Widescale Global Cooling

[steve.foote]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

 

Thank you.

 

Why are you thanking me? You're playing a leading role.

 

Nice try, not my taste. Try worms next time.

[ghaverkamp]

In order for anyone to meet you in the middle, you have to also be willing to move to the middle.

 

I've got a large range of movement. It's much easier for me to move; I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand.

[steve.foote]

In order for anyone to meet you in the middle, you have to also be willing to move to the middle.

 

I've got a large range of movement. It's much easier for me to move; I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand.

 

I knew that sarcastic side of you was in there somewhere.

[steve.foote]

Here's one for you, Greg. Who wrote this?

 

Without substantial investment flows and effective technology transfer, it may be difficult to achieve emission reduction at a significant scale. Mobilizing financing of incremental costs of low-carbon technologies is important.

[steveknapp]

Good, after a half dozen pages of diagnosing the problem, what is the solution? How can those sides come together to everyone's satisfaction?

Well first we probably have to agree that there's a problem to be addressed. Are we there yet?

 

I can't speak for all, but I'm in agreement that EVERYTHING we do has an impact on the planet. Short of drinking some koolaid and waiting for the space ship to take us away, we're going to change things.

 

Even the "leave only footprints take only memories" hikers leave footprints and take oxygen.

 

Build nuke plants? There's an impact.

Windfarms? Impact.

Tidal energy? There are those who point out the negative impact of the TVA-type dams already.

 

EVERYTHING we do has a downside.

 

Now there is already a thread of if things are getting better or worse. So that's not the point here.

 

Where I'm curious is how doomed we really are, and how much we need to prepare now for 100yr from now. I think we've been pretty adaptive as a species. So I'm not convinced we're digging our graves right now. Things are changing. Things always change.

 

Having said that, I've got no problems with making the best decisions we can right now.

 

So what are those decisions? And why aren't the existing decision making factors pushing us towards those "right" decisions.

 

I think things have a way of steering themselves. Those who try to control it are a natural part of that... We'll figure this out. Or we'll all die trying.

[ghaverkamp]

Without substantial investment flows and effective technology transfer, it may be difficult to achieve emission reduction at a significant scale. Mobilizing financing of incremental costs of low-carbon technologies is important.

 

Roger Gifford. So? You don't believe he has enough information to make any meaningful analysis, anyway.

[tallman]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

IDCWYATRTIF

 

At least Bill Murray was able to,

 

 

oh never mind.

[steve.foote]

Roger Gifford. So? You don't believe he has enough information to make any meaningful analysis, anyway.

 

He probably had a hand in it, but it actually came from the IPCC AR4. And, no, I don't.

[DavidEBSmith]

Your first mistake is believing there's a "debate" over global warming. There's just two sides trying to convince themselves by endlessly cutting-and-pasting talking points created by wealthy special interests. Nobody cares about the science. It's about propagandizing. It's ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and playing the victim. (Note to both sides - even if the other side is trying to repress your speech, that by itself doesn't prove you're right).

 

There's one group that very badly wants us to keep doing what we're doing, namely burning up fossil fuels, and they need people to have no worries to get them to do that. There's another group that very badly wants to force everyone to live a virtuous life, as they define it, and they need people to be terrified of something to get them to do that. Somewhere there's some little fraction of rational, open-minded people who aren't sure if we're all screwed, we're all fine, or if we're somewhere in between, but do know we need to figure it out. Nobody listens to them.

[SeanC]

And how does that financially benefit the scientists who are supposed to be faking their scientific conclusions for the sake of money?

Objection!

 

There are a couple of things wrong with the phrasing of your question. First, there are no "conclusions" per se, which would imply a state in which all or a significant portion of the research and body of knowledge is complete with regard to the theory of man-made global warming. There are plenty of opinions, but no established conclusions, which means your choice of the word "faking" is too harsh. It implies a sort of scientific fraud, knowingly foisting misleading or bogus information on one's peers or the public at large. In order for a scientist to do that, he would have to know his theories and data are bogus, but continue promoting them as if they weren't. If he genuinely believes them, he's not faking. (And belief in this sense is an apt word because based on what is known, we're discussing matters of faith more than science.)

 

So when we rephrase your question and strip it of leading statements, it becomes, "How do scientists financially benefit from this?" Well, the same way they do in other sciences. More public interest means more public money. There's gold in them thar hills (and when you say that in Latin, it sounds a lot more erudite).

 

It's the scientists who are being called money-grubbing liars here.

When dealing with an issue so infused with faith, political agenda and public interest, how is the term "liar" (or "incoherent debunker" for that matter) any different than "believer"? And "money-grubbing" is just a noisy term for pursuing matters in one's self-interest, right?

[ghaverkamp]

First, there are no "conclusions" per se, which would imply a state in which all or a significant portion of the research and body of knowledge is complete with regard to the theory of man-made global warming.

 

That is not what a scientific conclusion is at all. I suggest you revisit the scientific method.

 

And I would quibble with the "man-made global warming" characterization, which is not the principal argument, even if it is used as a rhetorical tool by the doubters. Few, if any, deny that there is a natural process of global warming. The issue here is whether human activities have accelerated or strengthened this warming.

 

There are plenty of opinions, but no established conclusions, which means your choice of the word "faking" is too harsh. It implies a sort of scientific fraud, knowingly foisting misleading or bogus information on one's peers or the public at large.

 

Based on your erroneous definition of "conclusion," you continue down the same thread. Read the IPCC report. There are many conclusions. One conclusion is that the rise of CO2, in particular, is contributing to warming. Another conclusion is that CO2 has a greater effect than water vapor. Yet another is that the rise in CO2 levels is not a natural phenomenon. There are plenty of others.

 

However, whether we call them conclusions or "opinions", scientists are publishing them. Based on the claims in links from this thread and the bashing of the scientists that takes place here, based on the vast scientific expertise of the DB's readership, the scientists must be faking their results.

 

In order for a scientist to do that, he would have to know his theories and data are bogus, but continue promoting them as if they weren't. If he genuinely believes them, he's not faking. (And belief in this sense is an apt word because based on what is known, we're discussing matters of faith more than science.)

 

Science is not based on faith, however. Science is based on observation. Faith, by its nature, is not. Trying to conflate the two is used only to further claim that the scientists who are working in this field are producing junk, in one form or another trying to foist their divinely gifted numbers onto an unsuspecting world.

 

So when we rephrase your question and strip it of leading statements, it becomes, "How do scientists financially benefit from this?" Well, the same way they do in other sciences. More public interest means more public money. There's gold in them thar hills (and when you say that in Latin, it sounds a lot more erudite).

 

The rephrased question may be a perfectly legitimate one to ask, but it's not the question that leads from your "follow the money" position. More money for science means more money for science, not more money in scientists' pockets. It may mean that there is more work for scientists, but if more scientists working in a field only dilutes the pot of money. It's a weak argument.

 

When dealing with an issue so infused with faith, political agenda and public interest, how is the term "liar" (or "incoherent debunker" for that matter) any different than "believer"? And "money-grubbing" is just a noisy term for pursuing matters in one's self-interest, right?

 

Did you read the quotes? Did you try to find English in the language of the creator of the Weather Channel (who didn't invent much, so far as I can tell, but Teletubbies for the elderly.)

 

It's the faithful, not the scientific, who are accusing the scientists. I chose to characterize the words in the way that seems most suitable. I'm still comfortable with them the way they are.

[SeanC]

The 'follow the money' argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. All scientific grant and carbon credit monies combined wouldn't amount to a small fraction of the profits being made by the purveyors of fossil fuel.

The whole idea of carbon credits is to regulate and control the fossil fuel industry, in effect restructuring the economy by limiting the influence and role of said purveyors within it. So, um, what's going to fill the gaps? New industries, right? Or governments, perhaps? And yet the 'follow the money' argument makes no logical sense to you whatsoever?

 

If 'the money' is of any influence at all it certainly isn't on the side of global warming theorists.

But without them, on what basis would we justify such a large-scale restructuring of the global economy? You can't just come out and say, "Your profits are too high, so we're going to limit them and shift the accompanying power and influence to governments, international bodies and a few select, new industries of our choosing." No, any action that profound would require a big reason. A really big, scary reason. I can think of a few....

[ghaverkamp]

But without them, on what basis would we justify such a large-scale restructuring of the global economy? You can't just come out and say, "Your profits are too high, so we're going to limit them and shift the accompanying power and influence to governments, international bodies and a few select, new industries of our choosing." No, any action that profound would require a big reason. A really big, scary reason. I can think of a few....

 

Why do you believe anything will shift to any new industry? It's still going to be about energy, and distribution is still going to be needed. There's no requirement for a large-scale restructuring. (As if the other issues with non-renewable fuels aren't going to introduce their own restructuring, anyway...)

