Greenhouse gas depletion underestimated

This ought to throw some gasoline onto the global warming controversy.

boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/06/26/greenhouse_gas_depletion_underestimated/

Shhh!!! :tsktsk:

News like this is “verboten” by the “global warming” crowd. Reporting and dissemination stuff like this makes them look bad and will subject you to demands of arrest. :cool:

Seriously, the “global warming” crowd is running scared. They are being proven as frauds at an increasing rate. That is why they are getting more rabid in their agenda pushing and rhetoric.

FABULOUS STUFF!!!

I love it!!

There’s a fellow at Dartmouth named Gordon Gribble, who has been discussing (among other things) the impact of the ocean on naturally-occurring organohalogens … for many years.

The news in the OP fits in with the work that Gribble has been doing.

And this topic fits into CAF because the topic illustrates the delicious and mysterious complexity with which God created the world. The Infinity of God gets showcased so nicely. Some folks want things to be nice and simple, so they can make nice and neat computer models of stuff like man-made global warming.

Well, the balancing factors that God created defy all those computer models … and then the hot shots pushing those ideas get annoyed and want to put oil executives in jail for even daring to have the temerity to question those computer models and the simplified assumptions that are their basis.

One of the biggest villains to the advocates of the “man is evil” theory is Gordon Gribble … because he discovered a large number of naturally-occuring organohalogens.

And some of the things that fall into that category include the Freons!! What a hoot!!!

Gribble was vilified for many years … but as his work expanded, the number of naturally-occurring organohalogens increased to what is now more than 4000!

Hard to believe. But he has published his work and it’s all out there!

If anyone out there is interested in real science, check out Gordon Gribble.

Here is one place to start:

dartmouth.edu/%7Echem/faculty/GWG.html

news-medical.net/?id=3488

Click on this and you get lots of stuff including comments on marine organisms and processes:

google.com/search?hl=en&q=naturally+occurring+organohalogens&btnG=Google+Search

Here’s one:

NATURALLY OCCURRING ORGANOHALOGEN COMPOUNDS- A SURVEY GORDON W. GRIBBLE’ Departnzmt of Chemistry. University of Hauvii at Manoa. Honolulu. Hauvii 96822 ABSTRACT.-More than 1500 different halogenated chemicals are produced and discharged into our biosphere by plants, marine organisms, insects, bacteria, fungi, and other natural processes. In a few cases, the quantities of these naturally occurring halogenated compounds far exceed the amounts of the same chemicals from anthropogenic sources. Furthermore, the evidence is overwhelming that natural enzymatic, thermal, and other processes are constantly occurring in the oceans, in the atmosphere, and in the soil that lead to the formation of chlorinated and brominated phenols and many other halogenated chemicals, including dioxins, that previously were thought only to result from the actions of man. Moreover, it is clear that these natural processes have been producing halogenated compounds and have been an important component of our ecosystem for eons. It is sometimes assumed by the lay press, environmental activists, politicians, and others, that organohalogen compounds–organic chemicals containing one or more carbon-chlorine, carbon-bromine, carbon-iodine, or carbon-fluorine bond-are generally not found in nature. One purpose of the present review is to document that not only are naturally occurring organohalogen compounds ubiquitous in our environment, but concentrations ofsome ofthese chemicals exceed their anthropogenic levels. In addition, previously unknown naturally occurring organohalogen compounds are continually being isolated and characterized from a variety of marine and terrestrial plant and animal sources.

Wait for it…the next crowd lining up to take the headlines are the GLOBAL COOLING crowd. Doesn’t it make you sick :mad:

See dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Been there, done that. That was the rage in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The egregious thing is that it was the same people advocating “global warming” :shrug:

It’s not going to be a pretty sight … some of these folks will be early to the global cooling argument … whilst at the exact same time other folk will be late jumping off the global warming bandwagon.

Gonna get ugly out there.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Can we get it on PPV :D:rolleyes:

Wait for it…the next crowd lining up to take the headlines are the GLOBAL COOLING crowd. Doesn’t it make you sick

Been there, done that. That was the rage in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The egregious thing is that it was the same people advocating “global warming”

Guess what…

**Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center said a survey of scientific journals of the era showed that only seven supported global cooling, 44 predicted warming and 20 others were neutral, USA Today reported Thursday.

“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting ‘global cooling’ and an ‘imminent’ ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming,” Peterson said in the report, co-authored by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal.**

Imagine that…even then, the consensus was strongly for global warming.

We’ll archive this one, and see what things are like in a year. Anyone want to bet that the consensus will change to cooling? Not if they have any sense, they won’t.

I don’t think so. First of all, the article only concerns ozone which is a molecule of three oxygen atoms. Most global warming concerns seem to be centered on carbon emissions.

Second of all, the article in Nature goes on to say that industrial pollution may overwhelm the ability of tropical oceans to regulate ozone levels. See this thread (which is about a same Nature article, but reported in a different news source):
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=249647

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.