1. I accept that I am under the control of a higher power (Muppet).

CFCs cut warming six times more than the Kyoto Protocol.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11317-plugging-the-ozone-hole-cut-global-warming-too.html - Plugging the ozone hole cut global warming too

<quote>
Global warming would be much worse if the world had not put a halt to the destruction of the ozone hole above Antarctica, say researchers.

They say the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which restricts the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, will cut warming by five or six times more than the Kyoto Protocol.

Previous research has shown the ozone layer is recovering and the protocol was hailed by Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the UN, as "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date".
</quote>

Here in Canada the "left" (those enlightened expresso sippers, always desperately looking for a way to feel more enlightened and advanced) had a field day upon finding that our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, had previously written a memo that dismissed "CFC cutting" as a "socialist scheme". Yet anyone who knows more about "CFC cutting" than some slogan screed to attach one's name to, knows that his assessment was absolutely correct.

-- Hypothetical DF
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 9:55am
It's 'espresso'.  There is no 'x'.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:07am
And all I know about the CFC ban is that my asthma inhaler will switch to a new propellant in a few weeks.  CONVENIENTLY for the drug companies, this will somehow allow them to apply for a brand new patent on each medication (even though the drug is the same and the delivery method is the same, the propellant is chemically different) and I won't be able to get generic inhalers for 8 years.

So yeah it's great.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:08am
> So yeah it's great.

It's all about you.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 10:11am
Me and a few million asthma sufferers who will have to pay quadruple for their medication for the next 8 years.

I don't have a problem with the reduction of CFCs and other damaging, dirty industry.

I do have a problem with the politicians getting into bed yet again with the drug companies, and twisting a positive and well-meaning change into unethical profit on a grand scale.

Of course, that's what politicians do.

If you think this is a case of me being selfish, then I'm sorry that you're so unable to see past the end of your own self-righteous nose.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:14am
Weren't scientists completely surprised by how quickly (or even that) the ozone hole over Antarctica closed up? Much sooner than the effects of a ban could have been foreseen (SWAT teams didn't go into people's home replacing their refrigerators after all).
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 6th, 2007 10:14am
If the inhaler bit is true, what stops a generic producer from getting a new patent when thye use some propellant or another?
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 10:17am
> I'm sorry that you're so unable to see past the end
> of your own self-righteous nose.

Apology accepted.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 10:17am
son,

Do you think your out-of-context quote, used in a completely asinine way, is either funny or clever? It's neither, you know. You just got slammed for being a bigoted, single-minded follower, so now you're trying to bully me.

Well, keep on trying! I'm pretty hard to bully.

Not to mention that it's your classic SoP to immediately embrace one input as uncontestable proof -- in this case that the removal of CFCs saved the world even more than Kyoto. Whoops, until 2030 or thereabouts most companies replaced it with HCFCs, which are just as bad (though not for the ozone, which was why it was fine - the Montreal protocol wasn't concerned with global warming).

Lots of CFCs removed from the environment = check
Replaced with equally bad global warming HCFCs = check

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-08-20-ozone-global-warming_x.htm
Permalink DF 
March 6th, 2007 10:19am
JoC -

R&D, I suppose.  It wouldn't be a 'generic' anymore.  It'd be a new product.  They'd have to develop it, test it, trial it, get FDA approval...

All that overhead is what brings up the price, although I doubt seriously that it's proportionate.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:22am
> so now you're trying to bully me.

First, if that's bullying you are quite sensitive for such a hard bitten realist.

Second, you got your order wrong. My DF parody was before the asthmatic union jumped me.

And I would check your link, but as it is just one input it can not be incontestable proof, so why bother?
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 10:25am
Well that just blows.

Damn I hate pharm companies.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 10:27am
I didn't "jump you", sop.  I chimed in with the fact that there have been some unforeseen consequences to the whole thing. 

Companies shouldn't be allowed to opportunistically profit off of this sort of reform.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:29am
Scary picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:160658main2_OZONE_large_350.jpg

Pretty fucked up that we did that much damage in, what, 30 years?
Permalink Michael B 
March 6th, 2007 10:32am
"Weren't scientists completely surprised by how quickly (or even that) the ozone hole over Antarctica closed up?"

Here is a month-by-month plot of the 2006 and 2006 ozone hole compared to the min/max/mean of the previous ten years.  2005 and 2006 were both large years, although 2004 was the 10 year minimum at several points.

Regardless, I don't see much support in the data for the idea that the ozone hole closed up.  Year to year there can be a large variation in the size and timing of the change in size.  Take a look at 2000 and 1999.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_2000.png

The hole closed much more quickly in 2000 than in 1999. That sparked some optimistic ozone-hole-is-shrinking stories in the press.  Maybe that is where the impression of a surprise shrinking in the hole comes from?  Of course, you can see that 2000 was also a largest ever year, so it's possible to write both the optimistic and the pessimistic headlines from this data.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 10:34am
Hmm..


Here is a month-by-month plot of the 2006 and 2006 ozone hole compared to the min/max/mean of the previous ten years. 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_2005.png
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 10:35am
So basically the hole got smaller in the 1990-2005 timeframe then it opened up on its own in 2006? Despite an almost complete phase out of CFCs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 6th, 2007 10:48am
son,

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=hcfc+global+warming&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The lost opportunity of the switch from CFCs -> HCFCs is very well understood and accepted.

Being aware of someone's clear intentions doesn't make me sensitive, and I assure you that I'm not crying into a tissue right now. Nonetheless, it is a form of bullying, similar to the tiring technique of pulling each attack out into a thread that a few endlessly resort to.
Permalink DF 
March 6th, 2007 10:51am
> it is a form of bullying,

The problem is you take yourself so seriously that you think someone would purposefully target you for bullying. It was an opportunistic joke. Saw CFC article, remembered our last thread, and put them together.

But I suppose someone who can't cry might not see that.

And I would click your single link input, but as it can't possibly conclusive....
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 11:25am
It's not a single input son.  There is a recent consensus, but DF can't manage to cite where he heard about it.  It's just you know blowing in the wind.

strawberry.. neat graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png

that I can't reconcile with

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/20020926ozonehole/avg_size_o3hole79-01_bw.jpg

I'd need to look up what TOMS is doing.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 11:27am
"The problem is you take yourself so seriously that you think someone would purposefully target you for bullying. It was an opportunistic joke. Saw CFC article, remembered our last thread, and put them together. "

So what you're saying is that bullying on an internet forum is impossible.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:30am
zed,

The "recent consensus" was just over a month ago, and it was what finally silenced a lot of skeptics.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MCK20070131&articleId=4655

It's not like it wasn't big news.
Permalink DF 
March 6th, 2007 11:30am
> So what you're saying is that bullying on an internet
> forum is impossible.

Please do not torture me with your pointed interrogatives.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 11:31am
> It's not a single input son. 

Sigh...
Permalink son of parnas 
March 6th, 2007 11:32am
Which skeptics were silenced by the feb publication of the IPCC report?  It was certainly stronger in its conslusions than the 1990, 92, 95, and 2001 reports.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 11:36am
why "sigh..." I guess you missed my joke?
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 11:42am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics