INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE

Science > Physics > INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Date:	13 Aug 2004 03:01:24 AM
Object:	INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE

Forwarded message
[ Subject: Industry vs the Ozone Hole
[ From:

(Rich Winkel)
[ Date: 13 Aug 2004 02:07:41 -0500
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole
Sept. 10, 2000 ozone hole
by Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters Chief Meteorologist, The Weather Underground,
Inc.
Introduction On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina,
chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the
first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer
(Molina and Rowland, 1974). They calculated that if CFC production
continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990,
then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone
loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.
They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the
amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface,
greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric
ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially
causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone
loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At
the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S.,
employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people
indirectly (Roan, 1989).
Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists
from conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory.
Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support
in the scientific community, a handful of skeptics, their voices
greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful
corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in
delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for many years. However,
the stunning discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 proved
the skeptics wrong. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying
Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was
far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined
that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987
over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued
opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an
international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals,
was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat.
Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990's, with peak
ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic
in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in
summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001;
McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community
adopted four amendments to the Montreal Protocol in the 1990's to
promote an ever faster phase out of ozone-destroying chemicals.
Finally, in the early 2000's, although the we cannot yet say that
stratospheric ozone depletion has reached its maximum, atmospheric
levels of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere are now
declining, and a disappearance of the Antarctic ozone hole is
expected by about 2050 (WMO, 2002). Molina and Rowland were awarded
the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee
credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential
environmental disaster.
On this 30th anniversary of the beginning of the ozone depletion
debate, it is revealing to review the techniques the skeptics used
to mislead and distort the truth in the debate on the CFC-ozone
depletion issue. All of them have parallels in the current global
warming debate. Keep in mind that some environmentalists have used
similar techniques to mislead and distort the truth; several of
these distortions are mentioned below.
Techniques of the Skeptics # Launch a public relations campaign
disputing the evidence. DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs,
spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements
defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were
harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the
ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of
rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol
industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating
that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This
press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry,
were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York
Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and
the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken
Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great
effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper
headlines.
Such biased news reporting is hardly unusual in American journalism;
several studies have shown that press releases are the basis for
40 - 50% of the content of U.S. newspapers (Lee and Solomon, 1990;
Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The material appears to be written by the
paper's own journalists, but is hardly changed from the press
release.
# Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S.,
talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan,
1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs
in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire
industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European
Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign
and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller
firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and
unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment
Institute, 1999).
However, the economic reality has been less dire. As the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee
stated in 1994: "Ozone-depleting substance replacement has been
more rapid, less expensive, and more innovative than had been
anticipated at the beginning of the substitution process. The
alternative technologies already adopted have been effective and
inexpensive enough that consumers have not yet felt any noticeable
impacts (except for an increase in automobile air conditioning
service costs)" (UNEP, 1994). A group of over two dozen industry
experts estimated the total CFC phase-out cost in industrialized
counties at $37 billion to business and industry, and $3 billion
to consumers (Vogelsberg, 1997). A study done for Environment Canada
presented to a UN meeting in 1997, estimated a total CFC phase-out
cost of $235 billion through the year 2060, but economic benefits
totaling $459 billion. These savings came from decreased UV light
exposure to aquatic ecosystems, plants, forests, crops, plastics,
paints and other outdoor building materials, and did not include
the savings due to decreased health care costs. The report concluded
that because of the Montreal Protocol, there would be 19.1 million
fewer cases of non-melanoma skin cancer, 1.5 million fewer cases
of melanoma, 129 million fewer cases of cataracts, and 330,000 fewer
skin cancer deaths worldwide.
# Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against
the threat. CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public
relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S.
speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer,
a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and
author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and
Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing
that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." Molina's
response was, "The gentleman is good at attacking. But he has never
published any scientific papers on the subject." (Roan, 1985).
# Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded
scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work
to support your point of view. Articles published in traditional
scientific journals undergo a process essential to good
science--peer-review. The peer-review process starts when a prospective
author submits their work to a journal. The editor of the journal
reviews the article, and sends copies to three scientists who are
experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their comments
on errors that need correcting, omissions that need addressing,
etc, back to the journal editor, who then asks the author to submit
a revised article addressing the concerns of the reviewers. After
making revisions, the author submits the article back to the journal
editor, who can then accept the article, reject it, or send it back
for another round of review. The rigors of peer-review are such
that a large percentage of submitted articles never get published
in the scientific literature.
In 1995, the year Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize
in Chemistry for their discovery of the CFC-ozone depletion link,
the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment began
a series of hearings to revisit the issue of ozone depletion, where
the issue of peer-review was brought up. During the hearings,
Representative John Doolittle, a California Republican, stated, "My
own belief, is that the question is still very much open to
debate...Theories or speculation about this are not sufficient. We
need science, not pseudo-science."
Doolittle was challenged by Lynn Rivers, a Michigan Democrat. They
had the following interchange, taken from the Congressional Report,
"Hearing on Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust: The Science
Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 -- Stratospheric
Ozone: Myth and Realities", 104th Congress, 1st session, September
20, 1995, Report no. 31 (Gelbspan, 1998):
RIVERS: "Have you found in peer-reviewed articles or in the broader
scientific discourse that people are saying this is not really a
problem?"
DOOLITTLE: "I have found that there is no established consensus as
what actually is the problem. I found extremely misleading
representations by the government and government officials that are
not founded on sound science."
RIVERS: "...[W]hat I was asking about is peer-reviewed articles
[by] scientists who are...doing this work on a regular basis. Can
you give me an example of some peer-reviewed publications that you
consulted in formulating your opinion that there's no [sound]
science?
DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists
today, Dr. Fred Singer."
RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."
DOOLITTLE: "[I]'m not going to get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of
peer-reviewed documents. There's a politics within the scientific
community, where they're all too intimidated to speak out once
someone has staked out a position...And under this Congress, we're
going to get to the truth and not just the academic politics."
RIVERS: "[T]he general way to feel certain that you're getting good
science is that you put your ideas out in a straightforward way in
a peer-reviewed publication and you allow others who are doing the
same work to make comments, to criticize, to replicate your findings.
And what I'm asking you, in your search for good science, is what
peer-reviewed documentation did you use to come up with your decision?
What good science did you rely on?"
DOOLITTLE: "My response to you is, it is the proponents of the ban
that have the burden of producing the good science. I do not have
that burden."
Later during the same hearing, House majority whip Tom DeLay was
asked about his position opposing a ban on ozone depleting substances.
Had he consulted the latest scientific assessment in ozone depletion
(WMO/UNEP, 1994) put together by a team of virtually all of the
relevant researchers publishing in peer-reviewed publications on
the subject? He replied that he had not, because "Well, I just
haven't been presented with the study of late." He also launched
into a criticism of peer-reviewed science, claiming that "the
conclusion is usually written before the study is even done, in
many cases." DeLay cited Toxic Terror by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to
support his criticism of peer-reviewed science. But according to
the Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan praises the nutritional
value of fast food in her writings, and dismisses the links between
fatty diets and heart disease--but receives funding from Burger
King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay, and Land O' Lakes (Kurtz, 1990).
Unfortunately, our House Majority Leader is not the only one who
relies on Dr. Whelan's "science". PR Watch notes that USA Today
cites Whelan's American Council on Science and Health think tank
as one of its most frequently-quoted sources for information on
public health issues.
Dr. Fred Singer, the expert whom Representative Doolittle referred
to, has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably
the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming
issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active
scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an
objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having
"published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the
course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to
atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971. A search
for his relevant publications in the atmospheric sciences reveals
two peer-reviewed pieces since 1971: a 2-page "Technical Comment"
criticizing a study showing increased UV-B light at the surface in
response to ozone depletion (Michaels et. al., 1994), and one piece
of original research, a 1988 paper on "nuclear winter" (Singer,
1988). A search of the Science Citation Index, the comprehensive
scientific journal database that indexes virtually every citation
a journal article gets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
reveals that this paper, which Dr. Singer calls a "key research
publication", has been cited exactly zero times, as of 2004 (for
comparison, Dr. Steven Schneider's 1988 publication in Nature on
the same topic, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war",
has gotten 16 citations). Furthermore, the think tank Dr. Singer
founded and currently runs, The Science and Environmental Policy
Project, has received substantial industry funding, including
contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil, calling
into question the objectivity of his testimony (Gelbspan, 1998).
# Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your
point of view as scientific fact. The skeptics primarily published
in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank
publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are
frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated
statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there
is no scientific uncertainty. For example, numerous critics of the
ozone hole discovery (e.g., Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993; Bast et.
al., 1994) claimed that Professor G.M.B. Dobson had measured an
ozone hole in 1956 in the Antarctic, and thus an Antarctic ozone
hole was a normal natural occurrence. This myth arose from a
misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review
article (Dobson, 1968), where he mentioned that when springtime
ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised
to find that they were about 150 Dobson Units below springtime
levels in the Arctic. The skeptics repeatedly refer to "an ozone
hole 150 Dobson Units below normal" that was discovered in 1957,
when in fact the levels discovered in 1957 were normal for Antarctica.
A trip to the British Antarctic Survey's web site will confirm that
no such ozone hole was measured in the 1950s. Another myth the
skeptics repeat states that a French scientist found an Antarctic
ozone hole in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). There were measurements in 1958
that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement
have been found to be false, due to instrument error. A study in
Science magazine (Newman, 1994) concluded, "There is no credible
evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."
To be fair, environmentalists were also guilty of using discredited
myths to support their positions. For example, in 1992, The New
York Times reported ozone depletion over southern Chile had caused
"an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits
with cataracts" (Nash, 1992). The story was repeated in many places,
including the July 1, 1993 showing of ABC's Prime Time Live. Al
Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, repeated the myth, stating: "In
Patagonia, hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch
blind salmon" (Gore, 1992). A group at Johns Hopkins has investigated
the evidence and attributed the cases of sheep blindness to a local
infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).
# Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty
of economic loss if immediate action is taken. The science behind
the estimation of ozone depletion is and was subject to a great
deal of uncertainty. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered
that a chemical reaction involving chlorine nitrate might reduce
ozone destruction from their previous estimate of 7-13% to about
7%. One editorial in the New York Daily News in 1976 concluded,
"Now that scientists have been put in the position of crying wolf,
who will listen to the new warnings?" Detractors also pointed to
the fluctuating estimates of eventual global ozone depletion provided
in reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as justification
that since the science was so uncertain, action should not be taken.
Long-term Ozone Depletion Estimates
from National Academy of Sciences Reports
Year Depletion Estimate
1976 2-20% (7% most likely)
1979 16.5%
1982 5-9%
1984 2-4%
Of course, in the end, it did turn out that the estimates of ozone
depletion were quite inaccurate--they were far too low! No scientist
anticipated the stunning 70% losses of ozone that appeared in the
Antarctic ozone hole, nor the 30% losses in ozone that appeared in
the Arctic. The lesson to be learned here should be this: just
because the reality is uncertain is not an excuse to delay action.
The reality could be far worse than the expectation.
# Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the
global evidence. Many skeptics pointed out that UV-B levels as
measured in some U.S. cities actually declined in the 1980s and
1990s. This is true, and has been attributed to higher levels of
pollution aerosol particles, which commonly cause 20% decreases in
UV-B radiation in the summer (Wenny et. al., 2001). However, the
relationship between ozone loss and increased UV-B light is well
established. For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B
reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B
of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites
over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites
about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss. Changes
in cloud cover and surface albedo also play a part.
# Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain
predictions of doom in order to get research funding. One CFC
industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants
and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered
a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by
the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's
1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern
Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget
requests" (Bailey, 1993).
# Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental
problems in order to further their ideological goals. Dr. Fred
Singer commented on environmentalists' reaction to Molina and
Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone depletion as follows: "The
ecofreaks were ecstatic. At last, an industrial chemical--and
produced by big bad DuPont and others of that ilk" (Singer, 1989).
# Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the
U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage. Of
course, other countries complained that they were unwilling to act
until the U.S., the number one manufacturer and emitter of CFCs,
showed leadership on the issue and took action first.
# Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and government officials
continually asked for an additional three years for more research.
Molina called this tactic, "the sliding three years".
# Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects. In
1987, the Reagan Administration officials advocated a "Personal
Protection Plan" as an alternative to controlling CFC emissions.
Scoffers noted that if each American bought 2 bottles of sunscreen,
a hat and pair of sunglasses, the bill would come to $8 billion for
the nation. They also asked how Americans would go about putting
sunscreen and hats on cows and stalks of corn, since plants and
animals are adversely affected by UV light, as well.
Conclusion In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded,
"Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further
evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately,
this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the
stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic
words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the
Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to
the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal
Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our
lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate.
Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific
community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside
of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly
amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations
and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out
the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this
time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And
once again, it will likely take a disaster or near-disaster to
change things--unless we wise up.
Return to the Ozone Hole FAQ
References Bailey, R., "Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological
Apocalypse", St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993.
Bast, J.L., Hill, P.J., and R.C. Rue, "Eco-Sanity: A common-Sense
Guide to Environmentalism", Madison Books, 1994.
Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry
writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.
Cogan, D.G., "Stones in a Glass House", Investor Responsibility
Research Center, Washington D.C., 1988.
Dobson, G.M.B., Forty Years' research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford,
Applied Optics, 7, 387, 1968.
Gelbspan, R., "The Heat is on", Perseus Books, Cambridge, 1998.
Glas, J.P., "Protecting the ozone layer: a perspective from industry",
In Technology and Environment (ed. by Ausubel, J.H. and H.E.
Sladovich), Washington D.C., 1989.
Gore, A., "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit",
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1992.
Kurtz, H., "Dr. Whelan's Media Operation", Columbia Journalism
Review, March-April 1990.
Lee, M.A., and N. Solomon, "Unreliable sources: A guide to detecting
bias in the news media", Carol Publishing Company, New York, 1990.
Manins, P., R. Allan, T. Beer, P. Fraser, P. Holper, R. Suppiah,
R. and K. Walsh. "Atmosphere, Australia State of the Environment
Report 2001 (Theme Report)," CSIRO Publishing and Heritage, Canberra,
2001.
McKenzie, R., B. Connor, G. Bodeker, "Increased Summertime UV
Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss", Science, 285,
1709-1711, 1999.
Michaels, P.J., S.F. Singer, and P.C. Knappenberger, "Analyzing
ultraviolet-B radiation--is there a trend?", Science, 264, 1341-1342,
May 27 1994.
Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, "Stratospheric Sink for
Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone",
Nature 249, 810-812, 1974.
Nash, N.C., "Ozone Depletion Threatening Latin Sun Worshipers", New
York Times, 27 March 1992, p. A7.
Newman, P.A., "Antarctic Total Ozone in 1958", Science, 264, April
22, 1994, 543-546.
Pearce, F., "Ozone hole 'innocent' of Chile's ills", New Scientist,
1887, 7, 21 Aug. 1993.
Roan, Sharon L., "Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden
Global Emergency", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.
Singer, S.F., "A re-analysis of the nuclear winter phenomenon",
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 38, 228-239, 1988.
Singer, S.F., "My adventures in the ozone layer", National Review,
June 1989.
Smith, D.A., K. Vodden, L. Rucker, and R. Cunningham, "Global
Benefits and Costs of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer", Applied Research Consultants report for
Environment Canada, Ottawa, 1997.
Stockholm Environment Institute, "Costs and strategies presented
by industry during negotiation of environmental regulations",
Stockholm, 1999.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), "1994 Report of the
Economics Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer", UNEP, Nairobi,
Kenya, 1994.
Vogelsberg, F.A., "An industry perspective - lessons learned and
the cost of CFC phaseout", HPAC Heating/Piping/AirConditioning,
January 1997, 121-128.
Wenny, B.N., V.K. Saxena, and J.E. Frederick, "Aerosol optical depth
measurements and their impact on surface levels of ultraviolet-B
radiation", J. Geophys. Res., 106, 17311-17319, 2001.
WMO/UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 Executive
Summary", World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project, Report No. 37, 1994.
World Meteorological Organization, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2002 Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project -
Report #47",2002.
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
.

