19 thoughts on “About that ‘major’ climate agreement covering HFCs…”
Just exactly how do you break ammonia (NH3) down into Phosgene (Cl2CO)?
Duponts patent that expired in 1979 was for a refrigeration gas called R-11, the most commonly used and highly efficient refrigeration gas [for many of the most widely used applications] available at the time.
Dupont was already seeing competition worldwide from gas producers located outside of the USA and the competition wasn’t quashed until the Montreal Protocols ended the use of R-11 in all signatory nations, forcing users to switch to the newer gases for which Dupont was/is the principal patent holder.
To answer your question:
You “begin” to ban something by restricting then eliminating the lawful uses of that product. The ban was begun in the United States with the co-operation of the EPA in banning the use of R-11 in the USA, first in any new refrigeration systems and then for any maintenance use. The elimination of R-11 was effected when the Montreal Protocol was passed. The passage of the protocol is just one example of Dupont and similar multi-national corporations using governments as tools to protect their markets.
From Public Citizen’s linked article:
‘The EPA began banning Freon in 1978 — and DuPont’s patent for Freon expired in 1979.’
How do you ‘begin’ to ban something?
The Montreal Protocols were 1987, 8 years later.
Addressing the observation by Craig King:
The people who are saying “the science is settled” aren’t real scientists. They are acolytes of the religion of scienceism, which uses the outward forms of science to promote a socio/political agenda.
A real scientist will tell you that a theory is accepted, usually with the additional remark that there is no current evidence to disprove that theory. The reason for stating it that way is because there is always the possibility of some new fact being discovered that can not be adequately explained by the current theory. Until the existing theory can be modified to explain the new fact or a new theory propounded to encompass all of the existing facts, including the new information.
Sir Isaac Newton’s theories were the best explanations we had for how the physical world worked until Einstein came along and proposed his theories that expanded upon Newton’s work and explained observations that couldn’t be made in Newton’s day.
The same is true in every branch of the sciences. The current fascination with scienceism is an echo of Lysenkoism, the pseudo-science that Stalin became so enamored of and was a major factor in the deaths by starvation of an estimated 10 million plus Russian/Soviet citizens. Lysenkoism only went out of fashion with the death of Stalin and the recognition by some of the more rational thinkers in the Soviet Government [the Supreme Soviet].
These guys keep telling us “the science” is settled yet they have been wrong twice about what should replace CFC’s. Why would they be right this time?
Attention Gamecock:
Cue Billy Crystal
“Call a lawyer and sue me”
Billy Crystal off.
‘Funny how the new gases become mandatory just when Dupont’s patents on the currently in use gases are about to expire.’
Libelous defamation.
The main argument I see is “guesstimate” . I am still waiting for disasters to happen. The IPCC has made wild claims about climate only to be proven wrong.
The real issue is not the safety of refrigerants. It is denying AC to “the masses” and reserving it for the elite only because “Only WE are entitled to it!”.
So is the IPCC projection 1.5-5 degrees in Fahrenheit or Celsius?
What is this 0.2-0.5 C ?
Would any greeniac like to inform us of the alternative to HFC’s? Ammonia, toxic. CO2, we won’t go there. And others which a flammable.
I believe we are again close to the patents expiring again so we will be treated with lies to justify a new “greener” variant and new patents to keep the monopoly pricing they now enjoy.
In every previous generation of substitute refrigerants since the abandonment of ammonia cycle systems for small and medium sized applications Dupont has been the big winner.
Funny how the new gases become mandatory just when Dupont’s patents on the currently in use gases are about to expire.
We can always emulate the wonderful Europe and have especially the elderly die in the winter because we cannot afford to heat our homes (which the Europeans look as too large and wasteful) and die in the summer because we cannot afford to air condition our homes ( or have inadequate air conditioning from inadequate refrigerants). I not so fondly remember those days and that is one of the main reasons that people did not live in large numbers in the South and Southwest and the far northern states.
Anhydrous ammonia was used in the past as a refrigerant, and is still used in very large building sized freezers. It also can be broken down to create Phosgene gas which could be used to take out blocks of watermelons. I think that the risk of a 0.2 C deg increase in 80 years would be a better risk than converting back to using ammonia as a refrigerant. Of course some greens might see that as a feature.
Of course LPG can be [and is] used for refrigeration..
The flammability problem is minor compared to that resulting from the use of LPG for cooking and heating…
LPG is zero-rated for O3 depletion and very low for GHG effect…
The big ‘problem’ is that it occurs naturally and costs very little….Go figure…………
All of this “climate change” is a distraction to draw attention away from the real problems they do not want to address, violence, pandemic drug abuse, political corruption etc.
0.2C – 0.5C increase in temperature roughly 80 years? Are they counting on a method of measuring “global” temperature with accuracy or will they just make it up?
so let me guess, the half life on these molecules is being “adjusted” upwards so that there is a “massive” accumulation of the stuff and the migration rate from the surface to the ozone layer has been accelerated by several times to show that it will “immediately” destroy the ozone layer.
I really don’t think 35 years of data on the ozone hole is enough to send us back to the 1940’s.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Just exactly how do you break ammonia (NH3) down into Phosgene (Cl2CO)?
