Sunday, December 27, 2009

Market Forces

E-mail to Congress:

Let us say I have developed a new widget, which I believe can compete in the marketplace. It works better than any existing widgets now on the market and my manufacturing and promotion costs are such that I can price it competitively. If I take the gamble to pursue the market, the chances are good that I can obtain a large segment of it and make a profit. I need not remind you that this is capitalism, wherein I have an opportunity for personal profit and the public ends up with a better widget for the same price.

Let us now change the scenario a bit. Same as before, except that my costs are higher. If I proceed with the program, I will have to charge a higher price than my competitors to stay in business. If I price at the same level as my competitors, I will lose money and be out of business. What to do? There are some nice answers available. I can get government to put a tax on the competitive widgets but not on mine. I can also get government to give me a subsidy for my widget production. A double deal! Nice! Notice the similarity to government subsidies on wind turbines and photovoltaics. Congress has yet to act on taxing the competitive widgets. It may do this through the CO2 Cap and Trade.

Let us now change the scenario a bit farther. After I am in production with my new widget, including my government subsidy and a tax on the competitive widgets, the general market opinion is that my widget doesn't work any better than the competitive widgets. Initially, there was controversy, but that controversy had been temporarily silenced to the extent that government went ahead with my subsidy and taxed my competitors. Now, it seems quite clear that my widget is really non-competitive. Do I care? No! My government subsidy is still in effect, as is the tax on my competitors. I'm still making money, although it is now based on an unjustifiable assumption. Who suffers? The general public. They are paying for my subsidy and also paying higher prices for the taxed competitive widgets.

You can figure out what the various widgets are from the following participants: Coal-burning electric power plants, wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, carbon dioxide sequestration, Cap & Trade, gasoline vehicles, electric vehicles, air conditioning & refrigeration equipment, roof shingles, Portland cement, forest products, etc. Almost every widget of our society is either directly or indirectly affected by the premise that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to global warming, which is deleterious.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Companies at Copenhagen

E-mail to Congress:

In their December 14 Issue, Chemical and Engineering News says that chemical companies were in attendance at Copenhagen pitching their own concepts concerning climate control. They also mention a few other companies, which are not direct chemical companies.

A key question is why were they there?
Dow Chemical said, "A predictable climate policy would protect the environment and unleash investment in new technologies". I believe most business owners will agree that predictable policies are always favorable toward progress. However, in the case of climate change, a "predictable climate policy" could be "make every effort to control climate" or it could be "adapt to changes in climate". A company such as Dow has the responsibility to maintain its health and existence through operating profitably. It cannot take on the responsibility of social reform. That is either left to society, or in the present case, to the Obama Administration. When a Presidential Administration decides on a policy, it would be ridiculously self-destructive for a company not to comply. In the case of climate control, Dow Chemical must support the Obama Administration's position for political reasons, whether they believe it is a justifiable policy or not.

However, Dow also has a financial incentive in having the possibility of supplying chemicals relating to carbon dioxide sequestration. If carbon dioxide were not declared a dangerous pollutant, there would be no opportunity to sell anything to control it. The situation is similar with the support given to the Copenhagen conclave by BASF, although no statement is reported other they have signed the United Nations "Seal the Deal" campaign.

Coca-Cola had more to say, which was dangerous, because it allows me an opportunity to ask some very pertinent questions. Coca-Cola says they will use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant for their large cooling equipment. Does this make sense? Carbon dioxide has already been designated as a dangerous greenhouse gas. All refrigerant gases tend to leak from their systems, because they are under pressure and mechanical failures do occur. If we accept the carbon dioxide/greenhouse philosophy, do we want to allow an opportunity for greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through this potential leakage source? For smaller equipment, Coca-Cola says they would use hydrocarbons as the refrigerant gas. Let's be more specific. Do they plan to use methane? Methane has already been judged to be a greenhouse gas, even more potent than carbon dioxide. Why would we want to allow potential leakage to the atmosphere?

There were other business organizations present at the Copenhagen Conference. Some were suppliers of enzymes to improve efficiency of alcohol production from straw, making isoprene from renewables, rather than petroleum, etc. However, none of these had any bearing on climate change. They merely involve products and processes to substitute for petroleum.

The bottom line on this is that establishing any myth will gain subsequent supporters, who see an opportunity for profit in pursuing and expanding the myth. Because these profit pursuers support the myth, the support improves credence in the myth itself. I respectfully request that you, as a statesman, not fall for these deceptions and glibly contribute to the further destruction of our economy. Global warming from increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a hoax. Climate control in general is not within our scientific reach at present, nor is it likely to be for many millennia.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Psychology of Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

I awakened this Christmas Eve morning to find 8 inches of snow on my patio table. Snow was still coming down, and the wind was howling like a banshee. As you know, we don't usually get that much snow in Lubbock. Not that we don't need every bit of moisture we can get. The ducks were even walking on the bottoms of the local ponds (playas).

As I was protected from the storm in my nice warm house, I started to read about "Crossroads in Copenhagen" in the December 14th issue of Chemical and Engineering News. I read about Todd Stern, Yvo de Boer, Anders Turesson, and Lumumba Stanislau-Kaw Di-Aping and started to wonder where these people obtained their egos to believe that they can be instrumental in changing world climate. We can't even control local rainfall in Lubbock so that the ducks have a place to swim, nor can we cancel devastating tornadoes that come our way. Those are only local consequences of weather. If we can't do little jobs, how can we expect to do a big one like global climate control?

Perhaps the Sterns, de Boers, and Turessons obtained their superegos from universities, but that can't be completely right. I went through the same system and still recognize man's limitations. God made man and other animal forms to adapt to the systems he made up. We breathe oxygen by use of lungs. It's not up to us to decide whether we should redesign the lung or even change the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. Look up on a starry night and see the billions of galaxies at a distance of what we call infinity, although we don't really understand it.

Yet, God made ego as part of man, presumably for purpose. That purpose may be a tool for persistence in pursuing adaptability or even expansion. But we also know the existence of excess. A super compassionate person weakens and ultimately destroys himself in accepting responsibility for underprivileged animals, human adults, and children beyond his capability. Unfortunately, persons of super ego do not destroy themselves in promoting projects beyond any logical ability for accomplishment. They destroy society.

God may have an answer for handling super egoists. Perhaps we already know it. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin have disappeared. Maybe we don't like the schedule of the disappearance, but God works on His own time schedule. Another thing that the super egoists can't control.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Will Global Warming Save Lives?

E-mail the Congress:

EIN News says, "Subfreezing temperatures kill 15 in Europe".

What happened to "global warming"?

Before using billions of dollars into controlling CO2 emission, which also has no relationship to global warming, whether it exists or not, think whether you want to be a party to one of the grandest hoaxes of all time.

Friday, December 18, 2009

US Pledge on CO2 Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Obama, Wen Meet As Clock Ticks. President Barack Obama said "time is running out" to salvage a deal to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases at a global summit here, as he and China's Premier Wen Jiabao "made progress" in a private meeting. But President Obama warned that the U.S. is prepared to walk away from the talks empty handed, rather than accept a "hollow victory" in which developing nations refuse to allow their own emissions controls to be monitored. (wsj.com)".

The position of Pres. Obama has a semblance of practicality. He is basically saying, "put up or shut up", which is a piece of age-old wisdom in any negotiations. I'm also glad to see that he is willing to walk away from the ridiculous proposal of trying to control climate change through CO2 emissions.

As an explanation, Pres. Obama is saying to Premier Wen and others, the US is on the verge of converting a myth into a gift of US dollars, providing other Copenhagen attendees swear allegiance to the myth and show it by making some small contribution.

If those attendees fall in line and Obama pledges US dollars, it will be up to the Senate to confirm or deny the pledge. The pressure on the Senate will be to support the pledge, primarily for the country's political ego. However, we know this would be wrong from scientific and financial viewpoints, and the Senate has no responsibility to confirm irresponsible promises of a communist President. In fact, the Senate would likely gain more worldwide respect, with increased cooperation from foreign countries, if they shoot down the Obama program.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Change

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Dramatic American Intervention Brings Climate Deal Closer. The United States today pledged support for a $100 billion annual climate protection fund in a move that could clinch a global deal just as the Copenhagen summit appeared to be heading for failure. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, attached strong conditions to the US contribution to the fund, including a demand that China accept independent scrutiny of its emissions reductions. (timesonline.co.uk)".

