Comments page
Here are some of the comments I have received (edited for length or to protect the innocent). Please e-mail Jim Norton with any comments and let me know if it is ok to include your e-mail address or web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How can I get listed on your environmental links page? My site is a Protect ANWR Petition with ANWR info and history. The address is http://www.geocities.com/protect_anwr
Thanks--
Katie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Norton,
Your anti-environmental myths site has apparently disappeared. Not for good, I hope?
No, just more problems with AOL. But thanks to Ric there is now a new and reliable site:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From CATO - Steve Milloy Mr 2002
http://www.cato.org/askourscholars/milloy/
I've read differing views on the health effects of radon gas. Can you share your knowledge on this subject?
In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began alarming the public about how radon gas in the home could increase the risk of lung cancer. Radon is a colorless and odorless radioactive gas that naturally emanates from rocks and soil. It may seep into homes through basements and foundations. The EPA's radon alarm is based on studies that report increased lung cancer rates among underground uranium miners, especially smokers. These miners typically have been exposed to relatively high concentrations of radon for long periods of time. They have also been exposed to high levels of many other substances and dusts in the mines for long periods of time. The EPA alarm is based on the notion that the experience of the miners can be extrapolated to the residential setting. This is unproven and questionable. There have been many studies examining radon levels in homes and lung cancer incidence. The data are typically poor, mostly because it's virtually impossible to know how much radon someone actually inhaled over a period of decades. The studies have produced mixed results. Some studies report a slight increase in lung cancer rates among residents who have been estimated to have relatively high radon exposure. Other studies report no increase in lung cancer rates, and even a decrease in lung cancer. Study of radon has been so inconclusive that the leading advocate of the residential radon-lung cancer theory declared that further research would be futile. STEVE MILLOY
These studies refute Mr. Milloy:
http://www.ntp.org.uk/951-TUD.pdf
http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html
http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/rd_review.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I may have missed it, but the Slippery Slope argument can be added to the list as well. The argument asserts that if something is allowed to happen in a limited capacity, it will occur to an extreme degree directly after that.
There is also an argument that pisses me off that is stated well in Latin, but I am unable to remember the phrase. It is loosely tranlsated as "this after that; therefore, because of that," meaning that if B occurs after A, one can state that A caused B. It is misleading because one cannot assume cause and effect simply because of a timeline of events. People seem to use this argument when crying about how violence in media causes violence in reality.
You are referring to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, usually abbreviated as the post hoc fallacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Norton,
I can testify that DDT is persistent in areas of low to moderate rainfall (<25 inches rainfall pa) and in soils with a low organic content.
It has been estimated that in Canterbury soils (NZ) the half life is thousands of years as the natural breakdown rate is very slow.
It is not uncommon to have pastures here containing >120 mg DDT/DDE -the "safe" level is 20 mg, although this is being reviewed and may be set lower.
Prices for farmland here are often related to DDT/DDE levels since farming activities are restricted on DDT contaminated land by law.
Thanks for your page. DDT most certainly persists under very common conditions.
And the ironic aspect to the use of DDT was that when farmers gave up using DDT they noticed no increase in the pests the DDT was supposed to control!
Sadly, good farmers "got suckered" and now have badly contaminated soils, whereas lazy farmers or cheapskates who did not apply DDT at all have very valuable, DDT-free land.
My interest is because I am working on a harmless and cost effective means of bioremediation that does not interfere with the farmer's normal operations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jim,
Starting from the discussions in sci.chem I came across your websites and spent more than four hours with reading them. I was extremely pleased about the very calm, to-the-point manner and the wide variety of subjects you are covering, some of them being real eye-openers, for instance when it comes to the background of many self-claimed 'experts'. Not that I needed any incentive to become a "green", but it always helps to see, that there are other people out there, that feel the same. Unfortunately, I think, that the majority of people visiting your website does not need to be convinced anymore. Anyway, Thank you very much for your efforts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just found your webpage correcting Steve Milloy's junk. It's a real public service you're doing. Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Jim Norton,
I recently came upon your website in doing research for a class presentation on Bast et al.'s book _Eco-Sanity_. I too found many of their arguments sieve-like at best and their sourcing biased and thin, and I wanted to commend you for the voracity with which you picked apart a couple of their cases. I am enjoying the rest of your site as well -- please keep up the good work! There are too many false notions circulating in the public consciousness as "facts" simply because they're shouted loudly enough -- thanks for taking the time to expose a few of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The webpage "Correcting anti-environmental myths" is nothing short of heroic. Many thanks to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enjoy your page. Keep up the good work.
