UN Global Warming Propaganda Campaign: Return to Perceived Success Indicates Desperation

Opinion by Dr. Tim Ball |


The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is running a campaign using television weather presenters and national broadcasters from around the world, to influence the UN’s Climate Summit 2014 scheduled for New York City on September 23. It is a counter attack designed to offset their losing the public, political, and scientific debate.

They’re releasing a series of films to, as WMO Secretary General Michel Jarroud said,

“paint a compelling picture of what life could be like on a warmer planet,”…“Climate change is already leading to more extreme weather such as intense heat and rain…We need to act now.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports are the basis for the films. It is bureaucratic incest, since Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the WMO. The films are scenarios of the future that imply are based on good science. They can’t be correct because every prediction the IPCC ever made, from their inception in 1990, was wrong. If the prediction is wrong, the science is wrong.

On Wednesday September 10, 2014 the UN announced that the ozone layer was recovering. They said,

“Experts said it showed the success of a 1987 ban on man-made gases that damage the fragile high-altitude screen, an achievement that would help prevent millions of cases of skin cancer and other conditions.”

We are not told who the experts are, but the ban they reference is the Montreal Protocol. It is too convenient and likely part of the campaign to push for a global climate Protocol at the September 23rd meeting. Headline to the story says, “Ozone layer shows first sign of recovery, UN says.” That is incorrect. In 2003, Andrew Revkin reported a similar claim in the New York Times. He wrote,

Scientists monitoring the highest levels of the atmosphere say they have detected a slowing in the rate of destruction of Earth’s protective veil of ozone, the first sign that the phasing out of chemicals that harm the ozone layer is having a restorative effect.

Now the UN is setting up for the September 23rd meeting using the ozone layer issue as a template for action on CO2. It is understandable from their perspective, because they tout it as a victory. It wasn’t! The ozone story parallels and was effectively a trial run for CO2 and Kyoto. They want a similar protocol, but are challenged because Kyoto failed.

Some of the same people who created and pushed the ozone issue were also deeply involved in CO2 and the IPCC. Susan Solomon, is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee, described by Wikipedia as follows;

Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Solomon served the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She was a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report. She was also Co-Chair of Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report.

The Ozone Issue

The Montreal Protocol is a template, but not for pushing the need for a Climate Protocol. It is a template for how ozone destruction by human produced Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was a test run for the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming. It’s a template, not because it worked, but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created a multitude of other problems. It is a template because humans were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence, while natural processes were ignored.

They said CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, as they did with CO2. As recently as September 2012, they said recovery of the ozone would take a very long time.

The ozone layer outside the Polar regions will take 40 years to recover to its pre-1980 levels, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said Friday.

But they also said,

The ozone layer over the Antarctic is expected to recover much later.

It only appears the Montreal Protocol worked because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural. Now, they need to use it as a success for political reasons, even if it exposes the error of their claims. It is not about science, so the facts are arranged as required.

The Ozone Deception

A major tenet of the environmental paradigm is that almost all change is due to human activity. Once a change is determined, it triggers a search for the human cause, usually ignoring natural change.

The British Antarctic survey team determined in the early 1980s that ozone levels were lower than measures taken in 1957. Press reports were sensationalist and created the idea this was abnormal. James Lovelock, the British scientist who proposed the Gaia hypothesis, warned against overreaction, but was ignored because the issue suited environmental hysteria.

Once designated unnatural, the search for a human cause began. Lab experiments by Sherwood and Molina in 1974 determined chlorine as the active ingredient in chlorofluorocarbon that destroys ozone. They did not recreate the temperature and pressure conditions in the ozone layer at some 20 km over Antarctica. They produced a static condition when the major natural mechanism causing ozone variation over Antarctica is an intense atmospheric circulation system associated with the Circumpolar Vortex. Because of the land/water juxtapositions, it is far more intense than in the Arctic. Their work was fundamental to the hypothesis that CFCs (commercial name Freon), which are four times denser than air, were carried to the lower stratosphere, where the chlorine portion, which is indistinguishable from natural source chlorine, destroyed ozone. As Richard Lindzen said about global warming and CO2, the consensus was reached before the research had begun.

The Evidence

There are no holes in the ozone. There were none when it became a political issue in the 1990s and none today. This is not just semantics, but an important fact in the relationship between scientific accuracy, the public perception and political reaction. Ozone levels vary considerably in different regions, at different altitudes and over time. The so-called “ozone hole” is a region in the ozone layer generally located over Antarctica, although it moves around with changes in the Circumpolar Vortex. Ozone level is lowest during the Southern Hemisphere winter, at which time ozone concentration is approximately 1/3 of the global average. It is an area of thinning due to natural causes.

Hypotheses are only as valid as the assumptions on which they are derived. A basic assumption of the ozone hypothesis is that sunlight is constant, including the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum. That assumption forces you to assume that any variation in ozone levels is not caused by solar variations. We know now that the original assumption of constant sunlight and therefore constant ultraviolet radiation is incorrect. As a NASA Report explains,

Though UV solar radiation makes up a much smaller portion of the TSI than infrared or visible radiation, UV solar radiation tends to change much more dramatically over the course of solar cycles.

When portions of ultraviolet light (UV) strike free atmospheric oxygen it splits the oxygen (O2) into single oxygen (O) molecules. These quickly combine in threes to create ozone (O3). The entire process is called photo-disassociation. This process occurs variously from 20 to 40 km above the surface in the Ozone Layer. The system is self-correcting because as more ultraviolet penetrates deeper into the atmosphere it confronts more free oxygen (O2). By 15 km above the surface, over 95% of the UV has been expended in the creation of ozone.

Like the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW), research continued in spite of media and political acceptance. It was determined that a major cause of changes in the size and extent of the Antarctic ozone hole are the intense wind patterns and circulations associated with the extensive Antarctic high-pressure zone and the surrounding wind pattern known as the Circumpolar Vortex. A second factor is Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) that form when gases including water vapor sublimate directly to crystals because of the intensely low temperatures (-70°C and below) and pressures over the South Pole.

Bureaucracies were established for CFCs, laws passed, and punishments determined for anyone using CFCs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other national agencies are replicating this by identifying CO2 as a pollutant and toxic substance.


The attack on CFCs undermines another technology that, like fossil fuels, dramatically improved the quality of life. Refrigeration tackled the serious problem of food spoilage. In developing nations estimates claim 60% of food produced doesn’t make it to the table. The figure is 30% for developed nations. Loss reduction is due partly to reduced field and transportation loss, but mostly to spoilage in storage.

As a result, when the Montreal Protocol was proposed, India and China’s position was identical to their position with Kyoto and other attempts to restrict their development and improvement of standard of living. They said you’ve reduced your losses through refrigeration, now we want to reduce ours. You produced this product now want to ban it, claiming it is an environmental hazard. We suggest you reduce your levels and let us increase ours, to achieve the same benefits. The answer was no! As a result India and China did not participate in the Montreal Protocol, just as they are not part of Kyoto and oppose any other form of restriction. When I pointed out to the Parliamentary committee that India and China were not participating, the Chairman’s assistant disappeared to return 20 minutes later to say they produced less than 5 percent of the CFCs, so they were not significant.

Nurtured by environmental hysteria and the determination to show all changes in the natural world are due to human activity, the claim CFCs were destroying ozone jumped directly from an unproven hypothesis to a scientific fact. All the other ingredients were at hand; the big greedy corporation; the dangerous product; refrigeration that improved quality of life at the expense of the environment; and the fear factor of increased skin cancer, especially among children.

The political juggernaut was underway as fearful people demanded political action. Most actions did not and could not deal with the problem. Companies turned production of sun blockers into a multibillion-dollar industry even though their product didn’t, until a few years ago, deal with those portions of ultraviolet radiation that are harmful to the skin. Claims of increases in skin cancer failed to take into account increase in life expectancy or such anomalies as the lowest levels of skin cancer occurred in Colorado, the state with the highest levels of ultraviolet radiation due to altitude. Humans require ultraviolet radiation to produce vitamin D in the body. Inadequate levels lead to various diseases, including bone problems such as rickets in children and scrofula, a form of tuberculosis.

There are still no “holes in the ozone”, but the area of thinning over Antarctica continues to vary due to natural conditions. As the climate change deception falters, the counterattack builds. The UN realizes the New York meeting is critical, maybe even a ‘tipping point’. Out of desperation, they fall back on the illusionary “success” of the Montreal Protocol, thus risking the exposure of that charade.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 12, 2014 10:00 pm

From what I have read,a lot of countries won’t be attending this meeting. (No Tricks Zone I think). I have received an e-mail from the office of the climate minister here in N.Z. and they told me that our minister will not be attending.

September 12, 2014 10:13 pm

Ah – Ha! Clearly this is a cheap shot to convince everyone that humans can control the climate at the Ozone Hole, and by extension the. Human controlled CO2 Global Warming theory has legs. However, humans are arrogant to think they control Nature on that scale. It is not happening. Now I see the Ozone story was an early attempt to use climate “science” to manipulate humans politically and economically for power and profit.

Reply to  paullitely
September 13, 2014 12:18 am

re Susan Solomon
“Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Solomon served the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She was a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report. She was also Co-Chair of Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report.”
See here recent work, co-authored with Thompson:
I put a detailed post on this and importance of volcanoes to ozone and the whole GW argument on the last thread:

Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 2:45 am

Here is a more update record of global total column ozone
Looks like the drop was due to the two major eruptions and has yet to recover fully.
I don’t see what the two very punctual drops that match up perfectly with the timing of the eruptions has to do CFCs. The loss of ozone was clearly primarily natural, so there is no reason to implicate the reduction in CFCs in the subsequent recovery.

Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 3:51 am

There is some certainty that natural CFC’s are volcanogenic. The elements are all available plus temperature and pressure.

Reply to  paullitely
September 13, 2014 2:48 am

It looks like, in their desperate attempt play PR for the upcoming meeting in NY, they have just succeeded in drawing attention to yet more dubious science that, up until now few had questioned.
Welcome to the great UN foot-shooting contest.

DD More
September 12, 2014 10:15 pm

Atmospheric scientist Charles Jackman and a team of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Hampton University in Virginia recognized a rare opportunity to gather further proof that solar storms destroy ozone. They already knew that when protons bombard the upper atmosphere, they break up molecules of gases like nitrogen and water vapor. Once freed, those products readily react with ozone molecules and reduce the ozone layer. …. Their findings, published in the August 1, 2001, issue of Geophysical Research Letters, show that less than one percent of total atmospheric ozone in the Northern Hemisphere can be quickly reduced by one of these events. “It is an indication of the power of the sun to actually affect the atmosphere in a sudden, cataclysmic way,” Jackman says.
Less solar storms / aurora activity more ozone
In a recent discovery published in March 2005 in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists reported that the high-energy particles that trigger auroras can also cause significant destruction of our protective ozone layer. Normally, ozone destruction is associated with human-emitted Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the lower stratosphere. However, the new discovery shows that natural processes can cause significant ozone destruction in the upper stratosphere.

Reply to  DD More
September 13, 2014 1:42 am

The last line of the link: “As scientists race to better understand humankind’s role in ozone loss, they must first be able to tease out the natural causes.”
They banned it more than a decade earlier but are still “racing” to understand how we are affecting ozone to “tease out” natural causes. Brilliant.

September 12, 2014 10:21 pm

A website cataloging scientific hoaxes needs to be developed, replete with documentation refuting the misguided assertions.

Anarchist Hate Machine
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 12, 2014 11:22 pm

I agree…along with continually updated categorized refutations to each of the assertions

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 13, 2014 5:42 pm

Perhaps with the additional criteria of the cost of that research, let alone the costs that flowed on from that research.

Joel O'Bryan
September 12, 2014 10:25 pm

The Montreal ozone-freon scam did do at least one good thing. Like the Y2K hysteria, it forced a major investment in the modernization of existing, less energy efficient equipment. Today, when homeowners and businesses need to recharge older R-12 systems, they can’t. They have to replace them. In the “upgrade” they also get more energy efficient units and better HVAC control systems. In the big picture, Dr Ball is probably correct about CFC’s and the ozone Antarctic hole. In that sense, the forced obsolesence was both bad (diverted resources), and good (pushed the HVAC industry to provide more efficient units).
Now it is quite unlikely the same can be said of fossil fuels and CO2 for a variety of reasons.

Brian H
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 13, 2014 1:16 am

The “modern replacements” are far more costly, and less efficient. And you celebrate this?

David Riser
Reply to  Brian H
September 13, 2014 6:24 am

Modern systems are more efficient. They use significantly less energy. R134a is a good refrigerant but the system has to be designed for its use. This is true of any refrigerant. Pull up the specs on R134a and you would see that cooling capacity is identical with R12 but the starting and ending pressures are much different. This lead to an impression that R134a was less efficient, and it was in a R12 system. I am not saying that junking all our stuff is a good idea, just that you should be careful when you blast someone’s argument.

Reply to  Brian H
September 13, 2014 11:08 am

David Riser,
Freon was more efficient. You are correct, modern systems are also more efficient. However, just about everything is more efficient now than when it began. A/C was only in movie theaters and the like in the 1930’s. The technology has become much more efficient since then.
Had we stayed with the original Freon and improved the technology, it would be even better. This “fix” has only led to less than optimal efficiency.
Anyway, they are trying to blame human industrial activity on the ozone ‘hole’. That is a completely unproven conjecture. As we see here, there is not even an ozone ‘hole’ as such. It all depends on where ozone is measured. But blaming human activity is the default position of the Malthusian eco-lobby, so that’s exactly what they did. No proof, or even strong evidence, needed. As usual.

David Riser
Reply to  Brian H
September 13, 2014 3:42 pm

Db Stealy,
Actually not, technically R134a is a better refrigerant. I will refer you to Griffiths (a german automotive air conditioning manufacturer): link here: http://www.griffiths.com/achelp/achelp3.html
Is R134a less efficient than R12 ?
R134a is NOT less efficient than R12. Actually R134a is more efficient . Pound for pound R134a is a more efficient refrigerant than R12, however it runs at higher pressures in some aspects and therefore requires more effective condensing. Whether R134a performs as well as R12 in any given a/c system depends upon system components and the amount of R134a used. Given two identical vehicles, each with the same weighted amount of refrigerant, the vehicle with the R134a has the “capability” to remove more heat (measured in btu’s) from the vehicle than the same type of vehicle using the same amount of R12.
Or if you need a peer reviewed source check out this from purdue (for a correctly designed system R134a is about 5-8% more efficient than r12):