Bad news! It looks like Pres. Obama is heading for a fight with the U.S. Senate. He had previously been advised in a Congressional letter to go easy. He has apparently taken no heed of this admonition. He will be looking for a substantial portion of the $100 billion gross pledge. Congress will have to come up with the money. Although there are some very knowledgeable Democrats, many of them are too stupid to analyze the situation from both the destructive financial aspect for the US and the ridiculous need to do something that doesn't need doing.

The only saving grace may be China. I believe these people are smart enough to know that any significant reductions in CO2 emissions will materially hurt their economy. They will also probably lean on autonomy, as justification for not allowing inspections. Iran has been very successful in this maneuver, with respect to atomic weapon development. In the case of China, I hope they use it to bring about a realization to the Obama Administration and Congress that trust alone is ridiculous. Pres. Reagan said, "Trust but verify". Sec. Clinton appears to be following that route, but will she be adamant in pursuing a program which never had a sound basis of reality?

Friday, December 11, 2009

On-Going Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Copenhagen Climate Summit Releases Draft Final Text. Rich countries are being asked to raise their pledges on tackling climate change under draft text of a possible final deal at the Copenhagen summit. A document prepared by one of the summit's chairmen calls on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25-45% from 1990 levels by 2020. (bbc.co.uk)".

"Rich countries" is undoubtedly intended to include the United States, even though we likely have more government debt than any other country and are operating at a substantial annual budget deficit.

"Raise their pledges" undoubtedly means contribute more dollars to so-called underdeveloped countries. Remember, that the underdeveloped countries also want cash in hand before any observance of catastrophe. Remember also, that the whole objective of this exercise is to equalize assets on a worldwide basis to the disadvantage of the American taxpayer.

"Calls on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions" means US cutting energy usage, so that it tries to compete worldwide with one hand tied behind its back.

I have several time scientifically shown that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels makes no significant contribution to global warming.

Kill this hoax. It has no factual merit and will do substantial economic harm to the US.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Tough Line at Copenhagen Conference?

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "In Copenhagen, U.S. Pushes for Emissions Cuts From China, Developing Nations. Two top Obama administration officials arrived Wednesday at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks that opened this week offering both diplomacy and a tough line: The United States is willing to be a full partner in fighting climate change, but the real problem is with China and the developing world. The day began with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson detailing the many measures President Obama has taken to cut greenhouse gases in the United States, telling a packed audience at the U.S. pavilion in the Bella Center, "We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." (washingtonpost.com)".

"Tough line" sounds good, but is it realistic? It's a competitive world and the people who will lead as the top economic nation will be those having the highest energy usage per capita, with the highest emissions of CO2. The US is apparently willing to give up any attempt at economic superiority, by taking the initiative in cutting greenhouse gases (CO2) as described by EPA's Jackson. If I were China, Japan, Russia, or the EU, I would be ecstatic. Here is the US going into the fray with one hand tied behind its back, and we, the other major countries, don't have to do anything, because it's already being done.

Notice that there is also no reference to handouts to so-called "undeveloped countries". Has that need disappeared or is it a foregone conclusion that the US will put itself further into debt to satisfy those countries in their pursuit of a hoax?

Hard Times in Russia

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Russians Losing Confidence in Putin Over Economy. All three of Russia's main polling agencies have registered a dip in the popularity of Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev in recent months as the economic crisis takes its toll on poll ratings that had remained strong for years. Twenty-six percent of 1,600 Russian polled in late November said they had confidence that "the current government could in the near future achieve positive changes" in the economy, down from 31 percent in October and 33 percent in September. (reuters.com)".

Russians are hurting economically and with the fall in popularity, their government will tend to be more pragmatic than ours. The Soviet regime previously collapsed because of national bankruptcy. They know the meaning of not making ends meet. I strongly doubt that they will be putting up any substantial money to those "Copenhagen Conference countries" who have their hand out on the climate warming scheme.

Are we going to be stupid enough to ignore Russian history and follow it down the road to national bankruptcy by throwing more money away?

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Fleecing the US through Climate Change

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Developing Nations Call for Rich to Aid Emissions Cuts. Developing countries at the United Nations climate summit demanded that rich nations commit money and accept sharper cuts in their emissions, highlighting the divisions among the world's rich and poor nations that stand in the way of a new global climate deal. Representatives of China, the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitter, said President Barack Obama's proposal that the U.S. reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 isn't ambitious enough. Su Wei, the Chinese chief negotiator, said industrialized countries must provide money and technology for developing countries as they seek to limit their greenhouse-gas emissions. (wsj.com)".

Here we have more proof that it's not about climate change. It's about money. Fear and compassion are being used to extract money from the US public through its government.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Copenhagen Fiasco

E-mail to Congress:

EIN New says, "Copenhagen Summit Urged to Take Climate Change Action. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss". Opening the two-week conference in the Danish capital, he told delegates from 192 countries a "strong and ambitious climate change agreement" was needed. About 100 leaders are to attend the meeting, which aims to reach agreement on supplanting the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN says an unprecedented number of countries have promised emissions cuts. (bbc.co.uk)".

Lars Rasmussen sounds like a sideshow barker. "Step right up folks and see the greatest sensation you will ever ........ I could afford a quarter for that or even a dollar, but billions of dollars?.

It doesn't say how many unprecedented number of countries have promised emission cuts or what those emission cuts will be. The most significant aspect is will they cut anything if you don't put up the money? They previously said the cash would have to be contributed first by the US, before they would sign on.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Europe Bypassed on Climate Summit. No political entity has pushed harder for the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed than the European Union. But just days before the opening of the United Nations-sponsored meeting, the Europeans have been largely pushed to the sidelines, watching as the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, seek to set the rules of the game. (nytimes.com)".

The European Union has never been a bystander on important matters where they have been involved. The only exceptions have been where the United States or some other entity was going to do the job for them.

In this case, I suspect the European Union is standing aside, because it is losing confidence in the scientific validity of climate change. This loss of confidence is probably going to result in their unwillingness to put up real money. This is a favorable development, considering that climate control is based on a myth. The fact that US Congressional Republicans have just called the Obama administration and the EPA to task on this particular matter is hopefully an indication that only China will set the rules of the game. You can be sure that China will not arbitrarily limit its emissions of carbon dioxide, which would require a considerable reduction in energy usage and thereby reduce their production capability.

The key question is whether the Obama administration and EPA will adhere to the Congressional Republican request to delay efforts at climate control. The Obama Administration may decide to ignore the Congressional Republican request, because it knows that it has a majority of Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate. While the EPA is a daughter agency spawned by Congress, it may also decide to ignore the Congressional Republican request for the same reasons. But once again, it boils down to who controls the vote on how important matters are decided.

Congressional Letter to Halt Climate Change

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Global Warming E-Mails Prompt Republican Letter to EPA. Citing e-mails that critics say cast doubt on global warming, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration Wednesday to suspend efforts to combat climate change until the controversy is resolved. In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, the lawmakers requested that a pending move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act be halted, along with plans to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources, "until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised." (latimes.com)".

I presume this refers to the large number of e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia and now referred to as "Climategate".

This is really good news! I am ecstatic over Congressional Republicans requesting the Presidential Administration to suspend efforts at climate control and that the EPA halt efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

I believe they are doing this for the wrong reason of opinions, but have touched on the correct reason of requiring scientific consideration. However, we will take whatever we can get to eventually kill this ridiculous attempt at climate control based on a myth.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate Change on Grapes

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Global Warming Could Make Fine Wines Go Dry. A leading organization in France's fabled wine industry sounded the alarm Friday about the ill-effects of rising temperatures on the livelihoods of winegrowers ahead of a climate summit in Copenhagen next month. Climate change has sped up harvests in Burgundy, altered the taste of Alsatian wines and disrupted hydration patterns of grapes grown along France's Mediterranean coast, an industry expert said. (bnd.com)".

This could be good for the US! We now have a high unemployment rate in Michigan. Consider the fact that global warming could lead to a warmer Michigan climate, which would be much more adaptable to growing grapes. Tending vines takes a lot of hand work. We could put a lot of people to work in Michigan as the new wine capital of the world.

Let's not have the US government monkey around with climate change legislation. If the climate is going to change, so be it. We will be able to adapt to it, with many advantages not now anticipated.

Cash for the Climate Change Hoax

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Upfront Money Needed to Ease UN Climate Deal. Money on the table -- perhaps $10 billion a year or more -- could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the UN conference could end in discord. The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions. (chron.com)".

