Re: News clips of interest

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 10:19:13 EST

At 01:50 AM 2/7/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:

>The fact of the ozone hole and the human causal
>factors have been well documented.

### So has this:

>So what is your point Janice by quoting some
>random websites? When will you make a real argument I wonder? ~ Pim

### Trying to change the subject to "me", again, are you?

Whether I make the argument or someone else makes
it, you know as well as I that your "logic" won't
permit you to consider any argument to be a
"real" argument unless it agrees with an
"interpretation" of the facts that coincides with yours.

Nevertheless, this is a "real" argument - in spite of how you feel about it:

Thursday, January 26, 2006 By Steven Milloy

[Huge snip]

Back to the real world, however, the ozone
depletion hypothesis has a great big hole of its own.

No one disputes the basic chemistry of ozone
depletion – chlorine atoms from CFCs released
into the environment can find their way into the
stratosphere where they can chemically react with and "destroy" ozone.

It should be noted, however, that CFCs aren't the
only source of chlorine atoms in the stratosphere
– Mother Nature, in fact, may supply most of
them. Also, ozone is also continually being
created so we won't ever run out of ozone.

In any event, none of the alleged environmental
and public health horrors of CFC-induced ozone
"destruction" have ever been observed despite
extensive study – one of the best kept secrets of environmentalism.

While overexposure to UV is a risk factor for
some types of skin cancer and cataracts, no
scientific study has ever demonstrated a link
between ozone depletion and such overexposure or any health effects.

A December 2003 article in the journal
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, for
example, would only go so far as to say that "The
potential health effects of elevated levels of
ambient UV-B radiation are diverse, and it is
difficult to quantify the risks." [Emphasis added]

The absence of evidence linking ozone layer
thinning with health effects isn't surprising
because the phenomenon was never thought (by
experts, anyway) to lead to more than a trivial
(10 percent) increase in UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface.

As there is about a 5000 percent increase in UV
radiation moving from the poles to the equator, a
10 percent increase in the mid-latitudes equates
to a move 60 miles to the south – "hardly a
source for health concerns," says physicist Dr.
S. Fred Singer of the
and Environmental Policy Project.

It's not even clear that ozone depletion, in its
pre-phaseout heyday, ever increased the amount of
UV radiation hitting the Earth's surface. "There
has been, of course, a determined search for a
secular increase in [UV radiation] to match the
presumed depletion of ozone. But no such trends
had been observed," says Dr. Singer.

And a little common sense about UV radiation goes
a long way. Life flourishes in the tropics where
UV radiation levels are far higher than in the
quite inhospitable
<>polar regions.

Yes, there is an "ozone hole," but that label is
more appropriately applied to the Montreal
Protocol than the ever-changing thickness of the
ozone layer over the Antarctic polar region.

Former Vice President "Ozone Al" Gore
acknowledged in a recent presentation I attended
that the real value of the Montreal Protocol was
that it demonstrated the global political power of the environmental movement.

But while getting a junk science-fueled
international treaty signed may have been a
valuable political exercise for
environmentalists, the Montreal Protocol can
hardly be considered a success if it winds up
needlessly depriving asthmatics of available,
affordable and effective medication.

Steven Milloy publishes
<> and
<>, and is an
adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.,2933,182944,00.html

