Posted on 04/21/2009 9:22:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
I know the folks in africa have been users of hair spray. Funny how none of the chemicals stayed up in the Northern Hemisphere where the majority of the CFC chemicals were used.
And these guys don’t understand why more and more people are questioning Anthropogenic Climate Change. Every single time something comes up that throws their whole agenda into question they adapt their agenda to suddenly and conveniently explain the phenomena. Hey we are actually cooling, but since it is warming off an island in the Pacific we can call it Climate Change instead of Warming, hey ice is actually growing on the Antarctic continent, let’s say it isn’t although a naturally occurring phenomena called ice shelf break off is occurring on the opposite side and blame that on climate change. Dang now the Arctic ice is cycling back towards normal, let’s blame it on the Ozona layer, yada yada yada.
Keep stretching.
Bingo,you nailed it exactly. Someday there comes a reckoning and those that propagate myths and deception to control populations will be removed. I am hoping for a sweep bigger than the 1994 election in this upcoming congressional election cycle. That could begin to contain the damage thatnhas been wrought by the children running the country. We need the adults back in charge now please, LOL
My only comment: BULL$HIT!!
Careful now, or you will make a DHS radical list. However, your observation was one of several criticisms of the theory. The "answer" was that the heavy molecules just took a long time to be blown up there- 50 years. So going back to your boulder argument, it took the boulder fifty years to float.... crazy, but true.
But carry the alarmist theory to the end and consider all the severe damage caused to the Ozone in the 1980's that prompted the legislation in 1991 to ban CFC's. Using the heaving molecule floating theory, the CFC released in the 1930's MUST have caused the damage. However, due to technology and a world wide economic depression, CFC production in the 1930's was very small. So very little CFC cause huge holes?
Yet in the 1940's with WWII, CFC increased three fold. Yet, we did not hear any gloom and doom about the Ozone hole. Under the theory, the damage should have continued despite the fact CFC's were banned.
In the fifties, were were making refrigerators and furniture (Foam CFC) by the millions. That means in the 2000's the Ozone hole should be so big we should all be wearing sun screen protection SPF 1000! Yet no gloom and doom.... In fact, we hear about the hole closing due to the 1991 legislation. However, according the Ozone Hole model, this is not possible.
The only thing that the CFC model proved is that Congress and the President could be pressured by special interest groups, the media and a politically driven scientific community to pass legislation that cost the US consumer 600 billion dollars. Thus, the age of using bad science to back door socialist policy was born. Now we have global warming.
Tag line
I learned this little gem of information from an AC systems man back around 1993:
Dupont was the inventor and patent holder for Freon. However, patent rights don't last forever, and Dupont's exclusive rights for the production of Freon expired in the 1980s. Once they did, many other chemical companies began making freon and, of course, the price fell dramatically.
At that time, some research studies were conducted to see if Freon posed any environmental threats. IN LABORATORIES, the researchers found that Freon readily reacted with O3! (Gee, what a surprise!)
The researchers then recommended to the EPA that Freon be banned because it posed a threat to our planet's UV defense layer. Fortunately, there was a newly invented substitute refrigerant available that could replace all the freon systems.
Guess who owns the patent for the new refrigerant!
Yep,
DUPONT
Ya wanna bet who funded the research??
This was a classic case of corporate market manipulation using the EPA. The Econuts swallowed hook, line, and sinker!!! LOL!
Another good reason to rape American taxpayers and transfer wealth to third-world dictators.
So what do we know now? A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that "since 1991, the linear [depletion] trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant ..." This was too soon to be attributable to the Montreal Protocol as that same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing at the time of writing. In fact, they did not begin to decline until the end of the 1990s. This lends credence to the view, widely derided at the time of the Montreal Protocol, that natural variations explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer more than CFC usage.
More importantly, the feared widespread increase in ground-level UVB radiation has also failed to materialize. Keep in mind that ozone depletion, in and of itself, is not of consequence to human health or the environment. It is the concern that an eroded ozone layer would allow more of the sun's damaging UVB rays to reach the earth that gave rise to the Montreal Protocol. But the WMO concedes that no statistically significant long-term trends have been detected, noting earlier this year that "outside the polar regions, ozone depletion has been relatively small, hence, in many places, increases in UV due to this depletion are difficult to separate from the increases caused by other factors, such as changes in cloud and aerosol." In other words, ozone depletion's impact on UVB over populated regions is so small as to be easily lost amidst the noise of background variability.
Needless to say, if UVB has not gone up, then the fears are unfounded: indeed, the much-hyped acceleration in skin cancer rates has not happened. For example, U.S. National Cancer Institute statistics show that malignant melanoma incidence and mortality, which had shown a long-term increase that pre-dated ozone depletion, had actually been leveling off during the time of the putative ozone crisis. Further, no eco-system or species was ever shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. This is true even in Antarctica, where the largest seasonal ozone losses, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, occur each year. Also forgotten is a long list of truly ridiculous claims, such as the one from Al Gore's 1992 book Earth in the Balance that, thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, "hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch blind salmon."
The Montreal Protocol has not made these problems go away -- they never occurred in the first place.
THAT'S ABOUT ALL THEY KNOW FOR SURE! I've read some reports where some scientists suspect it may be a naturally occurring phenomenon. That idea has been suppressed as a result of many studies showing manmade compounds react with ozone. (Because EVERYTHING reacts with ozone IF it can come into contact with it!)
They also banned generic Albuterol inhalers for which the patents had long ago expired, in favor of patented HFA Albuterol inhalers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