Do you want more proof that the whole climate change consideration is about money?

It used to be that the US, through Foreign AID would help out countries who got into problems through their own stupidity. Those were matters "after-the-fact". The existing AID program already has its deficiencies. Will we now try to capture the title of "Extreme Stupidity" by paying for something before it happened or even without any guarantee that it will happen?

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Congress:

Here is President Obama's specific push on climate control, which I mentioned in my recent e-mail.

EIN News says, "Obama to Attend Climate Talks in Copenhagen, Set Goals to Reduce Emissions. The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. (washingtonpost.com).

He is trying to "grab all the marbles". If you let him get away with this, he will likely grab every game in the future, and you will be left "holding the bag". When the public sees the penalty they have to pay for this deception, you will lose your position, if you have made no attempt to seriously defeat this proposal.

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

You replied to one of my e-mails as follows, "Should the Obama Administration agree to a treaty at the Copenhagen meeting, the United States Senate would need to ratify that treaty for the United States to implement it. I am deeply concerned by the Obama Administration's pursuit of an energy policy that could lead to America's reduction of industrial output and reduce our competitiveness with other countries. I opposed legislation known as "cap and trade" that would tax carbon output when it came before the House of Representatives, and I will continue to oppose any costly mandate on CO2 reduction, particularly as long as China, India and other emerging industrial countries are exempt from agreements and do not make similar commitments."

I appreciate your reply and your position.

The general public has been overcoming its fear of global warming from a continued barrage of negative information, including the release of a stack of original e-mails showing at best the difference among scientists concerning the validity of the consideration, including greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. There are now seems to be less than a majority of voters who believe global warming is a valid consideration.

In spite of the change in public attitude, President Obama and his Administration continue to push a program, which would involve the United States in a disastrous energy-use capability and markedly increase the US deficit, as it delivers funds to undeveloped countries for their support in the fiasco.

President Obama is placing his reputation on the line, in the belief that Congress will support him in about anything he says or commits to with regard to climate control. This is now a key element in determining whether the US is controlled by President Obama or the U.S. Congress. The fight is on! If you and your associates in the House, and especially in the Senate which will be required to ratify a treaty, are able to defeat President Obama on this issue, he stands a good chance of rapidly losing face and his ability to do further damage to the economy and individual freedoms of the American people.

I am sure that Representatives and Senators have been concerned with challenging President Obama previously, because of his high public approval, which implied that you might be voted out of office if you challenged. That has now changed. President Obama's public approval is considerably reduced and the majority of those who maintain his support are in a non-reliable voting category. Now is the time to institute the challenge, because the voting public is likely moving toward a more conservative position, and you may be voted out if you support President Obama or do nothing to help in his ouster.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

GJW: I wish to touch this issue once more.
First, my [earlier] sentence was badly written: "No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere". I meant to agree with you, meaning one would "argue" i.e. "try to defend" the position that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect.

ACS: I still disagree. The whole position of the CO2 enthusiasts is that CO2 in the atmosphere allows incoming radiation from the sun without any insulating effect of the CO2 at that time. However, radiation from the Earth to outer space is later impeded by the insulating effect of CO2.

GJW: I am beginning to think the word "insulating" is not getting to the issue. And recall that the claim is that other wavelengths than IR are what are "converted" at the earth's surface into IR re-radiated toward space, so that CO2 would in fact absorb incoming IR but would allow other wavelengths to pass.

ACS: The word "insulating" does get at the issue. It means retard passage and that is the essence of the 'greenhouse" claim. Greenhousers say CO2 in the atmosphere retards passage of heat from Earth to outer space.
There are two mechanisms by which the greenhouse theory could work. Atmospheric CO2 would have to allow all incoming radiation to strike the Earth's surface but not allow heat or any radiation associated with heat to escape. Or, all heat or radiation associated with it from incoming radiation is absorbed and regenerated as heat. We know this second one is false by the example of the green house, wherein heat is generated within the structure.

GJW: I am not sure I agree that Infrared radiation is heat, which is what you seem to imply. It is electromagnetic radiation, like light or UV or X-ray, and generates kinetic energy of molecules that absorb it. So the white and black surfaces differ in their absorption and reflection, and they may also differ in their consequent radiation of Infrared, but that infrared is not heat and has to strike another molecule to excite and generate heat.

ACS: OK. We need not argue about whether infrared radiation is heat. The point is that the sun's radiation is composed of many wavelengths of energy which are delivered to the Earth. At least some of those wavelengths are converted to heat. Take a greenhouse, which appears to be a traditional example. The sun's radiation travels through the transparent atmosphere and the transparent glass or plastic covering of the greenhouse, without any apparent heating of the atmosphere or the glass/plastic. The radiation than strikes nontransparent services. Some of these are black or mixtures of black-and-white and are able to convert the incoming radiation to heat. Pure white surfaces are apparently reflective and any radiation striking those services tends to bounce, until it finds a surface which can convert the convertible portion of radiation to heat.
I have no difficulty with the mechanism you describe. It is not really dissimilar to what I have said. Infrared or other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are all energy, some of which can be converted to heat by striking certain substance molecules. Other nontransparent molecules can convert a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum into electrons (photovoltaics). If a molecule becomes "excited" by absorption of an energy quantum, that is only a temporary situation. That molecule will return to a steady state by loss of the energy quantum, and the energy quantum is available for conversion to heat, if it has not already done so.

GJW: if this is true, then the gases that can absorb IR light are the ones that "trap" what is re-radiated from the earth. In this case "trap" means absorb and release heat into the atmosphere.

ACS: I agree that the previous paragraph is true, but what you have just said is not. If CO2 is a "trap" gas, it will absorb incoming IR from the Sun and convert it to heat it at that time. It would not wait for the conversion until the IR has been reflected and is now on its way to outer space.

GJW: This point is moot because as I mentioned above it is other wavelengths that are "converted" and re-radiated as IR that are in question.

ACS: I don't think it is moot, because we are talking about heat and any radiation that acts as a source of this heat. Non-reactive radiation wave lengths are irrelevant.

GJW: CO2, Water, Methane, etc, can absorb IR while O2 and N2 do not, and this absorptivity, not thermal conductivity, is what greenhouse effect is about.

ACS: I believe this part is really important. Let's say water and methane are similar to CO2 and just talk about CO2. If a molecule of CO2 absorbs a quantum of IR, the molecule is excited on a temporary basis. It will return to its steady state by either releasing the quantum of IR unchanged or converting the quantum of IR to another form of energy, such as heat.
You say 02 and N2 do not do that. I suspect you have no basis for that claim.

GJW: Well there is a theoretical basis which is fairly compelling to me just now. I have inserted something off the web below. See what you think.

ACS: I have read it. An interesting theory to explain a result, which is only speculation. His last sentence says, "This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons." But, what is the new nature of the now infrared photon activated CO2 molecule? Is the activation temporary? How short the duration of activation? What is the molecule doing in the activated state? Bouncing around more? Does that generate heat from friction with other molecules? Consider the gas laws and gas theory. As molecules get hotter, they are said to move faster. We know that they pound harder on a container wall; increased pressure.
All this doesn't really tell us anything. Let's track the heat. We could get some facts by going back to to the experiment I previously cited. Irradiate different gases and measure their temperatures before and after radiation.
It would also be illogical that there would be a plus or minus effect. You might be partially correct in saying that CO2 has a greater propensity to absorb and convert IR to heat than does oxygen or nitrogen. However, this could be easily demonstrated in the laboratory. Take an enclosed volume of pure CO2, shoot it with IR, and measure the CO2 temperature. Do the same with 02, N2, or any other gas. I suspect you will find a slight rise in temperature for all of them. CO2 may give the most rise, but then we have to discuss the fact that CO2 is present in the atmosphere only to the extent of 0.038%. We also have to go back to the previous (third) statement involving why CO2 in the atmosphere would not have converted incoming IR to heat, rather than wait until the IR was outgoing.

GJW: I sure would like to get this all sorted out.

ACS: I don't believe this can be sorted out at the present time. Only time will give an appropriate resolution. This would be akin to the round versus flat Earth in Galileo's time.

GJW: Under a separate email I am sending an article on new ideas for cooling the troposphere. (if needed)

ACS: I've covered that separately. It is mostly silly.
E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

ACS:
We agree on who is in charge. Man causes most of his own problems in trying to remedy perceived imperfections.

