HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- Resending. For some reason, it didn't get
posted
Hello Rolf, I would be very pleased if you bind to the rules and stays on topic. As you list in your message, the place for this subject are newsgroups/listservs such as sci.environment, sci.energy, etc. NOT antinato listserv. Thanks for your comprehension. Regards, Francisco Javier Bernal co-list manager
On 31 Mar 2002 at 11:04, Rolf Martens < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK> --------------------------- > > UNITE! Info #167en: The "ozone hole" hoax refuted > [Posted: 31.03.02] > > > Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anmärkning: > On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / > ¡UNIOS! / FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: > See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der > letzten Seite / Verrez information à la dernière page / Ver > información en la última página / Se information på sista sidan > > > INTRO NOTE: > > In this Info simply is repeated a posting sent recently, on > 29.03.02, to several newsgroups and e-mail addresses, '"Ozone > hole" hoax today easy for all to refute!'. > > This brings, as a summary, some main points of the 8-part > Info #166en of 20.03.02, 'The "ozone hole" terror hoax', ad- > ding a couple of new informations. > > The only "replies" to that posting, or to Info #166en, so far, > by writers to newsgroups 'sci.environment', 'sci.energy' etc > who have been making propaganda for the hoax have been the > self-revealing "comment" on 29.03 by Lloyd R. Parker <lparker > @emory.edu>, directed to me: > > >You're not only ignorant, but a liar. Slink away. > (and nothing further) > > and the "repeat performance" likewise on 29.03 by Paul F. > Dietz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, replying to Brad Tittle> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who among other things had cited the> fact brought under point 1) in my posting below: > > >Brad, do be aware that there is a tremendous amount of > >garbage out on the net purporting to debunk the very well > >established[! - RM] connection[!] between CFC emissions and > >the antarctic ozone hole. This pseudoscience has about the > >validity of creationism or flat earth geology... > > (etcetera, likewise not citing one single "fact" "in support > of" the actual pseudoscience of the "ozone hole" hoax nor > commenting concretely on its refutation in Info #166en or in > my briefer 29.03 posting). > > I commented briefly yesterday 30.03 on those two "replies", > under 'Yes, the game *is* up, "ozone hole" hoax defenders!'. > That posting isn't repeated here. > > On 29.03 too, I sent publicly an "Invitation to join Thick > Ozone Layer Truth Bureau", referring to a planned small in- > stitution of some kind which there's a need for today, to in- > form governments, NGOs and not least the international public > of some easily ascertained basic facts concerning this ques- > tion, and to probe further into it too. > > So far, nobody else has shown an interest in joining such a > Bureau. I've "established" one anyway, to be provisionally run > by me and to publish, from time to time, Bulletins from the > address < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thick Ozone Layer Truth).> > End of intro note > > > > "Ozone hole" hoax today easy for all to refute! > [Originally posted on 29.03.2002] > > The "CFC ozone depletion" hoax is a nasty one. It has served > to cover up bans, decided on by the governments of the main > "rich" countries in 1987-1995 (the "Montreal Protocol" etc) > and now coming into effect, more and more being forced on the > poorer countries too, against substances which are quite > vital for various branches of industry and which cannot be > effectively replaced. This hits practically everybody on > earth. The hoax continues today, in all the mass media, in > the school textbooks, etc, in a large number of countries. > > Back in those days, 10-15 years ago, many scientists pointed > to the fact that the so-called "scientific basis" "justi- > fying" those bans, which certain politicians were in such > extreme hurry to enforce, at that time "at the very best" was > "quite shaky". > > Today, "shaky" is no longer the word for that "basis". > > Today, everybody can easily see that the so-called "manmade > ozone depletion" or "ozone hole" "theory" precisely *is* a > HOAX, a COMPLETE hoax and NOTHING BUT a hoax. > > You don't have to be an atmospheric scientist, say, or a > "pro" chemist, physicist etc, to see this with your own eyes. > > All the qualifications