9 ms·

I don't care where the money comes from. I care about the science. And nobody seems to be able to explain it to me (at least not since my simplistic - and wrong

by pvnick 13y ago

I don't care where the money comes from. I care about the science. And nobody seems to be able to explain it to me (at least not since my simplistic - and wrong - environmental science class in high school). Catalytic ozone depletion is a result of chlorofluorocarbon pollution. Molina, Crutzen, and Rowland won the 1995 Nobel prize in chemistry proving that [1]. CFCs are now banned, and the ozone depletion is reversing with a full recovery expected around 2050 [2]. Maybe there's something super obvious I'm not seeing because I don't get it. All I hear about is intrigue, conspiracy, and vague references to consensus. Hopefully we have a real climate scientist among us because I've studied ozone depletion and I'm just not convinced that there's a problem. If the Koch brothers want to pay me to hold that opinion my emails in my profile. Cash only, please. [1] http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1... [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
>I don't care where the money comes from. This is what the study is about. A decent conversation is hoped for around that alone, not opinions on the climate change debate.
codex 13y ago
I suspect the intrigue and conspiracy is the dark money at work. Water vapor traps heat very well. CO2 does too. If enough CO2 gets into the atmosphere to heat Earth enough that more water vapor collects in the atmosphere, there's a feedback effect which will cook the planet a bit. Try proving that, though. Unlike ozone depletion, which can be shown in a laboratory, only one Earth exists, and it is rather complex. The basic mechanism is well understood but the non-linear feedback mechanisms of the world are not.
sharemywin 13y ago
the big issue is green house gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gases Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S. A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B. R.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

by pvnick 13y ago

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago

>I don't care where the money comes from. This is what the study is about. A decent conversation is hoped for around that alone, not opinions on the climate change debate.

codex 13y ago

I suspect the intrigue and conspiracy is the dark money at work. Water vapor traps heat very well. CO2 does too. If enough CO2 gets into the atmosphere to heat Earth enough that more water vapor collects in the atmosphere, there's a feedback effect which will cook the planet a bit. Try proving that, though. Unlike ozone depletion, which can be shown in a laboratory, only one Earth exists, and it is rather complex. The basic mechanism is well understood but the non-linear feedback mechanisms of the world are not.

sharemywin 13y ago

the big issue is green house gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_gases Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S. A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B. R.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024