Big problems do require big solutions. The difficulty is usually determining whether there is a big problem and whether the supposed solution will be either ineffective in the grand scheme or will do more harm than perceived good.

I suppose DDT took care of the locust swarms in Africa, and that was a perceived advantage. Were environmentalists later motivated by the Holy Spirit to observe that DDT apparently caused thinning of the eggshells of certain birds and led to DDT being banned worldwide? The biggest health problem in Africa is now malaria, as a result of anopheles mosquito proliferation. Perhaps this is in the grand scheme.

Some problems are easy to see. Others less so. Los Angeles smog was visible and poisoning of rivers by mining runoff could be tracked fairly easily. The Los Angeles smog was caused by effluent from millions of vehicles and was controllable by catalytic converters. Similarly, poisoned rivers from mining runoff was caused by actions of one or a few persons. That could also be controlled and in many cases corrected by a legal obligation to the perpetrator.

I agree that everything is a trade-off, and with billions of people, there will always be someone who has a perception that there is a need for action. I don't believe now is the time for control of carbon dioxide emissions, which will cost additional billions of dollars. It is time for further study to determine the need for control. That study should be undertaken by people who can look the science relatively objectively, without some previously developed notion concerning absolute purity or the like, or without a financial or other beneficial interest in the result. This involves individuals, groups, and even countries. The latest information on the Copenhagen Treaty is that underdeveloped nations (mostly African) will not support a UN proposal unless the United States guarantees significant financial aid (pay off, bribe, etc.).

Dad

-----Original Message-----
From: Woodward,Gary,ST. LOUIS,Palatability Management [mailto:Gary.Woodward@rdmo.nestle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Arthur Sucsy
Subject: RE: If Emissions Cuts Are Not Enough that it will


As to the matter of "who's in charge". I couldn't agree more and I am pretty convinced that extra CO2 will generate counter forces like really big trees etc which will compensate. A couple of volcanoes blow their tops and the sulfur aerosol will be taken care of.

But I am quoting a man who was very influential to me as a youngster when I remind you that "Big problems require big solutions". He was referring to the locust swarms in Africa and the boon of DDT. On a smaller scale, there are lakes that used to be and Los Angeles smog that used to be overwhelming and mining runoff that and on and on because we treated these as someone else's problem (which it was), but many of these have been fixed by rules and regs and lots of dollars. Everything is a trade-off and to someone there is a line that when crossed triggers a need for action.

gjw

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "At Least 60 Leaders to Attend Climate Conference. Prospects for a global deal at the climate change summit in Copenhagen next month have been given a boost after it emerged that more than 60 presidents and prime ministers plan to attend. Leaders from Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil are among the latest to have confirmed that they will travel to Denmark on December 7 to attend the climate conference. (net.au)".

This is bad news. However, there are still some encouraging aspects. Notice that it is now a "conference", rather than a "treaty". Also while 60 leaders (presumably countries) are expected to attend, only seven are mentioned here. Presumably the US will attend and since the conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark will attend. This brings the total named attendees to 9. Who will be the other 51 attendees? I suspect it will be mostly African countries, who have previously tipped their hands by indicating they could be bought. They were holding out for a whole sack of money previously, but have apparently now decided that half a sack is better than nothing. The money is not expected to come from the named attendees. It is expected to come from the US. However, we are already broke. Will we go deeper into debt to redistribute wealth based on a myth of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions? Only Congress will be able to answer that one.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Scientific Feud over Global Warming

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Climate Emails Stoke Debate; Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud Over Global Warming. The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming. The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain. (wsj.com)".

I read a number of these e-mails, which were sent to me as a stack by my nephew. They are difficult reading, because they use a lot of professional (?) jargon, nick names, abbreviations, and other writing shortcuts. However, I think the Wall Street Journal has summed up correctly in reporting that there is a lot of confusion and difference of opinion on the scientific basis and promotion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. I would go one step further in noting that the original proponents established the theory with a religious zeal, but could not get everybody on board. I find this equivalent to the Jones situation in Guyana. Not everybody took the cyanide laced Kool-Aid.

I have said before and continue to assert that we should kill any attempts to control climate through limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The low carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has no significant effect on global warming, even if emissions increase the concentration twofold. The whole Cap and Trade program is a financial scam intended to redistribute wealth, increase government size, and line the pockets of a few.

If we cannot kill Climate Control now, we should do our best to postpone it. Time will show the unrealistic aspects of the proposal, but once we have accepted the program, it will be almost impossible to backtrack, even with the ultimate determination that the program is based on a hoax.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Misguided Climate-C Hange

Open e-mail to Sen. Klobuchar:

Dear Sen. Klobuchar,
Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled "Climate-Change Maneuvers" in their 11/9/09 issue. In that article, they quoted you as follows, "We want to make sure new wind-turbine plants are built in Minnesota, not in Denmark and that the next car battery plants are in Youngstown, Ohio not in Shanghai".

I agree completely with your statement, but may I respectfully suggest that Sen. Boxer apparently has you confused with respect to a Climate-Change bill. The Climate-Change bill that Sen. Boxer and others are promoting is fundamentally a control on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and an associated Cap and Trade program. It has nothing to do with wind turbines and car batteries.

Your interest would involve an Energy bill, not a Climate-Change bill. An attempt might be made to sandwich wind turbines and car batteries into a Climate-Change bill in an attempt to gain your support, but associated damage will be done by Cap and Trade. There is no plausible scientific data to indicate that the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any bearing on global warming and any attempts to control it would be silly.

Please keep your eye on promoting energy development and avoid side issues, which are usually introduced as financial scams.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Delayed Senate Climate Bill

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring. Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday. (wsj.com)".

GREAT NEWS! Perhaps we are making a little headway, as we continue to beat the drum against the ridiculousness of trying to control atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, when there is no plausible scientific data indicating that carbon dioxide has any significant effect on global warming in the extremely low concentration that exists.

The only thing better than a postponement until spring would be a realization on the part of the Democratic members of the Senate that the public is starting to understand the financial sleight of hand, which is the whole basis of a climate bill involving carbon dioxide.

Birth and Climate Control

EIN News says, "Birth Control: the Most Effective Way of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, UN Report Suggests. Investing in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a United Nations report. Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing 2 million giant wind turbines. (timesonline.co.uk)".

A very innovative thought and probably on target.

The only bothersome aspect is who wants to control carbon dioxide? It's a silly idea when one considers carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming and is only a financial hoax.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Treaty

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Poor Nations Insist on Climate Treaty Next Month. Poor nations insisted on Monday that a legally binding climate treaty is still possible in Copenhagen next month even though U.S. President Barack Obama and many other leaders reckon it has slipped out of reach. Hosts Denmark, which says time is too short for a full deal at the December 7-18 summit, suggested at a meeting of about 40 environment ministers in Copenhagen setting a deadline of perhaps another year to work out a legally binding deal. (reuters.com)".

We are clearly seeing what is happening here. "Poor" nations were originally holding out for big dollar grants from the US using climate control as an excuse. Now that they see that this is slipping from their grasp, they are willing to negotiate for lesser amounts. All of this has nothing to do with any basic need for climate control, which most of us know is an unjustified pie-in-the-sky.

Someone, either EIN News or the "poor nations", doe not seem to realize that a legally binding climate agreement in Copenhagen is not possible, because of US government procedures. The US Administration may sign the agreement, but it is not legally binding until the Senate ratifies it. We need to continue working on the Senate to convince various members that any climate control is ridiculous in scientific concept, and acceptance of any climate control treaty would compound the folly.

Friday, November 13, 2009

International Climate Agreement

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Considers Backing Interim International Climate Agreement. Less than a month before negotiators will meet in Copenhagen with the lofty goal of crafting a deal to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is considering endorsing a limited short-term climate pact and deferring more ambitious action until next year. The scaled-back strategy is driven largely by the realities of domestic politics: The administration is hampered in making an international deal because Congress has not passed climate legislation. So any global pact would be postponed until next year when it would be constrained by whatever domestic climate legislation Congress enacts. (washingtonpost.com)".

This is real good news! I may be deceiving myself, but it also may be that I, and many others like me, are starting to make some impact with respect to enlightening the public and Congress that increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not LEED to global warming. Government has no business attempting to control climate at this stage of technological reality. Finally, a little bit of that reality may be leaking into the Obama Administration. At least, the Obama administration may be accepting the political fact that Congress seems to be less certain about greenhouse gases than they have been previously.