James the Elder
Reply to  Brian H
September 13, 2014 6:04 pm

I just replaced a heat pump; $4500. The new one is 19 SEER, the old was 10 SEER. When I did have a 90F day this summer, my house was COLD. BTW, the 10 SEER cost $4000 16 years ago. “Far more costly” it is not; inflation and devaluation of the dollar would approach $9000 in today’s dollar. I would like to say that my power bill went down, but it did not, as the fees and taxes went up. That’s a fight I can’t seem to win.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 13, 2014 1:47 am

Yeah right, so we all throw out our perfectly serviceable vehicles, scrap them and take out another 5y-10y worth of credit to buy another one.
Such forced obsolescence is huge waste of energy, resources and above all OUR WORKING LIVES. I’d rather do something more productive with my earnings than send them down to the scrap yard and start again. Alternatively work less and live more.

James the Elder
Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 6:27 pm

WTF are you talking about? R-134 became the automobile standard in 1995. Anything older than that can be retrofit for $100 or so if you do it yourself; maybe twice that if you have the job done. If another change is forced upon us, you can be fairly certain there will be retro kits available. Forced obsolescence only works in a forced economy. The aftermarket world is an amazing place for those of us who hang on to older vehicles.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 13, 2014 3:48 am

Modern refrigerants are not as efficient as Freon.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 13, 2014 9:52 am

There were other negative impacts. They had to change asthma inhalers, and the resultant costs pushed the price of inhalers to an unaffordable level for many asthmatics. But human suffering is NEVER considered by Greens. They couldn’t even make an exception.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 13, 2014 10:54 am

You propose the Broken Window fallacy?

September 12, 2014 10:26 pm

Oh oh, it’s going to be incoherent truth redux. Unfortunately, those images stick in people’s heads and exert a powerful influence on their decision making process – the availability heuristic.

September 12, 2014 10:39 pm

I hope that this cold snap in the US does not disrupt the UN Climate Summit. That would be the final straw…..

September 12, 2014 11:36 pm

Actually it is kind of fitting, appropriate even, that the WMO orchestrates the last stand of the CAGW crusade.
They orchestrated this CAGW meme deliberately.
The WMO caused the creation of the IPCC, as planned.
Our bureaucrats working in unison, through an unelected unaccountable organization, created, promoted and are still desperately trying to protect from investigation, this fraud.
To claim unprecedented global warming from a brief span of time, during the warm half of a natural cycle, is at best incompetence.
But to deliberately attempt to gain power through mass hysteria, whipped up over such a nonevent can only be fraud.As seen in the ever changing historical temperature records.
Now as the cycle continues, the schemers are exposed.
Just like common serial liars, these institutional BS artists are reduced to telling larger and more elaborate tales to cover the decline of their absolute certainty.
Well I guess we were rich when this all started, so we could afford an infestation of fools and bandits upon the public troughs, now we ain’t so rich and maybe soon we will get a little wiser.
Poverty sharpens the mind, so it is said, as when you are scratching to get by you stop feeding bloated parasites such as the UN , WMO and IPCC.

Tim Crome
September 12, 2014 11:44 pm

CFCs were also extremely effective as fire extinguishers, for instance in motor rooms of ships. They could kill a major fire very quickly without harming the people in the area. No replacement as effective or safe has been found yet (as far as I am aware), CO2 and steam both work but you need to evacuate the area before their use.

David Riser
Reply to  Tim Crome
September 13, 2014 6:13 am

Check out FM200 much better than CFC, CO2 or steam. I had an out of control motor fire in 2009 FM200 saved us, the ship and the other equipment in the engineroom!

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Tim Crome
September 14, 2014 7:30 pm

“Inergen” is as effective as CFCs for fire extinguishing. It works by reducing the oxygen level to a value insufficient to support fire, but just sufficient to support life. Compressed gas containing Nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide. The only problem is that it cannot (reasonably) be liquefied (remembering contains nitrogen which liquefies at about minus 196 Celsius. Therefore has to be stored as a compressed gas, taking up a large amount of space – remember, ships’ engine rooms are usually pretty large!
CO2 was stored in cylinders as a liquid under pressure – release pressure and it boils off. Released into an engine room it rapidly descended to the bottom level and displaced the air. People at the bottom level were automatically asphyxiated as the oxygen went. Steam entered and (I believe I have this process right) condensed, forming a fog which condensed on all surfaces, but in the neighbourhood of the fire areas effectively blanketed the fire surface with water vapour.

Kurt in Switzerland
September 12, 2014 11:47 pm

I was always under the impression that “by and large the Montreal Protocol was based on sound science and broadly successful” — although the natural causes for ozone depletion were still poorly understood.
Does anyone have ref’s to unbiased science on the subject?
It is eminently clear that this latest press release is just a clever effort to shore up support for the UN FCCC negotiations (& nothing newsworthy is actually taking place with the Ozone Layer.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if this ends up lowering the public’s view of the Montreal Protocol instead?
Kurt in Switzerland

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
September 13, 2014 12:25 am

We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done ……….
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do.

