I will put the whole list of unremarkables and red-zoned claims/statements, perhaps regrouping them, and adding links where appropriate. I have been hungering for some kind of discussion with OLers on climatology's raging discourse. This may be the opening, a list of contentious contentions, and notes on same. Sharpen the dialogue, deepen the inquiry, get over the hurdles of shared knowledge. To the curb with unwarranted assumptions, as we dig. I do believe reasoned and reasonable inquiry can give us great tubers and fruits of reliable knowledge ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Here's a helpful bit of exposition from a summary article at Wikipedia. This gives a little further edge to unremarkable science, but perhaps sharpens our focus on just what it is that Dennis May considers fraudulencing and hoaxeronony:

In the rest of this comment, Emphases added. Bold for claims by Dennis May. Bold blue for unremarkable scientific findings. Red bold for iffy-ish statements IDed by Dennis's sniffs, clues from earlier statements on OL and Atlantis II,

What we think we may know so far ...

1. Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together.
2. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries
3. Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances.
4. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured.
5. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.'
6. Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker.
7. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis.
8. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms).
9. Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule.
10. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone.
11. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B.
12. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface.
13. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations.
14. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude.
15. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia).
16. There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood.
    
    
    1. adduce some evidence showing robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, how it is produced and how it is depleted
    2. Current review of Atmospheric Science in re Ozone depletion
    3. Outlier arguments in re Ozone depletion: published; online rants; online corrections;crazy arguments;
    4. Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to:
    5. an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere)
    6. a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere.
    7. The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole."
    8. This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
       1. find some evidence against the discovery of 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens.
       2. This is mainstream science. Two or three cites.
       3. Such as ...

       [*]Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens

       1. find research findings or observations that supplant the accepted measurements, that atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens.
       2. Find 'measures' and 'definitions' of atmospheric halogens; contrast with proportions of 'atomic' halogens. Do they jibe? If yes, scour the literature for some differences regarding proportions/measurement
       3. If cannot find ...

       [*]Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants.

       1. Evidence against the scientific finding that atmospheric Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Again, this is atmospheric chemistry, a measurement and an observation. The claim is that human-manufactured refrigerents enter the atmosphere and leave catalytic derivatives (atomic halogens) that act to 'crack' Ozone. Two things must be disproved to disprove the conclusions of 23.
       2. I must find the studies and experiments that disprove the chemistry observed and predicted by photodissociation; the catalytic agents traceable directly to human production; those same catalytic agents' ability to crack Ozone via atmospheric chemical reactions in the PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds)

       [*]Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS).

       1. multiple instances in which the halocarbons (Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined to have no role to play in the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, and thus show evidence that the halocarbons should not be seen as Ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
       2. This will be difficult to knock over. Four or five cites from observation and experiment on the chemistry of halocarbons as ODSs. If there are no experimental evidence to be found to subvert the findings ...

       [*]Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light.

       [*]The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide.

       [*]The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated.

       1. If Ozone Holes do expose the surface of the earth (and its living biota) to increased amounts of UVB -- AND -- if a causal connection can be demonstrated between ODS and Ozone depletion in the stratosphere, sone certainly would argue that such increased harmful radiation is a cause for concern -- especially if the connection dials back to human-produced catalytic substances.
       2. This is perhaps the only one worth arguing about on list, on the main rink: first we have to look at current and recent (decadal) measurements and agree upon their utility. IF the survey says that the declines have paused, peaked or begun to reverse, let's speculate on why, according to standard atmospheric chemistry ...
       3. If the one went up, the chemistry is correct, the samples bear out the theory, then the time-lapse of Ozone depletion should make sense in the theory, and not in the counter-theory (which has not been advance anyhow)

       [*]In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s).

       1. show something from the atmospherics and climatological literature that features clashes, disagreements, disarray and confusion with regard to Ozone holes. The fact is there isn't much confusion in re Ozone holes to be found.
       2. Where are the papers that would have pinpointed fraud or misrepresentation in a way that corresponds to Dennis's charge.
       3. If the mechanics are generally agreed upon, and the seasonal variations are fairly well understood, and if the mechanics of ozone-depletion are straight, then the final connection is the mechanics of ozone depletion, which is not much in discussion today, in the science.

       [*]Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right.

       1. notes overlapping concerns with CFCs in climatology. I have no idea what is wrong with that observation. That CFCs are part of what are called 'greenhouse gases' is hardly counterfactual. If Dennis can find otherwise, supercalifragilistic.
       2. Likewise a convenient detour into another discussion. Ellen has once or twice taken issue with this kind of 'GHG' uneasy-analogy manner of understanding AGW.

       [*]Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion.

       [*]It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge

       1. makes me sigh for him, his wife, the local feedlot staff, and for the future of armchair de-hoaxerology.
       2. This one he will never answer to, sigh sigh sigh.

       Source: The Junk Science of Climate Change