User: "7"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 03:53:30 AM

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990's, with peak
ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic
in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in
summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001;
McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community

These are all complete lies and fabrications.
What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles because there is little
or no sun there to create it.
.

User: "Edw"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	15 Aug 2004 08:17:45 PM

"7" <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ek%Sc.138778$a8.35289@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles because there is little
or no sun there to create it.

In the summer there is effectively 24 hours of sun every day for about three
weeks at the poles.
.

User: "Ian St. John"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 10:29:42 AM

7 wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

That is obviously a lie. Nobody can be stupid enough to miss all of the
facts.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles

Actually, ozone is produced at the poles during the summer, but also
imported from the rest of the stratosphere during the winter.

because there is little or no sun there to create it.

Never heard of the 'Land of the Midnight Sun" have you? Or snow blindness?
The poles ( arctic/antarctic circle) get quite a bit of sunlight during the
6 months of light (producing ozone) though they also get 6 months of
dark(not producing or depleting ozone). Comparable to the higher latitudes
where you have day ( producing ozone) and night(niether producing or
depleting ozone). Sort of a 'year long' day and night.
And ozone depletion at the poles is driven by sunlight so the ozone
depletion itself is evidence of the presence of sunlight. The reason that
ozone depletion is strongest at the poles is that ozone depletion is
enhanced by the presence of small ice crystal clouds during the spring,
while ozone formation is not affected.
.

User: "7"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 02:23:25 PM

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

That is obviously a lie. Nobody can be stupid enough to miss all of the
facts.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles

Actually, ozone is produced at the poles during the summer, but also
imported from the rest of the stratosphere during the winter.

because there is little or no sun there to create it.

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density. The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

dark(not producing or depleting ozone). Comparable to the higher
latitudes where you have day ( producing ozone) and night(niether
producing or depleting ozone). Sort of a 'year long' day and night.