James Lovelock, 29 March, 2010
(h/t MarkB)

Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 12:55 am

Don’t know how reliable this info is but may give some info on DuPont maintaining patent based control of the market.
Apparently there are cheaper, less toxic alternatives that have been suppressed by EPA.

Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 1:23 am

Warning: there seems to be a lot conspiracy type logic buzzing around this topic however, this article seems to give some information about the dubious validity of some early measurements by Solomon and other in Antarctica and original Rowland and Molina hypothesis on which the whole anti-CFC crusade was built.
Until today I too had always believed it was well founded. It all starts to sound as doubtful as the CO2 scam.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 6:28 am

I get a “page not found” for the link Greg.

Reply to  Greg
September 14, 2014 8:43 am
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
September 13, 2014 3:47 am

You will not get ”unbiased” science from Wikipedia.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
September 13, 2014 5:59 am

Thanks, Greg.
Tough to sift through the innuendo and find the disinterested science. But I agree with you, the circumstantial evidence appears to lead to a trail scent of deception and ulterior motives rather than hypothesis, measurement and confirmation / rejection / revision.
I would wager that the common person (95+%ile) is not aware of several salient features:
– Ozone “Hole” is a misnomer (reduction in concentration rather than depletion)
– Phenomenon is So. Hem., seasonal & cyclical (correlates with Winter, i.e., lack of sunlight)
– Evidence that natural phenomena (e.g., volcanoes & solar activity, …) play a significant role
– Weak evidence that “pre-CFC” there existed a more robust Ozone layer (one data point from 1957 vs another from mid-1970s is not robust)
– DuPont Freon patent expiration (& the “Industrialized World vs. Developing World” conflict)
Some of this I had heard prior, but never so much together.
Some questions:
– How do N. Hem. CFCs migrate to S. Hem and then to altitude?
– Are there any measurements of CFC effects on O3 in a real atmosphere, at altitude?
– Are we certain that the observed phenomenon (seasonal O3 dilution) is detrimental?
Disinterested science should be asking (should have asked) such questions.
Kurt in Switzerland

September 12, 2014 11:59 pm

By what method is ozone mapped? I read that chlorine and sulphur compounds released into the atmosphere by volcanoes can destroy ozone. Can those chemical concentrations be mapped? Can CFCs be mapped?

September 13, 2014 12:03 am

The N Y Cmimate Summit will be interrupted by the early cold long winter that will be even worse in March next year. Remember Copenhagen? This will be a dramatic slap in the face for CO2 Global Warming promoters. This CFC chest pounding should be used as an opportunity to show this false science was done to us before and it cost us dearly. Fool me once shame on you…. Fool me twice shame on me.

September 13, 2014 12:17 am

Obviously, since the UN is no longer focused on world peace but on world domination, it’s time to write our congressmen and senators requesting that we stop funding the UN.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
September 13, 2014 6:02 am

Pity that Switzerland succumbed to leftist political pressure and joined the UN a decade ago.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
September 13, 2014 10:49 am

There are a considerable number of reasons to stop funding the UN to include the one that you have cited. The United Nations has been in existence for nearly 70 years. In so far as I can see it has had little positive benefit in all of that time, given that starvation, disease and perpetual war are as rampant now as they have ever been. It fails even as an organization whose purpose is to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones, since most money flowing into the UN simply ends up lining the pockets of the thugs and thieves who run the member countries rather than going to the benefit of poor people. Yes, there are examples of good works, but they hardly constitute an argument for keeping the UN going. Without US funding the UN would fold like a house of cards,

September 13, 2014 12:27 am

Great Article Professor Ball:
I liked this quotable bit:
“A major tenet of the environmental paradigm is that almost all change is due to human activity. Once a change is determined, it triggers a search for the human cause, usually ignoring natural change.”
I love your ability to call a spade a spade as you see it. Your posts usually have a political bent which I don’t always agree with, but you lay out the scientific facts succinctly. I’ve seen many attempts to discredit you on the basis of political affiliation, or credentials, but few who can take you on regarding the science. Keep it up.
Sorry OT, but why does this Who song come to mind?:
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Reply to  lokenbr
September 13, 2014 9:24 am

I’ve always liked the phrase, “Policy-based evidence-making”.

HGW xx/7
September 13, 2014 12:30 am

These folks should really keep it up: the scare tactics, the shoddy (at best) predictions, the constant connection of their cause to anything and everything, and so on. It’s been working swimmingly for them thus far. /sarc
I think that is the only way these frauds will be done in: through their own hubris.