I get a good laugh from all the irrelevant forms of argument provided by your antagonists. Those comments could be a chapter in a textbook on logic (showing examples of bad reasoning). The name-calling is rife throughout, but my favorite is the argument--a stalwart of the anti-environmental crowd--to the effect that only someone who is "pure" and has reduced his or her environmental impact to the maximum extent possible should be authorized to point out the environmental damage caused by certain practices. What rot.
Like I say, keep up the good work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Norton, your info came at a time when I needed it most. Professor [Margaret] Maxey and her mouthpiece, Floy Lilley, of the University of Texas, are preaching the gospel of the Constitution and free enterprise being threatened by environmental extremism. They list as their sources almost everybody you have on your website. Thank you for your rather concise and factual arguments that dispute what is being taught as fact at one of our biggest colleges. If you get curious, look up Maxey and Lilley at the University of Texas. Their biographies explain alot. Keep up the good work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a great page - I only wish there were more like it. Until there are, I'm linking to it from my Green Party (of Michigan) news page. This is the best way I have of spreading the word. Keep up the good work!
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kudos for your extensive research and courage for posting some of the greenwashing groups supported by corporations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just a quick thanks:
your page debunking anti-enviro myths is extremely well-designed and useful
indeed.
Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've had your site bookmarked for weeks, and finally spent some time with
it this morning. Bravo. Great work you've done here.
Best wishes, and keep up the great work you're doing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have just taken a look through your anti-junk science pages, and am mightily impressed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was very pleased to run across your pages. Excellent job!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've just stumbled across your wonderful website. I've got another account on AOL, and have debated global warming and other issues with a wide array of fools and knaves there. What's more, I've reviewed a couple of the books that deal with anti-environmental myths -- *Betrayal of Science and Reason* and *The Heat Is On*
I'm curious to know a bit about you, and how you came to do this, if you don't mind the prying. You see, I think this kind of information is one of the best uses of the internet -- and considering how much disinformation is floating around, one of the most necessary. I think everyone should see this instantly, but instead I discover that this point of view is rather rare. So, when I find someone else who sees the importance of providing a reference point for refuting common myths, I naturally feel a certain kinship.
I've also been struggling with my own (rather too-grandiose, I'm afraid) ideas about how to go about doing something similar, although on a somewhat wider basis. So naturally, I appreciate any chance to converse with someone who's gone ahead and done something good.
Thanks for the work you've done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think your web pages are really good. thanks for providing them and for your efforts.
Every little bit helps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just made a quick visit to your web page, and liked what I saw -- I read the DDT page and was impressed with your presentation and arguments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jim,
Thank you so much for taking the time to place your pages on the web. They are a phenomenal resource, and reflect a huge amount of careful work. I am engaged in a running debate on a Rush board, and I often do not have the right reference at home to make a point. Now all I will have to do is refer to your pages and their links.
You did good, guy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the fine work you've done on this web site. You have done a marvelous service for the Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really liked you article on DDT (kept in dark...).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep socking it to them! Let in a little truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a wonderful page. Very useful. I know that I will be coming back to it in the future. Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi, Jim -- as a Green, I have to applaud your work on this page. Great stuff!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really like it and it'll take me awhile to absorb it all. Misinformation and ignorance prevail on environmentalism. I had to describe to a workmate the other day what biodiversity was--he had never heard the word before and he's forty-eight years old.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a problem which you might help solve. Problem: Where might I locate the study that traced the migration of CFCs and/or chlorine gas from the Northern Hemisphere to the Antarctic? I've been looking for said study, but can't find it.
