Why do so many people confuse Global Warming and the Ozone Hole?

Question

So often on this site and other places when asked about either the causes or consequences of global warming people bring up the ozone hole and CFCs. Either they state that it is a cause of global warming or is a result, neither of which is true. Or something to the effect of global warming leading to more UV rays, also not true. Why is there so much confusion over this?

Answer 1

Lol, like conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh? He still thinks the two are the same.

It's because they're so determined to argue (usually for political reasons) that they don't bother to actually look up what they're supposed to be refuting.

Answer 2

they like many treehuggers have no idea what is what.

just think of them as brain dead followers.

most would not have any idea now to look something up on the Internet.

that is why many go to work flipping burgers

Answer 3

The key word is 'confuse'!  Confusion is easily spread amongst ignorant people. I think it is a mix of deliberate efforts ,and the terrible results of the "no child left behind" education system! Why don't they ask about where 'leaded' gas went? When 'leaded' gas was phased out,we heard all the same whining and crying about govt. interference and scams! We got the lead out of the atmosphere,now we need to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 emissions!

Answer 4

I see this a lot also,I think most of it is intentionally misrepresent.Ether from omission or just bad facts as a way to mislead.A couple others that I have notice concern CO-vs-CO2, and pretending the oceans only effect weather and not climate.There's more but I'm sure you know them.

Answer 5

The media routinely does this and to be fair there is a weak link between the two. Obviously the extra UV radiation will have some effect even if it's only minor. Most of the time when I see a story about AGW on the news they either mention ozone during the story or they banter about it afterwards. There's also some risk that if the hole widens enough or other large holes appear they could damage plankton in the oceans and they tend to consume more CO2 per pound than anything else so that would be bad.

I think the another reason is that some AGW advocates like to use it as an example of how swift action can avert disaster. And now they claim that the same CFCs and HCFCs can add to AGW. The difference is it's relatively easy to measure the ozone hole compared to global temperature, you know how much is up there, how much there used to be, what can destroy it and can formulate policy based on that. AGW is much trickier, so many things can force climate change, a very large number of variables and inputs and the measuring difficulties combine to make it unclear how much human activity is contributing to warming.

Answer 6

Well, there is a proliferation of bad science on the internet for a start, which people get suckered into reading.

This is particularly not helped by global warming sceptic websites - the ".com" websites - which peddle confusing (and sometimes just ridiculous) arguments about the current state of atmospheric science, and dramatically oversimplify or misrepresent issues in order to try and make a case that it's all a big conspiracy.

I had an argument with a global warming sceptic a little while ago over this: he tried to bring the ozone layer into the equation (he reckons the ozone hole and CFCs was a big conspiracy too) despite the fact it has nothing to do with it.

It's one of the problems with the web. Disinformation is just as easy (maybe easier) to spread as good information.