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.
And how do you decide which ones those are?"
Good question. You can identify the 'political campaigns' fairly easily. The usual suspects in the media come out with a wild doom and gloom story and immediately move on to how we must turn our lives over to government or we'll all die. With the ozone hole, a whole class of chemicals must be banned. Other wholesale changes have to be made in the economy, in business, in consumer products. All this is put on a moral pedestal, that if you question anything, you are FOR destroying the environment, starving children and throwing old people in the gutter with dog food and without their medicine. Global warming, SUV's, you name it follow the same template.
"It doesn't make sense to a non-scientific layman, maybe."
We've been burned by too many experts in the past 100 years. Sound common sense is a pretty good guide. The burden of proof is on those proposing the theory, not on me.
"We only have data on a lot of things since 1957. Does that make all learning in the last 45 years suspect?"
You're sounding desperate. 45 years of data on an worldwide atmospheric phenomenon is nothing. Let's say you only had 45 years of data on the Earth's magnetic field. You'd never know, that occassionally, the field flips and north becomes south. 45 years of data on fruit fly genetics is loads of data. If you only go back 45 years, fossils don't exist, they take longer than 45 years to form.
You keep accusing me of saying that corporations buy off scientists. I never said that. I said that the corporations backed the political campaign to ban CFC's. They backed the enviro-wackos, who took advantage of ozone data for their own nefarious purposes. As they do in the global warming debate, AIDS in Africa, CDC and gun control, etc., etc., etc. What's so hard to understand?
Question: Let's say you are correct on ozone. What are the ground level implications?