By way of explanation: if I understand the popular version of the CFC/ozone theory correctly... CFCs used in various industrial and commercial applications, when exposed to the atmosphere, break down and the chlorine thereby released destroys ozone. As evidence of ozone depletion caused by CFCs and/or chlorine, advocates of the CFC/ozone theory point to the ozone hole above the Antarctic. And that's where I have a problem with the theory... Chlorine is four times heavier than the atmosphere (and CFC molecules heavier still). Because almost all the CFCs and/or chorine in question originate in the industrialized Northern Hemisphere:
1. How do such heavy substances manage the trip from the Northern Hemisphere to the Antarctic? Wouldn't chlorine, being a heavy and aggressive element, somewhere along the route tend to fall to the ground and quickly combine with anything it could get hold of?
2. Why do CFCs and/or chlorine released in the Northern Hemisphere choose the Antarctic as a place to gather? It seems to me that the obvious first step in proving the CFC/ozone requires a demonstration of the means by which CFCs and/or chlorine generated in the Northern Hemisphere manage to survive the trip from the Northern Hemisphere to Antarctica.
Because the CFC/ozone theory is so widely accepted in the scientific community, I must assume that someone early on
has done the study that proves the point.I'm looking for that study.
If you know of it, please advise.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Thank you for your comments. The main problem here is that you misunderstand what is occurring. CFCs do not "migrate" southward, nor do they gather over the South Pole. They spread through the atmosphere until they reach the ozone layer, which takes 50-100 years. When they get above the ozone layer, the CFC molecules are broken down by ultraviolet light, releasing chlorine. There is also no great mystery as to how the CFCs reach the ozone layer, the atmosphere is well mixed until well above the stratosphere. This was well known long before there was any concern over ozone depletion.
I would suggest you read two excellent pieces by Robert Parson. One is his critique of Dixy Lee Ray's chapters on ozone depletion (where your misconceptions originated):
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/dixy_1.txt
The other is his well documented FAQ on ozone depletion:
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello, Jim,
I enjoyed finding your website (buried deep in the list of Altavista's "Raging Search" as a result of searching on "ozone replenishment"). I am trying to find any references to research projects or companies that are focusing on generating new ozone in the upper atmosphere.
My interest is hopefully finding the means to repair the ozone layer by generating new ozone to plug the holes. I am also interested in how nature generates ozone.
If you know of any such sources on web or magazines, I would be most greatful. Thank you for your help and keep up the good work.
No one that I know of is trying to replenish the ozone layer. This does not appear to be practical. Ozone is naturally replenished by the action of UV light on oxygen. The problem is that chlorine, from the destruction of CFCs, greatly increases the rate of destruction of ozone. The result is much less ozone. For more see the ozone FAQ:
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jim:
I think that what you are doing is fine, even though you have criticized Facts, Not Fear. I think that you are honestly trying to find out the facts for the most part.
Your comments about ozone are generally correct.
I only criticize your comments in two respects. One, I think that you are torturing the material in Limits to Growth in order to imply that the book did not forecast a dire future. I would have to go back to the book to answer you point by point (and may do that when I have more time) but consider the statement (which we quote) in which the authors say that if present growth trends continue, "the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable delilne in both population and industrial capacity." The quotation incorporates the appropriate qualifications to their predictions. Yet it is certainly pessimistic.
If a doctor tells her patient that he most stop smoking and lose weight, is she forecasting a dire future? The main thrust of the environmental movement is that problems can be anticipated and prevented. (And given that Bailey uses these "predictions" repeatedly to claim that environmentalists are never right, it think it is legitimate to point out his error.)
Also, can you conceive of a way that "the state of global equilibrium could be designed" without massive international governmental intervention? I welcome your ideas!
As for Sri Lanka, I tried to get the Web page but there was no connection.
It is working fine now. Alas, AOL is not the most reliable server.
Best regards,
Jane Shaw
Coauthor, Facts, Not Fear
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Your environtmental wackiness.
Date: 6/30/02 9:27:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: anonymous@anonymizer.com
To: jimn469897@aol.com
Anybody praising the work of Paul Ehrlich has got to be an absolute moron. In reading what you believe his book addresses, it's obvious that you to are a chcken little alarmist. That Dixie Lee Ray smoked out vermin like Ehrlich and all of his cabla (like you) is especially gratifying to see. Then you all scurried to write books trying to debunk the facts.
