Via Andrew Stuttaford;
Might it be that it was Ronald Reagan and not Barack Obama who began to slow the rise of the seas? That is one conclusion that could be drawn from a new paper by Canadian physicist Qing-Bin Lu of Ontario’s University of Waterloo. Instead of carbon dioxide emissions, Mr. Lu argues that ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halocarbons caused global warming. Thanks to the Reagan administration and the 1987 Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been phased out by developed countries. After a lag, Mr. Lu argues that global temperatures peaked around 2002 and predicts they are set to gradually fall over the next five to seven decades.
This can’t possibly be true!
We can’t tax people for not using CFC’s.
Besides, Reagan wasn’t a propgressive lefty.
I rest my case…
progressive
darned sticky keyboards…
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Now what?
But, but, but..all those studies that PROVE that we industrial western whites are greedy corporate thugs! All those studies that PROVED that we industrial (whites, westerners) are destroying the planet from its former pristine, multicultural, peaceful, loving indigeneous era!
All those government funded studies..
All those government subsidized Solyndras that go bankrupt..
All those electric cars that only go for a few miles and require LOTS of electricity…
All that guilt we’ve taught in schools..
Gone, gone, gone. Oh dear. Oh, but wait, our Dear Leader Obama says that anyone that doesn’t accept climate change/AGW is an idiot. Oh dear.
So that’s great. Thanks Ron.
The funny thing is… like now, the rightwing fought tooth and nail against the concept of “holes in the ozone” layer and any regulation controlling CFCs.
Because that’s what the rightwing does. Spends huge amounts of money and effort fighting the inevitable march of progress. 3 million years ago, you guys probably fought against coming down from the trees.
“Lousy liberals what with their walking upright!!! Who do they think they are?! Pinkos! It will be the end of us.”
Interesting idea but needs more study. I think that the tendency to gravitate towards theories that put humans at the centre of climate change are probably wrong. Contributing to? Yes but too many natural cycles remain poorly understood and not all of the variables have been accounted for.
Regardless, sending more money to politicians to fund grand schemes has done absolutely nothing but make people poorer and decrease their standard of living. Again this is a real world fact, not theory and models.
As an aside I thought new research has been discovering that the ozone layer changes might actually be cyclical and CFCs may not have been the sole culprit but I haven’t been following the research very closely.
Well as a firm believer in global warming(or climate change) via CO2, I hope the paper is correct in it’s conclusions. I will gladly eat my hat. However at this point in time, I think Qing Bin is wrong. Sounds too good to be true. You all choose to hop on the conclusions of just one guy while multitudes of scientists say otherwise.
John, our species did not originate in the trees. Evolution isn’t that simplistic and linear.
There is no evidence that climate change, which IS a reality and has been since the existence of this planet, is connected to the human species alone. Nor to the industrial mode. Climate change is far bigger than one variable. You may think that mankind is all-powerful but alas, that is not the case.
There IS evidence that pollution by humans is harmful to the environment, ie, dumping chemicals, etc. But pollution is not the same as climate change.
I doubt.
The Ozone hole fiasco is just another blot on the history of science and policy making.
We now have 30 years of actual data, CFC’s have apparently dropped but the hole in polar ozone has ?
Best correlation, given actual data, is between polar temperatures and zone depletion.
Um, John? Reagan and Mulroney signed the MP. Reagan at least was a ‘righty’. Think before you type.
LC Bennett
those studies of which you speak ain’t all that new
Canuckguy
your failing appears to be in understanding scope (or degree)
That could be. I’ve seen the odd mention now and then but little follow up. If the new argument for decarbonization and carbon pricing is going to be based on the success of CFC/ozone then it might be worth checking into.
Ah yes…the Gipper as an environmentalist:
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” — Ronald Reagan, 1981