you need are a) ability to read, b) > some very elementary science education (9th-graders' level, > say), c) a rudimentary technique for finding your way through > the Internet World Wide Web. > > True, the minds of a few people (including some rather well- > educated persons who've been debating this question on some > newsgroups, for instance) are blocked, so that they can't/ > won't see even the most obvious of facts on such a matter, > irrespective of how many times they're pointed out to them. > But that's another matter; certain factors in the society of > today are causing this. Nobody - except, at best, they them- > selves - can help those people. To you others, I want to > show this: > > > THE SWINDLERS' "PREDICTIONS": > > The "ozone depletion" propagandists have said that there > "has been" a "global ozone depletion" at least in the 1980s > ("beginning", perhaps, a few years before 1980 too) and that > "it" "would continue" and "be even somewhat bigger" in the > 1990s. Precisely "around the year 2000", they've said, the > ozone layer would be at its "most vulnerable" - "due to the > latency of effects of CFC etc releases before 1987". > > A "depletion" of "some 3% per decade", that's been a typical > proposition of theirs. And any smaller one would be of no > interest. Even an "ozone level decrease" of 3% per decade > from 1980 on would only cause the ozone layer to be 20% thin- > ner by 2050, something which would have practically no effect > at all on human life - if any, the effects would be positive > ones. And in that theoretical case that it *did* have effects > and those were mainly negative, then at that time, in 2050, > that thinning-out could be prevented from later reaching 40% > (still clearly no big problem) by a then *justified* move > away from CFCs etc. > > And a decrease in ozone layer thickness by 1%, that would > cause an increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the > ground (actually, in UV-B, the most important type) by some > 2%, they've said too. > > So, the "predictions" on which those vile bans in 1987-95 were > "based", and on which their upholding today still are being > "based", were that: > > * total global ozone today would be some 6% less than in 1980 > > * ground UV radiation today, over much of the globe, would be > some 12% more intensive than in 1980. > > Now the facts of today are slapping these "predictions" most > squarely in the face. > > I mean, even those facts which you and I can find out about. > > Another matter is the "ozone depletion" propagandists' prac- > tically *total* silence, after 1998, on all facts which would > either confirm or else contradict these "predictions". That's > some not unimportant evidence too, though "only" indirect > such. > > When presenting the below observations, which all can check > on, I'm taking into consideration also the fact that the > big local, seasonal and even day-to-day variations both in > ozone layer thickness and UV intensity do make it difficult > to ascertain somewhat minor long-term gobal trends, on the > basis of only some shorter period of measurements. But it > must be noted that there has now been a period of some 20 > years of such - respectively, of possible such. > > > SOME FACTS WHICH ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE TODAY: > > 1) Over mid-Sweden (at 58º to 64º N), the ozone layer > has *not thinned out at all* between February 1988 > and December 2001: A decrease or an increase by *0.0% > per decade* in that time, says the meteorological in- > stitute here, SMHI (at a somewhat hidden-away place > at its website; I shall show you how to find it). > > "Just" a local set of observations, true, and one not > going all the way back to 1980. But certainly, a "de- > pletion" of "some 3-4% at least", over latitudes such > as these, as "predicted" by the propagandists for > 1988-2001, would have shown up clearly in these data. > > 2) In mid-Sweden too, UV radiation by no means has in- > creased by anything even close to 12%. It between 1983 > and 1998 has been approximately *constant*, or has > possibly *increased just a little*, by 1-1.5%, as seen > in the relevant SMHI graphs. > > Ground UV radiation levels, true enough, also are in- > fluenced by cloud cover, which on the average may have > increased somewhat in later years. But still, there's > no question of any significant "net" UV level rise. > > 3) The ozone layer over the northern hemisphere in 2000- > 2001 was *thicker than in many years before*. It still > today is. That's one other thing which the SMHI says > at its website. > > The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), for in- > stance, has said *nothing whatsoever* about this. > > Now it's no surprise that the ozone layer recently has > been, and still today is, so relatively quite thick. > It varies in 11-year periods following the sunspot > cycle, with maxima some 2% above the longer-term mean > in sunspot maximum years, such as 1957, 1968, 1979, > 1990 and 2001, and minima some 2% below that mean in > sunspot minimum years. And in November 2001 was the > latest sunspot maximum. It over higher latitudes also > varies, with maxima and minima up to some 5% above/be- > low the mean, according to the 26-month cycle of winds > from the tropics known as the QBO (quasi-biennial > oscillation), which has recently been "positive" too. > > 4) In connection with point 3, a couple of things which > don't in themselves prove all that much about longer- > term trends since day-to-day variations are so big, > but which are some pointers anyway: > > Over mid-Sweden, the ozone layer thickness varies > between some 420 DU (Dobson Units), as a monthly > mean, in the spring, and less than 300 DU in October. > Now on 23 February 2001, even an all-time high for > ozone levels over Sweden was recorded (at Norrköping, > 58º N). It was much higher than the one from 1988, > 521 DU, and much higher than an older one too, re- > corded at Uppsala (60º N) in April 1961 - long before > any possible "CFC influence" -, 536 DU. > > Quite recenly too, on 2 March 2002, a level much > above that old maximum one in April 1961 was noted: > 557 DU. > > At the same time, not so long ago, on 30 November > 1999, though ozone levels over Europe as a whole were > rather high in late 1999, there was an all-time low > for ozone levels over Sweden, 194 DU. > > But certainly, had there really been a "6% decrease" > in global ozone level since 1980, the likelyhood of > such extremely high ozone levels, compared to 1961, > as those noted over Sweden on certain days recently > would have been rather small. > > 5) Now this is a point of *indirect* proof, as is the > next one. But given the importance which the govern- > ments of all the "rich" states and for instance the > WMO (actually, on "global warming" and on "ozone > depletion", and utter *swindle* institution, as many > things clearly show) *pretend* to attach to the > question of the ozone layer and that of UV radiation, > it's a tell-tale one anyway: > > After 1998, *nobody* is saying *anything* at all > about what has turned out concerning a "global ozone > depletion trend" anymore. > > 6) And after 1998 too, *nobody* is saying *anything* at > all what has turned out concerning a "global UV ra- > diation trend" (more precisely, concerning a trend in > UV-B radiation) anymore either. > > Since changes in UV radiation would be even bigger, > in percent, than such in the global ozone level, > this utter silence on it is even more telling. > > From the mid-1980s on, there would have been very > good reasons, for the abovementioned governments, > to *monitor very closely* precisely UV levels and any > possible change in them, and to *publish continually* > the results of such monitoring, on a global scale, > *if* they *had* a genuine fear of "ozone depletion" > as the reason for their so hurried bans against the > CFCs etc. But that's precisely what has *not* mate- > rialized. > > 7) Even back in 1998, when the WMO (the main internatio- > nal institution purportedly "entrusted" with "monito- > ring" these things) made its *latest* "Scientific > Assessment" of "ozone depletion" so far - its "Ozone > Report No. 44" - it can be found on the Net) it had > to admit both that there: > > A) had been *no* "ozone depletion" whatsoever between > 1979 and 1994-1997, but *only* that *natural* de- > crease in the global ozone layer thickness in that > period due to the 11-year sunspot cycle with its > ensuing maximum of ozone, 2% above the long-term > mean, in 1979 and minimum, 2% below the mean, in > 1994-1997 - the WMO in that "report" tried to > garble the result by not citing global figures but > only those for mid-latitudes (-4% or -5%) plus > those for the tropics (± 0%), but anyone who can > calculate a mean will find its result was precise- > ly that natural 4% peak-to-through difference - and > > B) had been an increase in UV radiation in that same > period of 5% in the northern higher latitudes and > 8% in the southern higher latitudes - while also > indirectly admitting these results were more or > less guessworks. > > Such increases in that period, if they were ac- > tually there, would have been quite natural too, > because