...we're keeping an eye on you Jim!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jim,
I wondered how long it would be before the Environmental Movement started its own science page. It must have been really gualing for you to have had to listen to Dr Patrick Moore decrying all the leftists entering the green movement at the time of the fall of communism. But unfortunately that is a fact.
For years, Marxists claimed that they had discovered the Science of Development of Class Society. Or the Trotskyists with the Science of Perspectives. This 19th century approach came about precisely because of the application of science to the material development of society. But its main aim was to promote the dictatorship of the proleteriat over the development of society. Class and esspecially working class control is not a much used term nowadays. And it was considered to be the handmaiden of the adoption by society of the pre class developement and to usher in "True Communism".
That failed, and not because as the Trotskists have always argused that the workers in the west were put off by the bureaucratic distortion of Stalinism, but becuase the methodology used, with central control and planning - a vast uneducated bureacracy, the complete stiffling of the economy, and the worst enviromental record of any industrial nation. Coupled with that were the 20 million killed through starvation - a direct result of centralised planning.
As Western Capitalism did not fall down as the marxists so predicted, but on the contrary experienced the greatest technological growth in human history, (Fact 1 -- there are more mathematicans alive today than have ever existed in human history.) the present day socialists have decided that the best way to attack capitalism is to pull it down using regulations, environmental scares, anti-biotechnology, global warming --- and that their Pretorian Guard is the ambulance chasing lawyers. (A new twist to an old tale ought to be "Those that can do, those that can't become lawyers.")
It is interesting that you do not add the arguments of Julien Simon to those that argue against the Club of Rome. Or are you still seething at having to pay the $15,000 bet. For shortages to even show their face then the price would inevitably have to rise. The argument by Simon put simple is this. There are finite resources but there are an infinite combination of their use. The greatest resource to man or woman is brain power. This is released not in peasant communes but in the technologically advanced countries who can generate the wealth neccessary to fund education research etc. To decry and try to name and shame corporate science is quite disgusting. There was a limited supply of whale oil for use in lighting, however science found otherways to generate light. The same argument goes for the use of whale bones for combs, needles etc. And that science was developed because some people raised the money and developed the market. And I think the whales are the better for it.
Those who base their arguments on computer models obviously know nothing of computer modelling. GIGO and in the case of the global warming fraternity - -no one knows the entirity of what to put in nor the totallity of the mathematical combinations.
Corporate Science has done more for humanity than Government Funded science ever has, precisely because at some stage of the argument someone has to find real markets rather than the results of opinion polls. As someone once put it "the only real market analysis is a signed cheque." Biotechnology will feed the planet, the ecologists will reduce the planets population to the primative communism so beloved of the marxists. With this level there will be enough land for agriculture to enable sustainable development!!
Brian J. BAKER,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
two words to you eco-nazi, flawed data !!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dear eco-nazi, global warming is a bunch of bull stools.....much of it is based on compute rmodels. I've done enough of this to know that anything as complicated as global weather cannot be modeled to that degree.also, us me's take thermodynamics. the radiation heat transfer to a body in space is proportional to temp to the 4th power.if the temp of the earth rose just a little bit, the heat transfer rate would compensate.here's the kick, when ole ben franlin was traveling back and forth to france as ambassador , to relieve the boredom of a trans-atlantic trip, he measured water temp every hour . he thus discovered the gulf stream.the limey brits began doing the same, it seems that that hey have been keeping ocean temps since the 1790s.THOSE SHOW NO WARMING AT ALL !!!! current temp, here in central ohio is 21 with a forecast low of 8.....no global warming here. as stated the other day , you eco-nazis are using flawed data to push your social agenda.....i ain't buying it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just seen your web site (propaganda).
Even NASA admits that volcanos are responsible for MOST of the CFCs in the ozone.
Do you mean chlorine? Either way, NASA says no such thing.
The hole in ozone has been a naturally occurring phenomenon since before it was discovered by man. It opens and closes.
Do you have a reference for this?
The ozone "scare" is a nothing more than communist propaganda.
Too bad there are fools, such as yourself, who would like to see the collapse of the USA.