September 13, 2014 12:40 am

Where reality is suspended.
To belong to the UN club, the first requisite and this is non negotiable is – all NGO’s, politicians, and hangers on, political shills, lobbyists, genocidal maniacs [Mugabe – a feted leader no less!]…..all of them sucking at the public money teat – have to; switch off their critical faculties, that’s right switch your brain off. New York, wherever you go on those wicked climate beanfests – there’s no need to do any thinking at all – because science, real life and empirical observation are unknown, unknowns…….. in fact it is just like living in Hollywood.
Here we go again.
Sunlight causes, makes ozone.
In winter, at the North Pole, in [our NH ] summer at the South Pole – sunlight is rather rationed, therefore no sunlight = no ozone.
CFC’s are innocent but the UN is chock-full of liars.

Dodgy Geezer
September 13, 2014 1:22 am

I understood that the agreement to ban chlorofluorocarbons was quite a sudden affair, and surprised everybody. It came about because DuPont, the biggest manufacturers, who had long represented an immovable opposition, suddenly switched sides and argued for a ban.
The reason, I heard, was that the patent on these chemicals was about to expire, and DuPont had not succeeded in making a better replacement. So, on expiry, DuPont’s entire refrigerant sector would have to compete with low-cost factories making the same refrigerant without paying license fees.
If, however, it was conveniently banned, DuPont could still continue to operate a profitable refrigerant sector, making less effective chemicals, but ones which were still under patent control…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 13, 2014 3:54 am

I enjoyed the narrative.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 13, 2014 4:17 am

I “heard” that too. Do you check what you hear or do you just repeat it if it fits with bias confirmation.
What patent are you referring to and what year did it run out?

David Riser
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 13, 2014 6:10 am

R12 was made in the 50’s, the actual start date for the ban was 1995. older patents were good for 17 – 20 years in those days depending. Dupont would not have had an active patent during that time frame. However Dupont did design R134a.

September 13, 2014 2:14 am

“every prediction the IPCC ever made, from their inception in 1990, was wrong.”
I would like WUWT to have, as a permanent sticky post at the top, a list of all those predictions and the refutations thereof.

September 13, 2014 2:21 am

The real problem with people of a Green persuasion is that they think nature and the Earth naturally have a steady state. Any change at all is therefore a cause for concern and we’re always the culprits.

Reply to  Pointman
September 13, 2014 3:02 am

That’s the way it was taught even before the warming BS started. At school ( pre 1980 ) we were told that weather varied but climate was constant but different in different parts of the globe.
Humans love constancy , it’s reassuring. Change scares them.
We need long term certainty , like Gods, never changing planetary orbits and a constant climate as a bedrock to stand on when to get us through the ups and downs of daily life.
Seeing climate change in our lifetimes is like someone saying God has changed his mind about the ten commandments.

Reply to  Greg
September 13, 2014 5:04 am

“We need long term certainty , like Gods, never changing planetary orbits and a constant climate as a bedrock to stand on when to get us through the ups and downs of daily life. ”
The God of the Christians does not need any of that; as he has no problems flooding the entire Earth for a new start.
Evolution though is a slow process; and it is a problem for evolutionists to explain how a very slowly and gradually evolving organism can survive a rapid change. After all the organism has been fine tuned over millions of years for totally different circumstances.
Evolution is a blind demiurge, a blind creator god like the one of gnosticism; and creates in a very slow way. Gaia-believers are therefore gnostics; but with a very slow demiurge; sudden change is a real problem for them.
Also, it gives them an opportunity to accuse man of interfering with that slow demiurge; so they can introduce sin into their worldview; and indulgences, which have always been a great business to be in. They’re trying to emulate the various shenanigans of Christian churches through the ages in their gnostic world.

Reply to  Pointman
September 13, 2014 7:17 am

Spot on Pointy.

Reply to  Pointman
September 13, 2014 9:40 pm

Ice 🙂
Well at least for the last 2.5 million years that has been the majority of the steady state. If averaged out it is really much colder than today. They seem to miss that point.

September 13, 2014 3:22 am

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle little worms, the truth has found you out….

September 13, 2014 3:38 am

Interesting comment re the formation of ozone from oxygen utilizes the major portion of uv light before it reaches the surface of the earth. No other information is required to deduce that variations in ozone are proportional to oxygen concentration and intensity of uv radiation.

Reply to  sanaerchi
September 13, 2014 4:14 am

Cool, replace one set stupidly simplistic statements with another one. Nice work.

September 13, 2014 3:43 am

Brilliant report. Many thanks Dr. Ball.

September 13, 2014 3:44 am

Even in small countries like Catalunya (still spain) with its own meteorological organization and own tv network it’s a constant bombardment. They are completely on the ipcc bandwagon.

September 13, 2014 4:26 am

It’s not only the UN, former Australian PM Kevin Rudd is warning the US about climate change in the run up to the Sept 23rd talks too. Lets hope Obama pays attention to real issues (ISIS, Syria, Egypt, Africa etc) and follow the Australian and now EU Lead and bin these green policies.

September 13, 2014 4:43 am

Climate change is already leading to more extreme weather such as intense heat and rain…We need to act now.”

