Replies

Why shouldn't we look at that volcano on Antartica, which spews out tens of thousands of tons of chlorine, rather than underarm spray from Canada? Do we have any proof that spray in Canada ends up over Anartica. And would all those CFC sprays be spread through the entire atmosphere? Again, why would we believe that the concentration would be high enough to do anything to the ozone there? Why don't we have other ozone holes? I hate to break it to you, but NASA has become totally politicized in the atmospheric sciences, in the global warming and ozone hole debates. I wouldn't trust what they say, they're clintonized.

I've already posted answers to all your questions on this thread. The volcanoes are not a significant source of chlorine in the stratosphere, CFCs are. There is solid science, research, experiments, measurements, and theories which back up the contention that CFC's deplete the ozone layer. It does not come from just a handful of scientists or a single government department. This is the consensus of the scientists working in the field.

The Montreal Protocol was negotiated and signed by the Reagan/Bush administrations. You don't have to be a clintonista to recognize that this is a settled matter of known science. You do have to be an ostrich to ignore the clear evidence and grasps at the straws of 'not yet proven, more research needed.' I'm glad that Presidents Reagan and Bush were wiser than that.

Unless you can give some evidence that DuPont supports the scientists who have proven that CFCs destroy the ozone layer, I'll have to assume you just made that part up.

Actually, you didn't post answers to all those questions. Some, I'd say are unknowable.

I've 46 and in my lifetime, I've seen "settled science" overturned. I'm suspicious of reports in atmospheric science, just as I'm suspicious of the pronunciations of AIDS scientists, because both areas of science have fallen out of the realm of science and into the realm of politics. Many of these scientists, especially those, whose reports are published by the media, have an agenda. For the scientists, there are a couple of major motivations, one is to get more money for themselves by promoting doom and gloom. Second, they get more power and get to exercise control over our lives.

For example, some scientists ignore the gases put out by volcanoes, because they are "natural". Only man is the cause of (fill in the blank).

Don't blame me for this, blame the political activists in white lab coats.

DuPont supported the environmental activists, who pushed the agenda of those scientists, who came up with that theory. I've also read that the change in ozone (if it is a change) is comparable to moving from Washington DC to Orlando and that we get more background radiation everytime we fly than decades worth of thinning ozone layers. No one is (yet) campaigning to end flying.