Are you doing your part to "save the planet"? Is your only form of transportation by foot ? You can't ride a bicycle since they are manufactured in an industrial manner. Are you growing, picking, and spinning cotton to produce your own clothes? I'm sure that you go down to the creek, without soap, and beat your clothes with rocks to clean them? Do you grow all of your own food organically? Do you live in a grass hut? Do you use electricity?
If the answer to any of the above should be "no" then it would follow that you are a hypocrite, a Commie hypocrite at that.
You are a fool and you have been filtered.
Ron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looked at your web pages. I find it hard to believe you can be a skeptic and so green you must have photosynthetic skin! How can you be so skeptical of one side of a scientific argument and so totally accepting of another? I must say that by first appearance, your site screams "Fanatic!", no offense : )
Attacking Dixy Lee Ray? What is the point of attacking an aged (at the time) ex marine biologist for getting some dates and piddling physics wrong? The real issue circles around much tougher problems. I can line up first rate atmospheric physicists and physical chemists who will testify they can find no evidence of Global Warming! Further, their best supercomputer modeling doesn't help either. And new ice cores, tree cores, sat data, etc are inconclusive or even contrary. So where does the idea come from? AL Gore? Or is it media science of the Sagan/Comoner/Ehrlich variety? It is repeated over and over like a mantra. Why can't my colleagues find the evidence?
BTW, I bought the Ehrlich book and found he uses practically every fallacy you mention in your skeptical thinking section himself!
I suggest a good counter weight would be "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell.
Scientific debates occur in scientific journals and meetings, not in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, multymillion dollar advertising campaigns, or the fringe publications favored by Dixy Lee Ray. What is happening now is information pollution produced by PR hacks, and it should be treated like any other pollution. Global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc. were concerns of scientists long before environmentalists ever even heard of them. I suggest you read "Public Relations Blue Smoke, Mirrors, and Designer Science: How the Public Relations Industry Compromises Democracy" by Brian Siano, in the latest issue of The Skeptic (Vol. 7. No.1, 1999, pages 45 to 55). It looks at how the PR industry (including Steven Milloy and Elizabeth Whelan) is affecting the public's perception of science:
You may have read accounts of postmodern academics who dismiss science as just "another way of knowing." But in the richly funded realms of the public-relations industry, contempt for science is put into practice on a scale that the pomo theorists can't even imagine. Maybe you see science as a tool, like a telescope, with which we expand our vision and understand the universe. But to the PR industry, science is merely a style, like a techno-attitude fashion show or an "extreme-sports" ad for Mountain Dew. Here, scientists are just mouthpieces whose credibility can be bought a lot cheaper than, say, Michael Jordan's, and the trappings of science--the studies, lab coats, the peer-reviewed journals--are mise en scene to cue the audience's respect.Asking people to trust science ignores the other half of the issue. Like any institution, science has to earn our trust. Not just once, or on the basis of laurels won in the past, but every day. What we hear about science has been manufactured and promoted by those with the deepest pockets. People may be suspicious of science because its hard not to see how cynically it's used. It's like asking people to trust the legal system, or the government, or the private sector--it sure sounds nice in principle, but it's not working for them. It's all well and good to demand facts and evidence in exchange for trust--but when facts are a cheap, mass-produced, and inflated currency, trust becomes a very expensive resource.
Jim (I have always looked better in green) Norton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hate to rain on your parade.
If science is so perfect then why are all the science texts and journals laced with such absolutitisc phrases such as : "we believe" "we hope" "It is believed" "we hypothethize" "theoretically" "it is possible" "our conjecture" "it is conceivable" "imagine if" "it is impossible to believe otherwise" "it is only a matter of time" "if we only had another trillion dollars we could" "previous optimistic endeavours have yet to be verified" "although statistically impossible we believe..." "someday we will find a scientific method that will prove everything... blah blah" "since we can't explain the facts we must resort to vigorous research" "since we can't explain the research we must resort to vigorous fact-finding" .... do I really need to go on???
