Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred
I remember all the brouhaha from the 1987 "hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica" scare. The alarmists then were telling us that CFCs were dissolving ozone and that the rate of skin cancer would rise sharply in the near future.
Guess what? Not only did the rate of skin cancer not rise, but that hole in the layer repaired itself, reopened--despite our ban on CFCs, and then repaired itself again. So...clearly the scientists were wrong--
|
You got this one all wrong, and it's a bad comparison for you to try to latch onto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
First off, there were not 2 holes -- but rather a thinning and reoccurring holes. Both are related to ozone depleting chemicals, but both also have other factors that affect them as well, down to and including wind.
The differing events were in part related to CFCs and HCFCs and those chemicals would have destroyed the ozone eventually. Luckily, the USA had some prime-for-marked propellants ready to replace CFCs and HCFCs, so we had the $$$ incentive to lead a global charge on the topic. We were as selfish then in our push for change as we are now in our fight against it, but that time we just happened to have our economics line up on the side of doing what's right for the environment. The Montreal Protocol is one of the most easily verifiable successful environmental programs on the international level.
But if you come around here proclaiming to be a man of science or math and don't understand the chemistry of how one Cl molecule can interact with stratospheric ozone (in effect bouncing around up to 16 times losing valence electrons to destroy 16 molecules of O3, making them drop from the stratosphere), then you don't have much credibility.
More chin music. Lots of that these days. It must be about scoring points. Quick, where's JD with a baseball reference?