Ozone

THE OZONE LAYER IS NOT DISAPPEARING
It is widely believed that the earth's natural ozone layer is being
depleted because of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) used in
industry which escape into the stratosphere. There the CFCs,
the story goes, release chlorine atoms which supposedly
destroy the ozone.
In short, we are to believe that stratospheric ozone is
disappearing because of human industry. It is often predicted
that cancer rates will go up and crops will suffer as harmful
solar radiation reaches the earth's surface because of ozone
depletion.
None of these popular beliefs is true. A few of these false
beliefs are refuted below. The Christian should remember
that God "formed [the earth] to be inhabited" (Isaiah
45:18).
Because it is God's will that the earth support life, God will
preserve the earth. All gloom-and-doom reports about the
ozone layer should be evaluated in the light of this biblical
wisdom. The truth is that -
CFC'S DO NOT HARM THE OZONE LAYER
"CFC's are chemically stable, nontoxic, non-flammable, and
nonexplosive. Now ... CFC's are the subject of a worldwide
campaign blaming them for destroying the ozone layer. ...
"They tell us that CFC's, molecules much heavier than air, lift
themselves up to the stratosphere, 10 to 15 kilometers high.
There, because of the energetic solar ultraviolet, they lose the
chemical stability that characterizes them within the biosphere
and liberate their atoms of chlorine, which, they say, destroys
the ozone.
"On the other hand, the millions of tons of chlorine that are
belched out annually by the volcanoes of the world (I know of
what I speak: for more than 40 years my collaborators and I
have been studying volcanic gas emissions) would have but a
very secondary effect upon this destruction of the ozone, we
are told, compared with CFC's, whose mass of chlorine is but
infinitesimal compared with that of volcanic eruptions. The
alleged harmlessness of volcanic chlorine is not invoked, it
seems to me, simply to better incriminate the chlorine of the
CFC's."1 Furthermore -
THE OZONE HOLE IS IN THE WRONG HEMISPHERE
"How is it possible that nine-tenths of the CFC's called
freons are made and used in the Northern Hemisphere - the
hemisphere that is also the more populated and the more
industrialized - yet it is in the Southern Hemisphere, which
is for the most part uninhabited, that one sees the now
famous 'ozone hole'? ...
"I am quite familiar with [Antarctica], having led four
volcanological expeditions there between 1973 and 1979, right
into the heart of the continent -- near latitude 78, to the volcano
Erebus, halfway between the magnetic and geographic poles,
not simply skirting its edges as did some self-appointed
Antarctica 'experts.'
"Since this 'ozone hole' was Antarctic, I was stimulated to get
to the bottom of the question -- of the why. The conclusion of
my inquiry was that this hole was most probably in existence
at the time of the Shackleton expedition in 1909, and that
most probably, it is a natural phenomenon. Consequently, it
has nothing to do with CFC's, which did not exist at that time."2
It is also true that -
THE OZONE SCARE IS NOT BASED ON REAL DATA
"At Elf Atochem, one of the leading suppliers of CFC
substitutes in the world, the company president said, 'It is my
understanding that the current theories are developed from
modeling a series of chemical reactions that can neither be
scientifically proven as occurring in the real world nor
reproduced in a laboratory.' "3 As already noted -
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE IS FROM VOLCANOES,
NOT CFC'S
"One of the authors (Roger Maduro), then a believer in the
ozone depletion theory, was gathering evidence to write an
article to show that the global warming theory was a scientific
fraud.
"In the course of an interview weigh Reid Bryson, head of the
Institute for Environmental Studies in Madison, Wisconsin, the
author was startled to be told not to pay attention to the
ozone depletion theory because there was a volcano in
Antarctica that pumped more chlorine into the atmosphere
than did the entire annual production of CFC's on Earth.
If chlorine were indeed responsible for the Antarctic ozone
hole, then it would be this volcano that was responsible, not
CFC's, said Bryson.
"This information set the author, a geologist by training, on a
quest. A few phone calls later, the top volcanologists in the
United States had confirmed what Bryson had said. Mt.
Erebus in Antarctica pumps more than 1,000 tons of chlorine a
day into the atmosphere. "This meant that Mt. Erebus was
lofting more chlorine into the atmosphere in one week,
than an entire year's production of CFC's!"4 So what about
the -
TYPICAL SCAREMONGERING PREDICTION ABOUT
THE OZONE LAYER
We hear, for example, that, "The unprecedented assault on the
planet's life-support system could have horrendous long-term
effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the
food chain, and just about every other strand that makes up the
delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the
damage, which will worsen for years to come."5 One rarely
admitted motivation behind such false reports is -
THE PROFIT MOTIVE BEHIND
ENVIRONMENTALISM
"The giant chemical corporations, which are slated to make
hundreds of billions of dollars selling replacements for the
now-banned CFC's, are working with the environmental
movement, which has already made millions of dollars in
revenues from the ozone depletion scare.
"The U.S. environmental groups are able to finance the
promotion of environmental hoaxes like ozone depletion
through the more than $500 million they receive a year from
the major philanthropic foundations run by this nation's
financial elite - Rockefeller, Ford, MacArthur, and other
foundations. But money is not the only motive driving the
ozone hoax. Behind the actions to ban CFC's - and to cut back
on refrigeration - is the Malthusian ideology that the world
needs fewer people."6
Conclusions
It is God’s will that that the earth be preserved to support the
life that He created to be on it. But it is not man’s
responsibility to preserve or save the earth; God is doing
that.
Man’s responsibility is to act as a good steward to care for
the part of the creation that God has entrusted to his hands
(Genesis 1:28-30; Genesis 9:1-3). For most of us, practicing
biblical stewardship means caring for the possessions, the
house, and the yard that God has allowed us to own.
But we must take care that our stewardship is not motivated out
of fear, for "perfect love casteth out fear." Stewardship
driven by fear is sin.
In short, the gloom-and-doom fears of ecological collapse
denies that God can effectively preserve His own creation, but
the Christian must trust in God to take care of us and of all His
creation. We are to be wise stewards, but out of love for
our Creator, not out of fear for the future.
Finally, by denying that God is Creator, and thus cannot
preserve His earth, evolution has cleared the way for modern
ecological fears. Modern environmental fears are therefore a
by-product of the modern belief in evolution. Such fears have
no biblical foundation, and as this paper has shown, ozone
depletion fears have no scientific basis, either. A similar
analysis would show that other fears of ecological disaster are
also without scientific foundation.
7 References. Bolding in quotations is added.
1 R.A. Maduro and R. Schauerhammer, The Holes in the
Ozone Scare, 21st Century Science Associates, Washington,
1992; Forward by Haroun Tazieff, former French Secretary of
State for the Prevention of Natural and Technological
Disasters, pp. ix-x.
2 ibid., pp. x-xi.
3 Industrie et Development, No. 28, June 26, 1991; in Maduro
and Schauerhammer, op. cit., pp. xiii-xiv.
4 Maduro and Schauerhammer, op. cit., pp. 1-2.
5 Time, February 17, 1992; in Julian Simon, The Ultimate
Resource 2, Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 270.
6 Maduro and Schauerhammer, op. cit., p. 2.
7 See J. Henry, "Envoronmental Collapse Is Not Happening, "
<creationconcepts.org>, 2001.

