Challenger To Sarbanes Gets Sloppy With Chlorine

One of the most consistent trends in this year’s congressional primary challengers is the demonstration of scientific illiteracy on the issue of climate change. In Maryland’s 2nd district, for example, Democratic challenger Jeff Miller confuses the small scale of local climate action with a lack of collective impact on the global scale.

Just next door in the 3rd congressional district comes another example, from John Kibler who is competing against Democratic incumbent John Sarbanes. Kibler suggests that he doubts that global warming is real, but proposes that, if we are going to fight global warming, instead of regulating carbon dioxide emissions, chlorine should be targeted. Kibler argues,

“Chlorine ‘eats’ more ozone than most anything, and one atom ‘eats’ for 3 years or so. If global warming is truly for real, we should shut down chlorinated swimming pools. All that chlorine being evaporated isn’t good for the ozone.”

The trouble with Kibler’s argument is that he confuses the issue of global warming with the issue of ozone depletion. Depletion of the ozone layer high in Earth’s atmosphere leads to increased radiation from the sun reaching the surface of the planet where we live, but it doesn’t contribute to global warming. Without an understanding of this basic distinction, it’s impossible to come to a coherent policy position for research into and reduction of global climate change. A politician like Kibler who can’t comprehend basic scientific matters such as this is incompetent to serve in Congress.

6 Comments

on “Challenger To Sarbanes Gets Sloppy With Chlorine
6 Comments on “Challenger To Sarbanes Gets Sloppy With Chlorine
  1. Pingback: Irregular Times » Blog Archive » Maryland Primary Results 2010

  2. In “Challenger to Sarbanes Gets With Sloppy Chlorine” Congress Watcher writes “A politician like Kibler who can’t comprehend basic scientific matters such as this is incompetent to serve in Congress.”
    If this were a constitutional requirement to serve in Congress along with “…(shall), when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”; there would be very few citizens qualified for office.
    Anyone who thinks any matter in this universe can be chemical free would have to be eliminated. So would those who practice the religious doctrine called Intelligent Design.
    Who’s left?

  3. I’m not suggesting that basic scientific literacy be made a constitutional requirement for serving in Congress. I wish that more voters would consider it as a core criterion for their choice of candidate, however.

  4. If basic scientific literacy was taught in all American schools it would not need to be a constitutional requirement.
    Equally troubling is candidates and office holders corrupting ignorance of the charter they swear to uphold and defend.
    “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” is an astounding rejection of Article II of The US Constitution by Nixon.
    Maybe all candidates should be questioned on the correctness of this idea!

  5. I merely was pointing to hypocrites that say carbon is heating our atmosphere and cant remember a few years back, the hysteria with the CFC’s in aerosol spray cans tearing our ozone layer to shreds. Then along came the CFC’s from Freon. Remember? If Congress Watcher wants to check on my facts, he should click on the link I placed on my site to the EPA that shows the dangers of the chlorine atom on the ozone. Maybe C G doesn’t care about the ozone anymore. It seemed mighty important last decade or so.
    We were taxed HEAVILY on Freon ( a bottle went from $12 to over $200!) with supposedly no acceptable alternative. We were also told that the reason for the ban on CFC’s was ozone depletion that leads to global warming. Remember? You may be too young to remember this and I don’t expect you to know everything that I know. Also, take note, most people are educated beyond their intelligence, so ask plenty of questions and follow the money, it’ll lead you to the truth.
    I am not suggesting we do away with chlorine, BUT, if it is actually depleting our ozone layer, shouldn’t we at least be talking about it, along with carbon?
    I am glad that you had the curiosity to at least look at my site. It did it’s job in starting the talk.
    I put a link to the EPA’s site for your convenience.
    It may be all bad science, I don’t know, never been up there to check it out for myself.
    Also, since I am giving elderly advise, don’t believe ANYTHING, ANYONE tells you, check it out yourself.

    http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html

    after I finish writing this, i am going to scrub my entire house with bleach to rid it of the green mold munching on the siding ( chorine bleach that is )
    My email is Johnkibler@me.com unlike some of the other candidates, I enjoy talking to people.
    thanks

  6. If one is to believe the EPA site, they say that radiation breaks apart the CFC molecules, releasing the chlorine atoms that break apart the ozone atoms. Therefor, letting in even more radiation breaking apart even more CFC’s.
    Seems to me that the ozone layer at full strength, would help betray the radiation from it’s dastardly work. A weak layer allows radiation to work at even lower altitudes.
    Still, I don’t know if this is real or not. We only know what we are told, that doesn’t mean we are told the truth. When i grew up in the 70′s, we were told of the coming ice age, and there were proposals to set off nuclear bombs near the arctic circle to heat the atmosphere! See why I an skeptical of the ‘science’? The science keeps changing, did they lie then or are they lying now? Was the science correct then or is it correct now? Will the science change again? Who pays for the wrong science? If they are wrong, do we get a refund? With interest?
    I know they are a lot of questions, but I know one thing for sure, You can trust the government, just ask any Indian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>