Does anyone have at least 5 pieces of peer reviewed evidence showing “more extreme weather” covering at leas a period of climate (30 years), and showing that it is cause mainly by man’s greenhouse gases? If the evidence is compelling then 5 pieces of peer reviewed evidence covering at least 30 years should not be a problem at all. Does the IPCC say that more extreme weather is happening due to man’s greenhouse gases?

Reply to  Jimbo
September 13, 2014 6:31 am

There’s “intense heat and rain” somewhere?
Next we will hear about “bitter cold and droughts” somewhere.
Oh, wait…
never mind.

September 13, 2014 4:52 am

“Experts said it showed the success of a 1987 ban on man-made gases that damage the fragile high-altitude screen, an achievement that would help prevent millions of cases of skin cancer and other conditions.”

This is amazing! Back in December 11, 2013 NASA said:

NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.
More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.

Here is a sign of the recover reported just 2 months before the NASA announcement

Nature News – 13 October 2013
Ozone loss warmed southern Africa
Antarctic ozone hole’s effects may have spread much wider than thought.
Ozone loss over the South Pole might be the reason for a two-decade rise in early summer temperatures across southern Africa, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience1.

September 13, 2014 4:53 am

What I find interesting is that the scientific method creates technologies, but also gets hijacked to outlaw technologies, and after that outlawing has happened, the technology is treated as scorched Earth and never revisited again, and the scientific fr**d stays in the textbooks forever.

Reply to  DirkH
September 13, 2014 10:36 pm

You mean like DDT, which all but eradicated malaria in the northern latitudes, but was outlawed to use when Africa most needed it?

September 13, 2014 5:02 am

It only appears the Montreal Protocol worked because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural.

The ozone hole went back to the future.

Dominic A. Hodgson et al
Late Pleistocene record of elevated UV radiation in an Antarctic lake
Elevated ultraviolet irradiance (UVR, 280–400 nm) damages DNA and induces reorganisation within biological communities at the Earth’s surface. Southern high latitude aquatic ecosystems may be particularly susceptible because of low stratospheric ozone levels and extremely low contents of photoprotective dissolved organic matter (DOM). Surveys of shallow lakes and ponds in eastern Antarctica show that cyanobacteria survive elevated UVR exposure by increasing extra-cellular concentrations of photoprotective compounds, which are preserved in sediments together with photosynthetic pigments. Thus, reconstruction of long-term changes in biological UVR receipt, to provide a context for evaluating the long-term significance of recent changes in ozone column depth, is feasible in Antarctic settings. The sediment in Lake Reid (69° 23′ S, 76° 53′ E), Antarctica, spans the late-Pleistocene and contains UVR-absorbing pigments from benthic cyanobacteria. Here we show that mean exposure of these benthic cyanobacteria to UVR during the last glacial was more than three times higher than during the Holocene, likely due to short periods of photosynthetic activity coinciding with relatively high UVR fluxes, or due to increased UVR transmission to the Earth’s surface resulting from changes in external factors such as stratospheric ozone levels, cloud cover and surface albedo.

September 13, 2014 5:24 am

UVR variability over Antarctica during low CFC times. It’s still your freezer’s fault. Ban CFCs now (and then)!

Late Holocene changes in ultraviolet radiation penetration recorded in an East Antarctic lake
……………….Results showed four well-defined maxima in the UVR proxy during the last 1600–1800 years, centred around 1820–1780, 1580–1490, 790–580 and 680–440 AD. Several mechanisms may account for these observed changes in UVR penetration, including past variability in cloud cover, atmospheric turbidity, ozone column depth, snow cover on the lake ice, DOM concentrations and lake-ice thickness and transparency resulting from temperature fluctuations. Although some gaps remain in our knowledge of scytonemin production in relation to the limnology of Antarctic lakes, the results highlight the importance and potential of the sediments in these highly transparent water bodies as archives of changes in past UVR receipt at the Earth’s surface.

September 13, 2014 5:53 am

Still have yet to find much in the way of follow up on this item related to ozone.

Reply to  ossqss
September 13, 2014 6:24 am

Here is that man. The science is settled again.

3. April 2014: “Like a giant elevator to the stratosphere
Potsdam, 3 April 2014. An international team of researchers headed by Potsdam scientist Dr. Markus Rex from the Alfred Wegener Institute has discovered a previously unknown atmospheric phenomenon over the South Seas. Over the tropical West Pacific there is a natural, invisible hole extending over several thousand kilometres in a layer that prevents transport of most of the natural and manmade substances into the stratosphere by virtue of its chemical composition. Like in a giant elevator, many chemical compounds emitted at the ground pass thus unfiltered through this so-called “detergent layer” of the atmosphere. Scientists call it the “OH shield”. The newly discovered phenomenon over the South Seas boosts ozone depletion in the polar regions and could have a significant influence on the future climate of the Earth – also because of rising air pollution in South East Asia……..


