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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.