Global Warming—A Thing of Past Thought

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Kevin Roeten:

Kevin Roeten
Science Editor

There are still actual believers who truly believe Anthropogenic Global Warming. The hype builds until actual fanatics appear. There’s a reason why physicists and cosmologists all across the world says Earth is considered to be in a‘Goldilocks Zone’. A zone considered as one of the special places throughout the universe. A location where the earth’s orbit is almost perfectly elyptical. Where only our sun’s rays can significantly affect our climate. Where the location of our orbit determines seasons precisely,

The elements on our earth are precisely maintained during history. Shockingly, the earth is actually a ‘closed’ system. Almost nothing  adds or subtracts to our planet, with the exception of a stray meteorite, which has no spare [CO2] whatsoever. But the worry is about an ozone layer [3mm thick].

There is always elements such as ozone, [CO2], and others that rise and fall due to climate, crustal and oceanic absorption, but stay absolutely within earth’s biosphere. Ozone can vary up to 50% depending upon season, planetary tilt, and many other factors. But not [CO2]. Back in the early eighties, it became possible to monitor ozone levels with satellites. Ozone was found to drop in the early Spring of two of the coldest continents—the Arctic, and Antarctica. Bottom line, stratospheric chemistry was always highly complex. Scientists were never sure exactly how CFCs would be at destroying [O3].

Dr. Qing-Bin Lu’s mention of cosmic rays from space, and those emanating from the sun during sunspot activity was inPhysical Review Letters, 3/19/9. Dr. Lu is a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Waterloo. Lu, and companion Sanche wrote a paper for Scientific American, unambiguously showing time-correlations between cosmic ray intensity, and any ozone depletion. Between 1980-2007, they took data over two full “Schwabe” 11-year sunspot cycles. This unambiguously showed time correlations between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Qing-Bin Lu also stating prior information on supposed CFC-ozone depletion emphatically: These conclusions were based on climate simulations rather than direct simulations.” Obviously cosmic ray intensity from stars have no correlation to any ozone depletion.

Roland and Molina

But bring on two rogue scientists named Roland and Molina. Their concocted hypotheses terminated with a total of seven hair-brained ideas.

  1. Development of the first Supersonic Transport [H2O]
  5. Methane gases from cows
  6. Chlorine from the Space Shuttle exhaust
  7. ChloroFluoroCarbons [CFCs], or CHLORINE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

The first comprehensive worldwide measurements of ozone began in 1978, with the Nimbus-7 satellite. For eons of earth’s past history no one knew what was going to happen to ozone. The real deal for the refrigerant CFC-12 was its atmospheric lifetime of 80-100 years. It hangs around in the atmosphere for a while. In fact, CFC 11/12/113 worldwide production maximized in 1985 at 2.1 billion pounds. For 10 years CFC’s were produced by about  7 companies, with DuPont leading the charge. Knowing CFC-12 would last in the atmosphere for at least 80 years, [by 2060] when maximum CFCs reach the stratosphere. Because of the high stability of all CFCs, they all were never totally destroyed.

If all CFCs had increased UV-b radiation as predicted, we would all have experienced some form of cancers by now. But CFCs were the safest chemicals ever made. But with purported ozone depletion, the much-hyped acceleration of skin cancer rates never existed. National Cancer Institute statistics showed malignant melanoma mortality, undergoing a log-term increase predating the alleged ozone decrease, actually began levelling off during the putative ozone crisis.

Faced with assumed UV-b increases, the ground-level devices determined the much-hyped ozone scare leveled off in the early 1990s, way in front of maximum ozone accumulation in the stratosphere. In fact, a Canadian Parliamentary Committee began proceedings for controlling the alleged ozone scare.  At the meeting, one of the major participants was Dupont (the writer’s employer). Dupont reps said very little. They were already phasing out of CFCs, and had replacement product called [HFC-134A].

Death of 400,000 Africans

But in 1992, International Refrigeration experts conservatively estimated the ban on CFCs was going to kill almost 40 million Africans every year. Knowing [CFC-12] has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 100 years, we would have seen worse case cancer rates occurring around 2060, when maximum CFCs will have reached the atmosphere.

The Montreal Protocol’s claim to fame was no increased cancers. It turns out the ‘Ozone Scare’ was a dry-run for the ‘Global Warming Scare.’ It certainly seems true when you look at the sins of those who created the ozone hole and global warming deceptions. The truth is slow, but it eventually catches up, because, as Aldous Huxley explained, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

There is not now, and never was a “hole in the ozone.” The phrase was a public relations construct to mislead and exploit fear as the basis for a political agenda, in the exploitation of climate for a political agenda is to take The ozone deception served as a forerunner for the global warming deception to follow. Normal patterns and events were implied abnormal, and not due to natural perturbations. Global warming became the largest exploitation based on reported ozone depletions over Antarctica, not natural variations.

First they create the false or exaggerated problems, and then, they offer a solution. It is wrapped in the guilt that ‘you caused it’. Give us control and money so we can save you and the planet. Like all religious leaders, they claim the power of absolution. As a Chemical Engineer, he knows some chemicals can be dangerous in specifically small amounts. But there are over 250 known “phobias”, and “chemophobia” seems to be the most common fear. Remember FDR saying,“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself…”

Technical Corrections

There is, and always was an area of thinner ozone over Antarctica totally due to natural causes.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the level in Dobson Units explained in Figure 2. As with [CO2], it is important the public understand the volumes and distributions so involved. Applying the information in Figure 2 against the conditions in Figure 1, you can see that the global average of 300 Dobson Units means if you compressed the ozone down to the surface at 0°C and one atmospheric pressure you have a layer 3 mm thick. The level over Antarctica in Figure 1 is 150 DU or half the average – thinner, but not a hole.

Figure 2

The entire story of ozone depletion due to Chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] was just a scientifically created deception. It sculpted much larger deception of global warming entirely due to human produced [CO2]. Now, the evidence, much of which was known at the start but deliberately ignored, has emerged.

Sins Being Exposed

recent headline illustrates the problem created by the deception CFCs were causing Antarctic ozone depletion.

At a total extent of 28.2 million square kilometres, this year’s ozone hole was surpassed by only Sept 24, 2003 (28.4 million sq km), Sept 24, 2006 (29.6 million sq km) and September 9, 2000 (29.9 million sq km). Why did the ozone hole grow so large this year? It was a combination of just how persistent ozone-depleting chemicals are in the atmosphere, and just how cold the atmosphere got over Antarctica during the past month. Gradually they are presenting arguments approximating the truth without disclosing they were wrong. NASA GISS is at the center of the strategy.

Twenty years after the Montreal Protocol, Antarctica’s ozone hole isn’t growing substantially larger each year, but it isn’t actually –recovering – clearly growing smaller each year – yet, either. Atmospheric scientists reported that conclusion on December 11, 2013 to an audience of Earth scientists at the 2013 American Geophysical Union meeting. These scientists presented results of two new studies, indicating variations in temperature and winds drive year-to-year changes the size of the ozone hole.

Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center presented this work, saying: Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline. … meteorology [not chemistry] was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated.

The trouble is ten years earlier a 2003 report said, The rate at which ozone is being destroyed in the upper stratosphere is slowing, and the levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in that layer of the atmosphere have peaked and are going down — the first clear evidence that a worldwide reduction in chlorofluorocarbon pollution is having the desired effect, according to a new study. [They obviously got the premise wrong chlorofluorocarbons had anything to do with it.]

The Ozone Layer

Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere in a process called photodisassociation. When ultraviolet [UV] radiation, a small part of the total electromagnetic energy from the sun, strikes free oxygen molecules [O2] (Figure 3). The molecules are split into single oxygen molecules [O], which combine with other [O2] to create ozone [O3]. (Figure 4) Ultraviolet is critical because it is the major factor in the creation of [O3]. Ultra means ‘beyond’ so it is light beyond the violet [400 nanometers] on the visible spectrum, and visible because it is detectable by the human eye. Densities vary horizontally and vertically, so levels over any region change hourly with air movement in the upper atmosphere. Formation of ozone occurs between 15 and 55 km above the surface of the earth. The layer is self-healing because as UV penetrates further into the atmosphere it encounters more free oxygen.

Solar rays strike the atmosphere at a gradually decreasing angle from 90° at the equator to 0° at the poles. In his September 20, 1995, Congressional testimony Professor Fred Singer explained, “A projected 10 percent UV increase from a worst-case global ozone depletion is the equivalent of moving just 60 miles closer to the equator….New Yorkers moving to Florida experience a more than 200 percent increase in UV because of the change of latitude.”

External Societal Dynamics of Deception

Nobody admits humans require ultraviolet radiation to limit scrofula, a form of tuberculosis, created by a bacteria killed off by the UV. It also creates vitamin D that is necessary to prevent rickets, a form of bone disease. The audience was told keeping children out of the sun and reducing UV exposure was potentially dangerous. This demonization of UV ignores its benefits. The same situation is true of [CO2] and its essential role in the life of plants and all life.

