The Ozone A Hole In The Theory Essay, Research Paper

The protective ozone layer around our world undergoes much thought and debate. The “Hole”, however, only exists in the minds of environmental, self-serving scientists and politicians. It interests many to find all the faults in the publics consensus of the “ozone depletion.” Most scientists do not believe in this “depletion”, they think it is a natural phenomenon. Ozone gasses come into view as consideration over what gasses are actually accused for this awful crime of destroying the ozone. But what do these invisible murderers really do (or don’t do)? Some actually think that these cursed elements of air help rather than hinder the earth! Volcanoes put yet another damper on the ozone theory. Can humans actually over power volcanoes and other natural causes? The most debated of the gasses, Fluorocarbons (CFCs), now come into view. What of the controversy of 1947? The flaws in the CFC theory overshadow its relevance. Even though no decisive proof exists major coun!

tries in the world will ban CFCs in the year 2000 due to the Montreal Protocol. What exactly does this banning entail, and how will it affect us? Environmentalists insist that because of the “depleting ozone” harmful ultra-violet (UV) rays seep through the ozone causing UV and cancer levels to soar. How seriously can the populous take these claims? One alleged problem that goes hand in hand with ozone “depletion”, the greenhouse effect, also goes under debate. After little study one can see the irony between these conflicting theories. Some think that the greenhouse “warming” is natural and that the theory is flawed and trivial. One alleged cause of the greenhouse effect, CO2, gets blamed for this crime. Government documents try to tackle this problem only failing with contradiction in itself.

The publics consensus on the ozone depletion changes daily in degrees, but the fear always returns when this subject gets brought up. People become afraid because of the hyperventilation from the media and environmental groups. Groups such as these claim how that ozone levels reduce year by year, month by month, day by day (Haimson). The believing and overall ignorant population believe all of it as if it were fact. Just like blind sheep following blind guides. Much to the dismay of these same groups of scientists now see that human kind cannot possibly hurt let alone destroy the ozone layer. In fact the very same scientist who invented the instrument used to measure ozone believes the threat of depletion is exaggerated(Singer)! Other scientists say how a super nova 340,000 years ago disrupted ten to twenty percent of the ozone layer(Limbaugh-178). A SUPER NOVA only disrupted twenty percent! How can humans compare with such an awesome and great a force? The human rac!

e has become so caught up in how great and powerful the human population think they have become that they cannot see how truly minuscule they really are. Just think how much force it would take to put a hole in the ozone, or eliminate it one hundred percent in certain areas, if a super nova only depleted it twenty percent. Some scientist stress this point to argue how holes in the ozone never really exist. They claim instead that the ozone only thins from its peak from time to time(Howard). Even this claim sounds like a natural phenomenon just like an ocean tide, perhaps. No one has revealed, in fact, any evidence that long term global ozone levels decline(Bidinotto). The Gallup Poll of February 1992 polled climateologists and atmospheric physicists and found that seventeen percent say they believe the ozone hole is real while eighty-three percent disagree(Howard). Of course the news media would never report of such things, all too happy (and true). Derek Barton, a No!

bel prize winning chemist once said “There’s so much propaganda [around the ozone issue] that I just don’t believe it(Begley-71).” One might ask after hearing all the augments if the ozone “depletion” actually occurs naturally. One scientist shows that the ozone actually does vary twenty-five percent each day and another twenty-five percent each year(Ponte-30). This says that all the reports of ozone depletion is accounted for NATURALLY. Some think of the ozone as water in a moving saucer. Just as the water in a saucer the ozone varies in depth from place to place and moment by moment so as not to be able to measure it accurately. Volcanoes and earthquakes and other periodical natural occurrences might cause this natural variation(Howard). Our world has very complex properties making it and its properties unpredictable, further its shear magnitude make it uncontrollable. Man kind must stop worrying about things it cannot fully understand and connot possibly control. Su!

