From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.activism,rec.nude
Subject: Re: Ozone hole farce? (was Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct)
Summary: Scientists are not laughing; it's NOT a farce
Keywords: rumor science credibility responsibility
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:04:44 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight Galster) writes in rec.nude:
>
>Recently I heard a news report stating that peer data (from other scientists
>besides NASA, who publicized this in the first place) does not support the
>conclusion that the ozone layer is being depleted.  The general idea is that
>ozone is highly variable, that holes appear and disappear frequently, and that
>the big hole recently publicized may have been the result of a volcano.  The
>scientists say that overall, ozone had increased by 25% since the early
>70's (my memory may not be exact here)
>                                 AND.....
>The level of UV reaching the earth's surface has actually decreased 
>in recent years!
>
>A group of 21 (number may not be exact) prominent scientists signed a
>petition to the United Nations when they had their conference on global
>warming which declared the whole thing a hoax and urged the UN to stop
>this nonsense.
>
>The reason NASA would promote inaccurate data?  Research money!  No one
>will give you money for research if you say there's no problem!
>
>The cost?  Trillions to consumers as we ban cfc's from refrigerators and
>air conditioners and replace them with more expensive chemicals (whose
>detrimental side effects have yet to be discovered).
>
>And what of the cost to integrity?
>
>Sorry if this seems inappropriate for rec.nude--it was because of the UV
>that I thought you'd be interested.


I can't tell from this if Mr. Galster misunderstood the news report
he heard, or if the news report itself was irresponsibly incorrect,
but Mr. Galster's beliefs, suspicions, and conclusions
disagree substantially with the data and theories appearing
in peer-reviewed journals, such as _Science_.

In short, Mr. Galster hasn't the foggiest notion of what he's talking
about.

To summarize the articles I've seen this year:

1.  Ozone levels over Antarctica have been systematically
    measured for about forty years.   After many years of
    relative stability, they have recently been in precipitous
    decline, and the area of severe ozone depletion is spreading
    out from the pole.  This year, for the first time,
    important depletion over the Arctic has also been observed.

2.  Ozone depletion is getting worse, faster, than was widely
    predicted.  CFCs and other man-made gases are *definitely*
    a major cause.  The scientific community is now nearly
    unanimous in its alarm, and in its call to immediate action.

3.  High-atmosphere particulates and sulfates from Mt. Pinatubo
    are exacerbating the problem, by providing reaction sites
    at which Cl destroys ozone.

4.  The atmosphere is chaotic.  Local effects are important
    locally, so "holes" with far less ozone than the latitude
    average can and do appear over, say, Kennebunkport.

5.  Some areas, especially large urban areas, may in fact have
    lower ground-level UV levels because of smog in the
    lower atmosphere.  This fact doesn't diminish in any way
    the severity of the global ozone-depletion crisis:
    humans can after all avoid exposure by staying inside,
    but the land ecosystems on which our civilization depends
    cannot. Also, the ozone smog that "protects" Los Angeles
    in the summer itself causes many human health problems.

 6. It takes many years for CFCs released at the Earth's
    surface to carry their Chlorine to the upper atmosphere.
    Thus, most CFCs released during the '80s have not yet
    begun to contribute to the problem.  Even if we take all
    possible measures immediately, the Earth's ozone layer
    may be expected to continue to decay for years to come.
    We may be in for some really rough times, regardless
    of our best efforts.

 7. The governments of the world are showing a surprising ability
    to recognize seriously bad global news, and react to it.


I've seen the NASA Antarctic data.  It's scary.

Given the severity of the situation, Mr. Galster's posting is
at best irresponsible.  His baseless accusation that NASA
scientists are fudging or witholding data, and sustaining a false
crisis in order to secure continued funding, is comtemptible.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.activism,rec.nude