And ozone depletion at the poles is driven by sunlight so the ozone
depletion itself is evidence of the presence of sunlight. The reason that
ozone depletion is strongest at the poles is that ozone depletion is
enhanced by the presence of small ice crystal clouds during the spring,
while ozone formation is not affected.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.
Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.
.

User: "Richard Henry"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 04:26:29 PM

"7" <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ny8Tc.124527$28.97590@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density. The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

"Angle of the atmosphere"? Any given one-cubic-meter sphere of atmosphere
at similar altitude has the same insolation at the poles as it does at the
equator, as long as it is not in the Earth's shadow.
In fact looking at it from the UV photon's viewpoint, the path through the
atmosphere for a just-grazing polar ray is almost twice as long as for a ray
dead-on to the Equator, no matter what altitude you define as the "end" of
the atmosphere. The photon has, therefore as much as twice the opportunity
to interact with the molecules of the atmophere and produce ozone.
.

User: "Ian St. John"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 02:58:59 PM

7 wrote:

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

<snip>

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density.

Their is no 'selection' of visible light at the poles. It has as much UV as
any other place. And the ozone depletion is ALSO a factor of UV light so the
presence of UV is confirmed by the ozone hole itself.

The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

No. The angle is not that steep. Where it approaches a tangent it is also
night (winter). At the pole, for example, in summer noontime, the angle of
the sun would be equivalent to (90-Axial Tilt=66.5 degrees ). This produces
a very small decrease in the solar insolation from the path of the light
through a VERY thin atmosphere. Mostly the lower insolation levels are
because of the larger land area over which it is spread. The intensity of
the sunlight itself is not affected much.

dark(not producing or depleting ozone). Comparable to the higher
latitudes where you have day ( producing ozone) and night(niether
producing or depleting ozone). Sort of a 'year long' day and night.

And ozone depletion at the poles is driven by sunlight so the ozone
depletion itself is evidence of the presence of sunlight. The reason
that ozone depletion is strongest at the poles is that ozone
depletion is enhanced by the presence of small ice crystal clouds
during the spring, while ozone formation is not affected.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.

You are obviously an ingorant fruitcake. I can tell you by personal
experience that the sunlight up in the high arctic is NOT weakened by any
'steep angle'. In fact, even at the poles the sunlight comes from 66.5
degrees from vertical in summer noon ( work it out on a diagram with the
23.5 degree axial tilt directly towards the suns parallel rays. ).

Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.

Nobody wants to listen to dim shits like you, you mean. The fact that you
are wrong may clue you in to why people shut you out.
.

User: "7"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	14 Aug 2004 04:50:25 AM

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

<snip>

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density.

Their is no 'selection' of visible light at the poles. It has as much UV
as any other place. And the ozone depletion is ALSO a factor of UV light
so the presence of UV is confirmed by the ozone hole itself.

The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

No. The angle is not that steep. Where it approaches a tangent it is also
night (winter). At the pole, for example, in summer noontime, the angle of
the sun would be equivalent to (90-Axial Tilt=66.5 degrees ). This
produces a very small decrease in the solar insolation from the path of
the light through a VERY thin atmosphere. Mostly the lower insolation
levels are because of the larger land area over which it is spread. The
intensity of the sunlight itself is not affected much.

dark(not producing or depleting ozone). Comparable to the higher
latitudes where you have day ( producing ozone) and night(niether
producing or depleting ozone). Sort of a 'year long' day and night.

And ozone depletion at the poles is driven by sunlight so the ozone
depletion itself is evidence of the presence of sunlight. The reason
that ozone depletion is strongest at the poles is that ozone
depletion is enhanced by the presence of small ice crystal clouds
during the spring, while ozone formation is not affected.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.

Obviously you must have inserted several fruitcakes up your b*m to have
had such a personal experience!
When angle was mentioned, you spewed out completely irrevant topics
showing you are clueless.
The post was referring to surface area increase due to angle.
As the lattitude increases, the surface area increases, thus
average dose of sunshine is not going to produce as much ozone.

Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.

Nobody wants to listen to dim shits like you, you mean. The fact that you
are wrong may clue you in to why people shut you out.

See above for clue.
.

User: "Ian St. John"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	14 Aug 2004 05:04:28 AM

7 wrote:

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

<snip>

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density.

Their is no 'selection' of visible light at the poles. It has as
much UV as any other place. And the ozone depletion is ALSO a factor
of UV light so the presence of UV is confirmed by the ozone hole
itself.

The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

No. The angle is not that steep. Where it approaches a tangent it is
also night (winter). At the pole, for example, in summer noontime,
the angle of the sun would be equivalent to (90-Axial Tilt=66.5
degrees ). This produces a very small decrease in the solar
insolation from the path of the light through a VERY thin
atmosphere. Mostly the lower insolation levels are because of the
larger land area over which it is spread. The intensity of the
sunlight itself is not affected much.

dark(not producing or depleting ozone). Comparable to the higher
latitudes where you have day ( producing ozone) and night(niether
producing or depleting ozone). Sort of a 'year long' day and night.

And ozone depletion at the poles is driven by sunlight so the ozone
depletion itself is evidence of the presence of sunlight. The
reason that ozone depletion is strongest at the poles is that ozone
depletion is enhanced by the presence of small ice crystal clouds
during the spring, while ozone formation is not affected.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.

You are obviously an ingorant fruitcake. I can tell you by personal
experience that the sunlight up in the high arctic is NOT weakened
by any 'steep angle'. In fact, even at the poles the sunlight comes
from 66.5 degrees from vertical in summer noon ( work it out on a
diagram with the
23.5 degree axial tilt directly towards the suns parallel rays. ).

Obviously you must have inserted several fruitcakes up your b*m to
have had such a personal experience!

Feeble.

When angle was mentioned, you spewed out completely irrevant topics
showing you are clueless.

Not at all.

The post was referring to surface area increase due to angle.

The surface is not the place that ozone generation occurs. Shine a beam of
light on a slanted plate and you get a bigger 'spot' on the plate but the
beam is just as intense on it's path to the plate. Each square meter of
upper atmosphere gets the same sunlight as the tropics. The only variable is
the angle at which it penetrates the thin atmosphere layer, not reducing the
intensity but actually giving it more chance to interact with an oxygen to
produce oxone.

As the lattitude increases, the surface area increases, thus
average dose of sunshine is not going to produce as much ozone.

Your delusions that ozone is created on the surface is hard to explain.
There is little UV at the surface ( and thus you don't tan as fast ) because
the ozone in generated in the statosphere, and thus the UV that creates
ozone ( and tans ) is decreased.

Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.

Nobody wants to listen to dim shits like you, you mean. The fact
that you are wrong may clue you in to why people shut you out.

See above for clue.

A clue, from a clueless boob like you? How unlikely.
.

User: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 04:56:31 PM

It's sure a good thing the Earth's atmosphere
is a static system that doesn't circulate at all.
"7" <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ny8Tc.124527$28.97590@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

That is obviously a lie. Nobody can be stupid enough to miss all of the
facts.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles

Actually, ozone is produced at the poles during the summer, but also
imported from the rest of the stratosphere during the winter.

because there is little or no sun there to create it.

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density. The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.

Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.

User: "Alastair McDonald"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 04:53:33 PM

"Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello" <visualize.whirled.peas@sweet.*****.juice> wrote
in message news:jOaTc.1448$SC1.844@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

It's sure a good thing the Earth's atmosphere
is a static system that doesn't circulate at all.

No! Unfortunately that is not true. But if you want a considered reply you
will have to bottom post.
Cheers, Alastair

"7" <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ny8Tc.124527$28.97590@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Ian St. John wrote:

7 wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

That is obviously a lie. Nobody can be stupid enough to miss all of the
facts.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles

Actually, ozone is produced at the poles during the summer, but also
imported from the rest of the stratosphere during the winter.

because there is little or no sun there to create it.

You are confusing sunlight with ozone producing
high UV light density. The angle of the
atmosphere is so steep at the poles
that ozone producing sunlight is very little.

Total balls - the main reason why very little ozone is produced
at the poles is the lack of intense sunlight at the poles because
of the steep angle of a spherical planet's atmosphere.

Nobody wants to admit that in case
they lose their ozone funding when people
start questioning the value of their useless research.

User: "Psalm 110"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 04:24:07 PM

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:23:25 GMT, 7
<website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Moonies also collaborate with other organized crime rings for mutal
profit.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Walter_Williams_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Confronting_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Chrispeels.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 05:22:16 AM

In article <ek%Sc.138778$a8.35289@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
7 <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

Someone knows no science!
Hint: They don't give Nobel Prizes for lies and fabrications.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles because there is little
or no sun there to create it.

Then where does all the ozone over the poles come from, doofus?
.

User: "Psalm 110"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 01:20:34 PM

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:53:30 GMT, 7
<website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

These are all complete lies and fabrications.

What no one is pointing out is that hardly any ozone
is produced in poles because there is little
or no sun there to create it.

Further more, ever since the high ranking Nazis made a pact with the
lizard people living in the hollow earth, they have made giant ozone
machine to poison the earth. Operating out of their secret strongholds
with tunnels at opening at each pole, they send masquerading drones
disquised as liberal scientists to infiltrate the newsgroups and
spread scare stories about disappearing ozone. It's Lies, Lies Lies!
We have proof of the lizard people from outer space's plots to wreck
the economy on Cato Institute, TechCentralStation,
FreedomFightersAgainstThe Liberal Conspiracy.com
.

User: "Mickey"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 01:24:57 PM

"Psalm 110" <LastRites@ByeBye.org> wrote in message
news:051qh0lgs5ll3qef3q8sg0rn716lajms73@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:53:30 GMT, 7

<snip>

Further more, ever since the high ranking Nazis made a pact with the
lizard people living in the hollow earth, they have made giant ozone
machine to poison the earth. Operating out of their secret strongholds
with tunnels at opening at each pole, they send masquerading drones
disquised as liberal scientists to infiltrate the newsgroups and
spread scare stories about disappearing ozone. It's Lies, Lies Lies!

We have proof of the lizard people from outer space's plots to wreck
the economy on Cato Institute, TechCentralStation,
FreedomFightersAgainstThe Liberal Conspiracy.com

Great! Glad your on top of this problem. Just post also in
alt.sci.physics.new-theories (right group) not sci.physics(wrong group)
.

User: "No Physics"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 05:14:17 PM

Eat my feces, you turd-gobbling *****-sucker.
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:mZJLfFCjJDLyxJT@REOUHGOQOnL...
<nothing>
.

User: "Ilena Rose"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 08:47:26 PM

Good article ... thanks for posting it.
Unfortunately, Industry spends billions to buy (junk) scientists to
lie to the public ... and finances their viewpoint thru their
"foundations" and "think tanks"and their enormous Proaganda Teams ...
on every media ... includidng Usenet ...
two main centers at junkscience.com and acsh.org and other quacky
organizations.
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:01:24 GMT,

(Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:

Forwarded message

[ Subject: Industry vs the Ozone Hole
[ From:

(Rich Winkel)
[ Date: 13 Aug 2004 02:07:41 -0500

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole

Sept. 10, 2000 ozone hole

by Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters Chief Meteorologist, The Weather Underground,
Inc.

Introduction On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina,
chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the
first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer
(Molina and Rowland, 1974). They calculated that if CFC production
continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990,
then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone
loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the
amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface,
greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric
ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially
causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone
loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At
the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S.,
employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people
indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists
from conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory.
Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support
in the scientific community, a handful of skeptics, their voices
greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful
corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in
delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for many years. However,
the stunning discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 proved
the skeptics wrong. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying
Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was
far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined
that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987
over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued
opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an
international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals,
was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat.

Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990's, with peak
ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic
in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in
summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001;
McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community
adopted four amendments to the Montreal Protocol in the 1990's to
promote an ever faster phase out of ozone-destroying chemicals.
Finally, in the early 2000's, although the we cannot yet say that
stratospheric ozone depletion has reached its maximum, atmospheric
levels of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere are now
declining, and a disappearance of the Antarctic ozone hole is
expected by about 2050 (WMO, 2002). Molina and Rowland were awarded
the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee
credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential
environmental disaster.