nspots explain one theory of why scientists claim to have ozone measurements that support environmentalist ideas. At eleven year intervals, ozone in the upper atmosphere increase by five percent which suggest the influence of the sunspot cycle. (Ponte-30) Where scientist claim “holes” occupy, natural factors account for entirely. Factors such as temperature, air currents, and surface pressure(Lutgens, Tarback-185-186, 189-190). Along with not mentioning the fact that all ozone activity occurs naturally, environmental scientists and the media have also failed to mention a few facts that eliminate most if not all fear of ozone depletion. For example, since 1955 the ozone layer increased a total of six percent. Yes, a six percent increase. Even the scientists themselves really don’t believe in this mess of lies, beyond how much money they will get for the next study. A NAS study is very telling. In 1980 Environmentalists predicted an eighteen percent ozone decrease, late!

r in 1982 the estimate decreased itself to a seven percent depletion, yet again the prediction went down again to two to four percent decrease. As stated before, the ozone level actually increased six percent. The scientists at NAS knew this of course but they let their predictions stand. The most ironic part of the whole ordeal, however, reveals itself over study into why they kept lowering their predictions. The reduction was due to the counteracting effects of other pollutants(Singer)! Even if the ozone hole does exist, the human race would not have to fret, because the so-called “ozone hole” cannot expand outside of the Antarctic region, due to unique meteorological conditions (Bidinotto). Given this our populous may safely say that an ozone hole in the arctic cannot hurt us in any way shape or form since an arctic hole should not effect the cancer rates in the United States (or any other populated continent for that matter), and it can not go beyond the arctic(Sin!

ger). The government seems to have the only benefiting factor in this whole situation, power. Any time a controlling group of people can manipulate an ignorant group of people, the first group can seize easy money, and power. Just think if the controlling group could make people think that it could save their lives if they buy a more expensive yet less efficient product. All the people of this country have to remember is that we are not capable of destroying our ecosystem(Limbaugh-171). Don’t fall into the greatest scam of this country.

Since it can be shown that ozone depletion does not exist, what chemical doesn’t cause it? Environmentalists claim that chlorine and related gasses do some of the “damage”, but chlorine could not possibly hurt the ozone layer for the simple fact that it weighs two and a half times more than air. In order to even get this deadly gas up that high it would take a tremendous amount of force. Other gasses accused of evildoings can also have praise attached to their names. Pollutants such as methane(cow burps) nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide are actually praised for ozone “depletion” retardation (Singer). There are hours to spend looking at how environmental scientist contradict each other. For example, some scientists say how the human population emits too many CFCs and other ozone “depleting” gasses. On the other hand, however, many scientist argue that in 1976 an Alaskan volcano spewed 570 times the worlds CFC production(Begley-71)! How could people possibly produce!

that much “harmful” gas? There are, however, disputing opinions on this fact. Some say that volcanoes don’t put out as much harmful gas as people say they do, but the same writer admits that ancient volcanoes did(Bidinotto). Since our world doesn’t receive a new ozone through the years, what does it matter when the volcanoes erupted? Why does it matter when these volcanoes spewed more “destructive” gasses than the whole population did in the whole history of man kind? The fact still remains that humans could not ever match up to the power of volcanoes. Environmental freaks continue to make excuses to control the general populous by complaining that natural chorine and artificial are different. They argue that the natural gasses doesn’t get up high enough or that it falls out as rain(Begely-71). Others argue against this, however, that if volcanoes cannot blow the gases high enough than how can humans blow stuff even close to the distance that volcanoes do. They also !

argue that the chemicals are the same weather they are made by humans or nature. If the natural chemicals get washed out than so will the artificial, they are the same gasses! The human population of all time cannot amount to the gases released from one volcano let alone all the volcanoes in the whole history of our earth! All this garbage of how the people of the earth can touch the earth in terms of destroying it makes many sick.

