What year do you estimate that the environmentalists changed from being worried about an Ice Age to global warming?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: irwincur
It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made. The flip occured in response to the 'hole' in the Ozone over Antartica. I remember this clearly because all of the liberal puke teachers I had back then shoved this crap down out throats. Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts. The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue. However, this does not seem to matter much to the pseudo-intellectuals on the left - after all, they know everything about everything...

Zendari, you are, um, amazingly ignorant! The data for 2005 is showing this year's hole to be one of the largest yet recorded. The only larger hole is the one between your ears.

Gee, a BIG hole

The EPA, the United Nations Environmental Programme, and the World Meteorological Organization all agree that the primary cause of the reduction in worldwide ozone levels is the introduction of man-made chloroflourocarbons and other "ozone depleting substances" (ODSs) into the atomosphere. As a result of the massive scientific consensus on this issue (which continues to this day), the Montreal Protocol was put into effect in 1987 to control the emisson of ODSs. The current scientific belief is that if strict controls of ODSs is successfully maintained, the world's ozone layer can be completely restored by 2050.

Of course, you will claim that if the ozone layer is restored by 2050 that proves the scientists were wrong about there being an "ozone hole" problem. God, you're, um, not very bright.

Edit: Edited to avoid banworthiness.

Do you have any links that states that the ozone hole in 2005 is the largest ever? I recall reading an article where UN-organized scientists claimed that it is now shrinking. They claimed that the depletion of the ozone layer peaked some years ago and is now shrinking due to global environmental pacts.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: shira

Do you have any links that states that the ozone hole in 2005 is the largest ever? I recall reading an article where UN-organized scientists claimed that it is now shrinking. They claimed that the depletion of the ozone layer peaked some years ago and is now shrinking due to global environmental pacts.

If you look at the data at the NASA link I provided, you'll see that the data for 2005 is pretty bad. From the data on the page, it looks like 2004 was the worst ever, with 2003 the best since 1989, and 2002 the second-worst ever.

But yes, the whole point of those environmental pacts (I mentioned the Montreal Protocols in my previous post) was to reverse the growth of the ozone hole. I hope what you stated is true - that the reduction has already begun. But the data bounces around quite a bit, so it isn't obvious to me. What's ridiculous is that when the right hears that "there's been an improvement", they conclude that there was never a problem in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is going to be a freaking disaster. Yup, when the CO2 glaciers come rolling we're all gonna burn.

 

[glenn1]

It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made.

Does this date seem about accurate? Thanks BTW to Sandorski for your thorough answer. Not entirely sure I'm completely convinced but thanks for giving the background.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

the moronic right wingers of course believe that nothing we are doing this planet has any affect on it whatsoever. let's just pollute the hell out of it, nothing bad will come of it. all this science nonsense is junk, scientists are nothing more than liberal morons.

 

[XZeroII]

Cause and effect. Are the two actually related? or are we witnessing what would happen naturally.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL QUESTION. Quit with ALL your crappy evidence because IT PROVES NOTHING. EVIDENCE != PROOF.

I can provide evidence that I am the tallest man alive. Does that mean that I really am the tallest man alive?

This applies to just about everyone who posted in this thread.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The two go hand-in-hand no?

Not if you are a stupid, short-sighted fool they don't.

 

[nageov3t]

isn't it possible that the "shift" was caused by new scientific discoveries and advances, not political propoganda?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

How'd you come to that conclusion? I've never seen compelling evidence suggesting the hole in the ozone layer was either temporary or part of a natural cycle.

Obviously there are politics at play in the debate over global climate change. However, I think it's reasonable to conclude the bias of generally liberal academics is less than the bias of petrochemical & other heavy industry corporations.

Most climatologists today are in fact 'waiting and seeing'. Climatology focusing on global climate patterns over geologic time scales is still a young science that draws on a relatively limited data set.

We simply don't know if we're causing global warming, or preventing another ice age (which while unnatural, is hard to construe as a bad thing considering that my home, as well as the homes of millions of people living in northern North America, northern Europe & northern Asia were covered by glaciers during the last major ice age).

What we do know, for a fact, is that human activity does affect global climate.

If you're interested in this topic, check out The Little Ice Age, by Brian Fagan. It's a great book; highly informative, well-written, easy to read, and aimed at the intelligent layperson.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Cause and effect. Are the two actually related? or are we witnessing what would happen naturally.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL QUESTION. Quit with ALL your crappy evidence because IT PROVES NOTHING. EVIDENCE != PROOF.

I can provide evidence that I am the tallest man alive. Does that mean that I really am the tallest man alive?

This applies to just about everyone who posted in this thread.

You can sniff at "evidence" all you want, but there's no competing model that comes close to predicting the observed changes in the levels of atmospheric ozone as well as the model that ascribes the observed changes to the introduction of ODSs by human activity.

So one has to wonder why you and other right-wing ideologs consistently oppose scientifically rigorous conclusions such as this one (mainstream, supported by all of the world's major meteorological organizations) and instead choose to believe vague, non-scientific explanations.