of the same 11-year sunspot cycle. +5% in > UV, that would correspond to some -2.5% in ozone > layer and +8% in UV would correspond to -4% in the > same, precisely the natural difference between > 1979, on the one hand, and 1994-1997, on the other, > or, concerning the northern hemisphere, even a > somewhat smaller such than might be expected in a > situation which no "CFC ozone depletion" at all. > > Just read that 1998 "WMO Ozone Report No. 44" somewhat care- > fully, and you'll find that it - already then, already back > in 1998 - completely refutes its own swindle propaganda! > > And it's quite likely, readers, that none of you will find > any more recent reports whatsoever on *global* trends, either > in ozone layer thickness or in UV levels. > > It might be worthwhile trying to find what the meteorological > (etc) institutes of *various countries* might be saying on > the respective local conditions in these respects - as I've > done (so far, only) concerning Sweden. That is, in case they > even have such statistics. (It seems the one of Australia > doesn't, for instance.) > > I shall give you the more "concrete" "predictions" by the > WMO in their abovementioned 1998 "Ozone Report No. 44" here: > > WMO bullshit 1998 "prediction" A: > > "*The ozone layer is currently in its most vulnerable > state.* Total stratospheric loading of ozone-depleting > substances is expected to maximize before the year > 2000. All other things being equal, the current ozone > losses (relative to the values observed in the 1970s) > would be close to the maximum. These are: > > about 6% at Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes in > winter/spring; > about 3% at Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes in > summer/fall; > about 5% at Southern Hemisphere midlatitudes on a > year-round basis; > about 50% in the Antarctic spring; and > about 15% in the Arctic spring." > > Compare this to what (seemingly not too unreliable) facts > of today you yourselves can find, readers! > > Outdoing even the WMO in blatant lying was a more recent > press release, on 16 September 2001, the UN-decided "Day > for Preservation of the Ozone Layer"(!) since back in > 1998, by the International Association of Meteorology and > International Ozone Commission (IO3C) of the Atmospheric > Sciences (IAMAS); this was really something: > > "...The [1987 Montreal] Protocol controls the produc- > tion and use of anthropogenic species which, since > the early 1970s, have destroyed[!] about 10%[!!] of > the earth's ozone shield[!] which protects life from > the harmful solar ultraviolet radiation. ..." > > *"Ten percent"* of the global ozone layer "just gone" since > the early 1970s! Which of course would also mean there was > now some *20% more* of UV radiation over much of the globe! > Persons who dare try such crude lies today certainly do de- > serve some places in a sciences' Hall of Shame, don't they: > The president, secretary repectively vice president of that > "IO3C" of the "IAMAS" at the time were Professors Robert > Hudson of the USA, Christos Zerefos of Greece and Toshihiro > Ogawa of Japan. > > WMO bullshit 1998 "prediction" B: > > Concerning UV levels, I've just seen one diagram > by the WMO appended to that "Report"; it "predicts" > "a sharp rise" in ground UV levels at higher lati- > tudes (those at the tropics remaining about constant, > as all agree/admit), of "some 8% at a maximum, com- > pared to in the 1970s, in the early 2000s", after > which they would presumably "fall again". > > That "prediction" wasn't the same (any more) than those > earlier ones saying that "1% less ozone would make for 2% > more UV radiation", but a somewhat lower one than that. > > But anyway, readers will find this too quite clearly refuted > by any actual local data they can find, I dare to predict > now. > > There is also the (local) business of the so-called Antarctic > "ozone hole". The ozone layer over the Antarctic with its > quite particular conditions have always been quite low each > September-October (austral spring). But from the late 1970s > on, and up to the early 1990s, these dips got to be deeper, > down to some 100 DU instead of down to some 300 DU. Since > then, they have stabilized at some 100 DU. The greater depth > of that dip, that's what's being called the Antarctic "ozone > hole". > > I on my part don't know why that change took place, in that > time. But it rather clearly certainly is *not* due to CFCs, > since 1) there was such an Antarctic "ozone hole" back in > 1958 too, long before any possible significant CFC influence, > 2) that "hole" hasn't