From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: The Ozone Hole Chimera
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:47:05 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

   The last time I posted a message to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh skeptical of the
ozone and global warming hoaxes, I received mail in support of the critical
stance I took on warming, but one person chided me for doubting the ozone
hole theories, claiming that it's not even arguable because no scientist dis-
putes it.  That simply is not true.  There is a great deal of dispute, not
the least of which comes straight from the scientific community.
   First, most geophysicists admit that their methods of measurement permit
many errors (such as measuring only in daylight).  Secondly, the connection
between CFCs and ozone destruction has been confirmed in the laboratory, but
the variable density of ozone in the atmosphere has not been linked to CFCs.
To say that our CFCs are responsible for the destruction of the ozone is an
unjustifiable leap unsubstantiated by evidence.  I was looking through some
back issues of _The Journal of Geophysical Research_ this afternoon, and I
ran across an interesting paper: "Global Average Ozone Change From November
1978 to May 1990" (Sept. 20, 1991).  The authors tried to explain much of the
trend in ozone depletion by running a correlation test with the 11-year solar
cycle.  In the conclusion, they wrote:
 
      Recalibration of the TOMS [Total Ozone Mapping Satellite] direc-
   tional albedo has led to a much smaller ozone trend than the previously
   archived (version 5) data.  The 69 degree average ozone trend is not
   linear.  Instead, it first decreases at a rate of about 0.47% per year
   (1979-1983), shows irregular behavior with a net decrease (1983-1985),
   and then has a moderate rate of increase of about 0.28% per year (1986-
   1990)...The observed global average ozone data suggest a correlation with
   the 11-year solar cycle superimposed on a net overall decrease in ozone
   amount.
 
Isn't this interesting?  All this time, the environmentalists were attempting
to correlate the depletion with the Reagan-Bush years!  What this quotation
brings out is that 1) there is a depletion if you choose the right base year,
2) the depletion isn't linear, as one would think if CFCs were the true evil,
3) the ozone level _increased_ during one measured span, and 4) there is a
high degree of correlation between O3 depletion and solar activity, _not_
CFCs.
   In addition, ozone levels are greatly variable around the earth and do not
remain constant.  The _Journal of Geophysical Research_ has had some papers
on this topic as well.  Global circulation patterns, sunlight, altitude, lat-
itude, volcanic activity, and a host of other perfectly natural events affect
the ozone layer's thickness.  An ozone minimum at a particular location at a
particular time will often disappear in period of months.  Other minima ap-
pear and remain more or less fixed, but fluctuate in density (e.g., the in-
famous Antarctican Ozone Hole).  At this point, we simply cannot say with any
degree of certainty that CFCs have a noticeable effect in the real world
because ozone measurement is a difficult task.
   You won't see evidence such as this in the popular media.  They do not
even use the word "alleged" before "ozone depletion" when, in fact, there is
a great deal of disagreement.  _Time_ went so far as to say it would abandon
fairness in favor of advocacy because the environment is too important an is-
sue.  The economy, it would seem, is less important to the editors.
   The same problem which exists in politics exists in the media.  We are
continually presented with clear benefits from embarking on a course, but the
costs are hidden.  In fact, the replacement of CFCs to favor newer materials
carries great costs, all the way from the expense of containing freon when a
refrigerator is discharged to the millions spent in R&D which could be spent
for more productive means.
   The ozone hole theory is a chimera which both the Republican president and
the Democratic Congress have sought to kill (at whatever cost to the economy)
as a result of the media's complicitity in promoting the agenda of the envi-
ronmentalist elite.  If this seems too broad an indictment, consider the fact
that the majority of the public believes in the idea that the ozone is rap-
idly being destroyed, but few know anything factual about the issue or _even
that there is another side to the debate_.  Washington, in its belief that
environmentalism is too dangerous an issue to buck, codifies it.  As informed
citizens, the _least_ we should know is the basic facts on both sides of the
debate and the costs involved in fixing the problem, should it exist.  In-
stead, we are bombarded with "Save the Planet" sloganeering.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh