|
The most amusing misrepresentations of fact, however, comes out of the shops of NASA. One is reminded to what happens in the business world where employees are obliged to 'toe the party line' and to 'sing the party song.' In business such compliance is quite necessary for obvious reasons. It would be surprising, too, if the individual scientists at NASA would not have to operate under similar constraints. Indeed, one can detect a thinly veiled attempt in the NASA releases, by someone, to tell the real story behind the story. While NASA is used as an official tool to promote the ozone depletion theory, quite a different story comes out in the background, that the bosses didn't detect, but which the more alert individuals of the public should have recognized.
The grandest of this veiled presentation of reality is the arctic ozone hole story, that launched the ozone scare and made headlines during the latter parts of the 1980s. Those were the days when satellite images of holes in the ozone layers were paraded in news reports, as proof that a catastrophe is in the making. This was the party line, of course. The real story behind it all, was actually quite obvious, and pointed to the opposite. It should have been obvious to anyone that the arctic regions are about as far away as one can get on this planet from the major centers where CFCs are used. Also, anyone who knew anything about the nature of the atmosphere would immediately recognize that the arctic region, in the middle of winter, receives extremely little radiation from the sun for the creation of ozone, so that a natural decline in concentration is inevitable, and that this decline is especially pronounced in times of high volcanic activities which pumps huge amounts of chlorine into the stratosphere, which was the case in both arctic regions at the time the NASA pictures of so-called ozone holes made headlines.
It appears, that what the scientists at NASA were really saying to the public with these cleverly disguised news releases, though singing the party song, that the simple truth is, that no real evidence exists that supports the party line - that one has to look far and wide to find even the least credible excuse for it.
These types of news releases continue on an annual basis, making big headlines every year, which in turn are quickly disproved by the real scientific community. The corrections, however, make no headlines at all. The evidence points altogether to a very crudely rigged game.
Another misrepresentation of the natural facts in the CFC rhetoric comes in the form of a massive overstating of the supposed effects of an expected increase in UV radiation on humanity. Although no increase has actually been measured (only statistical fraud can show an increase), catastrophic effects for this none-existing increase have been prophesied by which great fear has been stirred up. This fear wouldn't exist if the public knew that no actual increase in UV radiation has yet been measured anywhere as the result of the 50 years of mankind's production of CFCs. What has been presented to the public is statistical fraud, which is easily accomplished by using cyclical variations throughout the seasons and years, as proof for trends, which actually are short term elements of normal patterns of irregular natural cycles of variations over the years.
Claims of a measured reduction of the ozone layer by 3% have been announced from time to time, and this claimed decrease has been prophesied to cause epidemics in skin cancer and related deaths. Such predictions were quite common throughout the scare years. The hard fact is, that a 3% reduction in ozone density would have caused a 6% increase in UV radiation reaching the ground. Since there exist a natural difference of radiation intensity of 400% between the latitudes of Oslo and Panama, a 6% increase, which in reality never occurred, would have amounted to nothing more than the equivalent in increased UV intensity that would be experienced by a person moving 36 miles farther to the south. Thus, the worst possible case of predicted increase in UV radiation by the year 2000, of 10%, should it miraculously happen, would not bring about the predicted catastrophe, because nobody has ever died from moving 120 miles closer to the equator from where they lived. An Eskimos might have some problems when suddenly moving to Equator. For him, there would be a 5000% difference in UV radiation levels, which is the normal difference between the UV intensity at poles and the equator.
Next Page
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -
||
|