Keep pounding the drum. Kill any proposed bills with respect to climate control. They are ridiculous in concept and would do considerable damage to the financial stability of the US. As you assure other countries that you will not be endorsing payment of billions of dollars to them, we will be pleasantly surprised to note that their own endorsements will be eliminated and the whole system will collapse.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Climate Control by Senate

E-mail to Senate:

EIN News says, "Senate Climate Battle Shifts Onto New Turf. The Senate climate debate shifts into a higher gear this week as advocates look beyond the partisan gridlock that engulfed the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the broader quest of finding 60 votes for floor passage. Tomorrow, the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees dive into the issue with a pair of simultaneous hearings on climate policy. (nytimes.com)".

Climate control would be about the last coffin nail needed to guarantee our destruction of lifestyle benefits and bring misery to all US citizens.

As you continue to consider various proposals for climate control, I suggest you ask the following questions:
1.) Is increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere our major concern at this time?
2.) If so, why do we think so?
3.) Is it related to the IPPC proposal of greenhouse gases leading to global warming?
4.) Are we aware that all gases in the atmosphere impede radiation of the Earth's heat to outer space?
5.) Are we aware that the greenhouse effect of any gas is related to its concentration in the atmosphere?
6.) Are we aware that the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%?
7.) Are we aware that at the present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, its effect on global warming is only 0.015% and that this effect is negligible?
8.) Are we aware that are superior standard of living is based on consumption of fossil fuels with production of carbon dioxide and that elimination or reduction of carbon dioxide will significantly deteriorate our lifestyle?
9.) Are we aware that attempts to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is likely a mechanism for other political aspiration, such as world redistribution of wealth?
10.) Are we sufficiently skeptical concerning motivations for climate control to seriously investigate whether there is a sound scientific basis for such?

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Democratic Push on Climate Control

Open letter to U.S. Senate:

EIN News says, "Democrats Push Climate Bill Through Panel Without GOP Debate. In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans. The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana. The seven Republicans boycotted the committee meetings this week, saying they had not had sufficient time to study the bill and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a thorough study of its economic costs and benefits. (nytimes.com)".

The Republicans are on the right track here. A climate control bill involving carbon dioxide Cap and Trade would be a serious blow to our economy. A combination of the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare legislation and Climate Control would be a devastating financial body blow to the US, from which I doubt recovery would be possible. Establishing law on either one of these legislation would place the US in serious financial jeopardy, but recovery would be theoretically possible.

I have mentioned time and again, with technical data, that control of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is completely unjustified. This Democratic attempt is a perversion of science to achieve some other goal. That goal is likely to be a redistribution of US assets to other countries
on the premise that a world government would be ideal.

It is almost inconceivable to me that a large number of Democrats would believe in advantages of world government. I suspect that they "know not what they do". Since Republicans seem to be on the right track, it behooves them to take the responsibility to educate their fellow Democratic Senators concerning a proper position of the United States as a world neighbor.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Global Warming Fear Mongering

Open Letter to Senators Graham and Lieberman:

EIN News says, "Senate Trio to Pursue Separate Climate Talks; Group Aims for Bill That Could Secure 60 Votes. Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday a separate track of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant. Kerry said he, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) would work with business groups and the White House and seek a compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate. (washingtonpost.com)

I have the utmost respect for the integrity of both of you Senators. Unfortunately, I believe you have been caught up in the fear mongering of global warming and have not given adequate consideration to whether there is any sound scientific basis to whether carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global warming.

I have gone into considerable detail on many posts to my blog on Climate Control and in individual communications, which I have generally made public. This information has likely escaped your attention, but can be seen at http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.

Knowing that you are quite busy with various Senate bills, I now give you the bottom line on Climate Control.

All gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases. Some have more and some have less greenhouse effect. However, the greenhouse effect is a combination of its heat transmission and its concentration in the atmosphere. Pure carbon dioxide is a more effective greenhouse gas than are pure nitrogen and oxygen, which are the main components of the atmosphere. However, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. Calculation shows that it's contribution to the total greenhouse effect is 0.015%. If we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's greenhouse effect would still be only 0.03% of the total.

Do you want to spend billions of dollars controlling something that's not worth controlling? Consider also that the greater the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the better the availability of raw material for plant growth.

I respectfully recommend that you folks give up this self-destructive program.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases

E-mail to Congress:
My son-in-law, who has a PhD in Food Technology, and I have been having some discussions on climate control. The latest has been a question-and-answer session, in which I thought you might be interested as follows:

Dr.: No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere. That is obvious from the thermal conductivity data.

ACS: I absolutely disagree. I claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes no significant contribution to the insulating effect, and that is based on the fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. I also claim that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will still have an insignificant insulating effect.

Dr.: Here are a couple of questions: 1) What is the temperature of space? 2) What is the thermal conductivity of space?

ACS: 1.) 4 degrees K. (Wikipedia). 2.) I don't believe there is a measured thermal conductivity of outer space. Thermal conductivity is a measure of heat transmission through a substance. Outer space is considered devoid of substance.

Dr.: So when the other guys talk about greenhouse gas they are definitely not talking about the property of thermal conductivity, nor of heat capacity, but rather of a molecule's ability to absorb long wavelength IR (which itself is not heat) and then transform it into heat.

ACS No. They're going around Red Robin's Barn. We previously covered that. A black body (molecules) is absorbing long wavelength radiation directly from the Sun. The black body transforms (converts) it into heat. We don't really care about that mechanism. We are concerned only with the result, which is heat, and which is the major aspect of the discussion on global warming. Once you have heat generated, from whatever source, you then have to consider its transmission from one location to another. I have previously discussed it as radiation from the Earth to outer space, including its passage through the mixed gases of the atmosphere, which impede its transmission and can be changed by compositional gas changes in the atmosphere.

Dr.: Thermal conductivity is the ability of a substance to transmit heat from one point to another simply powered by the thermal gradient.

ACS: Absolutely correct.

Dr.: Obviously the blanket effect or insulation effect is part of the thermal equilibrium of the earth as you described, but it does not seem to be "the greenhouse effect".

ACS: It is the "greenhouse effect". Consider a greenhouse. The sun's radiation passes through the glass or plastic roof, strikes the internal surface of the greenhouse, where it is converted to heat. The heat transmission out of the greenhouse is then impeded by the glass or plastic roof. The glass or plastic roof is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat within the greenhouse. In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat on the Earth's surface.

Dr.: I don't know if you saw my second email which looked much like the first but there is a section if you hit the advanced button at the top where they discuss why they think N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases. How do greenhouse gases "work"?

ACS: I read it. It's a lot of gobbledygook. All gases are greenhouse gases. Some are more and some less efficient as insulators to the passage of heat. One example involves the manufacture of low-heat transfer windows. They are double pane with a layer of argon between the two panes. Why not use air? It is less expensive than argon. The answer is that argon has a thermal conductivity of only 16.36 mW/(m.K), while the thermal conductivity of air is about 24.
I haven't seen any mechanism for how greenhouse gases work, but I'll take a stab at it. The molecules or atoms of substance have a certain affinity for heat. The heat may be particles or plasma or whatever, but in any case, heat is real. The affinity of the substance to capture and retain heat is different from one material substance to another. Time basis must also be included in that analysis. Two substances may capture the same amount of heat, but one substance may release it more quickly than the other. The longer retention time would be a measure of the substance's insulating capacity. In the case of gases, that would be at least partially equivalent to a "greenhouse effect".

Dr.: Thanks for taking the time for the long and logical answer. I only hate to think the large disagreement between the proposed problem and your well thought out answers is a problem of definitions or, as you have pointed out, as a problem of sophistry and doublespeak. Thus my attempt is to get the clearest ideas from the web and try to size them up in light of your objections.

ACS: It is my pleasure to try to clarify truth, where I believe falsehood is prevalent for reasons of personal gain. I am a stickler for honesty. When I suspect dishonesty through hiding information in 1200-page congressional bills or scientific papers with tremendous amounts of unrelated data tending to confuse issues, it tends to get my back up. The scientific world has a high degree of complexity. Many dishonest persons capitalize on that complexity and exaggerate it further for their own specific ends. My routine approach is to try to simplify these things to the lowest common denominator. Warren Buffett has said that if one doesn't understand the basis of a financial investment, one shouldn't be in it. The same goes for science. God gave us the ability to understand. If we don't understand it, it's probably not real.