False Assumptions

Global warming and ozone thinning each began with a hypothesis, and in both cases were supported by completely falseassumptions made to predetermine a human cause. With warming, it was the false assumption increasing [CO2] causes a temperature increase. The only place in the world this happens is in IPCC computer models. Considering the possibility of ozone thinning, the assumption was solar energy and UV radiation is constant—which never occurs. Since ozone is created by the interaction between UV and oxygen, assuming UV is constant eliminates it as an explanation for variation in ozone levels. It eliminated the most obvious natural variation, which is precisely what they wanted. It also required identification of a man-made product, even if it also occurred naturally like [CO2], to blame. In the case of ozone, the product was chlorine, which is part of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], commercially known as Freon.

Most everyone identified human produced [CO2] as the supposed problem. Crutzer, Molina and Rowland purportedly altered the science necessary to point the finger at [CFCs]. They received a Nobel Prize “…for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone”. With [CFCs] the list identified Ozone Destroying Chemicals (ODC). With [CO2] the list identified Global Warming Potentials (GWP). The UNFCCC list identified dozens of GWPs persuaded over 190 countries to sign, which they eliminated by their limiting definition of climate change for the IPCC.

Roland and Malina didn’t actually specify destruction of ozone in the Ozone Layer. They couldn’t simulate destructive atmospheric conditions in the Ozone Layer. But with the pseudoscientific evidence, the political agenda could proceed. With both [CFCs] and [CO2], they abandoned the scientific method and determined to prove rather than disprove their hypotheses. The imperative was to ban [CFCs] not to test the theory. Like the Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW]hypothesis, the consensus was determined before the research began, and contradictory or conflicting research ignored.

They ignored variations in [UV-b] radiation, which we know is the cause of variation. They also ignored other gases, particularlyespecially water vapor in the form of ice crystals. They ignored the properties and effects of other gases at the extreme temperatures of -70°C and colder (see Strahan’s comments above). These crystals created what were initially ignored, namely Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC). In 1998, the University of Cambridge said, “the precise chemistry and details of PSCs are not fully understood…” “We do not yet fully understand the mechanism for PSC freezing, and this remains one of the largest uncertainties in stratospheric ozone modelling.” This revelation is ten years after the “science was settled” Montreal Protocol. Another parallel between the [CO2] and [CFC] deception was production of a “wanted list” after the Montreal Protocol.

With [CO2] the list identified Global Warming Potentials (GWP). The UNFCCC list identified dozens of GWPs persuaded over 190 countries to sign, which they eliminated by their limiting definition of climate change the IPCC.

By 1987, the manipulators the for Montreal Protocol called for elimination of ODCs by countries signing. Interesting differences with the Kyoto Protocol resulted in similar political outcomes. The US and other industrialized nations ratified the Montreal Protocol. Another parallel involved the challenge of separating the human-produced chemical from the natural. Chlorine was the active ingredient in CFCs was claimed to destroy ozone in the high atmosphere. They claimed the chlorine from CFCs was different from natural chlorine. The false science was exposed in “The Holes in Ozone Hoax”As they wrote, “Omitted from this story of mass destruction is the fact that the amounts of chlorine contained in all the world’s [CFCs] are insignificant compared to the amount of chlorine put into the atmosphere from natural sources.” The CO2 equivalent to the chlorine deception involved claiming the [CO2] produced from burning fossil fuels differed from “natural” [CO2]. Similarly, [CO2] produced by humans have at least two major non-human sources. It would be an insignificant amount, even if it were causing global warming. The only way the IPCC was able to claim human CO2 was the major factor involved eliminating almost all other possible sources of change. Promoters of the CFC fiasco did the same earlier and achieved their goal. No wonder they tried it again with CO2.


Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@CHARTER.NET.

© Copyright by Kevin Roeten, 2018. All rights reserved.

Kevin Roeten
About Kevin Roeten 165 Articles
CHO's science editor Kevin Roeten is a former Chemical Engineer. He enjoys riding the third rail of journalism: politics and religion. As an orthodox Catholic, Roeten appreciates the juxtaposition of the two supposedly incompatible subjects.   Kevin is a Guest Columnist for the Asheville Citizen-Times, and the Independent (Ohio), and writes for numerous blogs (Nolan Chart, Allvoices) and newspapers, including USA Today.   A collaborator in the book Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture (Jason Wright and Aaron Lee), he is also an amateur astronomer, and delves into scientific topics.   Kevin Roeten can be reached at

Be the first to comment

Discuss This Article (subject to CHO guidelines)