1. Who is claiming that science is perfect?
2. If "texts and journals" are laced with such phrases, please provide some examples for each phrase.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ozone hole in recent years has become a highly debated issue with numerous scientists questioning long held beliefs about depletion. As for the discovery of the hole. I recalled a lecture I had heard on this topic when seeing your comments. In this particular lecture, I heard a scientist speak of early research done on the ozone holes during the 1960s in which it was first discovered that the ozone layer's thickness is related in part to the earths magnetic fields, which converge at the poles naturally contributing to the fluctuations seen there. I began wondering how this speaker, who obviously acknowledged a "hole" in the mid sixties, could have done so if as you assert, the ozone hole did not appear until the70's.
Did this scientist have a name? Is this been published somewhere?
Curious by this contradiction, I did some research on the history of the "hole" finding that abnormal levels of ozone have been found in antarctica from the very first time ozone was tested for in the 50's. At that time, levels were seen as "low" for the levels detected elsewhere in the world. Immediately studies began as to why this variance occurred soon noticing that such a variance fluctuated in a cyclical pattern.
Ozone levels, like most phenomena, naturally vary both geographically and over time. It rains less in Las Vegas than in Seattle. Does that mean that there is a permanent drought in Las Vegas? It is hotter in Minnesota in August than in it is in February. Does that mean that there is a three month heat wave every summer? The only valid comparison to detect change is to measure at the same location and at the same time of year.
The first "hole" so to speak came in 1985, though levels in the antarctic had previous to 1985 always been low dropping to near 1985 levels prior in the late 60's and recovering.
The first hole was NOT discovered in 1985, that was when the first paper on the hole was published in a major scientific journal. And there was no major dip in the late 60s.
I further found that what is known about ozone fluctuations not only indicates that it is cyclical from year to year, but also fluctuatory over time to an extent so great as that fluctuations over periods that can cover several years have been recorded where 50% of the ozone presence in one place can disappear, then reappear and even expand to greater amounts than the original. For this reason, many scientists have concluded that the already cyclical hole of the ozone layer is part of a greater fluctuation period linked to both volcanic activity and solar activity.
Do these scientists have names? Has this been published.
In fact the man responsible for the satellite technology which has given us the most information to date on ozone, is among the skeptics. (http://www.heartland.org/earthday96/ozone.htm) Further I found that land based ozone detecting equipment (that prior to the late 60's) was often unreliable and incomplete (including the measurements cited from 1956). Though these pre satellite measurements are not to be discredited all together, they are by no means near as accurate or conclusive as todays.
Dobson spectrophotometers are considered to be very reliable (more than the early satellites were) and were in use until relatively recently.
You again correctly note that ozone depletion peaks yearly in the Spring months (again reaffirmed by Dr. Singer at http://sepp.org/ozone/assess.html) which makes perfect sense with the fluctuation theory. The Ozone hole has traditionally appeared in late september and early october over antarctica, or in other words, immediately after the end of the Antarctic winter which typically lasts from early June to mid September. Since sunlight is at its lowest during these months, wouldn't it naturally follow that the height of ozone depletion occurs at the end of the period of low sunlight (in this case then end of that period is late september- precisely when the "hole" appears)? From then on. sunlight replenishes the ozone level until the cycle repeats a year later. The reason for winter depletion is simple as well taken that
1. ozone naturally breaks down without replenishment and If what you claim was true, then the lowest levels would occur in the winter, not the spring. In fact, ozone levels remain relatively constant over the winter. And the main reason that the hole ends is that the polar vortex breaks up, allowing in ozone rich air.
2. volcanic activity in Antarctica is among the greatest in the world steming from the constantly active Mt. Erebus on the Antarctic continent. I anticipate you will claim that rain "washes" out volcanic chlorine compounds and have accordingly researched that finding a flaw in that assertion. It involves 2 major issues in Antarctica and around the world. First, Antarctic precipitation is mostly frozen and scientists are in full agreement that such frozen precipitation is not near as effective in washing anything out of the air, much less chlorine. But more so, scientists have countered your argument noting volcanic gases are preheated to thousands of degrees and as heat rises, they are ejected high into the atmosphere almost immediately.