http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/OZONE.pdf

http://www.creationconcepts.org/

The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed.

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week.

And it claimed that international efforts to protect the ozone layer has averted millions of cases of skin cancer worldwide.

The ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed.

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations re ...[text shortened]... mail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html

So you are so adamant about not discussing religion in the science forum, which of course is just evading the questions there, but you think it ok to discuss science in spiritual. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are so adamant about not discussing religion in the science forum, which of course is just evading the questions there, but you think it ok to discuss science in spiritual. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

This could go in the debate, spiritual, or science forums. The article gives uses God's spoken word so I chose the spiritual forum. I feel that all 3 should become one forum technically speaking. So what did you think of the article?

Originally posted by RBHILL
So what did you think of the article?

It makes whoever wrote it look silly - and by association, his religious beliefs. You should think twice before posting such articles.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It makes whoever wrote it look silly - and by association, his religious beliefs. You should think twice before posting such articles.

INTRODUCTION TO JONATHAN HENRY, PH.D.
http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/CREATION+CONCEPTS+INTRO+11-18-09.pdf

Here is another pdf he has. This is only for those who can read fast 😉: THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas, and satellite measurements show no net increase in the "greenhouse effect." More carbon dioxide in the air is making make the earth greener because carbon dioxide is a nutrient for plants. Before the Flood carbon dioxide levels were several times higher than now, and life flourished. Fears about global warming overlook the fact that the Creator is continuing to preserve His earth to ensure its habitability (Isaiah 45:18).
http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/WARMING.pdf ---->>>

THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING
It is widely believed that the earth is warming because of
carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human industry.
Another common belief is that this human-caused global
warming will cause famine, extreme weather patterns, coastal
flooding, and general ecological degradation. Despite decades
of such gloom-and-doom forecasts, none of these dire
predictions has occurred. In fact, the global environment is
actually getting better, an amazing reality in the face of so
many pessimistic claims, a few of which are refuted below.
That the earth has been preserved for life should not
be surprising to the Christian. After all, Isaiah 45:18 claims
that God "formed [the earth] to be inhabited." It is God's
will that the earth support life. It is not possible that human
activity can prevent God's sovereign will from being
accomplished. However, it is also God's will that each of us
should be a good steward as He gives us opportunity.
THERE IS NO MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING
"One of the arguments commonly heard ... is that …'the six
warmest years in the record are all in the past decade.'
"An interesting response can usually be elicited by
asking, 'How warm were those years …?' The common retort
is that they were 2&#61616;C to 4&#61616;C (3.6&#61616;F to 7.2&#61616;F) warmer than
before and that the ice caps are melting. In fact, most
apocalyptics are incredulous when they learn that there has
been so little warming and that the Greenland ice sheet - the
largest glacier in the Northern Hemisphere - is growing. ...
"Given that minuscule warming, we must ask ... '[Is
there] a deliberate attempt to mislead?'"1
WE NEED THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, BUT
CARBON DIOXIDE HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH IT
"CO2 actually plays only a minor role in the greenhouse effect,
the essential role being played by water, both in its visible form
… in the clouds, and its invisible form, vapor. I consider as a
proof of this that the greenhouse effect is maximal in humid
regions and minimal in dry regions, while the proportion of
CO2 is exactly the same: 0.03 percent."2
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A MINOR GREENHOUSE GAS
"Greenhouse gases warm the lowest layers of the atmosphere --
where life lives -- by redirecting radiation that would normally
escape directly into space. The most common of those is water
vapor, and its concentration does not change very much. Next
most important, with about one-seventh of the warming
potential of water vapor, is CO2, but its concentration has
hardly been constant throughout the earth's history.
"If all [CO2] were removed from the earth's
atmosphere, the drop in surface temperature would be 1.5&#61616;C
(2.7&#61616;F), or only 5 percent of the total warming caused by all of
the greenhouse gases. That is because the warming caused by
those gases does not add up in a simple linear fashion."3
CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS ARE NOW TOO LOW
"In fact, throughout ... the past ... the CO2 concentration of the
atmosphere has been greater than it is today. ... Only since the
beginning of the ice [age] ... have temperatures and CO2 fallen
to current levels. When it was really cold, at the height of the
ice [age] ... the concentration of CO2 fell to values that were a
hundred parts per million (ppm) of being able to support life. ...
The atmosphere is currently impoverished in CO2. An
