hole in ozone theory

Saturday August 16, 2003 13:47

by schlomo

another hoax

The Ozone Lie

Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:55:27 +0100 From: "Rowena Thursby"

Article for consideration.... RT

THE OZONE LIE

The hole in the ozone layer has more to do with politics than
deodorants, a respected French scientist told reporters recently.
Outspoken Haroun Tazieff claims that the disintegration of the ozone
layer by the infamous CFC gases "Is a complete lie," he told me
vehemently, when we met in Paris recently. "The ozone hole is a natural
hole which appears above the Antarctic at the beginning of October and
has disappeared by the end of December. In Europe, I think I'm the only
person to refute it, and I have never been officially contradicted,
neither by ecologists nor by scientists."

Yves Cochet, spokesman for the French ecology party, Les Verts, admits:
"Although the majority of scientists say that DFC gases probably have a
lethal effect on the ozone layer, nothing has been proved." He adds:
"We
are obliged to talk of an ozone hole in the media, because then people
get a very visual impression, but of course, it is much more diffuse
than that." At 80, Tazieff remains as clear-thinking as ever. He argues
that many of France's leading ecologists have no scientific background.
A former boxer, he trained first as an agronomist and then as a
geologist, which led to a lifetime study of volcanoes.

One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a
former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological
risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He
has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the
past
decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a
"campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary
problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed
towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of
pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated
above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were
sprayed in the northern hemisphere.

He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of
Geophysics
reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years
before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the
hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists
claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he
says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the
mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather
spectacular way.

Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink
the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of
ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the
Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift
movements
of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September
5,
1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the
levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near
the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no
way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short
space of time.

Even if CFCs do have an effect, he asserts that it must be an
insignificant one. After all, it is alleged that it is the chlorine in
the CFCs which breaks down the ozone molecules. However, only 7,500
tons
of chlorine are released from the breakdown of CFCs every year, against
600 million tons from the evaporation of seawater and 36 million from
volcanoes. What is more, the effect of chlorine is to break down the
ozone into oxygen plus by-products, and it simply requires the presence
of ultraviolet rays to transform the oxygen back into ozone.

Large chemical companies wanted to keep their monopoly on the market.
After half a century of being protected by patents, CFCs were on the
point of falling into the public domain. To keep the whole of the pie
themselves, what better way than to have them banned, requiring the use
of a replacement gas, which is difficult to produce and thus remains
exclusive to large companies which possess the technical know-how.
Additionally, this initiative has required the abandonment of
tried-and-true refrigerants in automobile air conditioners, in favor of
expensive experimentation with "refrigerants" which are ineffective,
damaging to equipment, and excessively costly. This has not only had
the
effect of causing unesessary expenses and hardship on car owners in the
U.S., but also has inflicted poverty and starvation on poorer nations
which have to maintain food stocks in climates demanding refrigeration.
With the "illegality" of their old-fashioned regrigeration units, the
UNEP is effectively mandating tyranny and increased poverty in
third-world countries. Wherever people are screaming inexplicably over
an unprovable issue, you will eventually find "money" at the back of
it,
and in the most vile of manifestations.

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

by simon

Mon Aug 18, 2003 18:01

I wouldnt have written what I did had i looked at the site because even though its not yours it let me know what you would regard as the nazi-esque systems and what you regard as conservative environmenatlism.

Last time I met somebody who claimed to be an Eco-anarchist we were discussing GMO's and the like. He said he like to release GMO's everywhere as an alternative way of messing up the plans of the bio-tech companies. V-iresponsible i thought ...

I know now thats not your agenda.

Oops

by TheIdiotsAreTakingOver

Mon Aug 18, 2003 17:23

I think you've misunderstood me, I don't see 'living sustainably' as a nazi-esque concept, and in fact I'm all for living sustainably, because I believe sustainable living is conducive to our well-being--- and is therefore a good thing.

But environmentalism is a very broad church, ranging from the fascist to the liberal to the anarchist and everything in between.

Like you, I don't think we can separate ourselves from the environment--- we are organic matter after all ---and that's the kind of attitude I'm critiquing within mainstream environmentalism (by 'mainstream' I mean the sort of environmentalism you get on Blue Peter).

The link I provided wasn't my site, its the website for the Institute of Social Ecology--- the main gist of which is that ecological problems are fundamentally social problems.

...

Mon Aug 18, 2003 13:05

just read through your site. I think i now know what your interpretation of the nazi-esque system is. Ill read more of your site later....

Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:45

I dont see *us* as being seperate from the environment. We work within and depend on the environment whether you like it or not. if you feel that living sustainably translates as a nazi-esque system thats your opinion but that seems a bit selfish and short-sighted to me. a bit like a stubborn teenager who wont tidy their bedroom because they are asked to.

Save the Whales

Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:11

I'm in no way qualified to judge any of this, but one thing that makes me chuckle is the way mainstream environmentalism puts its first priority as 'Saving the planet', when really I think the planet is more than capable of looking after itself, and its *us* that's in trouble, the ecosystem which supports us, not 'the planet' as such.

I consider myself to be green anarchist of sorts-- not a primitivist, I should point out ---but in transferring more concern to 'the environment' instead of people, mainstream environmentalism (conservative environmentalism) is something of a scam.

I don't think that ecological problems are a scam, though--- as iosaf says, these things are either happening or they're not, regardless of anyone's ideological agenda. But I always wonder what the point in 'saving the planet' is if it takes some sort of nazi-esque regime to do it.

i never got you revisionist nazis..

by 1

Mon Aug 18, 2003 00:50

you say the holocaust never happened but you wish it did?

kneejerk responses,,,

by ..

Sun Aug 17, 2003 04:25

Most of us should be willing to know when we have very little knowledge on a subject and issue an open request for balanced information. Rhetoric that has nothing to do with the subject at hand is not productive and should not be entertained. This is not an opinion forum as such, it is a newswire

shouldn't that be..

by prankster

Sat Aug 16, 2003 23:13

slow mo?

news just in!!!

by *simple* simon

Sat Aug 16, 2003 17:53

appearently the theory of evolution is absolute bullshit too.

God made us all in seven days. How do we know? Well we spent millions researching it, with no tangible proof, but fucked if we're gonna let that get in the way of ideology (and profit).

Yours in exelcius,
The Christian Science Company
Texas

Ozone holes are lies? Yeah and starving africans are the reason for CFC use.

bunk counter bunk

Sat Aug 16, 2003 15:14

the area of scientific research is always an interesting one when it comes to assessing previously accepted paradigms. whos paying for the research and who is set to benefit or lose out from its findings.

Now im not an ecologist but as I understand it is that the earth has a capacity for regeneration and absorbtion of compounds such as chlorine, CO2 etc..It is the production of these compounds above the 'safe' level that the earth can deal with is where the problems start. If the amount of these compounds produced by human behaviour is small in comparison to natual occurance but still enough to 'tip the scale' their production should be addressed.

Within the opening claim they make the assertion that the production of CFC's is linked to the poverty of the third world. This is so simplistic that i cant take the rest of the claims seriously. It is true to say that custom made chemicals in research quantities are more expensive (by factors of 30 or more) but bulk production reduces these costs drastically. thats capitalist production for ya!!

Ozone O6.

by o as if

Sat Aug 16, 2003 14:26

Numerous ozone "holes" have been observed, and they do wax and wane with the seasons, the most famous holes are those at the poles but holes have been observed in near polar areas at both north and south ends of the planet as well as over areas of Australia, South America and the Pacific. The suggestion that market forces led to the global ban on CFCs has much basis. It certainly has proved to be unhelpful in many ways to the global ecological agenda, in that it convinced many first world consumers that the planet's ecosystem is "safe". More than a few rightwing and centrewing party voters and politicians see the ban on CFC as evidence that "we shall take the neccesary measures to combat ecological disaster when the time comes...". This type of thinking encourages many to believe that at some unknown future point, our cars will magically all be replaced by hydrogen driven motors or some type of electrical motor.

The story of O6 and Ozone like so many ecologically observed effects is a story of lie, claim, counterclaim, truth, manipulation and "Thinktanks". It is not unrelated that three of the "thinktanks" that scratch their bald heads for the Bush dynasty have recommended a "rethink" of "Climate Change" issues. This followed on the rejection of the Kyoto accord. The Bush White House has now passed through the various houses of the US administration the neccesary funding for a new "study" on Climate Change. The study will do little but confirm their agenda, that fossil fuel consumption and the use of petroleum refined chemicals is not the cause of the observed ecological changes. Thus we can expect to read increasingly "counter-claims" as the scientists employed by this agenda polish off their theories. Eventually these theories will approach the "Tomorrow's World" level of scientific acceptability. However the observed effects of ecological change do not "go away" no matter how they are theorised. MY advice to any reader is to ask [with a nod a wink to Lenin] who pays?
Before you accept a scientists "debunking" of what seems to make sense: the use of fossil fuels and hydrocarbon/petroleum based chemicals has seriously altered the human environment downwind of 19th and 20th century heavy industrialisation.
-ask who paid for his theory to be promoted.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

hole in ozone theory

Comments (11 of 11)