Enviro-Mental Cases , Globaloney Sandwich , Science - Bogus
Hatched by Dafydd

But now it turns out, with an irony thick enough to spread on a
muffin, that the wonderful chemicals we've shifted to using, in order
to allow the "ozone holes" to "heal," are themselves very powerful
greenhouse gases... and they're significantly contributing to
supposedly human-induced global warming:

Has anyone done any research on polar bears blinded by ozone
depletion?

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/08/the_frozone_lay.html

Beginning 28 years ago (starting with Sweden in 1978), the hysterical
fear-mongering du jour were a pair of rapidly expanding "holes" in the
ozone layer high above the Earth, one above each pole in the
stratosphere (10 km to 50 km altitude, or 33,000 feet to 164,000
feet). The ozone holes -- actually, areas of somewhat decreased ozone
concentrations, not the absence of ozone -- would let in too much
ultraviolate radiation (UVR), which would lead to skin cancer, genetic
damage, and the destruction of life on this planet.

The added radiation bleaches their fur white and allows them to
survive....

My favorite irony is that the chemicals in the space shuttle boosters
reportedly do more ozone layer damage than a bazzillion cans of
deodorant.

But there are many methods of producing energy that do not require
burning anything... the most effective of which, in the short-to-
medium term (0 to 50 years), are hydroelectric generators and nuclear
power plants. Since the former are limited by the number of rivers

Has anyone done any research on polar bears blinded by ozone
depletion?

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/08/the_frozone_lay.html

August 21, 2006
The Glozone Layer

Enviro-Mental Cases , Globaloney Sandwich , Science - Bogus
Hatched by Dafydd

Beginning 28 years ago (starting with Sweden in 1978), the hysterical
fear-mongering du jour were a pair of rapidly expanding "holes" in the
ozone layer high above the Earth, one above each pole in the
stratosphere (10 km to 50 km altitude, or 33,000 feet to 164,000
feet). The ozone holes -- actually, areas of somewhat decreased ozone
concentrations, not the absence of ozone -- would let in too much
ultraviolate radiation (UVR), which would lead to skin cancer, genetic
damage, and the destruction of life on this planet.

The primary culprit for ozone depletion (this is actually correct) was
found to be manmade refrigerants, propellants, cleaners, and fire
extinguishers, nearly all based upon chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
bromofluorocarbons (BFCs). In an orgy of enviro-mental disorder,
virtually every civilized and semi-civilized nation on the planet
rushed to eliminate CFCs, substituting hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) for the dreaded CFCs.

But now it turns out, with an irony thick enough to spread on a
muffin, that the wonderful chemicals we've shifted to using, in order
to allow the "ozone holes" to "heal," are themselves very powerful
greenhouse gases... and they're significantly contributing to
supposedly human-induced global warming:

The chemicals that replaced CFCs are better for the ozone layer, but
do little to help global warming. These chemicals, too, act as a
reflective layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse.

That effect is at odds with the intent of a second treaty, drawn up in
Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 by the same countries behind the Montreal pact.
In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the
Montreal agreement's phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the
amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is
supposed to eliminate.

The international association of the perpetually aggrieved now laments
the fact that nobody appears to own the earth's atmosphere... hence,
there is nobody to be sued:

"But now the question is, who's going to ensure that the replacements
are not going to cause global warming?" said Alexander von Bismarck,
campaigns director for the Environmental Investigation Agency, a
nonprofit watchdog group in London and Washington. "It's shocking that
so far nobody's taking responsibility."

"A massive opportunity to help stave off climate change is currently
being cast aside," he said.

Environmentalists now demand that those countries that spent
themselves into recessions replacing CFCs with HCFCs and HFCs do it
all over again, this time substituting for the substitutes:

The U.N. report says the atmosphere could be spared the equivalent of
1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions if countries used ammonia,
hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide or other ozone-friendly chemicals, rather
than HCFCs and HFCs, in foams and refrigerants. Such alternatives are
more common in Europe.
And of course, most of the international enviromentalist organizations
are -- European! What a lucky break for countries of that continent.

Of course, the only other problem (besides prohibitive cost) is that
the alternatives don't work very well, if at all. But that's a small
price to pay for the priviliege of being on the cutting edge of
chemical conscientiousness.

What has always struck me as hilarious is that the folks who are most
exercised about global warming nevertheless recoil from the single
most effective method of redusing carbon and carbonoid emissions: a
massive program to replace all oil- and coal-based powerplants with
clean, modern, and safe nuclear fission reactors, using new
technologies. As Big Lizards discussed back in December:

But there are many methods of producing energy that do not require
burning anything... the most effective of which, in the short-to-
medium term (0 to 50 years), are hydroelectric generators and nuclear
power plants. Since the former are limited by the number of rivers
you're willing to dam (which causes rather significant environmental
change, to say the least!), we should probably concentrate on the
latter. Recent radically improved technologies for nuclear fission,
including Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (gas-cooled) and Integral Fast
Reactors (liquid-metal cooled), already exist in prototype but lack
either funding or a favorable political climate for wide-scale
development.
That last void is courtesy the environmentalist movement, which
demands we solve a problem while nixing all possible solutions.

But hey, what do I know? I gloriously wasted my youth studying real
mathematics and logic.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, August 21, 2006, at the time of 4:49 AM

"Benj" <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote.

My favorite irony is that the chemicals in the space shuttle boosters
reportedly do more ozone layer damage than a bazzillion cans of
deodorant.

 How many Quatlooz in a Bazillion?  Shit Sack.

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/08/the_frozone_lay.html

But now it turns out, with an irony thick enough to spread on a
muffin, that the wonderful chemicals we've shifted to using, in order
to allow the "ozone holes" to "heal," are themselves very powerful
greenhouse gases... and they're significantly contributing to
supposedly human-induced global warming:

"Benj" <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote.
My favorite irony is that the chemicals in the space shuttle boosters
reportedly do more ozone layer damage than a bazzillion cans of
deodorant.

How many Quatlooz in a Bazillion? Shit Sack.

Oh look. Scotty finally changed his sig from "mmmmooorrrrroooon"
to "Shit Sack."