I have been to an active volcano. If gases spewed out at several thousand degrees I would now be dead, and I assure you that I am not. In fact, the gases stay near the ground because they contain high levels of heavier than air gases such as sulfur dioxide. They also contain large amounts of water vapor which often produces rain.
That is why volcanic ash spreads across the world so quickly. Ash reaches the stratosphere because of explosive eruptions. Mt. Erebus is not erupting explosively. This fast ascention occurs not only before precipitation can thoroughly act upon these gases (just as ashes from major volcanic explosions linger for weeks before dissipating in precipitation), but it also carries volcanic gases to the high altitudes where they act. This altitude again is higher than much of the precipatory altitudes.
Again, Mt. Erebus is not erupting explosively.
The results: Volcanoes do play a significant factor in ozone depletion, especially polar, as affirmed by numerous scientists and practicalists alike.
You keep making references to anonymous authorities. Once again, who are these scientists, and where is this published (a reliable source, not some activist organization like the Heartland Institute)?
Further comments on your web page.
1. Tropospheric ozone (from lightning, smog etc) does not reach the ozone layer in significant amounts.<BR>
2. There are very good reasons why the ozone hole occurs over Antarctica (and now similar reductions over the Arctic) having to do with the polar vortex and stratospheric clouds.
Your comments show a profound lack of knowledge about ozone depletion. If you are interested in the subject I suggest reading the ozone FAQ (http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html) If you are really interested read the original scientific papers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would highly recommend that you re-review it and apply the same skepticism to your own comments. It would appear that both you and CLEAR are on a 'mission from god', classical 'true believers' as Hoffer would have defined it.
Don't forget those radical socialist environmental extremist wackos at Republicans for Environmental Protection.
By using the power of positive pigeon holing, you have violated some of your own rules in assessing the critical works levied against the organization you love.
A quick example from the NRDC recycling myths section (Which on the whole has some very valid points.); NRDC lists glass as being very poorly recycled. They avoid dealing with it as an issue and instead enter discussion of other very useful recylables.Glass is inert. It causes no environmental harm in land fills. In terms of net energy, it is far cheaper to make glass from raw materials. End uses for recycled glass have been overall failures, as in please look at glasscrete, glassfalt and others.
If that is all you can find wrong, then they must be doing a very good job. (When I was growing up most glass containers were reused, not made for one use.)
Any person of science who disagrees with you is labeled a 'tool of industry'. Please see your comments on ad hominem arguments.
Most of those spouting this ignorant nonsense have little or no scientific background. They keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, even after they have been completely debunked (examples: there was an ozone hole in the 1950s, CFCs are "too heavy" to reach the ozone layer, volcanoes and sea spray are the major sources of stratospheric chlorine.) What is wrong is the message, not the messenger.
You seem to assume that people who oppose central government planning to achieve environmental results are 'anti-environment', a false dichotomy.
No, people who claim that there are no environmental problems, and that environmentalists are really socialists who want to control other peoples lives are "anti-environment."
Rather then trashing people, perhaps it is time to develop a reassessment of the purposes for an environmental movement. Rather then attacking those who find your approach wrong, try to look for where you may work together to produce something other then electrons on a screen, volumes of print orhollow rhetoric.
I don't think you have the slightest idea of what is really going on in the environmental movement. I suggest you read The Natural Wealth of Nations: Harnessing the Market for the Environment by David Malin Roodman (of that radical socialist gloom and doom environmental extremist wacko group the Worldwatch Institute (W. W. Norton & Company, 1998)) or any of the other fine books from the likes of the Worldwatch Institute or Island Press.
As far as "free market environmentalism" goes, to borrow a phrase, what is good isn't new, and what's new isn't good. Many of these ideas, like cutting wasteful subsidies, have been around for years. So far I haven't found any acknowledgment from a FME that this is the case. On the other hand, many of the ideas of the FME are just plain bunk. Pollution will go away if only property rights are defined correctly? Give me a break.
If you want to work together, then ripping off ideas, spreading misinformation, and name calling are not the way to go.
Your local radical socialist environmental extremist wacko,
Jim Norton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page.
Visit my Practical skepticism page
The text on these pages may be freely copied, distributed and posted as long as my name, this statement and the URL (http:/info-pollution.com/comments.htm) are included.