural processes.

    – CFC’s were greenhouse gases. Their replacements, CHFC’s are as well. This isn’t an issue of chemistry or politics, it’s an issue of engineering. We need to plug the leaky machines and impliment more coolant recovery projects.

    People, restricting CFC’s were a good thing.

    Techie (6cd00b)

  13. in the eyes of the world, commenters 4, 5 and 6 represent the combination of ignorance and arrogance with which america has come to be associated.

    I suppose we should thank the Lord that we have your humble wisdom delivered for free. But if America (which is spelled with a capital “A”) is so arrogant and ignorant, why are we so successful? And why didn’t we elect Algore?
    Maybe after sea level rises a few feet, we’ll reconsider. :)

    Pablo (efa871)

  14. Silly me to assume the sun causes the ozone hole, and destroys the ozone hole, causes global warming and other things, and trees are now a known source of green house of pollution, when we all have been told it is man who is doing it.

    Whatever you do, bill, don’t mention volcanoes. Unless you have a plan by which they can be fixed under UN auspices.

    Pablo (efa871)

  15. We must destroy the world to save it.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  16. be careful patterico, if you’re ever going to run for office, “environmentalists cause global warming” could come back to bite you, akin to reagan’s “trees are a major source of air pollution”… [followed by negative charisma comparison]

    One, Reagan never said that trees cause all acid rain, he said (correctly) that even trees release pollutants, which, yes do indeed make rain acidic.

    They’re still doing it to this day. As well as several other beneficial effects.

    Two, Reagan still managed to be one of the most successful presidents in this history of the most successful free nation on Earth.

    Patterico will make it.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5ab65d)

  17. The Ace — to be fair, comment #6 was fairly devoid of any meaningful content and could rightly be described as a combination of ignorance and arrogance.

    #4 and #5 were more reasonable. I quite agree with the statement that “environmental management shouldn’t be conducted in a panic”, although I don’t generally agree with the idea that the fact that we don’t understand the situation means there probably isn’t anything wrong, which is implied by #4.

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  18. I don’t generally agree with the idea that the fact that we don’t understand the situation means there probably isn’t anything wrong, which is implied by #4.

    No, it means that we shouldn’t jump into applying half baked solutions to problems we don’t fully understand, as they may or may not actually even be problems. You generally shouldn’t tinker with things without an understanding of how they work.

    Pablo (efa871)

  19. Sorry Pablo,

    Just proves what can happen when you type without all the facts. Leaving out volcanoes was just a typo :-).

    bill (26027c)

  20. The real quick solution for global warming put duct tape over the mouths of AL GORE and all the wackos from the various enviromentalists groups it would go along way in cutting down on all that HOT AIR

    krazy kagu (1f0194)

  21. be careful patterico, if you’re ever going to run for office, “environmentalists cause global warming” could come back to bite you, akin to reagan’s “trees are a major source of air pollution” except that you’re one or two notches south of rr on the charisma scale

    Justin Levine, who wrote this post, is very charismatic. I have no idea whether he has political aspirations.

    Patterico (88ee30)

  22. Assistant Devils Advocate typifies the disciples of Gaia, faced with a contradiction in their thought processes, they simply hurl insults at te messenger. Just who ARE you asking everyone else to make sacrifices for?

    AliAbDab (95af69)

  23. @aliabdab:
    does “the future of humanity” answer your question, or are you so selfish and greedy you don’t care? i’m guessing you don’t have kids, just stock in companies with an interest in maintaining the status quo.
    gaia is about to adjust your habitat. several meters rise in sea level probably won’t bother you if you live in encino instead of bangladesh or many pacific island nations threatened with submersion. your problem will be the supply of fresh water after global warming turns most of the snowfall in the sierras and rockies into rainfall, which will not supply you gradually over a summer as snow does. you’re also looking at bigger, badder fires and hotter temps necessitating more air conditioning/power consumption. up here on the oregon coast where i’ve lived since 2001, we’re preparing to tough out santa barbara-style weather.

    assistant devil's advocate (278e93)

  24. . The reason it wasnt replaced in Antarctica was an environmental one, Catabaric (sp?) air currents prevented the ozone from repleshing the lost ozone in the hole.

    Comment by chad 8/23/2006 @ 5:43 am

    That and the fact that UV CREATES Ozone and the thinning occurrs during Arctic and Antarctic WINTER when there is almost no Solar Radiation to do so.

    Should we worry about the world we are leaving our children? If we have children, we have already committed the greatest damage to the environment that it is possible to commit. If we do not have children, the question is metaphysical.

