Dr. Will Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).
Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.
James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist:
“I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”
On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”
Will Happer further elaborated:
“The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”
LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY
The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
STILL COMING
Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.
“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF
The warmer scientists will continue to promote the fraud as long as the money supports their dishonest claims. There is a trail of added cost to the global warming cause from manufacturer to consumer. When they did away with Freon it became practical because of cost to swap out the entire auto AC system rather than recharge. Intrusion like that into the private market benefits no one except those ready to sell the new government approved product. And politicians.
Despite what a many are suggesting or implying, the CFC scam was not a victimless crime. The removal of access to cheap refrigerants and propellants was everything from inconvenient to harmful to fatal to various stakeholders.
If I recall, and connot find a reference for this, the Ozone hole was first observed by a group of Dutch scientists in the early 50’s, before widespread usage of CFC’s. Perhaps the ozone teleconnected across time?
As others have noted, the ban killed Halons, about the most effective fire suppressant ever produced. Instant out, and little collateral damage. Inhalers are the most recent travesty. The Montreal Protocol allows the use of CFC’s if there is no reasonable alternative. Political pressure forced the inhaler change.
Then there is Columbia. Wing smash by a piece of non-cfc foam. When NASA switched in about 2000, they saw a major increase in damage. Old tanks with CFC foam didn’t do it, new tanks did. But, they couldn’t switch back, becauseof a memo ordering all government agencies to comply with the M.P.
A memo (in 1998) from then V.P. … Al Gore.
Amazing what junk science can accomplish.
Lovelock carries his metaphors too far, most unscientifically.
There is his “daisyworld” paradox. According to this theory, extra solar input equals colder climate, because reflective vegetation will be advantaged as it will stay cooler in the warming climate, which results in a cooler climate, which seems absurd to me.
Then he says that the ice-ages are caused by the Earths temperature regulation system running down and failing in its old age. His logic appears to be that because the Earth has various regulatory control systems, and a biological system also has various regulatory control systems, then the Earth is also such a biological system that ages in a biological fashion.
I am sure that he has done some important work and made some significant discoveries, but everything he says must be treated with the utmost skepticism.
John B says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm
‘Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”’
Aha, a religious belief in other words. In their own words.
Why hasn’t this statement by Lovelock:
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done”
…drawn media attention? When I read this back when it came out, I thought for sure I’d hear about this in the MSM. I never heard one mention of it.
Why?
I don’t dispute that CFC’s high up in the atmosphere destroy ozone. However, I’ve never understood why the Antarctic has way more destruction than the Arctic when the bulk of the CFCs were released in the northern hemisphere.
Dupont was a past master at maximizing their patent revenues. The hemp ban was certainly fortuitous for them given that they had patents for the replacements.
They deny they did anything to influence that decision, but, then, they would, wouldn’t they?
I spent my career in the semiconductor microelectronic business. Back about 1992 some of our customers required that we phase out CFCs in our processes, to comply with the Montreal Protocol. The interesting thing is, that without exception, the new processes we had to develop worked better, cost less and provided higher and less variable yields. At least in this area there was a clear benefit, and I’m confident that the impact of better, lower cost microelectronics outweighs any other costs incurred by society. Unintended consequence? Yes. Phase out of CFC bad? not so clear.
Those maps tell me that “The Hole” is always there and doesn’t change much.
John B says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“Did anybody get as far as reading the last paragraph of the Nature article?…
‘Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”’
Or do you discount the bits you don’t like?”
Oh, i like the “But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.” bit very much. It screams uncertainty. Someone at Nature must have been asleep.
“Overwhelming evidence … but…”
Do i hear a “robust”?
They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
Information, knowledge, is material as anything else in the Universe, thus it can not be infinitely divided…
It´s like a Pie…the more people eats the less for each one. Sorry if this is not “progressive” but it is unfortunately real. Thus, there are a lot of “scientists” who could be great technicians instead: good carpenters, plumbers; and they would live happier lives, without having the stress and the remorse of “Selling their Souls to the Devil” 🙂
Murray,
Clearly neither you nor any of your family has asthma. If you did, you would not be so dense about the harms inflicted by the CFC bans.
Also I find it interesting that your engineering team was stuck on stupid until the UN forced you to improve your mousetrap. Maybe a sound beating in the alley once a week would benefit your R&D.
Why believe data when you have models?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/measures-to-save-ozone-stemmed-a.html?ref=hp
“SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA—Now, for a change, some good news on the environmental front. Global efforts launched in 1989 to stem emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—volatile chemicals, used as refrigerants and propellants in spray cans, that break down ozone—have borne fruit not only by protecting ozone in the atmosphere but also by preventing even more dramatic atmospheric heating. That’s because, like carbon dioxide, CFCs in the atmosphere trap heat. New studies, presented here last month at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, show that had humanity not cut this pollution, Earth would have experienced as much as 1.5ºC of additional global warming by 2070. Moreover, the new projections show, CFC pollution would have thinned the layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, even more than scientists expected, as a result of an unforeseen “feedback” effect.”
