The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

The scientific theory behind the entire environmental agenda pertaining to the atmosphere, since the late 1980's, has been the theory of a vulnerable ozone layer, subject to depletion by man-made chemicals and carbon dioxide, as evidenced by the "ozone hole" over the northern region of Antarctica. Yet this theory is discredited, if not dis-proven entirely, by this one simple statement:"The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special meteorological and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe." - NOAA Chemical Sciences laboratoryIn addition, what has been referred to as the "ozone hole" is not actually a hole. Instead, it is simply a thinning of the ozone layer in one particular region in Antarctica where there are unique weather conditions that form what is known as the "Polar Vortex". The North Polar region of Antarctica, which lacks the Polar Vortex, has also never developed a thinning of the ozone layer.*The lowest ozone concentration in the Polar Vortex ever recorded was about 30% of the normal level, and levels this low are rare. UV absorption by O2 molecules in either instance remains unaffected. Overall ozone levels have actually been rising by about .28% per year, and the National Cancer Institute showed that between 1974 and 1985, the amount of UV radiation penetrating the ozone layer declined by about .7% per year. A separate European study indicated a decrease of up to .9% in UV radiation reaching the earth between 1968 and 1982.In seeing the thinning of the ozone layer in a specific region of Antarctica and nowhere else, and in light of the true scientific data, it becomes apparent that the salesmen of the Green New Deal had to make three interpretive leaps in order to sell their plan to the public.
The first leap was to see the thinning of the ozone layer and interpret it as a problem. With the creation of a problem comes the second leap: The need to find/create a scapegoat or "boogeyman" on which to blame the problem. Once the culprit or scapegoat has been identified, the final leap can be made, which is to create a 'solution' or 'final answer'. The blame for the 'problem' was determined to be certain man-made chemicals that the environmentalists say might drift into the ozone layer, and be broken down by the sunlight into chlorine.Certain forms of chlorine can change 2 molecules of O3 into 3 molecules of O2, which results in a decrease in the ozone concentration and an increase in oxygen. While certain forms of chlorine may in theory change 2 molecules of O3 into 3 molecules of O2, the vast percentage of chemical molecules stemming from mankind and industry never drift that high into the atmosphere, and of the percentage that might, even less are actually broken down into chlorine. Of the molecules that may actually be broken into chlorine, their affect on the ozone layer is highly suspect, because the entire amount of chlorine that could theoretically be released from man-made compounds, during the peak production year of 1974, is utterly insignificant compared to the chlorine released by oceans alone, every year.If all such compounds from production year 1974 were to drift into the upper atmosphere and release all of its chlorine, man would have added about 750,000 tons of chlorine to the atmosphere. The oceans alone put 600,000,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere every year, and volcanoes have been known to contribute over 200,000,000 tons in one single eruption, such as with Mount Tambora, 1813. Mount Erebus in Antarctica alone adds more than 360,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere every year since 1972. Other natural sources add more than 13,400,000 tons of atmospheric chlorine every year.**It can be said that such environmentalists are willfully ignorant, because this data has been on record for many years. They have chosen instead to both ignore and suppress it, preferring to keep their boogeyman alive by hiding the data from the public through purges of the public library system, and hiding it from the students by erasing it from their textbooks. In its place, they have drawn up imagined scenarios of what the levels of ozone depletion might be if the United States were to continue using the objects of their scorn.Yet in their willful ignorance and rejection of the truth, they have failed to see that the worst case scenarios of ozone depletion are insignificant compared to the variations in depletion that occur daily. The trees and bushes lose their leaves and gain them back; The trees, plants and grass sway in the wind, and the sea levels rise and fall; Wood, even the wood in a piano, can change dimension from one month or year to the next. All of nature is in a constant state of change, because nature is alive. Yet the public has been told for more than 30 years that when there is even a slight change in ozone concentrations, there is a problem, and the problem is the fault of man. In reality, ozone concentrations can fluctuate weekly by as much as 40%, and yearly they can fluctuate by 20 to 40%. The 'global disaster' predicted by the environmentalists was a decrease in the average ozone level by less than 10% over the next 100 years.The strawman of certain man made chemicals as the cause for the thinning of an ozone region was made despite the clear record that this region was first discovered in 1956, before such chemicals ever came into widespread use. The error of the claim is further shown in the observations of Dr. Gordon Dobson, the first scientist to discover the 'hole', who found that it is not a constant feature of the ozone layer, but instead a temporary, recurring phenomenon which appears near the end of Winter each year, lasts three to five weeks, and disappears suddenly at the beginning of Spring.***The study of the Polar Vortex and ozone layer can be an interesting and engaging one, as with all areas of science. It was intended to be explored and reported upon by those of good faith, not used as a lethal weapon of fear and deceit against the United States by those who seek to tear it down. The Green New Deal is a problem and chief enemy of the United States, and it is an enemy of your soul, because it is a byproduct of vain philosophy that denies that the earth was created by an intelligent, master designer. Its salesmen are modern day examples of those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness", in order to maintain and serve their evil interests, and they serve and worship money, power and the created, rather than the Creator. They prefer not to retain God in their knowledge, and as a result, many other problems follow. (Romans 1)
In contrast is the belief in the Creator; With it comes the natural trust that though a person may not know everything about the workings of the universe, he can rest assured in its durability and design, and know that normal industry does not pose an existential threat either to himself or the planet on which he lives.*Hugh W. Ellsaesser, 1990. "Planet Earth: Are Scientists Undertakers or Caretakers?" Keynote Address to the National Council of State Garden Clubs meeting, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Oct. 7.**W.G Lawrence, K.C Clemitshaw, and V.A Apkarian, 1990. "On the Relevance of OCIO Photodissociation to the Destruction of Stratospheric Ozone", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, No. D11 (Oct. 20), p.18,591-595.***Gordon M.B Dobson, 1968. "Forty Years Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford University: A Hiistory", Applied Optics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 387-405

Pre-promotion material hidden. Use "Peek" to see.