The major blame of the environmentalist goes to fluorocarbons or CFCs. CFCs come from commonly used items such as aerosol cans, refrigerators, and air conditioners. This makes CFCs possibly the greatest money maker for governments around the world by forcing people to buy more expensive supplements and controllers of this “harmful” gas. “In 1947…a controversy began over whether humankind was destroying ALL life on earth with cans of hair spray and underarm deodorant.” Just the very idea of destroying all life on earth is outrageous let alone with deodorant! The alleged crimes of these CFCs puts a great toll on the purchases of this product. The environmental wacko’s theory claims that the CFCs go into the atmosphere and neutralize the chemicals that holed the ozone together. The proof they have to support them surprisingly convinces many, considering they have none. That’s right they can give NO proof whatsoever to prove a valid point! Not only do they not have any p!

roof, the theory has flaws and incomplete ideas that do not correspond(Singer). The theory claims the CFCs induce ozone depletion. The use of CFCs has not stopped since 1977 and many projected its use to grow rapidly, which it did(Howard-25-26). Back when this started there were absolutely no precautions taken to control the CFC production likewise there were no reports on ozone depletion reported. One can never take these environmentalist seriously. One example of this exposes itself in this quote. “By one projection which assumes that the fluorocarbon industry keeps growing at twenty-two percent per year as it did between 1960 and 1972, the ozone will be depleted by forty percent by 1995.”(Ponte-24) Well as all can see the human race still exists even when the CFC production grew by twenty-two percent per year. All threats given to people by the environmental freaks are nothing but that, meaningless threats. Due to the fact that the first measurements of the ozone “h!

ole” occurred before CFCs became a major factor prove that CFCs have little effect on the ozone.(Howard) In fact, one of NASA’s own studies, conducted by Dr. Linwood Callis found that the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer during the ‘80s negligible.

The Montreal Protocol will affect the human race greatly, for the worse. This soon to come law will outlaw all use of CFCs in many major countries by the year 2000. Seeing as how the use of CFCs cannot be proven harmful many people are outraged at this horrible law.(Howard) This banning, based on a 300 page LOST document, will cause grief of inconvenience, extreme cost and even death! Furthermore the banning took place without impartial input from outside scientists. This means that a group of scientists walked into a room with a possibly bogus report on how CFCs destroy the ozone, and walked out making a law that will effect us all greatly. It wouldn’t matter if the scientists lied or not as long as they convinced the group of world leaders of their point. The document had no second opinion to ensure its validity and then suddenly happened to get lost to ensure no one else could ensure its validity. The scientist are already announcing victory as well by claiming the!

ozone is already getting better, even though the law doesn’t go in place for another three years! The real outraging part of the ordeal comes when one observes the effects of outlawing CFCs. First of all the coast of replacing refrigerators alone would cost 30-50 billion dollars! Remember that this doesn’t include air conditioners, refrigeration devices (other than refrigerators) and aerosol cans! By the way, who does the government expect to pay these outrageous bills. If it the consumer must, than the consumer will be in debt for years to come. If the companies that make the CFC products will have to pay for it then many layoffs and closings of whole corporations will occur putting the economy into a depression. If the government decides to take the bill than it will more than double the federal deficit. Secondly, the replacements used for CFCs just happen to be toxic, corrosive and ten to thirty times more expensive. The scary part to this is that the founders of!

this protocol aren’t totally ignorant to these facts. Here is a direct quote from Robert Watson, head of the ozone trends panel a supporter of the CFC banning: “Probably more people would die from food as a consequence of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone.” An environmental scientist knowingly sending 20-40 million people to their deaths yearly! Banning CFCs would not only kill 20-40 million a year it will also lower the health of the remaining living people, by causing world-wide hunger, and food-borne diseases(Howard)! These are the type of people that control environmental policies world wide, the type of people who will kill mass quantities of people in the name of nature. Again the only people benefiting are those in the government.

One of the alleged problems the ozone hole would create is ultraviolet radiation. Environmentalist claim that the radiation seeps through the hole in the ozone and plague us with cancer and other skin diseases. Here again, however, the real facts prevail in disproving the lies and schemes of the environmental politicians. When in fact Melanomas have not been related directly to the increase in UV exposure. One could say possibly that the melanoma rates have gone up within the past years because melanoma rates have increased 800% since statistics were first collected in 1935. There has been no corresponding change in the ozone layer or in the amount of UV radiation reaching the surface, to the contrary UV-B (the biologically active components) are at a steady decline at every test location(Singer). The fact that indoor workers have a greater chance to get melanoma than outdoor workers further supports that UV rays do not alone induce melanoma(Howard). Another not-so well!

known fact is that ultraviolet level are decreasing rather than increasing. In 1974 UV levels were higher in American cities then than they are today(Singer). The UV scientist claim that plant life in marginal areas will cease to exist(Ponte-25). All people out west know for fact that this isn’t happening nor will itin this century. The environmentalist keep telling people this and keep robbing them blind with products to prevent this or substitute products that won’t cause this to happen yet are less efficient.

Another alleged problem that some blame for the ozone is the dreaded, the feared, the greenhouse effect. The green house theory claims that once ultraviolet radiation seeps through the atmosphere it kills plants, the lack of plants then causes an overabundance of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide acts as an insulator in the ozone, which in turn creates too much heat on earth supposedly throwing off whole ecosystems. There is even more irony in the greenhouse theory than in the ozone theory. First and maybe most ironic, scientist still cannot tell if industrial production emissions warm or cool the earth(Ponte-23, 25). The liberal scientist are shouting at everyone to stop the exhaust and industrial emissions when they don’t even know what they do. Cooling and heating would have the same source which suggests that the scientist creating these theories either have no idea what they are doing, or they make the theories for the sole propose to scare, make money, and get power. !

The same environmental political scientist accuse the human race for the greenhouse warming/cooling are totally ignoring the fact that 96% of all “greenhouse gasses” are made by nature! They seem to think the only evil thing on earth are the infectious humans(Haimson). One important fact to remember is that not all scientist agree that there is any catastrophic green house warming happening, to the contrary some think that CO2 increases would enhance photosynthesis and decrease moisture requirements for plant growth which should increase agricultural productivity. Enhanced productivity in agriculture would boost the economy creating more jobs(USA-1-9). Our environment is very durable and very unpredictable. This is proven again and again in incorrect weather predictions, and climate changes(Ponte-20). Even the most extreem environmental scientist admit that some years the climate cools and other years it warms, suggesting a natural trend(Haimson). It never seems to occ!

ur to them that there might not even be a global disaster to profit from. “Human vanity is such that we like to claim credit for all changes on the planet, whether we cause them or not. Climate swung through warmings and coolings for millions of years before mankind arrived here, and will go on doing so long after we depart, Our power to such change is yet tiny compared to natures(Ponte-29).” Not only is the greenhouse theory false, but it is also flawed in itself. The greenhouse theory assumes all other variables stay constant except CO2. This ignores facts that compensate for CO2. It also ignores the fact that most of the time things don’t work the way they do in a controlled setting (USA-1-3). Without the compensations made, however, scientist predict an ? degree increase in temperature by the year 2000. Note: these same scientist believe in evolution(Ponte-181). This quote proves the political involvement in the environment: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming i!

ssue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy(One of President Clinton’s top advisors)(Limbaugh-181).” Liberals accept, but ignore the fact that fifty-three percent of scientists do not believe in the greenhouse effect while only seventeen percent do(Haimson).

CO2 has become the most blamed for the cause of the greenhouse effect, but CO2 could not possibly be the cause, because the biggest temperature increase occurred in the first half of the 20th century, while the large increases in CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses” did not occur until after 1959 Howard-Saviors of the Earth pg.40). There are many scientist that agree with conservative views on this issue such as Drs. S.I. Rasod and S.H. Shcheider of NASAGISS when quoted: “What of the CO2 and the greenhouse effect? It is over rated. Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2. Beyond a factor of 2 to 4 the effect of CO2 levels off. Even an eight fold increase over present levels might warm the Earth’s surface 2 degrees Celsius…and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years.” Dr. Reid Bryson points out, most human activity that release carbon dioxide and heat in to the environment also cause dust or other particulate in the atm!

osphere, fixing the ozone they “destroyed.” The CO2 theory doesn’t even make sense in essence. Some scientist claim that ozone is depleted, letting harmful UV rays in, the rays effect the plants in a way that they release too much CO2, this CO2 goes into the atmosphere and creates too much ozone causing a global warming. In order to have a greenhouse effect there must be a hole in the ozone to let the ultraviolet rays on to the surface, but once the CO2 is released they create more ozone…go figure. Many scientist actually believe that CO2 is good. Take Dr. Coffman and Patrick Michael’s for example: “Our climate is actually getting better from CO2 increase. Rather than being a disaster increasing CO2 has greater chance of being a major boon to life on earth.” Most information given by the media and even public schools are surprisingly biased, in fact the government itself has faulty facts and contradicting theories. For example, an official government document bearing t!

he government seal of the United States contradicted itself at the turn of a page. A figure shown in the document shows that CO2 does not effect the temperatures in the slightest, while in the reading directly below this diagram it contradicts this(5 1-6, 2-8). Because of the obvious contradiction there can be no other conclusion drawn save that any reliable information in this document cannot be deciphered. This indicates that not even the government knows for fact that there is a problem, in fact they have no evidence just like every one else.

Now that you have seen that the warning publicizing of the ozone is nothing but a fraud you might ask why the creators would do such a thing. I am almost certain that the whole scam is nothing but a money, and power ploy. Just think how much money the government, both local and federal, can gain from this scare. All “earth conscientious ” people will want to “save” our dying earth from the terrible talons of the evil human race by taking the public bus instead of driving. They will also buy non-aerosol products, or “ozone safe” products even if they are more expensive and/or less efficient. Now how does the government gain of the buying of more expensive products? Any time there is a sudden switch of product buying, or fad in a product the economy grows pulling in more tax dollars. Even more important than the money; however, the government gains more control, or power over its citizens by “forcing” them to by these and grows larger, slowly, ever so slowly taking over !

more and more of the country it governs until finally it has total control. An example of this happening is the Montreal Protocol. So, as anyone can see the only hole in the ozone is in the theory.

Source Cited

Begely, Sharon. “Is the Ozone Hole in Our Heads?” News Week

October 11, 1993: pg. 71.

Bindotto, Robert “Ozone and Objectivity” Online. Pitt. November 20, 1996

“Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 1983

Limbaugh, Rush. See I Told You So. New York: Pocket Books a division of

Simon and Schuster Inc. 1993

Lutgens, Fredrick K. and Tarback, Edward J. The Atmosphere

NJ Prentic-Hall, Inc. 1986 pg. 189-195.

Singer, Fred, S. Ph.D. “My Adventures in the Ozone Layer.” Online Pitt.

November 18,1997

Ponte, Lowell. The Cooling NJ Prentice-Hall Inc., 1976

Haimson, Lepnie, Oppenheimer, Michael, and Wilcove, David

“The Way Things Really Are” Online. Pitt.

Thesis: The “Hole”, however, only exists in the minds of environmental, fanatic scientists and politicians.

The protective Ozone layer around our world undergoes much thought and debate.

I. Introduction

A. Ozone Depletion

1. Public Consensus

2. Scientific Consensus

3. Natural Phenomenon

4. Facts, Real

B. Ozone gasses

1. Gasses Accused

2. Gasses, What They Really Do

3. Gasses (”Evil”) Helping

4. Volcanoes

5. Nature vs. Humans

C. Fluorocarbons (CFCs)

1. Controversy Of 1947

2. “Crimes of”