[KingBiscuit]

I did not read all the posts related to this topic so I'll apologize up front if I'm repeating something someone has already posted. In my mind, this is a pretty simple thing to figure out. Ask these questions:

1. What was the last geological age? (ICE?)

2. Why did the ICE age end? (Global warming?)

3. Were humans around to cause this global warming? (Dont tink so)

 

Based on these simple questions and answers, I believe the earth is getting warmer, I just don't think humans are causing it.

 

For what that's worth,

Dan

[ghaverkamp]

I did not read all the posts related to this topic so I'll apologize up front if I'm repeating something someone has already posted.

 

...

 

Based on these simple questions and answers, I believe the earth is getting warmer, I just don't think humans are causing it.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

[SeanC]

Well that's why I used the term "per se," Greg. There is no basis for using the word "conclusion" as if it were, you know, the latest and most reliable information on the subject. Some have drawn the conclusion there is a link, others there may be a link, while others have concluded the very phenomenon about which others have drawn conclusions isn't even what it appears to be. And a whole lot of others have concluded we better be safe than sorry and so tentatively go along with the conclusions of the doom sayers.

 

And I would quibble with the "man-made global warming" characterization, which is not the principal argument,

Quibble away. It is, however, the principal argument. You know that as well as I. This isn't merely a scientific examination of global climate change and man's role in it. This is about changing what man does by convincing him that what he has done to date is very, very bad, and further, that where he is headed, left unchecked, is even worse. The science is almost an afterthought in this regard. It's the perception of what's scientific that counts.

 

However, whether we call them conclusions or "opinions", scientists are publishing them. Based on the claims in links from this thread and the bashing of the scientists that takes place here, based on the vast scientific expertise of the DB's readership, the scientists must be faking their results.

Well that's your opinion, counselor, not mine. I think that for the most part, scientists are doing science. I don't think many are faking it or perpetrating fraud on the public. There are advocacy groups, special interests and celebrities much better at such things.

 

Science is not based on faith, however. Science is based on observation. Faith, by its nature, is not.

Precisely. And the sole judge of any scientific idea is experiment. Not consensus. Not number of published opinions, celebrity endorsements or Today Show appearances. Not even computer modeling or simulations.

 

The rephrased question may be a perfectly legitimate one to ask, but it's not the question that leads from your "follow the money" position. More money for science means more money for science, not more money in scientists' pockets. It may mean that there is more work for scientists, but if more scientists working in a field only dilutes the pot of money. It's a weak argument.

You missed my point (and I'll assume responsibility for that). See, by "follow the money" I was referring to Carbon Credits (which I believe I also mentioned...), NOT lab coats, grant writers or climate-modeling software programmers. I thought my sarcasm in that regard was sufficient, and I apologize that it wasn't. Yes, science (and scientists) benefit from all this (and if they didn't, they wouldn't be involved in it to begin with), but to the believers and proponents, they're really just tools. Means to an end.

[steve.foote]

There's no requirement for a large-scale restructuring.

 

You sure about that statement? You might want to go back and reread section 4 (Adaptation and mitigation options} of the summary. Pay special attention to Tables SPM.4 and SPM.5.

 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers

[steve.foote]

I did not read all the posts related to this topic so I'll apologize up front if I'm repeating something someone has already posted. In my mind, this is a pretty simple thing to figure out. Ask these questions:

1. What was the last geological age? (ICE?)

2. Why did the ICE age end? (Global warming?)

3. Were humans around to cause this global warming? (Dont tink so)

 

Based on these simple questions and answers, I believe the earth is getting warmer, I just don't think humans are causing it.

 

For what that's worth,

Dan

 

Ignorance is Bliss.

 

Don't sweat it, Dan. You just happened to walk into a full-fledged food fight and spagetti was on the menu.

 

It'll wash out.

[ghaverkamp]

It is, however, the principal argument. You know that as well as I. This isn't merely a scientific examination of global climate change and man's role in it.

 

You can play make believe all you want. If you read the prevailing scientific reports, you will read otherwise. Does the IPCC credit human activity with aggravating the warming? Of course. However, the report also attributes warming to natural causes. This doesn't make the warming "man-made." It does mean that humans have vastly increased the warming.

 

To try to couch in terms of granola-eating criticism of human industrialization is disingenuous, at best.

 

And the sole judge of any scientific idea is experiment. Not consensus. Not number of published opinions, celebrity endorsements or Today Show appearances. Not even computer modeling or simulations.