    To determine ones actions upon consideration of events or consequences that are predicted to occur only after ones death is the quintessential quality ofreligion.

    Comment by AliAbDab 8/23/2006 @ 7:04 am

    Environmentalists take one trend of a natural cycle that is balanced extrapolate that one part to infinity and predict disaster.

    Here you really want to know about Ozone?

    IF THEY JUST REPEAT IT OFTEN ENOUGH

    In a panel discussion I was on at a convention recently, the topic somehow got around to junk science that the public is being force-fed these days, with the ozone depletion scare cited as an example. A young man in the audience–highly articulate and obviously conversant with the details of the claims, as if that were enough to settle the issue–was astounded. “What’s there to question?” he wanted to know. “There isn’t any doubt left about it now.”

    “How so?” one of the other panelists asked.

    “They’re finding it up there.” He meant CFC molecules in the stratosphere–or signatures attributed to CFC molecules. (Back in the DDT scare days, the massive readings reported in the Antarctic turned out to be contaminants from tubing used in the sampling equipment.) Appealing gesture to the room. Incredulous shaking of the head.
    continued

    Dan Kauffman (3c9c17)

  25. , where the medical consequences of the ozone hole are manifested in higher skin cancer rates.
    psyberian at least has the right attitude. good on him.

    Comment by assistant devil’s advocate — 8/23/2006 @ 7:13 am

    That point has been brought out about Australia too, odd thing is the ABORIGINAL population does not show that phenonema. Just the European. Due to a change in LIFE STYLE? ie we sunbathe now where our ancestors did not. In any event.

    The figure for 200,000 excess cancer deaths that the EPA trumpeted in the early nineties was based on ignoring the reversal and extrapolating the 1975-1986 trend forward 40 years. Neat eh? By the same logic, the mean temperature trend of New York from January to July would show the city bursting into flames forty years from now.

    The whole doomsday case boiled down to saying that if something wasn’t done to curb CFCs, UV intensity would increase 10% in the next 20 years. So what? From poles to equator it increases naturally by 5,000% (factor of 50) anyway, and 25% from summer to winter. Moving home from New York to Philadelphia will get you the same increase in exposure as the worst-case depletion scenario.

    Dan Kauffman (3c9c17)

  26. Ass Dev Ad you run right into my logical objection: You rest your case upon “the future of humanity”. That is an abstraction. The only things of importance to human beings are others within their purview. Not generations unborn. If you are asking my friends and relatives to make sacrifices in the here and now in exchange for an abstraction of unborn future humanity, then you are in essence making RELIGIOUS demands, stipulating the pay off in an afterlife. If you have had children, those children will inevitably inflict more harm on the “environment” ( by your credo ) as consumers than I ever will in the remainder of my life if I do not have children. If you are to be the tiniest bit consistent, you must insist that Gaias worshippers cease procreating. In which case there will be no “future humanity”.

    All the threatened hazards you conjecture are just piss in a teacup compared to the privations that would be required to avert such occurrences. Large parts of Holland have been under sea level for over a century, and that hasnt stopped them thriving. The Pacific islands you talk about are still waiting to see the promised rise in water level and, if you think a handful of such poxy pimples in the middle of nowhere warrant gloobal hair-shirts your sense of proportion is completely out of whack. No environmental extremes on Earth have defeated human ingenuity, settlement and exploitation. Even Antarctica. But then, if its “future humanity” that concerns you, you fail to take into account myriad environmental hazards over which we have zero influence and yet which dwarf the prognostications of environmentalists. Not least the dead certainty that Sol itself will swell and extinguish all Earthly life in a few billion years.

    Im more concerned for those alive NOW, who need feeding, not some pepped up fat Yank with too much money and time on his hands who needs the “cause” of environmentalism to fill his vacant head and make himself feel superior to those around who actually get on with a life. If you want to trade insults baby, so can I: tosser!

    AliAbDab (11e79a)

  27. As I recall the lecture I was referring to earlier the UV rays were not a major factor in the equation because the angle of deflection basically negated them. I may be recalling wrong and I am not an environmental scientist, but I do remember the lecturer not being that concerned about the future extinction of mankind.

    chad (719bfa)

  28. Greenpace cases global warming every time they sail around in the garbage scow RAINBOW WARROIR II becuase despite those goofy sails it still uses FOSSEL FUELS

    krazy kagu (cf73c3)

  29. Interesting article from 2005:

    Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming'”

    Two of the world’s leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

    A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

    Gerald A (2728c7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3304 secs.