The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode

American Thinker ^ | February 04, 2010 | David S. Van Dyke

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It's interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO₂.

Chlorofluorocarbons were primarily used as refrigerants, propellants, and in fire control systems. They were uniquely well-suited to these applications. CFCs are non-toxic, chemically inert, non-corrosive, non-flammable and roughly four times heavier than air. Their physical characteristics makes them ideal refrigerants. Because they are so chemically inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable, they are excellent aerosol propellants. They are inexpensive to produce and easy and safe to handle. CFCs made modern refrigeration and air conditioning affordable and widely available.

Back in the early '70s, chemists at the University of California began studying CFCs in the atmosphere. They theorized that eventually, CFCs could migrate to the upper atmosphere. After fifty to a hundred years, they could be broken down by UV radiation, releasing a reactive chlorine atom which could catalyze the degradation of ozone (O₃). It is significant to note that this was not proven, but was based on other work that showed the potential of nitric oxide (NO) to catalyze ozone. It was theory only, and it was hotly disputed by scientists working for CFC manufacturers at the time. In reality, it remains theory to this day.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I look at Lake Havasu every now and then.

[Star Traveler]

You’re welcome...

And I know that it’s the same thing that has been said for several years now, and posted over and over again — but, the amazing thing to me is that someone new sees it all the time, in a different thread (and tells me that... )... :-)

So, I always figure it’s worth it and I appreciate the positive remark...

[5by5]

The other think interesting about CFCs is that in the first IPCC assessment report on warming, AR1, published in 1990, half the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was attributable to CFCs.

But once CFCs were off the table, they boosted the theoretical feedback effects on just one of the gases tracked in AR1—CO2, in order to keep the expected human-induced warming high enough to still be a problem.

CO2 has carried the argument ever since even though we've largely eliminated a class of gases that were previously thought to be responsible for half the expected warming.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There are a lot of people look at this site.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

So, what do I do with the can of Freon-12 I still have in my garage?

[Dick Bachert]

YEP!
“Whom God would destroy, He first makes mad.”
The madness is all about us (except, of course, for thee and me).

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

The solution to some of these problems is to BAN all research coming out of Kalifornia.

[MrEdd]

Leaded Gasoline came before CFCs. The left has had this mapped out for a long, long time.

[exDemMom]

It was theory only, and it was hotly disputed by scientists working for CFC manufacturers at the time. In reality, it remains theory to this day.

I think the proper word here would be hypothesis, not theory. Typically, a theory is formulated on the basis of a body of well-tested evidence. A hypothesis is a testable supposition based on observation. The idea of science is to develop a logical hypothesis, its companion null hypothesis, and to set about trying to disprove the hypothesis. Neither the idea of CFC-mediated ozone layer destruction nor anthropogenic climate change have been shown to withstand rigorous experimental challenge. Thus, they remain hypotheses.

[goseminoles]

Good article. Ill save this one for later :o)

I wish a more reputable news org would publish articles like this. Its hard to spread the news when your source is “American Thinker” or “Pajama News” or whatever.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They tend to support these scams....

[expatpat]

Actually, CO2 is essential to all life. No CO2, no vegetation, no rabbits or cows, no food for any creatures on earth, including humans (also including termites, cockroaches, etc.).

[expatpat]

It was started by Enron.

[TStro]

A couple of years ago a letter was very quietly released by a European group that studies ozone depletion. The researcher admitted that the formulae used to estimate the contribution of CFC’s to depletion vastly overrated the contribution of CFC’s. They cannot now say that CFC’s are the problem. Looked like a precursor to blaming global warming.

[Entrepreneur]

see post 10 above

[EggsAckley]

Hmmm........that is “eggsackley” what I thought. From now on, when I hear someone yammering about CO2 I will ask them where it comes from, why it’s dangerous, etc.

I am so sick of this fraud.

Thank you.

[Raycpa]

Signing the Montreal Treaty was not one of Reagan’s finer moments.

[UB355]

The whole thing was nothing other a $$$$$$$ grab

[Cobra64]

When I was a kid, CO2 was GOOD for us because trees and plants thrive on it and in return, give us the oxygen WE thrive on.

When did that change? Are they maybe getting dumb people to confuse carbon DIoxide with carbon MONoxide?

It changed when this moron, and all his followers who've never taken a science class, came along.