CFC's are bad too, so glad they are being phased out worldwide as well.
CFC's are literally heavier than air. You can pour out the contents of old compressors in to a bucket. The "Ozone Hole" was discovered entirely as-is in the late 70's. It was never measured prior, and exists now essentially unchanged from how it was when it was found. The whole Ozone Hole Crisis was a dry-run for the Climate Change Crisis.
The ozone hole is caused by the big fucking volcano that pumps out superheated chlorine gas in to the atmosphere in that spot, along with a number of other circumstantial factors relating to airflow, sunlight hours, and so on. You might have heard of Mount Erebus.
But are they equivalent? Are the replacements as cheap or as efficient?
All we know about CFCs is that they are supposedly bad for the ozone layer. But they don't really effect the ozone layer at all. Climate Change is 100% propaganda, why wouldn't this be?
You hit the nail on the head. Climate change propaganders shut down when Milankovitch cycles come up, or when they're asked to show the effects of positive feedback loops that occur from it.
Do you know what the impact of the 1987 Montreal Accord was? Do you know that the social impact of the Montreal Accord was in terms of its impact on the perceptions of the more ...shall we say... 'malleable' members of society, and the rise of the Cult of Climate Change that followed? It was non-zero.
CFC's are literally heavier than air. You can pour out the contents of old compressors in to a bucket. The "Ozone Hole" was discovered entirely as-is in the late 70's. It was never measured prior, and exists now essentially unchanged from how it was when it was found. The whole Ozone Hole Crisis was a dry-run for the Climate Change Crisis.
The ozone hole is caused by the big fucking volcano that pumps out superheated chlorine gas in to the atmosphere in that spot, along with a number of other circumstantial factors relating to airflow, sunlight hours, and so on. You might have heard of Mount Erebus.
I mean, replacing CFCs with something equivalent but less terrible for the environment didn't affect you or anyone else at all.
And isn’t it funny how all of these that are easily identifiable and fixable end up getting fixed without much complaint?
But are they equivalent? Are the replacements as cheap or as efficient?
All we know about CFCs is that they are supposedly bad for the ozone layer. But they don't really effect the ozone layer at all. Climate Change is 100% propaganda, why wouldn't this be?
You hit the nail on the head. Climate change propaganders shut down when Milankovitch cycles come up, or when they're asked to show the effects of positive feedback loops that occur from it.
Do you know what the impact of the 1987 Montreal Accord was? Do you know that the social impact of the Montreal Accord was in terms of its impact on the perceptions of the more ...shall we say... 'malleable' members of society, and the rise of the Cult of Climate Change that followed? It was non-zero.