Monday, October 30, 2006

Global Warming Hoax - Part Two

Monday October 30, 2006
Chapter Two: How and by Whom the Ozone Hole Fraud was Perpetrated~~~~~ The Mounting Evidence for Fraud ~~~~~If you still believe in “global warming” and the “ozone hole” you have been fooled by news media propaganda, not science. There is no evidence for such a thing as current "global warming," despite what you read in the media. That is a profit-making scientific hoax which started in the 1960's. The hoaxes of the "ozone hole" and "global warming" are both based on the same scientific hoax. In 1976 a new government reference manual was published called "The US Standard Atmosphere 1976." That reference claims that all the gases in the lower atmosphere are mixed by the weather to a uniform mixture. That is false. In 1987, while working at United Technologies, I discovered several older government-sponsored reference books, showing that the atmosphere is mostly layered, with heavy gases near the earth's surface and the lighter gases rising to the top of the atmosphere. They are mixed a bit by the weather, but mostly are still light on top and heavy on the bottom near the earth.Those older references cited thousands of university and government balloon surveys of the atmosphere going back to the 1920's. All of that older data was tossed out in 1976. The publication of the "US Standard Atmosphere 1976" constitutes a scientific hoax which enabled the creation of the false theories of the "hole in the ozone" and the "global warming" theory. Without the false data in that reference manual, neither theory would be possible. Without that false data, how could heavy Freon get up high in the atmosphere to the Ozone Layer to deplete the ozone? Also how could much heavier carbon dioxide get high in the atmosphere to become a "greenhouse gas layer?" Both theories are false and fraudulent, and based on the falsified “U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976” data. So far, the Ozone hoax has garnered 15 billion dollars for DuPont Chemical, which created the hoax in 1974, by issuing false data about the amount of Freon being made world-wide. I must assume they were the ones who also created the false data about atmospheric gases which was published in 1976 in the Standard Atmosphere reference manual. In 1989, the Montreal Conference on Ozone found Freon was damaging the Ozone Layer. The conference created the Montreal Protocol, which banned the making of Freon. The real reason for the ban, was that DuPont was losing its exclusive patent on Freon, and China and India were then making and selling Freon at half price and still making a big profit from Freon sales. DuPont created the world-wide scare to ban Freon - and thus remove China and India as competitors. Dupont wanted to maintain its world-wide monopoly on the production of Freon or its near replacement. The 1989 Montreal Protocol would guarantee that.The Montreal Protocol, "taxed" the nations of the world to raise 15 billion dollars to give to DuPont, to find a 'safe" Freon replacement. China and India, of course, refused to pay for the hoax. So the other nations were charged double to make up for China and India. More Freon is made and sold around the world today, than was ever made before 1989. The claim that the "ban" is allowing the ozone hole to heal, is false. The ban was useless, but it did allow DuPont to receive the 15 billion dollars for nothing. The "safe" replacement they "found" was called HCFC which DuPont already had on the shelf, so it cost them nothing to develop. The Montreal Protocol, was all 15 billion profit to DuPont. They were the sponsors of the Montreal Conference, and the sponsors of NASA's Ozone program, which purported to "prove" Freon was depleting the Ozone Layer. It was a complete corporate/government scientific hoax. It was a Mind Control program to get you to believe a hoax. The hoax used the false data in the 1976 reference manual. They assumed all the older data references had been destroyed, so nobody would know about the old data. They were wrong. I found the old balloon data in the old references still in the UTC tech library.The same 1976 hoaxed reference manual is used to show that heavy Carbon Dioxide is rising high in the atmosphere and creating layers of "greenhouse gases" and causing "Global Warming." That is also a scientific hoax. The profiteer in this case is the oil monopoly of Exxon/BP and the others. They stand to make about a trillion dollars by raising the price of gas and oil, in order to "help prevent" catastrophic global warming. It is a Mind Control scare tactic to force the world population to willingly give trillions of dollars to the oil companies.Anecdotal stories about animals migrating or glaciers melting have NOTHING to with "global warming." It