Dr.: I hope you are not finding me dense or thick-headed.

ACS: Not at all. I tell my fifth graders, "Don't believe everything you hear or read. Always analyze it with respect to what you already know. Sometimes you will not know what the right answer is. Hold it in your mind, perhaps days or even years, and eventually it will likely be resolved."

Friday, October 30, 2009

Climate Control Freebies

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "A Nuclear Power Boost for Bill; Tax Incentives Offered With Climate Measure. Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill? The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance." (washingtonpost.com)".

May I suggest that you and your associates, PLEASE PLEASE not fall for one of the greatest sucker baits of all times. That is, a free ice cream cone with the purchase of a 10-year magazine subscription.

If you believe we should have incentives to support nuclear power plant construction, legislate them directly. Don't tie them into any ridiculous climate bill.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Union of Concerned Scientists

A friend of mine received from a previously confirmed Marxist an invitation to view the following website: http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

He replied as follows:
C,
Sorry, but I still believe that this is a political initiative and that the majority of honest scientists, whose voices are muted by the liberal media, disagree.

Intellectually, these same liberal scientists claim that anyone who has faith is not applying scientific principals, yet if the same rigor is applied to the global warming arguments, they fail and these same scientists are not claiming the need for faith as in a spirit world. Global warming has become a religion along with humanism and we are all required to believe as part of
a state religion. The ACLU is the instrument that is working to force this upon the majority.

My own logic of what I understand as to how the world works and the pure quantitative numbers and the natural servo affect of how the world keeps its
balance, makes the arguments about global warming ridiculous. The fact that some of the leaders have openly laughed about the smoke and mirrors they have used during hearing to convince Washington types to believe, further convinces me that even the most vocal proponents do not really believe, but simply are taking advantage of a perceived or manufactured crisis.

Because the global warming scientists have had to change the theme to climate change because the data clearly does not support global warming, it
is ridiculous to expect any thinking person to accept the limitation of greenhouse gases to prevent warming. Of course, a single volcano can change everything on an order of magnitude greater than all of the carbon that man has produced in the past 200 years. The thermal inertia of the oceans is so great that the arguments are ridiculous. That plus conflicting data are
only part of the reasons why the real scientists who have their voice muted, so strongly disagree.

A few years ago, these same folk were screaming about global cooling so that they could take over to save the world. Then it went to global warming and most recently global climate change. We are still supposed to bow down to the global warming issues and impose the greatest tax increase in the
history of the United States as part of the effort mentioned by the folks promoting one world government. I heard a video on TV the other day where one of the CZAR leaders was commenting that after the United States is taken down, that the world government advocates who are causing us to spend ourselves to the point that we will lose our very sovereignty, will never again allow another country to rise to a super power like the United States. They will take them down before that can ever happen again. With national health care, cap and trade, and basic looting of the spoils as the liberal leaders' reward, the job is almost complete and they can talk openly because
they feel that it is too late to stop them now.

In my part of the world, the mood is that people are not just scared for the first time in their lives, they are literally terrified for our country's survival and angry at the total betrayal of their representative from both political parties. They are terrified about the future for their children because they now realize that they have also been betrayed by the liberal
controlled education system so that the kids do not understand what must be done to preserve our democracy, our sovereignty, our culture, and our
prosperity. Of course Texas is conservative, not bankrupt yet, and the target of the liberal establishment to force us into the same condition as the rest of the country. And with the mass influx of illegals, the power will shift. I had a Hispanic tell me some twenty years ago right to my face here in conservative Lubbock, Texas, "we will soon own you because we will out breed you and some day out vote you and what you have will be ours".

Rwanda was the bread basket of all Africa for nearly 400 years until the tribes migrated across their boarders, took over, killed the producers and
took their land, changed the name of the country, and now they and all those who depended upon them are starving if they were not killed in the tribal
wars and genocide that followed. Will we not learn from anything? Europe is waking up, but too late to prevent the eventual takeover and rule by
the Muslims. And we want to be like Europe? Now or the future version? But are not all cultures equal, except the evil United States, of course?

It is probably best to not keep sending me information about the Union of Concerned Scientist. They have never had credibility or integrity as far as I can remember because they have consistently demonstrated that the
political ends justify the means with respect to their scientific positions.

While I do not accept everything that George Bush or Chaney say, I agree with them more than I disagree, but I recognize that you feel towards them the same way I feel about the ACLU, his highness Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or most of the anti-American legislators including Barney Frank with his proposals to legalize pedophilia and protect his Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae bonuses and graft, or Waxman, or Chuck Schumer as they display no integrity on the judicial committees, or even the list of turncoat
Republicans that campaign as conservatives but always vote liberal on anything that is critical to preserving freedoms or the nation.

P and I work hard, are fair to employees and customers, pay our outrageous taxes, give to charity both time and money, help individuals one
on one, have to deal with an ever increasing and abusive and stifling government that exists to perpetuate their existence and raise money from
their subjects unfortunate enough to be singled out for trumped up fines and fees, and are subject to being wiped out at any time by the abusive and
corrupt court system based upon others' irresponsibility. We are tired of supporting too many other people who exist to be entertained and served. We are tired of being lied to by every agency of government and subject to severe retribution if we protest or fail to accept the lies. If we behaved like any branch of government we would be imprisoned. When we die, we are
supposed to give our after-tax savings and capital needed to preserve our businesses and employee jobs to the government, so they can redistribute it
to those who are not as dedicated. Of course that is after the government itself consumes a majority of what they robbed from us. Our founding
fathers, who are now held in contempt by our educational institutions as greedy white men who were slave owners, warned us that our democracy would fail if the very things happening now come to pass. And the documents they created provided the basis for building a free and strong republic as well as for eventual abolition of slavery throughout most of the world even though it took a century and a civil war. As one can observe, leaders and most of established Washington, also holds in contempt these leaders and the principals that created the greatest nation in the history of the world But then, we now learn that the unfavorable outcome is intended. As you can
observe, you hit a land mine because this sort of teed me off. And if I mention this to P, it will really set her off, so I will not do so.
E-mail to Congress:

The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html) continues to push the ridiculous theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels, have a significant effect on global warming. They give 14 references, but I suggest you not bother to look them up. They're all based on "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007".

If you go to that primary report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf), on to the Technical Summary, and then to page 23 on Greenhouse Gases, you will find a nice discussion of radiative forcing, increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, ice core data, etc. The key point is you will find nothing with respect to any quantitative consideration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a significant greenhouse gas affecting global warming.

What the IPCC report and all subsequent regurgitations miss is the following:
"Thermal conductivity is the ability to pass heat through a substance. The reverse is insulation. The lower the thermal conductivity of a gas, the less ability it has to pass heat and therefore allows heat to build up in a greenhouse effect. Thermal conductivity of air (assume 0% CO2} is 33.3 mW/m. For CO2, it is 25.1. Therefore, the greenhouse effect of pure CO2 versus pure air is 25% higher.

However, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now accepted to be about 0.034%. At this concentration, the present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, contributes to 0.0095% of all global warming (25 X 0.00034).

Another way to say it is that present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere contributes 0.0095% more greenhouse effect than if there were no carbon dioxide. If we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 0.068%, the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect would still be only 0.019%. That would leave air contributing 99.981% to any total greenhouse effect."

I have presented that information more than a year ago. No one has come forth with a challenge. They continue to deal in supposition and innuendo.

I respectfully ask you to spread this information around, so that it can either be debated or used to give all climate control legislation involving carbon dioxide the indecent burial it deserves.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Copenhagen Treaty

Open letter to a friend:

I watched the presentation of Lord Monckton on the YouTube link, which you provided.

My daughter and I have been discussing Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty. Monckton recently had an interview with Glenn Beck, and the details of that interview are on a Glenn Beck website. The subject matter of the interview is about the same as we have just seen on YouTube.

Lord Monckton claims to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He also claims to be a nonscientist, and that is believable by his twice used term "burn carbon dioxide". Carbon dioxide doesn't burn. It is a product of combustion of fossil fuels. However, I have not seen that he makes any radical errors in judgment concerning political matters. In summary, I believe he is reputable and responsible, and we should listen to what he says.

