How Most Humans Are Easily Manipulated (somewhat oversimplified for brevity)
Freon was developed and patented by the DuPont Company.
Just as the DuPont patents were running out, “someone” got the government to ban the use of Freon
even though there is no scientific evidence that Freon causes any damage to the ozone layer.
The leading replacement substances for Freon were developed and patented by DuPont.
DuPont maintains their proprietary position on refrigerants and everyone thinks it happened because
"we were saving the environment.”
The old inexpensive refrigerant called Freon is now banned and one must use the new expensive
People in control of the whole charade made money. The peasants end up “feeling good” that they got
that dirty old nasty harmful DuPont Freon off of the market.
Isn’t the human world just wonderful?
Comment from JB:
EPA lists quite a few ozone-depleting chemicals:
Comment from RAR:
'Regulatory capture' used in economics since about 1987 to reflect that firms control the regulators
selected to control them. They're the ones looking over decades while the initial contributors have lost
attention to the details of regulation in practice.
Donbot reply to RAR:
But Regulatory capture usually means that the corporation hires people to lobby congress. In this case,
you have the corporation infiltrating the environmentalist organizations and getting them to do the
Update from Fritz:
I have some knowledge of this issue as it cost me a good job in California.
In the late sixties and early seventies, I was working for Pennwalt Corporation's Fluorochemical
Department. I was responsible for the sales of refrigerants, aerosol propellants, foam blowing agents,
and chlorofluorocarbon solvents on the West Coast.
Dupont's Freon patents had run out in the early 1950's and by the time Rowland and Molina came up
with their Ozone Depletion Theory in 1974, there were at least three other major competitors seeking
market share for these products. These were the Imperial Chemical Company, General Chemical
Company, and Pennwalt.
The controversy and publicity generated by Ozone Depletion Theory decimated first the aerosol
propellant market (CFC aerosols were banned in the US in 1978) and blowing agents somewhat later.
The major manufacturer's fought bittlerly against the National Academy of Sciences and the Congress
and maintained production of CFC refrigerants and solvents until it became apparent that the Montreal
Protocol was going to be signed in 1987. More expensive substitutes were then developed as these
products were phased out.
I do not know whether or not the ozone layer has changed much since the world-wide ban on CFC's, but
I understand that stratospheric ozone depletion due to CFC's and other halogenated hydrocarbons is
still widely accepted in the scientific communities. Also, I am not sure whether or not China is making and
using any CFC's. Perhaps you have some information on this or if there is any data to support a denial
of the theory.
F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen--the so-called scientists who invented the ozone
depletion theory--are quacks, whose discovery has been proven to be a scientific fraud, New Federalist
reported when the trio was awarded this year's Nobel Prize early in October. What follows are excerpts
from the authoritative refutation of the ozone depletion hoax, The Holes in the Ozone Hole: The
Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling, by researchers Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf
Schauerhammer of 21st Century Science Associates, published in 1992. The excerpts are taken from
the book's Chapter 2, titled ``The Ozone Wars.''
The book can be obtained by getting it second hand (or even new) on Amazon.
Even before the Apollo lunar module set down on the surface of the Moon in 1969, however, an intense
fight over the future of the space program and related advanced technologies was taking place on
Earth. Virtually as soon as President Kennedy announced the Apollo effort in May 1961, antitechnology
think tanks, like London's Tavistock Institute and the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, were
worrying aloud that the space program would ruin their plans for a neo-Malthusian world. By the mid-
1960s, Tavistock's Journal Human Relations reported that the space program was producing an
extraordinary number of "redundant" and "supernumerary" scientists and engineers. "There would soon
be two scientists for every man, woman, and dog in the society," one commentator wrote. What worried
them most was the climate of technological optimism that had been created.
Their fears were soon allayed. Immediately after the murder of President John F. Kennedy, there was a
radical change in national policy. Within days of being sworn in as President, Lyndon B. Johnson
dismantled the Kennedy policies that fostered rapid industrial and technological progress, including
Kennedy's investment tax credit program. Instead, Johnson initiated the so-called Great Society, under
the auspices of which the United States was put on the road to becoming a postindustrial society. The
nation's basic industries were dismantled; skilled workers were taken off the production lines. Instead of
increasing the wealth of the entire nation through the production of physical goods, the United States
would become a service society, with a huge and growing proportion of the population dependent on a
welfare state. The end result of this experiment, as we can see today, is a nation that has a standard of
living far lower than that of the 1960s.