is a scientific fraud and a massive world-wide hoax.In this series of articles, I address both the Ozone and Warming hoaxes. So far, all the mail response has been positive. I use actual scientific evidence from the earlier references, and scientific logic and argument to prove the hoaxes. I point out who is making the extorted money, billions and trillions of dollars, from the hoaxes. Obviously I am not hearing from the companies involved, nor the U.S. government which is also involved in the hoax.Actually, I already heard from those groups, back in the 1990's. I had discovered the older data references about the atmosphere in 1987 in the technical library at UTC. At that time UTC, which had built the Saturn V moon rocket, was getting out of the space business. So they had canceled their subscriptions, and had not updated their old reference manuals. That's why I found them, but all the other libraries around the world had already tossed out the old "pre-space age" manuals and replaced them with the 1976 false data. In 1988 and 1989, I told that story several times on local community radio station KKUP in Cupertino. Cupertino is a small city in Silicon Valley, and is the home to Apple Computers. But the local Cupertino KKUP radio audience was just too small and not enough people were learning about the 1976 reference manual hoax. In April 1989, I proposed to write an article about the hoax for the San Jose Mercury-News newspaper. I talked to the Science Editor of the Merc. She told me to write the story. She said, I should do interviews with the people at NASA and get "quotes." Alright, so I did that. I even taped the calls to get the "quotes" verbatim. But they were useless. The manager lady at NASA/Ames had no idea how ozone was created or why it varies during the year.My 45 minute phone call to her was mostly my teaching her about how the earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees and during the winter no sunlight reaches the poles to make ozone. She had never heard of it. And she had a Ph.D, and was a NASA manager! There was nothing she said that I could use as a quote in my Merc story. She didn't understand my explanation, and I wondered why I was "teaching" this lady, 4th grade science over the phone. She finally said I should talk to her boss, the manager of Earth Observing programs in Washington. I talked to him for about 15 minutes. Again, nothing I could use as a quote and write about in the Merc-News. He put me on his mailing list, and I got tons of the latest satellite data and NASA papers on the topic. That's how I got my copy of the expensive Montreal Conference report, about the size of two telephone books. NASA wanted to swamp me with data. My library soon had two whole shelves of NASA satellite data and articles, all on the topic of ozone layer depletion.Several weeks after that phone call in 1989, I found I could not get any employment. I was told by a recruiter, "Mr. Smith, you should change your career. You'll never work as an engineer or scientist again." I was stunned. I said, "Wha---?" The recruiter, named Stan, said, "I can't tell you, but you should look for other work..." I even told that to my wife right after I made that call. It didn't make any sense. In other words, my phone call to NASA had cost me my career. In fact, I never worked as a scientist or engineer, after 1989. I had "blown the whistle on NASA," and they had "blackballed" me from any future employment. This was later extended to ANY employment of any kind. At the time, I did not see the direct connection between the NASA phone call and my employment. Several years later it became obvious.I went so long without employment, I had to start my own handyman business, repairing people's roofs and cleaning their toilets, to make any money at all. I went door to door looking for work. I had sent out over 1,000 resumes seeking a professional job, but got exactly zero responses. Not a one. How could that be? My divorce case was over non-payment of child support, but how could I pay support equal to 10 times my annual income. Despite five attempts in court to have the support amount reduced, I was refused by the judges five times. Why was that? I was to pay an amount as if I were still working on NASA projects as a senior scientist. But I never got any "professional" level job. I never even got a minimum wage job at Radio Shack, even though I applied twice, nor even a job at Home Depot, despite submitting several applications. I was not "employable." Why was that?Because the radio interviews on KKUP were not being heard by enough people, I decided to write my proof of the hoax, and send it by email to the biggest radio audience in the world. In 1991, that was the Rush Limbaugh daily radio program with about 30 million listeners per day. My succinct