“The modeling drives home the point that the ban on CFCs constitutes a monumental environmental success story. “There’s a tendency of people sometimes to say, ‘Did we need to do this?’ ” says atmospheric scientist Darryn Waugh of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who didn’t collaborate on the research. Had the world not clamped down on CFCs, “these are pretty dramatic things that would have occurred.” Applaud humanity for doing the smart thing—or quake at the thought of the bullet we unwittingly dodged.”
Laurie says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:02 am
“I may be a bit cynical . . . but . . .”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Shot Outside a Grocery Store in Tucson … –
Not only cynical, but off-topic, and quoting Wankapedia here won’t gain you any adulation, either.
all conserned should be sent to jail dont go past go
also the replacment gass has higher pressures that means higher operation costs I hope the tree huggers are happy in there trees god bless them
I’ve always wondered about the ozone hole theory as well. Most recently the article on hydroxyl oxidizing pollutants made me wonder about the chemistry some more. If hydroxl forms in the presence of light then one would expect the very long summer as the poles to produce more hydroxyl during that period which would break down more ozone (not taking into account the smaller amount of light the poles get in general).
Also, hasn’t the UV part of the solar spectrum been increasing? Would that imply more hydroxl is being formed and therefore more ozone is being broken down.
Feet2theFire says: “…..Sorry this was so long……”
That’s OKAY. I DIDN’T read IT. I DON’T read COMMENTS that have a LOT of WORDS in ALL CAPS. They’re seldom WORTH reading.
Have you read the Lovelock book “The Revenge of Gaia”?
Here Lovelock show a concern even bigger about Global Warming than Hansen and Al Gore!
Funny that Lovelock, the most radical Earth Scientist in his concerns about Global Warming living on Earth, get quoted here!
Rate is not important. If photolysis is essential in splitting CFCs then why the ozone layer is thinner at the poles, where there is less light. If CFCs were the cause of the ill-named ozone hole, the hole should be in the equator, where the stratosphere receives more light.
I always found it interesting how the ozone hole is always found in the vicinity of a weak spot in the earth’s magnetic field. This leans me do think that solar radiation is ripping apart O3 atoms in that area. The only problem is our poles would show the same thing.
However there is a interesting aspect to solar radiation. CMEs have polarity. North polarization is ok because it strengthens the field and particles bounce off the reinforced field. South actually causes the field to collapse, delivering radiation to lower levels.
On top of that I wonder if the more northly location of the hole from the pole might set itself up as a dump-off spot on the way to the pole.
@Retired Engineer January 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm:
Freon was also the best anti-burn treatment. It was sold in spray cans. If sprayed on a burn within the first minute or so, the pain was 100% gone, and the blistered skin (if any) just dried up and fell off in the next few days. No pain, no infection potential. I worked in and around 420°F equipment at the time of the Montreal Protocol, and we never found anything to deal with burns like freon did.
Off topic: An amazing discovery for me was dealing with highly polished steel surfaces that were at that 420°F temp. The emissivity of polished steel was nearly zero, so I could get within perhaps 1/2 mm or so and not feel ANY heat coming off – but if I closed that 1/2 mm to zero, OUCH! Bring out the freon! It was freaking dangerous. We got IR cameras to try to measure the actual surface temps, looking for temp anomalies, and the cameras were totally useless, because of the almost non-existent emissivity. No heat was being radiated. I learned with that and other projects how it is not temperature that is important, but heat flow/heat transfer. I’ve held certain 420°F materials in my bare hands and they felt barely warm. People have held red hot Space Shuttle tiles in their bare hands and not gotten burned.
I remember when the ozone “hole” was first discovered (late 80’s?) I read an article that stated that scientists didn’t know if it had always been there or not. There was some conjecture that maybe it was caused or aggravated by CFC emissions but no one jumped to any conclusion at that time. Then that whole discussion just disappeared into thin air. In fact, I never again saw any acknowledgment that the first time we looked………….we found it.
For those who wonder why there is not one over the North Pole:
I am by no means an expert but, as I understand it ozone chemistry is highly dependent on temperature and incident radiation. The Antarctic is much colder than the Arctic. I believe I read that on average the WARMEST month in the Antarctic is only 12C warmer than the COLDEST month in the Arctic. Obviously, because the South Pole is covered by land not ocean. For those who care, there is no trend whatsoever in ozone concentration measured at Mauna Loa for the last 50 odd years. The real travesty is what environmentalism has done to science Dr. T.
richard verney says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:08 am
Interesting point you made about CFC’s so high up.
CFC density @ur momisugly -29.8 1.486 g/cm^3
Air density @ur momisugly -25 0.0014 g/cm^3
Assuming one atmosphere of pressure.
What can I say? Nullify Montreal Protocol. It is based on bogus science just as as much as global warming is based on bogus science. And I mean demonstrably bogus in both cases. Then bring back freon as a refrigerant, both for scientific and economic reasons. It is better and cheaper than its substitutes.