~ Janice

>Janice Matchett <> wrote:
>At 09:40 PM 2/6/2006, Randy Isaac wrote:
>Burgy wrote: [snip]
>>>3. Scientists say Bush Administration
>>>political appointees are trying tocontrol the
>>>flow of scientific information from NASA,
>>>particularly when that information counters
>>>administration policy on issues ranging from
>>>global warming to explanations about the origins of the universe.
>>.....I think [1] we need to make a clear
>>distinction between corporate employees
>>speaking on behalf of the company and a
>>government funded agency that is missioned to
>>publish accurate and objective data on which
>>policy will be based. Yes, it might be an
>>ethics issue, but not one in which the
>>employees are required to say only that which
>>is approved by the administration. Rather, one
>>in which the [2] employees have an ethical
>>obligation to show the implications of the
>>data, whether or not it meets anyone's pet policies. ~ Randy
>### Re: Your two concerns:
>Google Results 1 - 10 of about 425 for
>Excerpts from two items:
>[1] "...NASA in recent years has seen
>environmental projects as potential cash cows.
>It has fought with other agencies--through its
>Mission to Planet Earth, a project to study
>Earth's ecology--for jurisdiction over satellites to monitor the environment.
>Typical of its tactics, in February 1992 it made
>screaming headlines with its announcement that a
>huge ozone hole could be in the process of
>opening over the Northern Hemisphere. In fine
>print the data were skimpy at best. Still, the
>agency got the politically correct headlines as
>its funding was being debated. There were few
>headlines months later when no ozone hole developed. ..." ~ CATO
>[2] Harmful politicization of Science by William Happer
>[Huge Snip]
>False biology prevailed for forty years in the
>Soviet Union because Lysenko gained dictatorial
>control. His type of control ­­dependent upon
>prison, exile, and bullet­­is not possible in
>democratic societies, but the control of
>research funding enables those in political
>favor to restrict research that might undermine
>political opinions and positions.
>For instance, when I was the Director of Energy
>Research of the Department of Energy in the
>early 1990s I was amazed that the great bulk of
>federal funds for environmental studies from the
>DOE, NASA, EPA, and other federal agencies
>flowed into research programs that reinforced a
>message of imminent doom: humanity and planet
>earth devastated by global warming, pestilence, famine, and flood.
>I was particularly disturbed by the ridiculous
>claims by then-Senator Al Gore that recent NASA
>studies had shown that there was an ozone hole
>over Kennebunkport.” I remember reacting angrily
>to a briefing by Mr. Gore’s political ally, Bob
>Watson of NASA, when he used the same words, an
>“ozone hole over Kennebunkport,” to brief
>high-level members of the Bush administration in
>the West Wing of the White House.
>After the election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore
>in the fall of 1992, I was soon the only
>“holdover” from the previous Bush administration
>in the Departmentof Energy. There I worked with
>the new Secretary of Energy, Hazel O’Leary, to
>defend basic science in the Department of
>Energy. Although most political appointees are
>replaced after the White House changes hands in
>a presidential election, it is not unusual for
>those occupying scientific posts to remain for
>some time in a new administration. However,
>after a few months, Secretary O’Leary called me
>in to say that I was unacceptable to Al Gore and
>his environmental advisers, and that I would
>have to be replaced. She was apologetic and
>gracious during this discussion, and she did not
>elaborate on the exact reasons for Gore’s instructions.
>The modern Greek poet Constantine Cavafy wrote a
>poem, Things Ended,” which is worth
>rememberingas we contemplate our supposedly dying planet:
>"Possessed by fear and suspicion, mind agitated,
>eyes alarmed, we desperately invent ways out,
>plan how to avoid the inevitable danger that
>threatens us so terribly. Yet we’re mistaken,
>that’s not the danger ahead: the information was
>false (or we didn’t hear it, or didn’t get it
>right). Another disaster, one we never imagined,
>suddenly, violently, descends upon us, and
>finding us unprepared­­there’s no time left­­
>sweeps us away." C. P. Cavafy, Collected
>Poems, edited by George Savidis (Princeton,
>N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).
>Politicized science is an inevitable part of the
>human condition, but society must strive to
>control it. Although history shows that
>politicized science does much more damage in
>totalitarian societies than in democracies, even
>democracies are sometimes stampeded into doing
>very foolish and damaging things. The Kyoto
>Treaty, based on assertions that mankind’s
>generation of carbon dioxide will cause global
>warming, is an example of such a foolish and damaging thing.
>The effects of the Kyoto Treaty, if the treaty
>is enacted, are likely to be more like those of
>Prohibition, than Lysenko’s biology. The
>demonizations of rum and carbon dioxide have
>much in common. In 1920, the U.S. Congress
>passed the Eighteenth Amendment to the
>Constitution of the United States. This
>amendment, which prohibited the manufacture,
>sale, or transport of alcoholic beverages, was
>intended to rid the country of the accidents,
>disease,and violence associated with those beverages. It didn’t.
>It began a disastrous era that helped organized
>crime to flourish as never before and nourished
>contempt for the law that has not entirely dissipated today.
>In 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the
>Eighteenth Amendment, the only time in history
>that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has
>been repealed. Demonization of anything is hard
>to combat,since it is so easy to join the
>supposed high ground of virtue, while scorning
>those who go through the painstaking effort of
>looking at the facts for themselves.
>This was why it was so hard to stop the
>bandwagon of prohibitionor Lysenko’s biology.
>The same human motives that cause other problems
>in our lives also drive extreme politicized
>science. As the examples here show, a common
>motive is the love of power and domination. This
>was clearly one of the most important motives
>for Lysenko. There is no surer way to build a
>powerful bureaucratic empire in a democracy than
>to promote a supposed peril and then staff up a
>huge organization to combat it.
>The intoxication of fame and glory is an
>important motive, especially for the scientists
>themselves. What bliss to be a sainted savior of
>the planet, to be the provider of agricultural
>abundance as communism dumps capitalism into the
>dustbin of history, or to be a new Prometheus,
>bringing the fire of cold fusion to desperate humanity!
>Greed is often a motive. The University of Utah
>was transfixed by the untold dollars they
>thought would flow to the inventors of cold
>fusion. The Enron Corporation, a politically
>correct darling of many environmental advocacy
>groups, was a stalwart supporter of the Kyoto
>Treaty to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Enron
>envisaged huge profits from the trading of emission rights.
>Moreover, Enron’s holdings of natural gas, the
>fossil fuel that emits the least carbon dioxide
>per BTU of combustion energy, would also greatly
>increase in value as the constraints of the
>Kyoto Treaty began to hurt the coal industry.
>One can go down the list of deadly sins of
>almost any religion, and most can be found in politicized science.
>This should come as no surprise, since
>scientists are as fallible as anyone else in their personal lives.
>We recall that the first biblical mention of
>science (from “knowing” in Latin) occurs in the
>story of Eve’s temptation by the Serpent,
>“Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum;
>Thou shalt be as God, knowing good and evil.”
>Science has always been associated with good and
>evil, and it will always be a struggle to be sure that the good prevails." ~
>Reality 101 ~ Janice
Received on Tue Feb 7 10:20:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 07 2006 - 10:20:36 EST