email was about two pages long. I expected the Limbaugh program staff to take "sound bites" or "quotes" from my letter, and then Limbaugh could read them on the air. I was amazed. Instead the next day, April 21, 1991, Limbaugh used my letter as his opening monologue. He read my letter verbatim and complete. Then he made no comment. There was nothing left to say. The proof of the world-wide scientific fraud was self evident. He also read my signature, "Marshall Smith, NASA project engineer."I heard the program as he read the letter, but I didn't record it, since at the time I was painting one of my customer's bathrooms. I stopped just long enough to run to the kitchen and tell my customer, “that guy is reading my letter. I wrote that.” She was in disbelief until Limbaugh read my signature. Then she wondered, “If you are the one who wrote that letter, then why are you painting my bathroom and repairing my toilets?” I told her I was wondering the same thing. Catherine was one of my better customers, and I worked on her house for years. She also referred me to most of her friends. I'm not sure if it was “charity” or the fact that I always worked as a professional and showed up exactly on time and always finished the job. Something very hard to find, in a “handyman.” But it was the only work I could find, self-employment.The reaction to my letter was instantaneous and world-wide. The audience reaction was positive. But at the same time, my divorce case went suddenly downhill. I was charged with "crimes" and eventually sentenced to three years in prison. The case against me made no sense, and it made no sense to my attorneys. How could I be guilty of "refusing" to pay support when I had no income and no assets. I had done all the things the judges told me to do to find a job. But still no job. Who was paying off and directing those judges? Almost all of Attorney General Janet Reno's "dead beat dad" felony laws in 1996, came from my four year criminal case. How could I work or even look for work when I was tied up several days a week in court for four years? Was this judicial harassment? My California case had set the precedent nationwide.I did not write the letter to Limbaugh because I was a right-wing Republican, but only because he had the first syndicated large radio audience of 30 million listeners, going over 500 radio stations simultaneously. To this day, he still has the largest radio audience in the world. I wanted a large audience, since the local station KKUP was just too small.Two events happened soon after Limbaugh read my complete letter on the air. First, Dixie Lee Ray, environment administrator for G.H.W Bush, published her book about the environment and showed the scientific fraud of "global warming" and "hole in the ozone." Her book was based on the findings in my letter. Second, Sen. Al Gore, who was in 1991, bucking for a spot on the Clinton '92 ticket as VP wrote his book, "Earth in the Balance." His book was published in Nov 1991, just months after my letter to Limbaugh, and a year before the 1992 elections. It became an election issue. Gore's book was written, with promised millions in oil company support for the Dem ticket, if he wrote a book using the false 1976 reference data in order to counter my letter. That's how he became the VP, his false book was the best Democrat fund raiser for the party. He continued to use the "environment" as a fund raiser all through the Clinton administration. And he still uses it today to raise campaignfunds, as in his false global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."Now you know why the judges never heard any evidence in my support in my divorce case. They weren't listening. It was not allowed in court. Only evidence of my "crimes" was allowed in court. I was fighting a trillion dollar industry which wanted to "put me out of business." The have the money and power to control a small court case in California. I refused to give in. Which is why I am publishing my current series on scientific fraud. My scientific evidence is irrefutable.Thus it was Al Gore who turned the "global warming" story into a political Democrat vs. Republican issue. It wasn't me. I am not a Republican. I only wrote my scientific evidence to Limbaugh because of the size of his audience, not because of his politics. It was Al Gore, who was the one who "politicized" the environment, to counter my letter. And his data is provably false.What was it that was so “dear” to the hoaxers, that they would run the risk of “criminally” blackballing me from any employment, and forcing my conviction in a court trial? What was it that they didn't want you to know about the world-wide Mind Control hoax? Well, aren't they going to be surprised, since I am going to tell you....Marshall SmithEditor, Brother Jonathan Gazette