Why was Freon REALLY banned ? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why was Freon REALLY banned ? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/15/2012 2:58:15 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just more of the global warming scam.

Actually it was the global cooling/new Ice Age predictions at the time.

Seriously.

Actually, it is about neither. CFCs result in depletion of the ozone layer (something that still happens, even if the MSM doesn't cover it––heck, in early '11 there was a hole in the Arctic ozone as well as the typical yearly Antarctic hole,) and are not linked to climate change. It should be noted that many of the things used to replace CFCs (like R-134,) actually *are* classified as greenhouse gases.

That's a fantasy. There is always a 'hole in the ozone layer' over each of the poles for the peak months of winter/summer every year. Sun creates ozone, no sun doesn't create ozone.

It's as moronic as 'carbon dioxide'. Ever see trees that were aren't huge and lush adjacent to a highway?

This is not true. The first ever serious depletion over the North Pole was last year.

Look, I think that worries over AGW are overblown, and I believe that even if they are not, then the economic costs of trying to combat it represent a situation that will cause much more harm than good, just as I think that earlier concern over direct effects of ozone depletion were likely grossly over-stated. With that being said, sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "nuh-uh!" and making things up out of whole cloth does not strike me as an effective way to get my message across to those who *are* committed to AGW and trying to halt it.

Last year, as in 1985?, because I was hearing this same story then.

Posted: 1/15/2012 2:58:20 PM EDT

[#2]

"Poop threads."

Posted: 1/15/2012 2:58:21 PM EDT

[#3]

I swear to God, I thought this was a conspiracy thread about a recently banned member.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:00:54 PM EDT

[#4]

I bought a 30 pound cylinder of R12 last month.
Was not cheap, but it is the only thing that lasts and works in vintage Mercedes with the A6 compressor.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:03:36 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Just more of the global warming scam.

Actually it was the global cooling/new Ice Age predictions at the time.

Seriously.

Actually, it is about neither. CFCs result in depletion of the ozone layer (something that still happens, even if the MSM doesn't cover it––heck, in early '11 there was a hole in the Arctic ozone as well as the typical yearly Antarctic hole,) and are not linked to climate change. It should be noted that many of the things used to replace CFCs (like R-134,) actually *are* classified as greenhouse gases.

That's a fantasy. There is always a 'hole in the ozone layer' over each of the poles for the peak months of winter/summer every year. Sun creates ozone, no sun doesn't create ozone.

It's as moronic as 'carbon dioxide'. Ever see trees that were aren't huge and lush adjacent to a highway?

This is not true. The first ever serious depletion over the North Pole was last year.

Look, I think that worries over AGW are overblown, and I believe that even if they are not, then the economic costs of trying to combat it represent a situation that will cause much more harm than good, just as I think that earlier concern over direct effects of ozone depletion were likely grossly over-stated. With that being said, sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "nuh-uh!" and making things up out of whole cloth does not strike me as an effective way to get my message across to those who *are* committed to AGW and trying to halt it.

Last year, as in 1985?, because I was hearing this same story then.

No, you heard about depletion of the Arctic ozone layer in '84 and '85, but not an amount which would constitute what is defined as a hole (under 220 Dobson units) until 2011.

ETA: All I'm saying here is that one simply cannot sit around saying "no, not true, not happening," etc., when arguing about these topics with greenies––-it would be akin to being an athiest arguing with an evangelical Christian about Christian theology *without ever reading the Bible.*

ETA2: That may be a bad analogy, as I've seen too many folks do exactly that. Think instead of arguing calculus with someone without knowing basic math.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:03:52 PM EDT

[#6]

Like I said, Corporations + Congressmen + Executive jet rides = new regulations.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:05:56 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just more of the global warming scam.

Actually it was the global cooling/new Ice Age predictions at the time.
Seriously.

Actually, it is about neither. CFCs result in depletion of the ozone layer (something that still happens, even if the MSM doesn't cover it––heck, in early '11 there was a hole in the Arctic ozone as well as the typical yearly Antarctic hole,) and are not linked to climate change. It should be noted that many of the things used to replace CFCs (like R-134,) actually *are* classified as greenhouse gases.

That's a fantasy. There is always a 'hole in the ozone layer' over each of the poles for the peak months of winter/summer every year. Sun creates ozone, no sun doesn't create ozone.
It's as moronic as 'carbon dioxide'. Ever see trees that were aren't huge and lush adjacent to a highway?

This is not true. The first ever serious depletion over the North Pole was last year.
Look, I think that worries over AGW are overblown, and I believe that even if they are not, then the economic costs of trying to combat it represent a situation that will cause much more harm than good, just as I think that earlier concern over direct effects of ozone depletion were likely grossly over-stated. With that being said, sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "nuh-uh!" and making things up out of whole cloth does not strike me as an effective way to get my message across to those who *are* committed to AGW and trying to halt it.

Last year, as in 1985?, because I was hearing this same story then.

No, you heard about depletion of the Arctic ozone layer in '84 and '85, but not an amount which would constitute what is defined as a hole (under 220 Dobson units) until 2011.

Same thing with arctic ice. Antarctic ice is now at highest levels ever recorded, so they just go back to looking at the north, ZERO new 'news' about the south. Whatever works for the money and power. They figure we have such short/nonexistant memories, I'm sure we'll be back on the brink of an Ice age in the next few years. It's all made up. They can't even tell you if milk is good for you or not. But they sure know how to get grants.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:09:36 PM EDT

[#8]

I went to a Sam's Club in the mid-to-late 90s and bought 28 30# cylinders of R12 right before a tax increase.
It was about to go from $600 to $900 per cylinder
"Managers approval to Register 7" over the intercom so the manager could approve a check for $16K.

Oh, and that will be tax exempt. That is a butt-load of tax.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:13:08 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I swear to God, I thought this was a conspiracy thread about a recently banned member.

Twas the first thing to cross my mind as well lol.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:14:35 PM EDT

[#10]

Interestingly, Halon was also part of the ban. It is used on every commerical airliner frei suppression system. There is an exemption for use in aircraft, however, Halon is no longer manufactured. One day, it will run out. It is even being used on new aircraft 787, A380.

Posted: 1/15/2012 3:18:27 PM EDT

[#11]

R12 and R22 patents were expired for decades prior to the ban.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why was Freon REALLY banned ? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us