 

And there is considerable scientific evidence and experiment to support the conclusions. However, the opposition has been taken on largely by non-scientists who see fit to question the scientific conclusions, to attribute dishonest motives to the scientists, and to craft grand conspiracy theories that suck in the majority of the relevant researchers, all of whom have apparently secretly banded together to assure the continuation of their "science" funding. (I can practically hear the hands rubbing together around me.)

[SeanC]

Why do you believe anything will shift to any new industry? It's still going to be about energy, and distribution is still going to be needed. There's no requirement for a large-scale restructuring. (As if the other issues with non-renewable fuels aren't going to introduce their own restructuring, anyway...)

You're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. I'm a free enterprise kinda guy. I don't believe that any economic interference or re-alignment is necessary. I think as fossil fuel resources decline and demand for energy increases (as both are), the market is perfectly capable of adapting. But this is not what carbon offsets are about. Carbon credits are an external, artificial means of changing behavior and consumption patterns on a large scale.

[ghaverkamp]

But this is not what carbon offsets are about. Carbon credits are an external, artificial means of changing behavior and consumption patterns on a large scale.

 

Carbon offsets aren't relevant to the discussion for any purpose but to feed your grand conspiracy beliefs.

 

On the plus side, with the climate warming (unless you also dispute that science, regardless of the cause) tinfoil should do well reflecting heat.

[ghaverkamp]

You sure about that statement? You might want to go back and reread section 4 (Adaptation and mitigation options} of the summary. Pay special attention to Tables SPM.4 and SPM.5.

 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers

 

You're going to have to explain how any of those changes involve "large-scale restructuring of the global economy." Looks to me like they haven't called for the deletion of any components of the global economy.

[steve.foote]

Let's talk about this little nugget (Section 4, paragraph 3).

 

Some planned adaptation to climate change is already occurring on a limited basis. Adaptation can reduce vulnerability especially when it is embedded within broader sectoral initiatives (Table SPM.4). There is high confidence that there are viable adaptation options that can be implemented in some sectors at low cost, and/or with high benefit-cost ratios. However, comprehensive estimates of global costs and benefits of adaptation are limited. {4.2, Table 4.1}

 

The bold sentance above is typical of the cover-your-bases phrasing which accompanies most of the findings in the document.

[ghaverkamp]

The bold sentance above is typical of the cover-your-bases phrasing which accompanies most of the findings in the document.

 

Again, not a restructuring of the global economy.

[Matts_12GS]

Carbon credits are an external, artificial means of appearing to change behavior and consumption patterns on a large scale.

 

Sean, if I may make this minor adjustment to your last post...

 

By the text of some of these posts today, it seems that someone got up on the wrong side of mom's basement. Wow!

[steve.foote]

You're going to have to explain how any of those changes involve "large-scale restructuring of the global economy." Looks to me like they haven't called for the deletion of any components of the global economy.

 

Ok, let me direct your attention to Table SPM.5. These tables are layed out in four columns, so we're going to follow the column 'Sector' down to row 'Transport'. Check out the 'Policies, measures and instruments shown to be environmentally effective' column, second sub-column:

 

Taxes on vehicle purchase, registration, use and motor fuels, road and parking pricing

 

Particulary telling is the corresponding column 'Key constraints or opportunities' which says:

 

Effectiveness may drop with higher incomes

 

Wassup wid dat?

[steve.foote]

The next sub-column, same 'Transport' column:

 

Influence mobility needs through land use regulations, and infrastructure planning; Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport

 

What kind of 'land use regulations' might they be thinking about?

 

And, their idea of an 'opportunity':

 

Particularly appropriate for countries that are building up their transportation systems

 

I thought telling other countries how to run their business was a bad idea. If they decided to "opted out," who would inforce the policy?

[ghaverkamp]

By the text of some of these posts today, it seems that someone got up on the wrong side of mom's basement. Wow!

 

As usual, you're always ready to contribute thoughtful commentary.

[ghaverkamp]

I thought telling other countries how to run their business was a bad idea. If they decided to "opted out," who would inforce the policy?

 

So, countries building their transportation infrastructure are encouraged to used more energy efficient means. Where's the harm in that?

 

Perhaps your aversion to these recommendations comes from confusing it with policy. This report doesn't contain policy. It may contain recommendations for policy, but that is up to individual nations to put in place and to enforce. If they choose to opt-out, they choose to opt-out.