3. Theory Flaws

D. The Montreal Protocol

1. Parameters

2. Effects of Banning

E. Ultraviolet Rays

1. Ozone Related To?

2. Cancer

3. Levels

F. Global Warming/ The Green House Effect

1. Ozone, How It Is Related

2. Irony

3. Global Warming Natural?!?

4. Global Warming Trivial And Flawed

5. Politics

G. CO2

1. CO2, Not Related

2. CO2, Over Rated

H. Government Document

1. Contradiction

2. Graphs

II. “Ozone Depletion”

A. Public Consensus

1. The Ozone is Depleting (10)

3. The Ozone is Going to Disappear

B. Scientific Consensus

1. Scientists That Invented the Instrument to Measure Ozone(6)

2. Novas (3-178)

3. Humankind Stronger Than Nature?

4. Holes Never Exist (9)

5. Quote: Derek Barton (7-71)

6. Evidence, the Lack of (8)

7. Percentages (9)

C. Natural Phenomenon

1. Ozone Naturally Varies (4-30)

2. Ozone Thins Naturally (Volcanoes/Earthquakes) (9)

3. Ozone Increases (Sunspots) (4-30)

4. Air Currents (1 185-186)

5. Surface Pressure (1 189-190)

6. Temperature (1-189)

D. Facts, Real

1. Ozone Layer Increase (4-30)

2. NAS Study (6)

3. Ozone Has No Effect On Cancer (6)

4. Ozone Cannot Expand … Antarctica (8)

5. Mankind Not Capable (3-171)

III. Ozone Gasses

A. Gasses Accused

B. Gasses What They Really Do

C. Gasses (Evil) Helping (6)

1. Methane

2. Nitrogen Oxides

3. Carbon Dioxide

D. Volcanoes

1. 1976 (7)

2. Dispute (8)

a. Volcano Power vs. Human Power

b. Time Irrelevant

E. Nature Vs. Humans

1. Same Stuff (7)

a. Natural Falls Out As Rain

b. Artificial Stays In

c. Same Stuff

2. “Exceptions”

a. Myth: Natural Gasses (10)

b. Fact: Same

c. “Nature Stays in Balance”

d. “Artificial Are Too Much For Nature”

e. Same Stuff

IV. Fluorocarbons (CFCs)

A. “…1947…Controversy” (4-23)

B. “Crimes Of”

1. Theory

2. Proof (None)

C. Theory Flaws

1. CFC Theory Incomplete (6)

2. Use Of CFCs Grew Rapidly Since 1977 (4-25-26)

3. Projection (4-24)

4. Measurements Before (9)

5. NASA Study (8)

V. The Montreal Protocol

A. Parameters

1. Montreal Protocol (Definition) (9)

2. Document (LOST!!) (9)

3. CFCs Banned Without Impartial Input (9)

4. Liberals Thank… (10)

B. Effects of Banning

1. Cost (9)

2. Replacements Toxic (9)

3. Replacements More Expensive (9)

4. Deaths Caused By Replacements (9)

5. Quote: Robert Watson (9)

VI. Ultraviolet Rays

A. Ozone “Hole” Related To

B. Cancer

1. “UV Rays Related”

2. UV Rays Not Related (6)

3. Cancer Rates (6)

4. Cancer Indoors? (9)

C. Levels

1. Lower (6)

2. Desert Effects (4-25)

VII. Global Warming/Green House Effect

A. Ozone “Hole” Related (4-25)

1. UV

2. CO2

B. Irony

1. Scientists Not Sure…(4-23)

2. 96% of Green House Gasses…(10)

3. Scientists Do Not Agree (9)

4. Heating And Cooling Have Same Source (4-29)

5. CO2 Increases Would Help The Economy (5 1-9)

C. Global Warming Natural

1. Nature Unpredictable (4-20)

2. Environmentalists Admit (10)

3. Quote: Lowell Ponte

D. Global Warming Trivial And Flawed

1. Green House Theory Assumes… (5 1-3)

2. Temp. Supposed To Raise Only ? Degree Celsius (4 22-23)

E. Politics

1. Quote: Adviser (3-181)

2. Liberal (10)

VIII. CO2

A. CO2 Not Related To Global Warming (9- Saviors of the Earth p.40)

B. CO2 Over Rated

1. Quote: Drs. S.I. Rasod, S.H. Schmeider (4-29)

2. Problem Fixing Itself (4-28)

3. CO2 Good?

Quote: Drs. Coffman, And Michaels (9)

Quote: Drs. Coffman, And Michaels (9)

C. Government Document

1. Graphs (5 1-6, 2-8, 4-12, 4-25)

2. Writing vs. Graph (5 1-6, 2-8)

3. Conclusion

IX. Conclusion

A. Ozone Depletion

1. Gasses

2. CFCs

3. The Montreal Protocol

B. Global Warming/ Green House Effect

1. CO2

2. Government Document

C. My Comments