Reply to  Jimbo
September 13, 2014 6:36 am

“The newly discovered phenomenon over the South Seas boosts ozone depletion in the polar regions”
As it has always been there, it also has always boosted the ozone depletion.
” and could have a significant influence on the future climate of the Earth”
and on the past and on the present climate. Oh, and it’s missing in all climate models, so maybe we should throw THOSE away now.
” – also because of rising air pollution in South East Asia……..”
And because of dropping air pollution in USA and Europe. And because of every volcano that blows up or doesn’t.
I hate it when they do good research only to show in the last sentence that they are not interested in an objective worldview.

September 13, 2014 6:35 am

We stopped the advancing ozone hole by squirting a different aerosol. We also added all that new Sea Ice by celebrating Earth Day and saved the Polar Bears with Solar Panels. See? We can also beat CO2. Just show us the money.

Pamela Gray
September 13, 2014 7:15 am

Exactly who or what is damaged by the regular thinning of ozone over Antarctica? Has there been documentation of cellular damage? And are there measurements of UV penetration on the ground during this seasonal variation? And is there enough of an energy change to match observed cellular damage (if indeed any cellular damage has been documented)?
If there ever was a case of doubting your overlords, this would be it.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 13, 2014 7:25 am

I live in Britain, ruled by Brussels……………..
“If there ever was a case of doubting your overlords, this would be it.”
I’m telling you Pamela – there are so many “cases” in fact and inevitably we may be talking about causus belli – the people can only take so much, pay so much, swallow so much…….

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 14, 2014 7:47 pm

It is considered that Australia, being on the edge of the so-called hole, receives more UV than northern countries do. As a result it is believed that Australians get skin cancer more than other Europeans. I leave it to you to check the various sites re comparison of the incidence of skin cancers in Australia (and presumably New Zealand).
However, in any discussion on this, you should be aware that we have generally better weather (sunnier, warmer, drier) than does NW Europe, so Australians tend to wear less heavy – indeed less – clothing and so tend to have more skin exposed. School children normally wear hats when playing in school grounds, not the caps we boys used to wear in the UK, nor the berets the girls wore, but hats with very large brims. Out of school it seems the tee-nagers are afflicted by the “Hets on beckwds, cheps” RAF fashion mode, but it at least does protect the back of their necks from the sun.

September 13, 2014 7:26 am

Curious that they are using the highly questionable ozone reduction effort as a plan when the reduction in acidic power station outputs – which included a cap & trade component – was a success…

Kurt in Switzerland
September 13, 2014 7:28 am

Has anyone actually MEASURED the concentration of “Ozone-depleting” molecules in situ where the phenomenon is observed? Is there good inverse correlation between the suspect man-made airborne substances and Ozone?

Dodgy Geezer
September 13, 2014 7:38 am

“Greg September 13, 2014 at 4:17 am
I “heard” that too. Do you check what you hear or do you just repeat it if it fits with bias confirmation.
What patent are you referring to and what year did it run out?”
Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons”, U.S. Patent #3258500 expired 1979, since you ask. DuPont were being attacked on freon-12 in the late 70s, managed to retain some rights for another term, but reversed their defence strategy around 1986. See “Ethics of Du Pont’s CFC Strategy 1975–1995”, Smith B. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 17, Number 5, April 1998, pp. 557–568(12)
Do you just smear things you hear which don’t agree with your pre-conceived ideas, or do you confirm that your assertions have some basis in reality, like I do?

September 13, 2014 7:39 am

Correction: “WMO Secretary General Michel Jarroud ” Nope… It’s Michel Jarraud. Does not change the fact he is a propagandist but his name is Jarraud.

September 13, 2014 11:20 am

I am wondering if you have a list of the failed ipcc predictions, After an exhaustive trip down the deep dark rabbit hole of climate change. I have jumped ship from the CAGW camp. I have begun posting on my facebook page about the failed IPCC projections lately, and my posts are inciting the expected results from my peer group (all died in the wool lberals – like myself!). You mentioned at the start of the article “They (the predictions) can’t be correct because every prediction the IPCC ever made, from their inception in 1990, was wrong. If the prediction is wrong, the science is wrong”. I need as much information as possible to counter the attacks I am now subject to.

Reply to  Administration
September 13, 2014 6:24 pm

My condolences for the loss of your social statis, the liberal warmistas are an emotional lot and will never be swayed by facts that contradict their world view.

Reply to  Paul Jackson
September 14, 2014 5:13 am

I was

September 13, 2014 7:01 pm

Note they don’t have any study showing the COSTS in lives and productivity that the Ozone Protocols incurred. Just as they don’t with their latest attempt at governance by coercion and scare mongering.

September 15, 2014 1:28 am

We have always known that it was the United Nations itself, that took its direction from Maurice Strong as head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), to set up the IPCC with the World Meteorological Organisaztion (WHO). These two bodies have always prosecuted the agenda of dangerous man-made global warming, and have directed the agenda ever since.

September 15, 2014 4:45 am

Interesting post, Prof. Ball!

%d bloggers like this: