Everything about the ozone issue was an exploitation and distortion of the normal. It was a trial run for the g****l w*****g greenhouse issue that was to follow. It built on a theme of extreme environmentalist claims that a dramatic change occurred and since that is not normal, it must be something humans did.
Dr. Tim Ball ~ February 20, 2018
Reports about the ozone are confusing because they contradict each other. The Washington Post reported on June 30, 2016, that a new paper published in Science claims,
The Antarctic ozone “hole” — which, when it was first identified in the mid-1980s, focused public attention like few other pieces of environmental news — has begun, in their words, to finally “heal.”
This contradicts a claim in the Smithsonian.com of December 2012 under the headline,
“The Ozone Problem is Back -And Worse Than Ever.”
This led to the question on June 30, 2016, on the website Quora,
Is the ozone layer getting better or worse?
The answer is the best under the circumstances but begs the question about how certain they were about the claimed cause, human-produced CFCs.
It’s tough to answer this question definitively because we’ve known about the details of the ozone layer for such a short period of time.
The most significant problem facing the ozone layer, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has been outlawed for years now. However, these molecules remain in the air for some time, and their action is catalytic, meaning they aren’t consumed when they break down ozone. They do eventually react with other gases in the air which removes them from the atmosphere. The ban has been in effect for decades, meaning there are few remaining, which should allow ozone to regenerate.
The problem is more profound. There never was a problem. This was bolstered by the lie that there was a hole in the ozone. Everything about the ozone issue was an exploitation and distortion of the normal. It was a trial run for the g****l w*****g greenhouse issue that was to follow. It built on a theme of extreme environmentalist claims that a dramatic change occurred and since that is not normal, it must be something humans did. This is a theme most developed by the Club of Rome, in their 1994 book “The First Global Revolution.”
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of g****l w*****g, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
Why do they need “a new enemy to unite us”? The answer is simple. Once united the people are easy to control and accepting of a global political agenda. After five days with Maurice Strong at the UN, Elaine Dewar summarized his goal in her book Cloak of Green.
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
I am sure people will say my claim that there are no holes in the ozone is a matter of semantics. It isn’t. The word ‘hole’ is inaccurate because there isn’t one. It is used to create an impression that there is a leak, and everyone knows they are a problem. It is true that there is an area over Antarctica where the ozone layer is thinner than the average. Here, ozone is about one-third the global average, but it is not a hole. The thinning is a normal situation and a function of the atmospheric chemistry and dynamics over Antarctica. This means it varies in size and location from year to year.
https://www.technocracy.news/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ozone-1.png
The Ozone Layer (Figure above) is a separate layer within the Stratosphere between 15 and 55 km, with the major concentration between 15 and 40 km. I was summoned to appear before the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on ozone and witnessed the entire political scenario of this environmental charade. The fundamental problem was none of them knew the basic cause and effect of ozone creation and variability.
Ozone is created when ultraviolet radiation from the Sun strikes oxygen (O2) in the upper atmosphere. It splits them into individual molecules O (O). These immediately attach themselves to the O2 molecules to create an enriched molecule O3 called ozone. This is a process called photodisassociation. Notice, it is directly a function of levels of ultraviolet radiation, and they all assumed this was constant. It isn’t, but as soon as you make that assumption, then any variation you detect has to have another explanation. Notice also that it is a self-healing process, because the deeper the UV goes into the atmosphere, the more oxygen it meets.
In this age of environmental bullying, any change not recognized as normal requires a human cause. Two researchers, Molina and Rowland, began the misdirection with Rowland’s hypothesis that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) destroyed ozone. It was Rowlands idea, but Molina did the work. It is a classic example of how you carve out a career of misdirection in this age of environmental hysteria.
Sherry (Rowland) offered me a list of research options: the one project that intrigued me the most consisted of finding out the environmental fate of certain very inert industrial chemicals – the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – which had been accumulating in the atmosphere, and which at that time were thought to have no significant effects on the environment. This project offered me the opportunity to learn a new field atmospheric chemistry-about which I knew very little.
Three months after I arrived at Irvine, Sherry and I developed the “CFC-ozone depletion theory.” At first the research did not seem to be particularly interesting – I carried out a systematic search for processes that might destroy the CFCs in the lower atmosphere, but nothing appeared to affect them. We knew, however, that they would eventually drift to sufficiently high altitudes to be destroyed by solar radiation.
The last sentence is a complete misdirection. CFCs are four times denser than air, they don’t and can’t “drift” to those altitudes. How did they get up to 15 km? The answer is they didn’t. The search for processes was not empirical.
“Roland and Molina based their chlorine production and ozone destruction on climate model simulations, rather than direct observations.”
Public hysteria was driven by false stories of increased skin cancer, especially in children. All this was fueled by government funding and exploitation by private companies pushing sun blockers. Ultraviolet became a devil just like CO2, with reports of increasing levels. They never explained that these levels were normal and the culprits, CO2 and UV, were essential to flora and fauna. CO2 is essential to flora because they can’t grow without it and fauna because they can’t exist without the oxygen the flora produce. UV is essential to flora and fauna as well. For example, it produces vitamin D in the body, and that is essential bone growth and strength. It prevents deadly diseases like rickets, especially in children, and scrofula, a form of tuberculosis. Parents, naturally worried about skin cancer applied sun blockers and kept children out of the sun. By 2007 British health services were reporting increases in rickets and other signs of vitamin D deficiencies. On the other side of the ledger, common sense was also overridden. Reports of increasing skin cancer turned out to be a figment of statistics. Virtually all the increase was explained by the increase in life expectancy. Thanks to better nutrition and health services more people were living long enough for skin cancers to develop.
But the negative impacts of this hysteria were much wider and more damaging. It is estimated that the world produces enough food to feed approximately 26 billion people. The problem is large amounts of this never reaches the table. It is lost in the fields to insects and disease, but most is lost in t***sport and storage. The difference is in the developed world 60% makes it to the table, while in the developing world it is about 30%. The difference of 30% is almost all due to refrigeration.
Clarence Birdseye spent time in Labrador where he watched Inuit people essentially flash freezing food. He invented frozen food technology and went into production in 1929. Ammonia was the first refrigerant but was problematic early so by 1930 Thomas Midgeley. Jr was leading the effort to get a non-toxic, harmless, chemical replacement. He produced the product chemically called Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in 1928. By 1931, it was in production under its commercial name of Freon in a joint Dupont and General Motors venture. Dupont employees appeared with me before the Canadian Parliamentary Committee and said virtually nothing. I later realized it was because by 1974 they had already decided to find a replacement.
DuPont states: “should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through ozone depletion, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds.”
By 1986 Dupont were pushing for global limits to CFC production and were working on a replacement. It is likely because of this they remained essentially silent at the hearing.
In 1987 the Montreal Protocol (MP) was signed under the authority of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This was the agency founded by Maurice Strong as the vehicle for Agenda 21, his global governance plan. Of course, the MP reduced the production of CFCs, but it had nothing to do with ozone variation hence the confused and contradictory claims about ‘ozone hole’ levels.
To understand that statement you need to know what causes variations in the Ozone Layer. In a 2011 article by Kevin Roeten titled, “CFC’s the real reason for Ozone Loss?” we learn,
“Cosmic Rays (CRs) from space, and those emanating from the sun during sunspot activity, seemed possible destroyers of ozone. Dr. Qing-Bin Lu’s latest proof of the CR theory for the ozone depletion was in Physical Review Letters on 3/19/9. Dr. Lu, a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada), said the fallacy was accepted for more than twenty years that Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by CFCs.”
It is important to know that there is no “hole-in-the-ozone” over the Arctic, yet most of the CFCs were produced in the Northern Hemisphere. Here are reasons for the differences between the Hemispheres.
The major cause of a decline in ozone over Antarctica is the lack of sunlight south of the Antarctic Circle for 6 months of the year. Another reason is the extremely cold temperatures and low pressures at altitude over the massive ice cap that effectively occupies everything inside the Antarctic Circle. Figure 1 shows the Tropopause at an average level of 12 km. In fact, it varies seasonally between 17 (winter)18 km (summer) over the Equator and 7 (w) to 9 km (S) over the Poles.
Water vapour and other gases form crystals seen as Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC). They didn’t even know about their role until well into the hysteria. They also destroy ozone. They are nothing new and traditionally called Noctilucent clouds (Figure 2).
https://www.technocracy.news/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Noctilucent-clouds-1024x575.png
Figure 2: Noctilucent Clouds; you can see how they are mistaken for chemtrails.
In Antarctica, the shallow atmosphere, the dramatic temperature contrast between the glacier ice and the surrounding ocean results in a very powerful Jet Steam, more correctly called the Circumpolar Vortex.
The intensity of this Vortex limits mixing of equatorial air with its accompanying influx of ozone, as occurs in the Arctic.
Despite all these problems and evidence that CFCs were not causing ozone variation the political fix, the Montreal Protocol was introduced. I will make the same comments about this Protocol that I made about the Kyoto Protocol,
“The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification.”
Proponents of Kyoto argued that Montreal was proof that a Protocol would work. What they don’t tell you is that Montreal was a trial run for Kyoto. CO2 replaced CFCs, but no empirical evidence was ever produced that either were the actual cause. Natural mechanisms exist to explain all the variations detected and measured. Many of the same people and agencies, such as NOAA and Environment Canada, were involved in both deceptions. It is time to close these deep state agencies or at most restrict them to data collection. However, even that is problematic because they adjust the data to meet their political needs as the latest disclosure reveals. As James Delingpole reported,
That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Ozone, CFCs, G****l W*****g, CO2, are all fictions of the Deep State and confirm Mary McCarthy’s observation and warning,
“Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”
b Everything about the ozone issue was an exploit... (
show quote)