gotten any bigger at all since 1994, > and even seems to decrease too (which the WMO etc are trying > to cover up); "CFC ozone depletion", if it were true, of > course would make it grow all the time. > > 8) So this Antarctic ozone "hole's" being rather con- > stant in later years is one further refutation of the > "CFC ozone depletion" hoax. > > Antarctic life, by the way, doesn't suffer at all from the > ozone layer's being just 100 DU insteaad of 300 DU in the > austral spring, since in the austral summer, UV radiation > was always much more intensive than in the spring anyway, > because of the sun's angle being greater, and the plant and > animal life in that region since long is adapted to this. > > The above facts, in most cases, were reported on in my 8-part > posting 'UNITE! Info #166en: The "ozone hole" terror hoax' > of 20.03 too, the result of some recent checking-out of va- > rious sources and some new analysis. But the thing in point > 1) above, about the ozone layer over mid-Sweden having been > *precisely constant* between 1988 and 2001, change 0.0% per > decade, I hadn't seen when I wrote that posting. > > Readers who wish to do so can see this for themselves by: > > (1) Go to http://www.smhi.se/> > (2) Proceed to "Klimat och miljö" (Climate and envi- > ronment) and there to "Ozonmätningar" (Ozone measure- > ments). You'll find a zipfile "ozondata" (ozone data). > > (3) Download and unzip the zipfile; the resulting folder > will contain the file "ozdev" (ozone deviation; one > other, "longterm", is a good corollary, showing a > graph 1951-2002 with ozone level measurements by > 3 successive stations, clearly not quite comparable > to each other but approximately so). > > (4) That file "ozdev" will show two graphs with ozone de- > viations (for Norrköping at 58º N and Vindeln at 64º > N) in the time 1988-2002, and a horizontal line which > shows that the mean level has not changed at all. The > text reads in English: > > "Monthly deviation (%) of total ozone Norrköping/ > Vindeln > from Uppsala 1951-1966 > Linear trend Feb 1988 - Dec 2001 +0.0 % / decade". > > Which is just one of several *pretty hard facts* on this > subject, possible for everybody to ascertain for him/herself. > > Rolf M. > Malmoe, Sweden > > > > UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / ¡UNIOS! / > FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: > > Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. > Each item # will be posted in one or more language(s). Leaf- > lets in the INFORMATIONSBLAD series published by me, mainly > in Swedish, since 1975 are available on request. > > Befürwortet die politische Linie von Marx, Lenin und Mao Ze- > dong. Jedes Nummer # wird in einer oder mehreren Sprache(n) > gesandt werden. Flugblätter der Reihe INFORMATIONSBLAD, von > mir hauptsächlich in Schwedisch seit 1975 veröffentlicht, > sind auf Anfrage erhaltlich. > > Avocate de la ligne politique de Marx, Lénine et Mao Zedong. > Chaque numéro # sera envoyé en une ou plusieurs langue(s). > Volantes de la série INFORMATIONSBLAD, publiée par moi prin- > cipalement en suédois depuis 1975, sont accessibles sur de- > mande. > > Partidaria de la línea política de Marx, Lenin y Mao Zedong. > Cada número # se envía en uno o más idiomas. Están a su dis- > posición, bajo petición previa, distintos folletos de la > serie INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicada por mi principalmente en > sueco desde 1975. > > Förespråkar Marx', Lenins och Mao Zedongs politiska linje. > Varje nummer # kommer att sändas på ett eller flera språk. > Flygblad i serien INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicerad av mig huvud- > sakligen på svenska sedan 1975, kan fås på begäran. > > Postal address: > > Rolf Martens > Nobelvaegen 38U4 > SE - 214 33 Malmoe > SWEDEN > Tel: +46 - 40 - 124832 > > E-mail (main, since Oct 1995:) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reserve, since Oct 2000:) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --------------------------- > ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST > > ==^================================================================ > This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9shbP Or> send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register> ==^================================================================ >
------- End of forwarded message ------- --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://TOPICA.COM/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ |
- UNITE! Info #167en: The "ozone hole" hoa... Rolf Martens
- Francisco Javier Bernal