Top message is now edited and in its final form.
Thank you for letting me know about the other thread already discussing this topic.

I appreciate being welcomed by the moderators and that they decided to copy this message to another area of the forum. There are many responses that could be given to the postings here; Certain objections have been raised, and maybe some of them deserve an answer.It is not possible to include information about specific people, all the objectives, or the specific things restricted all in one message on a forum. This is why they weren't included- not because they aren't real or known.
I am well aware of the difference between a metaphor and what is literal. I am also aware that it is not honest to use metaphorical language as a literal description, in an area of life such as science where it is known that the people reading or listening wouldn't know the difference. The area referred to as "the ozone hole" is not actually a hole, and it is not to be described as such in order to further a certain narrative.
The ozone hole theory, and certain related words are not directly mentioned in Green New Deal legislation, because legislative and regulatory papers are not generally the area in which the scientific theories behind their existence are mentioned. This is much the same with the U.S Constitution. God is not specifically mentioned in the U.S Constitution except in the Preamble, because its purpose is to outline/detail the form of government, not describe its origins.
The Green New Deal is not an original, standalone plan. It is simply the latest version of a long political continuum, which has much of its genesis in the late 1980's with the announcement of the ozone hole. Isn't it interesting that after the 'hole' was first announced, scientists immediately determined its exact cause, and that this cause was supposedly the small amount of chlorine resulting from ground-level industry?

It is interesting that CFC's were mentioned. The ban on CFC's meant, for example, the ban of halons. There is no comparable replacement to Halon 1301 in its use in extinguishing fires, large and small. Prior to 1990, it was used on more than 20,000 Army combat vehicles, including the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank and the M2/3 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicle. It was used in both the military and fire departments alike, because it extinguishes fires in nearly a quarter of a second and does no harm to crewmen, does not short out electronic equipment, and does not corrode machinery. In 1969, the Army accepted halon over conventional fire extinguishers such as automatic sprinklers, carbon dioxide, dry chemicals or foam, and its success prompted NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration to use halons to stave off fires in the space shuttle and commercial aircraft. The use of CFC's can spell the difference between a small problem and a complete disaster, including the fire in Maui, Hawaii, and many lives which could have otherwise been saved during the 9/11 terrorist attack. The 'alternatives' used in its place are both inferior and often a hazard to health. The problem of finding alternatives has not been solved, and it won't be until there is simply freedom to once again use CFC's.

The theory of "global warming" is the ozone depletion theory. They are one and the same.

Fire departments cannot prevent a problem, but the freedom to use CFC's can prevent it from becoming larger than it otherwise would be. Much of the fire, and as a result, possibly even the collapse of the buildings themselves, could have been prevented, saving many lives.

The ozone layer, 15 to 60 km above the earth's surface protects the earth from many of the sun's ultraviolet or UV rays. UV rays are good and necessary within a certain range, but in larger amounts would be harmful and a very dangerous threat to life on earth. The ozone depletion theory is the theory that chlorine from certain man-made compounds and carbon dioxide can travel up to the mesosphere and break down these ozone concentrations, bringing an increase in oxygen and allowing for more of the sun's rays to reach and affect the earth. This would lead to environmental catastrophe or "global warming". Thus when the terms such as "global warming", "greenhouse gas emissions", "climate change", are used, it is always a reference back to the Rowland and Molina ozone theory; Whether the people using those terms know this or not, may be quite another story...

The ozone depletion theory is behind much of the restrictions and changes that have been sold as "environmental protection". You are right in inferring that "greenhouse gas emissions" have not been mentioned in reference to CFC's lately, because CFC's, tried, charged and banned years ago, are simply one of many things implicated. In fact, I was not the one to first mention them. The user with the dragonfly beside her account name was the one that mentioned them. You are also right that chlorine is not the only stated threat to the ozone. Along with chlorine is fossil fuels, which include coal, oil and natural gas. The Green New Deal is simply a continuation/the latest version of the environmental movement of the past 30-35 years, and its negative campaign/restrictions against chlorine, fossil fuels, carbon, methane, etc. is all rooted in the Rowland Molina ozone theory. "Greenhouse gas emissions", "global warming", etc. are simply the terms used to describe the alleged results of continuing to use them.

Your responses seem to confirm that you are neither a good scientist nor a good doctor.

Science over time changes, but the facts do not. Hugh Ellsaesser made statements about nature that were true when he said it, and are true now. Calling him names or saying that he wasn't an expert does not change that reality.

CFC's and "greenhouse gas emissions" are both taken together in the eyes of the environmental movement in their alleged threat to the ozone, and in the alleged result: Global Warming. The difference is that one has not been mentioned lately, and the other has.

Facts do not change. Consensus, scientific thesis and opinions are what change.

"Why are you upset about something that was solved 25+ years ago?"What problem do you consider to be solved?

"science doesn't consider CFCs as green house gas emissions and if they were referred as such in the scientific literature it is an error.""Just to make sure that an important distinction is clear, CFC's are a greenhouse gas."There appears to be a contradiction here.