additional historical peculiarity is that gas bubble trapped in
Antarctic ice tell us that the temperature dropped before the
CO2 concentration changed, not after."4
AN ACCURATE ENVIRONMENTAL FORECAST
"The climatic history of the planet is inconsistent with forecasts
of gloom and doom. ... The opposite is occurring: We are
creating a world in which the winters warm and the summers
do not, a world in which the nights warm and the days do not.
We are creating a world in which the growing season lengthens
and the great ice fields of Greenland and Antarctica change
little (they may even be enlarging). The CO2 we emitting to
the atmosphere has an additional effect: when plants are
supplied with adequate nutrients, they grow better."5
THE EARTH IS BECOMING GREENER
"Plants take in CO2, and fix it in the form of carbohydrates in
their roots, stems, and leaves. CO2 in current concentrations is
what is known as a "limiting nutrient": there is currently so
little of it in the atmosphere that plants cannot get enough.
Increasing the concentration increases the growth of almost all
plant species, and both laboratory and field experiments have
demonstrated that plants flourish as CO2 concentration goes up.
… [T]here is no doubt that human industrial activity has
increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that
most (85 to 95 percent, depending on the estimate) of that
increase is a result of burning fossil fuels -- the same carbon
that was deposited in the earth's crust when CO2 was in excess.
"… [But the] planet is becoming greener. ... The
finding, which indicates that plants are taking in more CO2 than
they did, should not be surprising, because the atmosphere is
merely returning to CO2 levels that were characteristic
during [earlier] history."6
TROPICAL FOREST IS INCREASING
"Tropical deforestation increased from 78,000 square
kilometers in 1978 to 230,000 square kilometers in 1988 while
tropical forest habitat … increased from 208,000 square
kilometers to 588,000 square kilometers."7
GLACIERS ARE GROWING, NOT SHRINKING
" [A] glacial record, published in 1988 by Fred Wood in Arctic
and Alpine Research, tells a story that seems ... opposed to the
Popular Vision of what is happening to the atmosphere.
"It is well known that mountain glaciers are very
sensitive to slight changes in temperature. For example,
paintings of the Alps in the [p 79] 17th century -- at the height
of the period known as the "little ice age" -- show terminal
glaciers that are a mile or more down the slope from where
they are today.
"In the early 1960s park rangers at Glacier National
Park in the United States, which contains a large number of
very small glaciers obviously very near their summer limit,
lectured the public about dramatic recessions that could melt
them all within a few years.
"Fred Wood examined a worldwide sample of
mountain glaciers and found that ... between 1960 and 1980, on
the basis of data for about 400 to 450 glaciers observed each
year, advancing glaciers are shown to have increased from
about 6 percent of observed glaciers to 55 percent. ...
Preliminary data from 1981 to 1985 suggest that the mixed
glacial regime is continuing.
"Because so many features of glaciers are very
sensitive to slight temperature changes, it appears that there is
no dramatic greenhouse warming… "8
THE SAHARA DESERT IS SHRINKING
"Despite the widely held impression that the sands of the
Sahara are relentlessly expanding, consuming villages and
contributing to famine in Africa, a new analysis of satellite
images ... shows the greatest desert on earth has stopped
growing and is now shrinking.
"For years, researchers and agencies have assumed the
Sahara's advance was implacable, but scientists who examined
4,500 satellite pictures taken over the past decade say it is clear
the Sahara essentially reversed its expansion in 1984, and has
since contracted dramatically."9
RAINFALL IS UP
"According to long-term records, global precipitation is
increasing. ... The U.S. record also reveals (contrary to the
blizzard of news reports about this drought or that crop failure
or the pictures of dead chickens that accompany every summer
heat wave) that the 1980s, followed by the 1970s, were the
wettest decade in our reliable weather history."10
GLOBAL WARMING AND POPULATION CONTROL
"The latest environmental justification for slowing or halting
population growth is supposed global warming . ... A World
Bank paper on the subject concludes, 'The global negative
externality represented by rapid population growth in
developing countries provides a strong, new rationale for
developed countries, in their own interests, to finance regimes
that would reduce population growth in developing countries'
[Nancy Birdsall and Charles Griffin, "Population Growth:
Externalities and Poverty," The World Bank, February, 1991,
abstract].
"That is, the old rationales for World Bank population
control regimes - economic growth, resource conservation, and
the like - having been discredited, a new "rationale" has been
developed on the [p 434] basis of speculative assumptions
about global warming's economic effects derived from
controversial climatological science."11
ONE SOLUTION TO THE "POPULATION CRISIS":
COMPULSORY STERILIZATION
"So the first task is population control at home. How do we go
about it? ... Some sort of compulsory birth regulation would
be necessary to achieve birth control. One plan often
mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to
water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be
carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired
population size. ... [But] the option isn't even open to us, thanks
to the criminal inadequacy if biomedical research in this
area."12
The population control agenda is also a powerful
motivation driving the advocacy of abortion, or inother words,
"Abortion is a highly effective weapon in the armory of
population control."13 Another population control project is
the -

Continued from the above post:
THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
"The Wildlands Project ... calls for a network of wilderness
reserves, human buffer zones, and wildlife corridors stretching
across huge tracts of land - hundreds of millions of acres, as
much as half of the continent. ...
"On the Oregon coast, for example ... the Wildlands
approach calls for 23.4% of the land to be returned to
wilderness, and another 26.2% to be severely restricted in
terms of human use. Most roads would be closed; some would
be ripped out of the landscape. The plan does not specify what
would happen to the nearby inhabitants. Similar alterations are
called for in Vermont, Florida, the mid-Atlantic region, and the
rest of the country."14 A Wildlands map for Florida is
depicted in this article.
The ultimate wildlands goal means reservations for
humans: " [The Wildlands Project] calls for nothing less than
resettling the entire continent."15
Conclusions
While it is far from certain that the goals of the Wildlands
Project will come to pass as its organizers envision,
nonetheless this project lays bare the wanton fear motivating
the agendas of some environmental activists – in this case, the
fear of too many people overrunning the earth. But such fear
is not of God, and what is not of God is sin. We are to trust
God to preserve His earth and simultaneously, we are to act as
wise stewards of His creation (Genesis 1:28-30, 9:1-3) out of
love for Him, not out of fear of the future. Ecological gloomand-
doom has no biblical foundation. Fears of ecological
collapse due to manmade global warming are also without
scientific foundation. Scientific analysis would also reveal a
lack of real data to support other ecological fears.
Notes. Bolding in quotations is added.
1 Patrick J. Michaels, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global
Warming, Cato Institute, 1992, p. 62.
2 R.A. Maduro and R. Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, 21st
Century Science Associates, 1992; Forward by Haroun Tazieff, former
French Secretary of State for the Prevention of Natural and Technological
Disasters, p. xiv.
3 Michaels, op. cit., p. 9. 4 ibid., p. 10. 5 ibid., p. 7. 6 ibid., pp. 10-12.
7 David Skole and Compton Tucker, "Tropical Deforestation and Habitat
Fragmentation in the Amazon: Satellite Data from 1978 to 1988," Science,
Vol. 260, 1993, p. 1905.
8 F.B. Wood, "Global Alpine Glacier Trends, 1960s to 1980s," Arctic and
Alpine Research, Vol. 20, 1992, pp. 404-413, in Michaels, op. cit., p. 76.
9 Washington Post, July 21, 1991, p. A18, in Julian Simon, The Ultimate
Resource 2, Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 133.
10 Michaels, op. cit., p. 90. 11 Simon, op. cit, p. 433.
12 Paul R. Erhlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantine, 1968, pp. 135-136.
13 ibid., p. 88.
14 Charles C. Mann and Mark L. Plummer, "The High Cost of Biodiversity,"
Science, Vol. 260, 1993, p. 1868. 15 ibid.