 

Might there be repercussions? Well, I imagine there might. Many developing nations may not be able to acquire low-interest financing or even funding for infrastructure projects if they opt-out. The nations doling out the money have long made value judgments about how their dollars will be put to use.

[steve.foote]

How about their ideas regarding agriculture?

 

Adaption option/Strategy: Adjustment of planting dates and crop variety; crop relocation; improved land management, e.g. erosion control and soil protection through tree planting.

 

Underlying policy framework: R&D policies; institutional reform; land tenure and land reform; training; capacity building; crop insurance; financial incentives, e.g. subsidies and tax credits.

 

Key constraints and opportunities to implementation: Technological & financial constraints; access to new varieties; markets; longer growing season in higher

latitudes; revenues from ‘new’ products.

 

Wow, I thought our farmers were already micromanaged enough. I guess not.

[ghaverkamp]

Wow, I thought our farmers were already micromanaged enough. I guess not.

 

Our farmers are micromanaged if they choose to take government subsidies or try to grow some moronically banned crop like industrial hemp. No farmer is required to take subsidies.

[Dave McReynolds]

You know what this whole thing reminds me of? It reminds me of the Jews in Germany in the 1930's, arguing about Hitler. "What can he do that he hasn't already done?"

 

Some of the Jews LEFT Germany, based on incomplete information, but not liking the way things were headed. Some STAYED, thinking things would eventually return to the way they were.

 

Unfortunately, there is no other place for us to GO!

[steve.foote]

So, countries building their transportation infrastructure are encouraged to used more energy efficient means. Where's the harm in that?

 

I didn't see the word 'encouraged' anywhere in the text.

 

Perhaps your aversion to these recommendations comes from confusing it with policy. This report doesn't contain policy. It may contain recommendations for policy, but that is up to individual nations to put in place and to enforce. If they choose to opt-out, they choose to opt-out.

 

Good, than you agree that it was alright for the US to opt out of Koyoto, and any further schenanigans from the global warming enthusiasts. That makes me feel a lot better.

 

Looks like my work here is done.

[steve.foote]

You know what this whole thing reminds me of? It reminds me of the Jews in Germany in the 1930's, arguing about Hitler. "What can he do that he hasn't already done?"

 

Some of the Jews LEFT Germany, based on incomplete information, but not liking the way things were headed. Some STAYED, thinking things would eventually return to the way they were.

 

Unfortunately, there is no other place for us to GO!

 

Dave, another analogy might be Jonestown, Guyana. They went on incomplete information and...

 

...well, you know the rest of the story.

[SeanC]

Continue quibbling, Greg. The degree to which the term "man-made global warming" is vastly (or any) different from the phrase "man has vastly increased the warming" matters not; the distinction is vastly quibbleish. The cart in front of the horse conclusion remains the same: man's vast contribution requires vast action.

 

And if one rejects any part of that, he is not being merely skeptical, he is rejecting Science (and probably being disingenuous to boot, if not downright incoherent and conspiratorial). I mean, the conclusions have already been published, right? It's all there in black and white, in the most scientific terminology possible: Vast (and its weaker, adverbial cousin, Vastly).

[ghaverkamp]

I didn't see the word 'encouraged' anywhere in the text.

 

Why would it need to be? How else does a non-governmental report do anything but encourage?

 

Good, than you agree that it was alright for the US to opt out of Koyoto, and any further schenanigans from the global warming enthusiasts. That makes me feel a lot better.

 

I think if we want to follow the lead of and join the stupid, the ignorant, the irresponsible, and the malicious, then by all means, we should ignore the issue.

[ghaverkamp]

And if one rejects any part of that, he is not being merely skeptical, he is rejecting Science (and probably being disingenuous to boot, if not downright incoherent and conspiratorial). I mean, the conclusions have already been published, right? It's all there in black and white, in the most scientific terminology possible: Vast (and its weaker, adverbial cousin, Vastly).

 

Science is based on skepticism. However, rejecting all of the existing science out-of-hand without any scientific basis (but only conspiratorial notions) to serve what appears to be only a philosophical end is what's disingenuous.

[ghaverkamp]

Dave, another analogy might be Jonestown, Guyana. They went on incomplete information and...

 

...well, you know the rest of the story.

 

No. They went on faith. Faith that things would be better for them if they ran away from their problems.

[Twisties]

Carbon caps and trading are a means of accounting for one aspect of the total cradle to grave costs which are currently artificially excluded from our cost structure.

 

Sean, if I may make this minor adjustment to your last post...

 

By the text of some of these posts today, it seems that someone got up on the wrong side of mom's basement. Wow!

