The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

The Ozone layer hole is a really bad example for saying that the threat is overblown. The ozone threat was recognised by everyone as being vital and most likely much worse than any potential global warming. It was also easy to identify what caused the problem and the problem was therefore not too difficult to fix. This resulted recognition from states that something had to be done in Vienna in 1985 and then in 1987 at the Montreal Convention CFC’s the main cause of the problem were banned.[[https://debatewise.org/debates/2303-should-we-still-be-concerned-about-the-ozone-layer]] This makes this precicely the opposite of what is being argued by the proposition. The ozone is only no longer a problem because something was done to solve that problem. This has not happened with climate change.

It should also be noted that global cooling was an understandable scientific forerunner to global warming. There is general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling, as the West cleaned up its act this was always going to reduce its influence (though I guess China may well be reversing that. At the time some scientists underestimated the impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that would counteract the aerosols. In short whether the planet warmed or cooled depended on what which created a bigger effect, CO2 or aerosols. It should also be noted that the scientific community were always divided on this and it was the press not scientists who hyped it.

So yes global warming may be exaggerated but using these past examples to show that this is the case does not help.

Is CO2 bad for the ozone layer, as both are greenhouse gasses it seems unlikelyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ozone is also a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere and, therefore, plays a role in Earth’s climate. The increases in primary greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, may affect how the ozone layer recovers in coming years. Understanding precisely how ozone abundances will change in a future with diminished chlorofluorocarbon emissions and increased emissions of greenhouse gases remains an important challenge for atmospheric scientists in NOAA and other research centers.

[[http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_ozonelayer.html]] Eruptions are of course having an impact, but such eruptions have happened ever since the earth was created. So while they have an impact it is not likely to be any different to what it was in the pre-industrial era. If there are suddenly a lot more eruptions then there may well be nothing we can do to reduce CO2 to ‘preindustrial levels’. Volcanos do also tend to balance themselves out by adding particles to the upper atmosphere. Much as is the case with the above discussion of aerosols and CO2.

It should be noted that we should not be bothered whether it is bad or not to the ozone layer but whether the result of that is bad for humans and ecosystems, it is unlikely the ozone layer or atmosphere cares how much CO2 it contains.

We have so much proof it’s serious.