With respect to the Copenhagen Treaty, Greenpeace is a leading proponent. Greenpeace is a non--governmental organization (NGO). Wikipedia estimates the number of internationally operating NGOs at 40,000. Many of these, including Greenpeace, are radical environmental lobbying organizations. While they do not have government power, they are strongly influential to our elected representatives. For example, Greenpeace has prepared a specific 61-page Treaty Proposal for the Copenhagen Meeting. It is entitled, "A Copenhagen Climate Treaty - Version 1. It can be downloaded from the Greenpeace Website at http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty.

As I read through Greenpeace's "A Copenhagen Climate Treaty", it appears to be confined essentially to carbon dioxide emissions and does not include aspects of world government as implied by Lord Monckton. However, it is in my judgment a clear attempt to fleece the American public. The NGO Treaty calls for 160 billion US$ per year for four years ($640 billion total). Funds would come from industrialized countries (mostly the US).

We know from various bits of information that Pres. Obama has strong communist leanings. He also seems to have some belief in world government, which is rather surprising unless he has aspiration to be World Emperor. A Copenhagen Treaty as proposed by Greenpeace would contribute greatly to the construction details of world government, even though that is not specifically mentioned. Lord Monckton mentions world government as part of the Copenhagen Treaty. It may be there somewhere, but I could not find it directly.

The semi-good news is that all international treaties signed by the U.S. Administration must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. No matter what Pres. Obama says or does at Copenhagen will be binding, unless Senate confirmation is obtained. This is contrary to what Lord Monckton said in his YouTube presentation. We can hope that the Senate will use good judgment in not confirming the Treaty. However, the Senate does not have a recent record of using good judgment. It is also loaded with liberal Democrats, who appear to endorse world government. This means there is a possibility of Senate endorsement. We can help to forestall this endorsement, by asking our US Senators from Texas to withhold endorsement, but this is likely to have little effect. Our Senators already seem to be convinced that we should not have a Copenhagen Treaty. The problem is that they are in the Senate minority. We need to encourage them to work across party lines with appeal to the common sense of some reasonable Democrats, who I am sure are present in the Senate.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Climate Control Tax or Mandated Cost?

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Hutchison Warns of Trillions in 'Cap-and-Trade' Costs. The costs of congressional proposals to combat climate change came into sharp focus Wednesday as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, released a study showing the plans could raise the nation's fuel bills by $3.6 trillion over four decades. At issue is the price tag of a House-passed bill and a similar Senate measure that would impose progressively tighter limits on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Under the so-called cap-and-trade plans, refiners, manufacturers and other companies could comply with the new emissions limits by buying and trading a limited supply of allowances to spew the substances. (chron.com)".

After reading the above, I thought I would go to Sen. Hutchison's website to see what she actually had said on the subject. I found there a 21-page report, entitled, "Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax". I read through that report and subsequently gave EIN News high commendation for reporting what Sen. Hutchison meant to say rather than what she actually said.

Notice that the Hutchison report uses the word "tax". It does not appear in the EIN News version. Rather, the News version refers to "costs". I hate to see a Senator confuse taxes with mandated costs, but that is exactly what appears in the Hutchison report. For the uninitiated lay person, a tax is usually a percentage of a dollar amount, or a dollar per unit valuation, which goes to a segment of government as revenue. A mandated cost is a dollar amount, which a person, industry, or group is designated by government to pay for the purchase of equipment, processing, etc. to accomplish a stated purpose. A mandate generally increases the cost of doing business, but that cost can usually be transferred to the customer. Such is the case with the considered legislation for climate control.

There is a tax planned as part of climate control legislation, but that involves specifically "Cap and Trade". Government will take a portion of the fees as revenue. However, this is not to be confused with major costs to industry for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, all of which cost must be passed on to the public. This latter is what Sen. Hutchison is referring to as a "tax", but in reality is a price increase caused by government mandate of carbon dioxide sequestration.

The other major point that bothers me, and which EIN News also did not address, is the ridiculousness on which the carbon dioxide sequestration mandate will be based. I have asked time and again for scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and have had no takers. My scientific analysis shows that there is no basis for the assumption that increases of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere lead to global warming and no one seems willing to challenge it. Is this a sound basis on which to apply a government mandate which will likely lead to several trillion dollars in wasted assets?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Air Pollution Deaths

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Fossil Fuels' Hidden Cost Is in Billions, Study Says. Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday. (nytimes.com)".

We must be extremely careful in accepting such generalized statements. One problem is the source of the report. The National Academy of Sciences is generally regarded favorably by the public, but if they continue with this kind of unreasonable pronouncements, they will lose a good reputation.

We have to look at some of the detail. Fossil fuels are coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

Coal is mostly burned in electric utilities to generate heat/steam, which operates turbines to produce electricity. Products of coal combustion are gases, such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. There are also particulates, such as very fine fly ash and small quantities of mercury. Recognizing the health dangers to humans and the general environment, such as plant growth, the industry has made tremendous progress in reducing effluents of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. The large quantities of emitted carbon dioxide and a small quantities of particulates are not now considered significant health dangers. However, the industry will continue to reduce environmental contamination, through public pressure. With that said, I challenge the National Academy of Sciences to support their position that coal burning power plants now contribute to thousands of premature deaths from air pollution. What is the reason for the premature deaths? Poisoning? Suffocation?

Continuing with petroleum, most of this energy source is converted to gasoline and diesel fuel, for automotive use. Refiners purify their products in the refining operation. For example, sulfur tends to inactivate catalytic converters and is removed in the refining operation. In subsequent burning, the major combustion products are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and water. The automotive industry's catalytic converters reduce generation of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Carbon dioxide and water are considered innocuous. Carbon monoxide is generally unstable in the atmosphere and any small quantities are subsequently naturally converted to carbon dioxide. Is the National Academy of Sciences concerned with any small concentrations of escaped nitrogen oxides? Is there something else that is causing premature deaths? Are those air pollution deaths significant in relation to physical deaths caused by automotive accidents, or are we concentrating on the wrong thing.

Natural gas is primarily methane with small quantities of ethane. In the refining operation, helium is removed, as well as water and hydrogen sulfide. Subsequent burning in home heating systems and in some generation of electricity again gives mostly carbon dioxide and water, with the possibility of small amounts of nitrogen oxides. If the National Academy of Sciences has a particular concern with some of these products as leading to premature deaths, they should specify the specific concern, subsequently test their hypotheses and then report to industry their recommendation and basis for subsequent air pollution control. We also have an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is already supposedly doing this, and I haven't heard from them about them about the "thousands of premature deaths from air pollution". People die all the time. It is a natural event. Everyone dies of something. Usually as a matter of a combination of circumstances, such as genetic weakness, old age, improper health practices, etc. Under these conditions it seems unreasonable to me that the National Academy of Sciences can designate thousands of deaths specifically to air pollution.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

EIN News says, "Bush-Era EPA Document on Climate Change Released. The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country. The report, known as an "endangerment finding," was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming. (latimes.com)".

Here we may have a classic example of "bait and switch"!

There seems to be some confusion here. It says above that the 2007 EPA report OPPOSED efforts to regulate gases. However if we go back to the original LA Times article, it said that the report CALLED for regulation of greenhouse gases.

If I understand this correctly, the EPA issued a report known as "Endangerment Finding" in 2007 to the Bush Administration. It is said above that the report was held confidential until now. It is also said that the report opposed efforts to regulate certain gas emissions to the atmosphere. Even now, I have been unable to find the report on the Internet. However, let us take the above EIN News report at face value.

Apparently, President Bush didn't like the report, because it opposed regulation, and Bush wanted regulation. President Bush is said to have made a statement that "based on science", regulatory action would be necessary. I would very much like to see the science, which has up to now been missing in all discussions of climate control. Contrarily, if the 2007 report called for greenhouse gas regulation, as said in the LA Times article, why would President Bush not have used it?

Pres. Obama also wants regulation and has been able to convince the EPA to somehow manipulate the original 2007 report in order to support his regulatory program. I would much like to see the original 2007 report in order to see if any and how this manipulation is being done. If anyone has a lead on how I can find that report, I would much appreciate it. I have been able to find many subsequent EPA references to it, but we really need to look at the original report.

Climate Control Embarrassment

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Sen. Boxer Says Obama Admin Could Make Climate Pledge in Copenhagen. Even if a U.S. climate change and energy bill is not ready before December's international climate talks, the Obama administration should be able to adopt firm greenhouse gas reduction targets there, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said on Monday. Speaking to reporters following her meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the absence of signed legislation should not be construed by other countries as evidence that the United States is not moving forward on the problem. (nytimes.com)".