 

Since we're fixing text, which is so much fun!!!! And since this is about economic policy, not GW (which I won't comment on here).... the above is how I would write it.

 

Jan

[SeanC]

But this is not what carbon offsets are about. Carbon credits are an external, artificial means of changing behavior and consumption patterns on a large scale.

 

Carbon offsets aren't relevant to the discussion for any purpose but to feed your grand conspiracy beliefs.

 

On the plus side, with the climate warming (unless you also dispute that science, regardless of the cause) tinfoil should do well reflecting heat.

Greg, The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie, not a documentary, okay?

 

And for the sake of accuracy, I'm not disputing any science. To put it in issue-appropriate terms, I'm agnostic with regard to global warming (or maybe even a Unitarian), but an atheist regarding the belief in man's vast contribution to it.

[steve.foote]

I think if we want to follow the lead of and join the stupid, the ignorant, the irresponsible, and the malicious, then by all means, we should ignore the issue.

 

Greg, debating is a lot like poker. Everyone has a tell. When you are behind in the count, you start calling names. It's an easy tipoff.

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, debating is a lot like poker. Everyone has a tell. When you are behind in the count, you start calling names. It's an easy tipoff.

 

Oh, yes. Because I'm so overwhelmed by your science devoid, right-spun arguments.

 

I'd hope that you'd be able to distinguish categorization from name-calling. You (sort of) asked a question, and I categorized the group that I feel the United States would fall in if we simply ignore the issue. That wasn't name calling, and it certainly wasn't out of desperation.

 

That doesn't mean I wouldn't characterize many of the arguments I've read here in those terms. Some are downright stupid. Others seem ignorant. Many strike me as irresponsible. That's not name calling, however.

[Francois_Dumas]

Somewhere there's some little fraction of rational, open-minded people who aren't sure if we're all screwed, we're all fine, or if we're somewhere in between, but do know we need to figure it out. Nobody listens to them.

 

The posts (posters?) following yours just proved your point.....

[VinnyR11]

Since the topic of global warming has been such the buzz topic for some time now, I thought many of you may find this article of considerable interest and worthy of some dicussion.

 

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

 

LINK TO ARTICLE

 

This article has been circulating quite a bit. Whether or not you believe global warming is an issue, the statement "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" is incorrect and misleading. The arguments for and against global warming are based on trend analysis. A 12 month drop in world temperatures does NOT wipe out a century of warming. That's like saying "Cold July 15th wipes out a century of warm July 15th's." The math doesn't work that way.

 

In any case, I think the jury is still out. I think there are still far too many variables and we haven't reached enough computational power to make a definitive statement on global warming. No matter, the less "stuff" we add to our atmosphere the better.

[Quinn]

Anybody remember the hole in the ozone layer? All the big buzz about florocarbins (sp)? All the money on research? All the "sky is falling" news reports? Having to change aeorsol cans? Then it suddenly healed itself and no body knows why and nevermind.

[Twisties]

Anybody remember the hole in the ozone layer? All the big buzz about florocarbins (sp)? All the money on research? All the "sky is falling" news reports? Having to change aeorsol cans? Then it suddenly healed itself and no body knows why and nevermind.

 

Huhhh?????

 

Wikipedia - Ozone Depletion

[Francois_Dumas]

Then it suddenly healed itself and no body knows why and nevermind.

 

I don't think so ..... I believe it is more a matter of this particular issue having been milked all it could by the international press, it wasn't scary enough anymore and they moved on to more 'interesting' topics.

[steve.foote]

Anybody remember the hole in the ozone layer? All the big buzz about florocarbins (sp)? All the money on research? All the "sky is falling" news reports? Having to change aeorsol cans? Then it suddenly healed itself and no body knows why and nevermind.

 

Now, that is a fantastic example of where a large corporation (Dupont) played the environmental movement like a piano. Dupont's patent on R11 and R22 refrigerant was expiring. Then, amazingly, it needed to be banned and Dupont controlled the patents to the only acceptable replacement on the market.

 

Cooincidence?

[tallman]

This just in.

Global Warming to be cured by global restructuring of when lawyers are allowed to speak.

 

Not calling names, I'm far too ignorant, uninformed, stupid, irresponsible, and opinionated.

Just caterrrGOREizing, is all.

 

Malice I'll leave to others, I don't get paid for malicious acts.

[smiller]

Cooincidence?

Of course not, as we well know every environmental concern is based on a conspiracy.