I wonder if anyone has suggested that they look up at the Sun? But...that may be to easy and Gore would stop making money.
Junk Science: Garbage in = Garbage out
Let's say you hold the patent on a product that has NO COMPETITION- there is NOTHING else like it.
The market is worth BILLIONS per year.
And you patent is about to expire... What do you do?
You secretly spend millions get your OWN PRODUCT banned because it 'harms the ozone layer" and then market a similar product that is not nearly as good, and is much more caustic... and ONLY YOU HAVE THE PATENT.
For another 40 years you are protected.
Look for the effort to ban HFC's to be starting soon...
I wonder how much it costs DuPont to back these studies?
My post on the item below is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1790582/posts?page=14#14
The Antarctic Ozone Hole (AOH) was never “theorized” but discovered in 1985 and explained only much later. Its causes are still not completely understood.
According to the official UN report of 2002, stratospheric chlorine is still rising. No matter: The size of the AOH has been controlled by changing weather patterns rather than by chlorine levels.
In spite of theoretical predictions, there has been no direct observational evidence for a steady increase of ultraviolet radiation at the Earth’s surface. Therefore all imagined impacts cited in the editorial — skin cancers, cataracts, etc. — are based on speculation.
The economic impact on GDP of phasing out CFCs (”freons”) has .. been minor. But that’s not true for fossil fuels... (The impact has been great for those motorists forced to replace their car air-conditioning system because of a small leak. I should know; it cost me nearly $1000.)
“By 1987, when the Montreal Protocol (to phase out CFCs) was concluded, the published data showed no increase in stratospheric chlorine, an ozone-destroying chemical, and therefore no evidence for a human influence. In fact, the chief US negotiator Richard Benedick bragged that he was able to pull off the Montreal Accord without any backing from science. I quote from his book Ozone Diplomacy: “Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was............[that it] rested on scientific theories rather than on firm data.”
~ S. Fred Singer. Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and scientific adviser to the Heartland Institute, Chicago. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/AOH-Chi_Trib.htm
Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet, Enlarged Edition (Paperback)
by Richard Elliot Benedick http://www.amazon.com/Ozone-Diplomacy-Directions-Safeguarding-Enlarged/dp/0674650034
 Stripping away the sheen, April 4, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
This book is one of a handful that have appeared in the years since the Montreal Protocol that have addressed the motivations behind those that acted to bring the protocol into being. It questions the simple thesis that it was simply an attempt to introduce environmental protection for one of the Earths damaged resources, suggesting instead that the primary motivation was more economically defined. the primary actors each had something to be gained in seeing a ban on CFC’s in favour of their (generally more expensive) alternative. In this regard it presents a mass of evidence that might come as a surprise to those who believed that the treaty was a hopeful first step towards international agreements to benefit the Earth’s environment, and it is a surprise that is unlikely to be a pleasant one. It does no-one any good to hide from the truth however, and the volume is thus a worthwhile read, as well as a useful pointer towards further reading around this area.
If I were in that category, I'd probably declare "open season" on the responsible greenweenies who forced the catastrophic change in the Main Tank's insulating foam......
My, my, my and oh my!
On someone’s flimsy sayso, we have to do away with hydrofluorocarbons as refrigerants?
Tell you what; let’s go back to using ammonia (NH3) as the refrigerant of choice.
That will get everyone’s attention very quickly. It’ll really clean your sinuses.
“HFCs could account for up to 19% of global warming.”
Which would still equal zero(0).
This is what I heard several years ago but haven’t been able to document it; Dupont had the patent on the old Freon and it was about to expire. So, let’s create a catastrophe (global warming scare) to give excuse to change over to the new and improved refrigerant (which they own the patent for). How convieeeeeenient!