Please keep your eye on this one! It is the epitome of political trickery!

Barbara Boxer would have the Administration go to the Copenhagen Conference with a clear-cut endorsement of UN climate change regulations, including carbon dioxide control. This would be done without Congressional approval, but Congress would then be faced with the supposed problem of embarrassing the Administration and the United States by reneging on US promises.

I strongly suggest Congress inform the Administration that Congress now has no intention to endorse a climate control bill with limitations on carbon dioxide emissions and that if the Administration claims the contrary at Copenhagen, it will be the Administration and Obama personally, who will be embarrassed, not the Congress.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Pressure for Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Obama Urged to Intensify Push for Climate Measure; Backers Fear Administration Is Giving Issue Short Shrift. President Obama is coming under renewed pressure internationally and in the United States to throw his weight behind climate-change legislation, which advocates fear has suffered in light of the president's sweeping domestic agenda. The Nobel committee's announcement Friday that Obama won the Peace Prize was a fresh reminder that much of the world expects him to lead the way toward a global climate pact. The committee cited his "more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges." (washingtonpost.com)".

I strongly suggest that no matter how Obama may be pushed by other world backers of climate change control, it is Congress' responsibility to see that it doesn't happen. I repeat that there is no scientific evidence that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming and that any efforts to control carbon dioxide concentrations are based on myth, political aspirations, and private financial gain. All of this will come at the expense of the American public, who will be paying billions of dollars to underdeveloped countries for their program support, and who also will be paying significantly higher bills for electricity and transportation as the costs of control equipment and control salaries are passed along to the energy users.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Promotion on Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

The October 5 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News claims the Senate and EPA gave a "One-Two Punch on Climate Change".

The first part was a major promotion, with a backdrop of a huge US flag outside the Capitol building. Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry announced the introduction of an 820-page climate change bill. They claim the bill will create US jobs, produce clean energy, or by greater national security through oil independence and protect future generations from a changing global climate.

Some of the claims are true.

The bill will create US jobs, as would digging holes and then filling them in.

Production of clean energy is a matter of definition. We already have clean energy. Carbon dioxide is not an air contaminant and needs no control.

We will reduce dependence on foreign oil, if the 820-page bill contains efforts to increase production of nuclear energy. In all likelihood, it doesn't have anything about increasing domestic drilling, which would be a better way of reducing dependence on foreign oil.

Protecting future generations from changing global climate is baloney. It deserves no other comment.

No mention was made of the tremendous cost that would be involved in this misguided attempt to control climate.

You and your various associates in the House and in the Senate need to kill this bill. Dead, dead, dead!

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Flight of US Companies from Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Companies May Look Abroad to Fight Global Warming. U.S. companies could save tens of billions of dollars by investing in efforts to combat deforestation in developing nations instead of cleaning up their own domestic carbon dioxide emissions, according to a report released Wednesday. (latimes.com)".

Here is one I had not even thought of previously.

While US involvement in climate control, may lead to international climate control regulations, deforestation operations in developing countries may be an offsetting factor.

While I don't completely understand this at the present time, it appears that US companies may have some advantage to move operations offshore, which would further increase unemployment in the US.

This seems to be another ostensible reason to kill climate control in Congress by any means necessary.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Masking Cap and Trade

EIN News says, "Senators Link Drilling With Cap-and-Trade. Republican and Democratic senators negotiating a possible compromise on climate change legislation insisted Tuesday that the measure must include provisions to boost nuclear power and expand offshore drilling. (chron.com)".

On the surface, this is a good addendum but it can do more harm than good.

The main point is Climate Change. Cap and Trade is a misguided effort to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, when there is no scientific basis that such control is necessary or desirable. I will say again, "SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE CAN BE RELATED IN ANY WAY TO CLIMATE, INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING.

There is no question that expanding offshore drilling will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Similarly, nuclear power will do the same, but at considerably increased expense for new plants. We already have oil refineries and power production systems using oil products.

Continuing with a climate change bill, involving Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide, will lead to further huge budget deficits at the federal level. Money will be frittered away federally and by private industry on carbon dioxide control equipment at electricity producing power plants. Other expenses will include organization of a Cap and Trade system for control in the US and involvement in an international effort, and grants to underdeveloped countries, which have already tipped their hands by announcing that they will not support international efforts unless they are paid billions of dollars.

Simple answer. Kill climate control and all of its manifestations. Continue with energy improvements, such as offshore drilling and increased nuclear energy.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Presidential Control of Climate Change

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Agencies Told to Reduce Emissions. The U.S. federal government will require each agency to measure its greenhouse-gas emissions for the first time and set targets to reduce them by 2020, under an executive order signed by President Obama Monday. (washingtonpost.com)".

Here is an example of your loss of power. Congress set up laws establishing various agencies and left the President in a position to develop most of the programs. As you see from the above news quote, he has now bypassed Congress with respect to climate control by initiating a directive. The most significant agency is probably the EPA, which has the power to regulate emissions at electric power companies. Note that this bypasses any opinions that Congress may have on carbon dioxide Cap and Trade.

You can either fight this and other similar Administrative directives or ignore it and let the country slide further into the power of a dictator.

Friday, October 2, 2009

EPA on Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

As I've said previously, the EPA was set up by Congress, but is now under the control of the President. The EPA Director is subservient to and can be replaced by the President at any time. No one likes to lose his job and most people will compromise principles to retain a position. Very few agency directors are gutsy enough to challenge the boss.

With that said, the EPA has previously stated some opinions on climate control. Some of these are contained in an article entitled, "Future Climate Change " (http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html).

One statement is that, "Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007). The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain." Note the use of the qualifying terms "LIKELY" and "MAGNITUDE as UNCERTAIN". The realistic interpretation of the statement is that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations MAY produce dire effects, and even if they do, the quantity may be so small as to be unnoticeable.

The article also says, "much [of] the climate varies as a result of natural influences (e.g. from volcanic activity and changes in the sun’s intensity) and its internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans). This is another bailout of responsibility.

Lastly, the article says, "Virtually all published estimates of how the climate COULD change in the future are produced by computer models of the Earth’s climate system." "Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to UNCERTAINTIES IN THE MAGNITUDE AND TIMING, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change."

With this compilation of "ifs, ands, and buts", are you sure that you and your Congressional Associates are willing to take a multibillion-dollar gamble, with the possibility that it will contribute to the downfall of the Republic?

Climate Control Legislation

E-mail to Congress:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11) says,
"Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future."

Let us simplify this a little further. The atmosphere is very complex. Human beings cannot understand it, but computers can, through computer models. All computer models need data which is inserted by human beings, who don't really understand it but have some preconceived opinion as to what should be entered. "A computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning it is an approximation of the climate system". "Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer model simulates the climate and our understanding of how forcing functions will change it in the future".

Do you want to gamble billions of dollars on this hodgepodge of suppositions and invention of terms (greenhouse gases and forcing functions)?

Basis of Climate Change Legislation

The hubbub on climate change is based on an 881-page report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). This report is entitled, "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". It has multiple authors, all of whom apparently work for the IPPC. It is in this report that the inventions of "greenhouse gases" and "radiative forcing" have been presented.

As one reads this report, a bias is apparent. The bias is twofold. That man is responsible for significant aspects of global warming, and that significant climate change can be controlled by man.

I have said previously that if one can't say in four or five pages what one means, then he doesn't have anything to say. I will relent a bit on this. It depends on the subject. Four or five pages would apply to a philosophical or political point. A scientific paper, with the requirement of supporting data, might take 10 or 12 pages. A legislative bill might even go as high as 20 pages. However anything, except a fictional work or historical account, which involves 800 to 1000 pages probably has intention to hide something or confuse an issue, since no one is expected to read that much.

Returning to "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis", Chapter 7.7 covers Rapid Changes in the Climate System. The last paragraph is on page 456 and says, "Comprehensive climate models in conjunction with sustained observational systems, both in situ and remote, are the only tool to decide whether the evolving climate system is approaching such thresholds. Our knowledge about the processes, and feedback mechanisms determining them, must be significantly improved in order to extract early signs of such changes from model simulations and observations". Another way of saying this is that they have used model simulations and observations, which were at that time unreliable, to relate any climate changes to human involvement. That was eight years ago, but I've seen no improved simulations or other observations, which would change that picture.

The bottom line is that we have an 881-page report, which admits its promotion is primarily speculation, and on which Congress is now planning to base its legislation. Seems rather silly!