Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments. But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.
Same with the "asbestos threat." And many other examples.
Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.
I'm looking, and will find it. It had to do with the actual in atmosphere CFC decomposition and resulting catalytic effect theory, this being the basis of the political arguments, being disproved.
In the meantime, here's an interesting perspective on the ozone scare.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.htmlThe CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a "win," and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.
Their next target -- perhaps the ideal target of CO2 -- was in their sights. Noise about global warming started in the late '80s, but it didn't really get much traction until the mid- to late '90s...right after the CFC ban was a done deal.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html#ixzz3bIZZhmvk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I am a fan of American Thinker, but I am sorry that statement is just mostly bullshit. Yes the environmentalists love to blow things out of proportion and often use the public outcry for profit, but that doesn't make every initial complaint false. The best propaganda has a seed of truth at its core which keeps it alive. I am not supporting every reaction to these problems by environmentalists, but lets not pretend these things aren't issues at all and ignore potential harm reduction measures.
DDT: "In addition to more than two dozen studies documenting the presence of DDT in breast milk and human tissues, the petition cited three studies, published in 1968 and 1969, linking DDT to cancer. In one, DDT had been found to cause as many tumors in mice as did the known carcinogen aminotriazole.12 In the second study, successive generations of mice fed high doses of DDT showed increasing rates of leukemia and tumors.13 The last study, a human study, found that DDT levels were twice as high in people who had died of cancer compared with those who had suffered sudden or accidental deaths.14 The studies, the petitioners concluded, provided clear evidence that DDT causes cancer in animals and provides very strong indications that it produces cancer in man.15"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821864/Pesticides:
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/toxics/bibliographyikishi.pdf ,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/aip/179691/Acid Rain:
http://folk.uio.no/rvogt/CV/Co-author/Larssen%20et%20al%201999.pdfCancer and EMF fields:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/12/S50.full.pdf