On this 30th anniversary of the beginning of the ozone depletion
debate, it is revealing to review the techniques the skeptics used
to mislead and distort the truth in the debate on the CFC-ozone
depletion issue. All of them have parallels in the current global
warming debate. Keep in mind that some environmentalists have used
similar techniques to mislead and distort the truth; several of
these distortions are mentioned below.

Techniques of the Skeptics # Launch a public relations campaign
disputing the evidence. DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs,
spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements
defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were
harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the
ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of
rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol
industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating
that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This
press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry,
were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York
Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and
the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken
Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great
effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper
headlines.

Such biased news reporting is hardly unusual in American journalism;
several studies have shown that press releases are the basis for
40 - 50% of the content of U.S. newspapers (Lee and Solomon, 1990;
Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The material appears to be written by the
paper's own journalists, but is hardly changed from the press
release.

# Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S.,
talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan,
1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs
in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire
industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European
Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign
and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller
firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and
unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment
Institute, 1999).

However, the economic reality has been less dire. As the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee
stated in 1994: "Ozone-depleting substance replacement has been
more rapid, less expensive, and more innovative than had been
anticipated at the beginning of the substitution process. The
alternative technologies already adopted have been effective and
inexpensive enough that consumers have not yet felt any noticeable
impacts (except for an increase in automobile air conditioning
service costs)" (UNEP, 1994). A group of over two dozen industry
experts estimated the total CFC phase-out cost in industrialized
counties at $37 billion to business and industry, and $3 billion
to consumers (Vogelsberg, 1997). A study done for Environment Canada
presented to a UN meeting in 1997, estimated a total CFC phase-out
cost of $235 billion through the year 2060, but economic benefits
totaling $459 billion. These savings came from decreased UV light
exposure to aquatic ecosystems, plants, forests, crops, plastics,
paints and other outdoor building materials, and did not include
the savings due to decreased health care costs. The report concluded
that because of the Montreal Protocol, there would be 19.1 million
fewer cases of non-melanoma skin cancer, 1.5 million fewer cases
of melanoma, 129 million fewer cases of cataracts, and 330,000 fewer
skin cancer deaths worldwide.

# Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against
the threat. CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public
relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S.
speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer,
a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and
author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and
Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing
that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." Molina's
response was, "The gentleman is good at attacking. But he has never
published any scientific papers on the subject." (Roan, 1985).

# Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded
scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work
to support your point of view. Articles published in traditional
scientific journals undergo a process essential to good
science--peer-review. The peer-review process starts when a prospective
author submits their work to a journal. The editor of the journal
reviews the article, and sends copies to three scientists who are
experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their comments
on errors that need correcting, omissions that need addressing,
etc, back to the journal editor, who then asks the author to submit
a revised article addressing the concerns of the reviewers. After
making revisions, the author submits the article back to the journal
editor, who can then accept the article, reject it, or send it back
for another round of review. The rigors of peer-review are such
that a large percentage of submitted articles never get published
in the scientific literature.

In 1995, the year Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize
in Chemistry for their discovery of the CFC-ozone depletion link,
the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment began
a series of hearings to revisit the issue of ozone depletion, where
the issue of peer-review was brought up. During the hearings,
Representative John Doolittle, a California Republican, stated, "My
own belief, is that the question is still very much open to
debate...Theories or speculation about this are not sufficient. We
need science, not pseudo-science."

Doolittle was challenged by Lynn Rivers, a Michigan Democrat. They
had the following interchange, taken from the Congressional Report,
"Hearing on Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust: The Science
Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 -- Stratospheric
Ozone: Myth and Realities", 104th Congress, 1st session, September
20, 1995, Report no. 31 (Gelbspan, 1998):

RIVERS: "Have you found in peer-reviewed articles or in the broader
scientific discourse that people are saying this is not really a
problem?"

DOOLITTLE: "I have found that there is no established consensus as
what actually is the problem. I found extremely misleading
representations by the government and government officials that are
not founded on sound science."

RIVERS: "...[W]hat I was asking about is peer-reviewed articles
[by] scientists who are...doing this work on a regular basis. Can
you give me an example of some peer-reviewed publications that you
consulted in formulating your opinion that there's no [sound]
science?

DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists
today, Dr. Fred Singer."

RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."

DOOLITTLE: "[I]'m not going to get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of
peer-reviewed documents. There's a politics within the scientific
community, where they're all too intimidated to speak out once
someone has staked out a position...And under this Congress, we're
going to get to the truth and not just the academic politics."

RIVERS: "[T]he general way to feel certain that you're getting good
science is that you put your ideas out in a straightforward way in
a peer-reviewed publication and you allow others who are doing the
same work to make comments, to criticize, to replicate your findings.
And what I'm asking you, in your search for good science, is what
peer-reviewed documentation did you use to come up with your decision?
What good science did you rely on?"

DOOLITTLE: "My response to you is, it is the proponents of the ban
that have the burden of producing the good science. I do not have
that burden."

Later during the same hearing, House majority whip Tom DeLay was
asked about his position opposing a ban on ozone depleting substances.
Had he consulted the latest scientific assessment in ozone depletion
(WMO/UNEP, 1994) put together by a team of virtually all of the
relevant researchers publishing in peer-reviewed publications on
the subject? He replied that he had not, because "Well, I just
haven't been presented with the study of late." He also launched
into a criticism of peer-reviewed science, claiming that "the
conclusion is usually written before the study is even done, in
many cases." DeLay cited Toxic Terror by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to
support his criticism of peer-reviewed science. But according to
the Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan praises the nutritional
value of fast food in her writings, and dismisses the links between
fatty diets and heart disease--but receives funding from Burger
King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay, and Land O' Lakes (Kurtz, 1990).
Unfortunately, our House Majority Leader is not the only one who
relies on Dr. Whelan's "science". PR Watch notes that USA Today
cites Whelan's American Council on Science and Health think tank
as one of its most frequently-quoted sources for information on
public health issues.

Dr. Fred Singer, the expert whom Representative Doolittle referred
to, has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably
the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming
issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active
scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an
objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having
"published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the
course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to
atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971. A search
for his relevant publications in the atmospheric sciences reveals
two peer-reviewed pieces since 1971: a 2-page "Technical Comment"
criticizing a study showing increased UV-B light at the surface in
response to ozone depletion (Michaels et. al., 1994), and one piece
of original research, a 1988 paper on "nuclear winter" (Singer,
1988). A search of the Science Citation Index, the comprehensive
scientific journal database that indexes virtually every citation
a journal article gets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
reveals that this paper, which Dr. Singer calls a "key research
publication", has been cited exactly zero times, as of 2004 (for
comparison, Dr. Steven Schneider's 1988 publication in Nature on
the same topic, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war",
has gotten 16 citations). Furthermore, the think tank Dr. Singer
founded and currently runs, The Science and Environmental Policy
Project, has received substantial industry funding, including
contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil, calling
into question the objectivity of his testimony (Gelbspan, 1998).

# Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your
point of view as scientific fact. The skeptics primarily published
in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank
publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are
frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated
statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there
is no scientific uncertainty. For example, numerous critics of the
ozone hole discovery (e.g., Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993; Bast et.
al., 1994) claimed that Professor G.M.B. Dobson had measured an
ozone hole in 1956 in the Antarctic, and thus an Antarctic ozone
hole was a normal natural occurrence. This myth arose from a
misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review
article (Dobson, 1968), where he mentioned that when springtime
ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised
to find that they were about 150 Dobson Units below springtime
levels in the Arctic. The skeptics repeatedly refer to "an ozone
hole 150 Dobson Units below normal" that was discovered in 1957,
when in fact the levels discovered in 1957 were normal for Antarctica.
A trip to the British Antarctic Survey's web site will confirm that
no such ozone hole was measured in the 1950s. Another myth the
skeptics repeat states that a French scientist found an Antarctic
ozone hole in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). There were measurements in 1958
that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement
have been found to be false, due to instrument error. A study in
Science magazine (Newman, 1994) concluded, "There is no credible
evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

To be fair, environmentalists were also guilty of using discredited
myths to support their positions. For example, in 1992, The New
York Times reported ozone depletion over southern Chile had caused
"an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits
with cataracts" (Nash, 1992). The story was repeated in many places,
including the July 1, 1993 showing of ABC's Prime Time Live. Al
Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, repeated the myth, stating: "In
Patagonia, hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch
blind salmon" (Gore, 1992). A group at Johns Hopkins has investigated
the evidence and attributed the cases of sheep blindness to a local
infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).

# Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty
of economic loss if immediate action is taken. The science behind
the estimation of ozone depletion is and was subject to a great
deal of uncertainty. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered
that a chemical reaction involving chlorine nitrate might reduce
ozone destruction from their previous estimate of 7-13% to about
7%. One editorial in the New York Daily News in 1976 concluded,
"Now that scientists have been put in the position of crying wolf,
who will listen to the new warnings?" Detractors also pointed to
the fluctuating estimates of eventual global ozone depletion provided
in reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as justification
that since the science was so uncertain, action should not be taken.

Long-term Ozone Depletion Estimates
from National Academy of Sciences Reports

Year Depletion Estimate
1976 2-20% (7% most likely)
1979 16.5%
1982 5-9%
1984 2-4%

Of course, in the end, it did turn out that the estimates of ozone
depletion were quite inaccurate--they were far too low! No scientist
anticipated the stunning 70% losses of ozone that appeared in the
Antarctic ozone hole, nor the 30% losses in ozone that appeared in
the Arctic. The lesson to be learned here should be this: just
because the reality is uncertain is not an excuse to delay action.
The reality could be far worse than the expectation.

# Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the
global evidence. Many skeptics pointed out that UV-B levels as
measured in some U.S. cities actually declined in the 1980s and
1990s. This is true, and has been attributed to higher levels of
pollution aerosol particles, which commonly cause 20% decreases in
UV-B radiation in the summer (Wenny et. al., 2001). However, the
relationship between ozone loss and increased UV-B light is well
established. For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B
reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B
of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites
over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites
about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss. Changes
in cloud cover and surface albedo also play a part.

# Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain
predictions of doom in order to get research funding. One CFC
industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants
and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered
a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by
the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's
1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern
Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget
requests" (Bailey, 1993).

# Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental
problems in order to further their ideological goals. Dr. Fred
Singer commented on environmentalists' reaction to Molina and
Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone depletion as follows: "The
ecofreaks were ecstatic. At last, an industrial chemical--and
produced by big bad DuPont and others of that ilk" (Singer, 1989).

# Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the
U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage. Of
course, other countries complained that they were unwilling to act
until the U.S., the number one manufacturer and emitter of CFCs,
showed leadership on the issue and took action first.

# Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and government officials
continually asked for an additional three years for more research.
Molina called this tactic, "the sliding three years".

# Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects. In
1987, the Reagan Administration officials advocated a "Personal
Protection Plan" as an alternative to controlling CFC emissions.
Scoffers noted that if each American bought 2 bottles of sunscreen,
a hat and pair of sunglasses, the bill would come to $8 billion for
the nation. They also asked how Americans would go about putting
sunscreen and hats on cows and stalks of corn, since plants and
animals are adversely affected by UV light, as well.

Conclusion In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded,
"Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further
evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately,
this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the
stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic
words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the
Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to
the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal
Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our
lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate.
Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific
community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside
of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly
amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations
and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out
the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this
time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And
once again, it will likely take a disaster or near-disaster to
change things--unless we wise up.

Return to the Ozone Hole FAQ

References Bailey, R., "Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological
Apocalypse", St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993.

Bast, J.L., Hill, P.J., and R.C. Rue, "Eco-Sanity: A common-Sense
Guide to Environmentalism", Madison Books, 1994.

Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry
writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.

Cogan, D.G., "Stones in a Glass House", Investor Responsibility
Research Center, Washington D.C., 1988.

Dobson, G.M.B., Forty Years' research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford,
Applied Optics, 7, 387, 1968.

Gelbspan, R., "The Heat is on", Perseus Books, Cambridge, 1998.

Glas, J.P., "Protecting the ozone layer: a perspective from industry",
In Technology and Environment (ed. by Ausubel, J.H. and H.E.
Sladovich), Washington D.C., 1989.

Gore, A., "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit",
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1992.

Kurtz, H., "Dr. Whelan's Media Operation", Columbia Journalism
Review, March-April 1990.

Lee, M.A., and N. Solomon, "Unreliable sources: A guide to detecting
bias in the news media", Carol Publishing Company, New York, 1990.

Manins, P., R. Allan, T. Beer, P. Fraser, P. Holper, R. Suppiah,
R. and K. Walsh. "Atmosphere, Australia State of the Environment
Report 2001 (Theme Report)," CSIRO Publishing and Heritage, Canberra,
2001.

McKenzie, R., B. Connor, G. Bodeker, "Increased Summertime UV
Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss", Science, 285,
1709-1711, 1999.

Michaels, P.J., S.F. Singer, and P.C. Knappenberger, "Analyzing
ultraviolet-B radiation--is there a trend?", Science, 264, 1341-1342,
May 27 1994.

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, "Stratospheric Sink for
Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone",
Nature 249, 810-812, 1974.

Nash, N.C., "Ozone Depletion Threatening Latin Sun Worshipers", New
York Times, 27 March 1992, p. A7.

Newman, P.A., "Antarctic Total Ozone in 1958", Science, 264, April
22, 1994, 543-546.

Pearce, F., "Ozone hole 'innocent' of Chile's ills", New Scientist,
1887, 7, 21 Aug. 1993.

Roan, Sharon L., "Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden
Global Emergency", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.

Singer, S.F., "A re-analysis of the nuclear winter phenomenon",
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 38, 228-239, 1988.

Singer, S.F., "My adventures in the ozone layer", National Review,
June 1989.

Smith, D.A., K. Vodden, L. Rucker, and R. Cunningham, "Global
Benefits and Costs of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer", Applied Research Consultants report for
Environment Canada, Ottawa, 1997.

Stockholm Environment Institute, "Costs and strategies presented
by industry during negotiation of environmental regulations",
Stockholm, 1999.

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), "1994 Report of the
Economics Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer", UNEP, Nairobi,
Kenya, 1994.

Vogelsberg, F.A., "An industry perspective - lessons learned and
the cost of CFC phaseout", HPAC Heating/Piping/AirConditioning,
January 1997, 121-128.

Wenny, B.N., V.K. Saxena, and J.E. Frederick, "Aerosol optical depth
measurements and their impact on surface levels of ultraviolet-B
radiation", J. Geophys. Res., 106, 17311-17319, 2001.

WMO/UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 Executive
Summary", World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project, Report No. 37, 1994.

World Meteorological Organization, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2002 Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project -
Report #47",2002.

End of forwarded message

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 09:51:15 PM

Ilena Rose wrote:

Good article ... thanks for posting it.

Unfortunately, Industry spends billions to buy (junk) scientists to
lie to the public ... and finances their viewpoint thru their
"foundations" and "think tanks"and their enormous Proaganda Teams ...
on every media ... includidng Usenet ...

[snip]
Hopeless muddled idiot. If you know nothing, don't presume to
pontificate to those who do know something. You don't have
rights, lady, you have appetites.
Women ignore rank. Women exercise seduction, juvenile behavior
(including crying), then infinite revenge. Women do not respect
anything except their own transitory gains, nor do they ever
forgive. Those who cannot compete deserve compensation.
Destructive individuals are forgiven. A feminist society echoes
with crying juveniles and stinks of soured breast milk.
YOU did it! YOU weren't happy making babies and driving black
cars with stick shifts. YOU wanted pastels and automatic
transmissions. YOU wanted to vote, YOU wanted to be in the
workplace, YOU wanted to be in the military. YOU wanted Equal
Rights, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, diversity,
compassion and daycare. You've gotten it lady, trumped in spades
redoubled. Work your butt off, abandon any thoughts of family,
and watch as real experts in whining being carried in sedan
chairs beat you to the finish line every time. Nobody dares hold
you dearly for fear of being drawn and quartered by "social
activists" and their pro bono legal representation. The best you
can hope for is to get laid.
The rub with victimology and rule of the disempowered is that
there is always somebody even less qualified, a worse victim, and
more screwed up than you are. You wanted a break for being a
woman? Okay, but you're a white woman and just got euchred out
of that position by a Chicana two-fer. She finds herself
competing against a sexually harassed Black lesbian single mother
intravenous drug addict with AIDS doing the Macarena in a
wheelchair.
Men build, women shop. How independent and successful must a
woman be before a man can punch out her lights and get back to
work?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.

User: "Ilena Rose"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	14 Aug 2004 09:12:32 AM

Ilena Rose wrote:

Good article ... thanks for posting it.

Unfortunately, Industry spends billions to buy (junk) scientists to
lie to the public ... and finances their viewpoint thru their
"foundations" and "think tanks"and their enormous Proaganda Teams ...
on every media ... includidng Usenet ...

[snip]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:51:15 -0500, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

YOU did it! YOU weren't happy making babies and driving black
cars with stick shifts.

Uhhhh ... nope I didn't ...
No babies (your Mom's thoughts perhaps after YOU) ... and I still love
a stick shift.
LOL
.

User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Title: Re: INDUSTRY vs THE OZONE HOLE	13 Aug 2004 10:06:44 PM

In article <411D7E23.3B33BA91@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:

Ilena Rose wrote:

Good article ... thanks for posting it.

Unfortunately, Industry spends billions to buy (junk) scientists to
lie to the public ... and finances their viewpoint thru their
"foundations" and "think tanks"and their enormous Proaganda Teams ...
on every media ... includidng Usenet ...

[snip]

Hopeless muddled idiot. . . .
- Uncle Al

PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al'
There's more about Alan Schwartz in the public archives here:
http://tinyurl.com/5qjmw
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From:

[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705 <