Originally posted by RBHILL
THE OZONE LAYER IS NOT DISAPPEARING
It is widely believed that the earth's natural ozone layer is being
depleted because of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) used in
industry which escape into the stratosphere. There the CFCs,
the story goes, release chlorine atoms which supposedly
destroy the ozone.
In short, we are to believe that stratospheric ozone is
dis ...[text shortened]... 2001.

http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/OZONE.pdf

http://www.creationconcepts.org/

(Back to the Mid 1950s)

Cigaret smoking is good for your health.

R J Reynolds Tobacco Company has had their scientists look into it. And they all agree that a smoke after a meal is good for your health.

Originally posted by RBHILL
THE OZONE LAYER IS NOT DISAPPEARING
It is widely believed that the earth's natural ozone layer is being
depleted because of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) used in
industry which escape into the stratosphere. There the CFCs,
the story goes, release chlorine atoms which supposedly
destroy the ozone.
In short, we are to believe that stratospheric ozone is
dis ...[text shortened]... 2001.

http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/OZONE.pdf

http://www.creationconcepts.org/

This is a good example why I want all children to learn science in school and not creationism.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is a good example why I want all children to learn science in school and not creationism.

Oh boy. Now to the other extreme.

I am glad my excellent 8th grade science teacher had the guts to at least say only this much -

"Who did that anyway?
Somebody bigger than you and I."

Originally posted by sonship
Oh boy. Now to the [b]other extreme.

I am glad my excellent 8th grade science teacher had the guts to at least say only this much -

"Who did that anyway?
Somebody bigger than you and I."[/b]

That wasn't guts. It was stupidity and ignorance.

The two should not be confused.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed.

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations re ...[text shortened]... mail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html

Thumbs up for reality based post...

head --> desk for reading the daily mail.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That wasn't guts. It was stupidity and ignorance.

The two should not be confused.

I think you're wrong.

Somebody bigger than you or I designed and tuned creation. And Galileo and Newton, I think would agree with my old science teacher instead of side with you.

Proposing that reproduction and the DNA molecule is the result of some accident? Now that's stupidity and ignorance.

What you are about to write in response is most probably also more stupidity and ignorance. Something like - "You don't understand evolution" probably.

Originally posted by sonship
I think you're wrong.

Somebody bigger than you or I designed and tuned creation. And Galileo and Newton, I think would agree with my old science teacher instead of side with you.

Proposing that reproduction and the DNA molecule is the result of some accident? Now [b]that's stupidity and ignorance.

What you are about to write in response i ...[text shortened]... also more stupidity and ignorance. Something like - "You don't understand evolution" probably.[/b]

You have to have more faith in evolution then you would with the word of God.