Hey Bill.. Greta.. AOC… “SPLAIN THIS ONE TO US COMMON FOLK, WOULD YA?”
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
To be fair, I'd say that the chemistry behind both acid-rain (by sulphuric acid precursors) and ozone depletion by freon and other chloro-fluoro-carbons have been well proven.
The ozone is now repairing itself, and we understand how to reduce pollutants to minimize acidification of rain-water.
The overall "settled science" of consistent trends behind global warming/cooling is a farce. Even the original research on atmospheric retention of CO2 wasn't alarming.
Edit: Included a parenthetical in the first sentence.
Ozone depletion is total mythology.
Data shows fluctuations in the ozone layer all the time. Big nothing burger designed to damage American prosperity. Many scientists have shown this . Your opinion of the "settled science" behind global warming should be extended to your opinions on ozone layer depletion. It is related to a trend not to the emission of any chemicals.
When you agree with part of the truth (on global warming) then you spout cabal falsehoods in another part, it makes me think you are a shill trying to sow confusion and get anons to normalize consensus science as a reliable truth.
Reject climate garbage science!
Yep.
This world isn't a set of TRUE or FALSE dogmatic principles.
Are CFCs harmful, and do they cause ozone destruction under controlled, laboratory conditions (which mimic natural conditions)? Yes.
Are there alternative processes for how the atmosphere can heal/damage itself? Yes.
Are CFCs, then, the_sole_cause for ozone damage? No.
Knowing that CFCs are potentially harmful, should we both limit their production and their release into the environment? Yes.
We can limit them, sure. Freon is not necessary at this point in time.
That said, the climate change worshippers could use this argument against you with coal.
You can be prepared with an argument about how greenhouse gases improve plant life, and that the Earth (as well as the Sun) goes through cycles of heating and cooling (as does the sun).
Of course at this point you will only find the truth on random science documentaries that talk about how the sun is in a hot period right now, with no connection to how that affects the planets that receive that radiation.
God's robust, self-regulating Earth exists for man's use, not for worship. We sacrifice the lives and livelihoods of living men on the altar of reducing carbon and chemical emissions that the Lord designed the Earth to serve man's needs.
The kind of logic you are using is EXACTLY the logic the commievationists use to explain climate change. They say, "oh, it's a complicated system of give and take, but we should limit the production and emission of carbon waste from fossil fuels." They say, "look we have lab experiments and we have data". They say all of this.
If your answer made any sense to me, I would believe that NASA's data and conclusions on climate change are equally accurate.
I don’t quite understand the first part you are making.
Just for clarity, are you claiming that man cannot significantly damage or deplete the planet in any meaningful way, because God designed it to serve man?
My view is more nuanced than you give credit.
We are in agreement that this Earth is a wonderful, self-regulating creation from God. Man was granted dominion over all the earth and all creature within the earth [Gen. 1: 28-30].
I accept that the argument (painting with broad strokes) is identical in structure to the climate change argument.
My only argument is that man can (temporarily) upset God's order. In particular: the presence of cats in Australia, radiation in Chernobyl, CFCs in the atmosphere.
Ironically the ozone layer can repair itself without human intervention but we didn't know this at the time which is why the world and DuPont agreed to rein in CFCs.