Duponts patent that expired in 1979 was for a refrigeration gas called R-11, the most commonly used and highly efficient refrigeration gas [for many of the most widely used applications] available at the time.
Dupont was already seeing competition worldwide from gas producers located outside of the USA and the competition wasn’t quashed until the Montreal Protocols ended the use of R-11 in all signatory nations, forcing users to switch to the newer gases for which Dupont was/is the principal patent holder.
To answer your question:
You “begin” to ban something by restricting then eliminating the lawful uses of that product. The ban was begun in the United States with the co-operation of the EPA in banning the use of R-11 in the USA, first in any new refrigeration systems and then for any maintenance use. The elimination of R-11 was effected when the Montreal Protocol was passed. The passage of the protocol is just one example of Dupont and similar multi-national corporations using governments as tools to protect their markets.
From Public Citizen’s linked article:
‘The EPA began banning Freon in 1978 — and DuPont’s patent for Freon expired in 1979.’
How do you ‘begin’ to ban something?
The Montreal Protocols were 1987, 8 years later.
Addressing the observation by Craig King:
The people who are saying “the science is settled” aren’t real scientists. They are acolytes of the religion of scienceism, which uses the outward forms of science to promote a socio/political agenda.
A real scientist will tell you that a theory is accepted, usually with the additional remark that there is no current evidence to disprove that theory. The reason for stating it that way is because there is always the possibility of some new fact being discovered that can not be adequately explained by the current theory. Until the existing theory can be modified to explain the new fact or a new theory propounded to encompass all of the existing facts, including the new information.
Sir Isaac Newton’s theories were the best explanations we had for how the physical world worked until Einstein came along and proposed his theories that expanded upon Newton’s work and explained observations that couldn’t be made in Newton’s day.
The same is true in every branch of the sciences. The current fascination with scienceism is an echo of Lysenkoism, the pseudo-science that Stalin became so enamored of and was a major factor in the deaths by starvation of an estimated 10 million plus Russian/Soviet citizens. Lysenkoism only went out of fashion with the death of Stalin and the recognition by some of the more rational thinkers in the Soviet Government [the Supreme Soviet].
These guys keep telling us “the science” is settled yet they have been wrong twice about what should replace CFC’s. Why would they be right this time?
Attention Gamecock:
Cue Billy Crystal
“Call a lawyer and sue me”
Billy Crystal off.
No Libel, no defamation.
Facts.
Here’s the timeline on proposed regulation, regulatory implementation, and the expiration of Duponts patents:
http://netrightdaily.com/2014/09/new-epa-killer-coolant-regs-crony-boon-dupont/
‘Funny how the new gases become mandatory just when Dupont’s patents on the currently in use gases are about to expire.’
Libelous defamation.
The main argument I see is “guesstimate” . I am still waiting for disasters to happen. The IPCC has made wild claims about climate only to be proven wrong.
The real issue is not the safety of refrigerants. It is denying AC to “the masses” and reserving it for the elite only because “Only WE are entitled to it!”.
So is the IPCC projection 1.5-5 degrees in Fahrenheit or Celsius?
What is this 0.2-0.5 C ?
Would any greeniac like to inform us of the alternative to HFC’s? Ammonia, toxic. CO2, we won’t go there. And others which a flammable.
I believe we are again close to the patents expiring again so we will be treated with lies to justify a new “greener” variant and new patents to keep the monopoly pricing they now enjoy.
In every previous generation of substitute refrigerants since the abandonment of ammonia cycle systems for small and medium sized applications Dupont has been the big winner.
Funny how the new gases become mandatory just when Dupont’s patents on the currently in use gases are about to expire.
We can always emulate the wonderful Europe and have especially the elderly die in the winter because we cannot afford to heat our homes (which the Europeans look as too large and wasteful) and die in the summer because we cannot afford to air condition our homes ( or have inadequate air conditioning from inadequate refrigerants). I not so fondly remember those days and that is one of the main reasons that people did not live in large numbers in the South and Southwest and the far northern states.
Anhydrous ammonia was used in the past as a refrigerant, and is still used in very large building sized freezers. It also can be broken down to create Phosgene gas which could be used to take out blocks of watermelons. I think that the risk of a 0.2 C deg increase in 80 years would be a better risk than converting back to using ammonia as a refrigerant. Of course some greens might see that as a feature.
Of course LPG can be [and is] used for refrigeration..
The flammability problem is minor compared to that resulting from the use of LPG for cooking and heating…
LPG is zero-rated for O3 depletion and very low for GHG effect…
The big ‘problem’ is that it occurs naturally and costs very little….Go figure…………
All of this “climate change” is a distraction to draw attention away from the real problems they do not want to address, violence, pandemic drug abuse, political corruption etc.
0.2C – 0.5C increase in temperature roughly 80 years? Are they counting on a method of measuring “global” temperature with accuracy or will they just make it up?
so let me guess, the half life on these molecules is being “adjusted” upwards so that there is a “massive” accumulation of the stuff and the migration rate from the surface to the ozone layer has been accelerated by several times to show that it will “immediately” destroy the ozone layer.
I really don’t think 35 years of data on the ozone hole is enough to send us back to the 1940’s.