Claiming that global warming is baseless fear-mongering with reference to freons

[Tammuz]

A while ago I happened to be arguing with a bunch of ethno-nationalists who were also climate change deniers (for some reason these two seem to correlate quite a bit, or at least that nationalists tend to be climate change deniers) on a blog comment section. One argument that was put forth is that global warming is just another fear-mongering story. In previous decades it was about how freons damaged the ozone layer. According to their minds, that amounted to nothing, so why would climate change be any different?

I pointed out to him that freons were actually banned worldwide, and that's why the potentially bad effects didn't hit us that time. The ozone layer is still intact, though it is thinner in Antarctica, and it will probalby take centuries for it to fully heal. Still, we did manage to avert that crisis.

So let's say that the world now comes to agreement to prevent global warming over 2 C, or even 1.5 C. It currently doens't looks very probable, but it is certainly not impossible either. Let's say it happens. Will the pseudoscience promoters of the upcoming decades then claim that the current global warming crisis was just fear-mongering, with no basis in reality?

It is sort of like the pseudoscience promoters try to cash in on the efforts of the people who worked for what they, or their predecessors, opposed.

 

[skepticalbip]

A while ago I happened to be arguing with a bunch of ethno-nationalists who were also climate change deniers (for some reason these two seem to correlate quite a bit, or at least that nationalists tend to be climate change deniers) on a blog comment section. One argument that was put forth is that global warming is just another fear-mongering story. In previous decades it was about how freons damaged the ozone layer. According to their minds, that amounted to nothing, so why would climate change be any different?

I pointed out to him that freons were actually banned worldwide, and that's why the potentially bad effects didn't hit us that time. The ozone layer is still intact, though it is thinner in Antarctica, and it will probalby take centuries for it to fully heal. Still, we did manage to avert that crisis.

So let's say that the world now comes to agreement to prevent global warming over 2 C, or even 1.5 C. It currently doens't looks very probable, but it is certainly not impossible either. Let's say it happens. Will the pseudoscience promoters of the upcoming decades then claim that the current global warming crisis was just fear-mongering, with no basis in reality?

It is sort of like the pseudoscience promoters try to cash in on the efforts of the people who worked for what they, or their predecessors, opposed.

I should point out that you are making a very bad argument about freon (R-22). The first problem is that R-22 is still in use although the Montreal Protocol established a phase out program which those nations that agreed with it agreed to end use by 2020. Of those nations that didn't agree, I dunno if any have the ability to make it or the equipment designed to use it. A bigger problem is that arguing with someone who doesn't think R-22 was a problem will rightly see that claiming that stopping R-22 production is the reason we still have an ozone layer is the same as primitive tribes arguing that the sacrificing of virgins is the reason the volcano hasn't erupted. Those people will surely believe that reduced use of R-22 was irrelevant and that atmospheric ozone concentration is just cyclic.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Hilarious that the white ethno-nationalists do not see white ethno-nationalism as fear-mongering...

 

[Underseer]

I'm getting really tired of the endless parade of new anti-science movements.

If you believe that the majority of scientists from the relevant field don't know what the fuck they are doing and are embracing false conclusions for purely ideological reasons, then prove it.

• Develop a climate model that makes more accurate predictions than the currently accepted climate model.
• Publish a paper in a reputable journal. Make all of your calculations available in the published paper and/or online. Make your data available online.
• Present your paper at a science conference where you can be cross-examined by knowledgeable experts in the field
• Wait for follow up research by other scientists to confirm your results.

I know that the above sounds like an unfair requirement to you, but it seems unfair to you because lime most anti-science kooks, you don't understand how science works. The above is the same gauntlet that every new idea in science must pass through on its way to being accepted. Every single idea in science, including the ideas you think are wrong because you think you are the "real expert here" has passed through this very process.

The problem is that you want your ideas to be accepted by the scientific community without going through the above process. In other words, you want people to grant you the credibility of science regarding your claims, but without doing, you know, the science part.

I've had enough.

It's not just the climate change denialist kooks.

It's creationists, anti-GMO people, alternative medicine proponents, anti-vaccine goobers, flat-Earthers, etc. All of them think that they are more expert than the experts, and they are really angry that you don't accept their scientific claims just because they couldn't be bothered to do the science part. You should accept their truth claims just on their say so because they have declared themselves to be more expert than the experts, and therefore they shouldn't have to prove any of their truth claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I should point out that you are making a very bad argument about freon (R-22). The first problem is that R-22 is still in use although the Montreal Protocol established a phase out program which those nations that agreed with it agreed to end use by 2020. Of those nations that didn't agree, I dunno if any have the ability to make it or the equipment designed to use it. A bigger problem is that arguing with someone who doesn't think R-22 was a problem will rightly see that claiming that stopping R-22 production is the reason we still have an ozone layer is the same as primitive tribes arguing that the sacrificing of virgins is the reason the volcano hasn't erupted. Those people will surely believe that reduced use of R-22 was irrelevant and that atmospheric ozone concentration is just cyclic.

Actually, we may end up finding out just how destructive it is.

The current law explicitly permits recycling of Freon from old equipment--the intent is for it to be recovered from derelict equipment rather than simply discarded to someday vent. However, there appear to be some Chinese chemical plants "recycling" far more Freon than they possibly could.

 

[repoman]

I think that what makes a molecule a good refrigerant axiomatically makes it a strong greenhouse gas in a somewhat linear relationship. You can't have a good refrigerant with a low GWP. It needs to be able to shed lots of infrared radiation quickly upon being compressed to a higher temperature. O2 and N2 (they don't bend-vibrate) are shit at that and also have no GWP, even if they were a trace gas to start with.

Am I wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that what makes a molecule a good refrigerant axiomatically makes it a strong greenhouse gas in a somewhat linear relationship. You can't have a good refrigerant with a low GWP. It needs to be able to shed lots of infrared radiation quickly upon being compressed to a higher temperature. O2 and N2 (they don't bend-vibrate) are shit at that and also have no GWP, even if they were a trace gas to start with.

Am I wrong?

I believe you're wrong here. AFIAK Freon is not a greenhouse gas. Rather, under UV-C bombardment it decomposes to release something nasty.

 

[Kharakov]

Cl