You seem to forget it was not the production of FREON that was the issue but the use of it. Hillbillies with their 'suicide' hoses pouring the cheap stuff into leaky systems. Air Conditioning techs releasing the Freon into the air, instead of recovering it. That's fine to pass laws restricting the irresponsible use of it but outright lying to the public about the cause of the 'ozone hole' in the arctic circle is not the way to do it AND THAT IS WHAT THEY DID! The ozone hole is still there, as always- in the WINTER! When there's NO SUN to produce ozone. But, when summer arrives, the ozone hole closes up. Hmmm.
Yes, irresponsible use is part of that but not all. Leakage from AC units around the world, not just cars was much more of a consideration. And the problem is with breakdown, not freon in its commercial state. There was no lying. Sorry.
You left off the 'man made' part.
I don't know what this one means
You and other proponents assertion that this is a man made crisis by drawing parallels to the increasing use of carbon fuels is, at best, anecdotal. Less than 70 years of climate and weather trends is no where near enough data to determine what is really going on. BUT, there seems to be plenty of ignored data that suggests that increased activity on the SUN is the real problem. But, you never hear anyone talk about that. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to suggest that man isn't responsible for this. Rather, it makes liberals feel more comfortable believing that man is responsible and man can be controlled, so, therefore, that means the problem can be controlled.
there is much more than 70 years of data. READ the research, don't just guess what it says.
IT IS ARROGANT. For someone to believe that man can be so destructive. You are giving man way too much credit. We are little peons in a world much more mysterious than we'll admit. Man likes to believe he's in control of a helluva lot more than he actually is. Today's modern science is filled with these same kinds of arrogant people. They need to be knocked down a notch or two.
In October 1962, man came within hours of destruction of the planet. To say we are not capable of that is asinine. To not believe all the things man does, both good and bad are capable of altering this planet is to live a very naive life. We do it every day and we prove it every day. We are the only species who is capable of this and the only species who seems unwilling to accept that we have that power. Is it an omnipotent power, NO. It is an insidious forward linking power of multiple events, decisions and designs. Most are fully benign in their motive. It is their cumulative effect that inflicts the damage. It is death by 1000 cuts.
Trees: Have you noted that 'Old Growth' trees are 'Slow Growth' trees? Modern trees that we are replacing the supposed 75% elimination of our forests with, grow much faster. What does this have to do with anything? A forest with a dense population of trees will see a retardation of the growth of these trees, inhibiting their ability to produce oxygen and consume CO2. Trees that are growing further apart consume and produce 10 to 15 times MORE CO2 and O2. Ever noticed a tree in a forest is a long stick with a plume at top? Then, notice a tree in your yard. It will have 10 times the foliage as a forest tree. So, the cutting and elimination of these trees has no where near the detrimental effect you would like to imply.
You are drawing a very false conclusion from my remarks. I did NOT say that we cut the forests and replant them, I said that 75% of the forests in the World since the mid 1800s have been removed. PERIOD.
The reforestation process you speak of is correct. It takes place in managed forests and is a very good program. It is NOT what has removed 75% of ALL TREES in the World over the past 165 years.
Industrial Revolution: A good point, even if it's over emphasized. We need control of factory emissions and emissions from automobiles to improve air quality. It's not that we are destroying the planet but in large cities, we are concentrating too much in one place. You can travel less than 15 miles outside of NYC and the air quality is much improved. I'm not against good, responsible laws that control emissions. Again, pass the laws for the right reasons. Everyone wants cleaner air, hence why catalytic converters were placed on cars to begin with. But, cars are seen as the enemy, so it's a popular view to demonize their use because they create CO2.
How can you overemphasize the most important historical movement in the history of man? Really?
You say it is the "big cities" that have the pollution because of concentration of population. It was written in the 1850s that, going West you could see the Rockies for 120 miles before getting to the base of them. Now, at least on the last four trips that I have driven, that is down to under 50 miles. And there ain't jack out there at that distance, except a level of pollution.
In the darkest deserts of this country, and on the top of mountains, I have gone to star parties with my Celestron C8 and C14 telescopes [though the C14 only goes out on special trips. Even in the darkest deserts, where there is NO light pollution, entire magnitudes of stars that WERE visible even 30 years ago are not as clear or even viable now. It is almost impossible to pick out Andromeda with the naked eye except in the best of conditions or locations.
We can look forward or backward. It is time to make the shift that should have been made in the 1970s. Best part, it will be cheaper now on some levels.
Concrete: Could concrete and asphalt be an underlying cause? Possible. But are enough resources being exploited to address this? Not when they're being spent trying to prove that driving cars/ fuel usage is the main culprit. I could see a regional effect from this, but not a 'Global' one. It's like the NASA infrared photos that detect heat at night. You'll see the densely populated ares will show a projection of significant heat that's stored from the day's sunlight, but rural areas, which dominates the earth, show the coolest areas. Still no where near the evidence needed to even make a compelling argument.
Remember, it's the subtle LITTLE changes. Doesn't have to be BIG changes.
And again, IF you had read the IPCC report you would know that they ARE addressing this on a daily basis, both due to heat, reduction of green space, water table issues, runoff issues, sprawl issues, reflectivity and everything else.
Footprints: Making the basic assumption that man is the underlying cause of 'Global Climate Change' will force one to conclude that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be saddled with this 'problem' because we refused to do something about it. First of all, establish that it's a 'problem' and not something that will alleviate itself. Base it in facts, not in assumptions, as is the predominate case, now.
You have to remember that some of these same scientists are the ones who were screaming 'Ice Age' 25 to 30 years ago when we were having record setting snowfalls and cold temperatures.
First, I don't make the assumption that man is the underlying cause of GCC. We are a significant contributor. We can only change the things we can control. Right now we have to base it on assumptions and models. If we wait for all the facts to get in, it will be too late to start. They would come from an autopsy. I am guessing the grandkids would not appreciate that particular procrastination.
And as I posted earlier, there ARE going to be places that get colder. Scotland is one of the places that is still projected to have a mini ice age. That is, again why is is called Climate Change, not Global Warming.
Everyone, take a zanaflex to relax the neck muscles as you go up and down while reading these two posts to try and make them glue together.