"You discount science as being 'clintonized', 'paid of by DuPont', dishonest, etc."
I don't discount "science", I discount what are political campaigns in the guise of science. I gave some examples: global warming, AIDS in Africa, CDC studies on guns as pathogens and I suspect the ozone hole as another campaign, not based on science. The whole premise of the ozone hole just doesn't make sense. They claim that it is new phenomena, not a natural process, but is caused by human action. As far as I can tell, we have data only going back to 1957. How do we NOT know, that the ozone hole has gone back millions of years? How do we NOT know, that the thinning and thickening is not part of some natural cycle?
You find my cynicism disturbing, I find your naivette and gullibility puzzling.
And how do you decide which ones those are? What makes you think that the ozone depletion theory is a politicial campaign based on faulty science? Do you have any support for your assertion that it is paid for and directed by DuPont?
The whole premise of the ozone hole just doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense to a non-scientific layman, maybe. It makes plenty of sense to those who have training and experience in the field. Just because the conclusions don't fit with your beliefs doesn't make it false.
They claim that it is new phenomena, not a natural process, but is caused by human action. As far as I can tell, we have data only going back to 1957.
So? We only have data on a lot of things since 1957. Does that make all learning in the last 45 years suspect?
How do we NOT know, that the thinning and thickening is not part of some natural cycle?
Because scientists have sent probes up and made measurements. That is the way science works.
How has stratospheric chlorine changed with time?
The total amount of chlorine in the stratosphere has increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1975 [Solomon] During this time period the known natural sources have shown no major increases. On the other hand, emissions of CFC's and related manmade compounds have increased dramatically, reaching a peak in 1987.
I find your naivette and gullibility puzzling.
I am certainly open to the idea that a couple of scientists can be bought by corporate payoffs. But I do not think it is credible that hundreds of scientists from all over the world are being directed by DuPont to espouse a knowingly false scientific theory, create millions of faked data, and generally lie.
Am I gullible because I believe the analyses of chemical reactions agreed upon by the scientific community, instead of the unsupported assertions of an uncredentialed internet poster? Then call me gullible. Am I naive because I don't automatically believe what I read in a Lyndon LaRouche publication? Then I am very naive.