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!

70% Refund on Climate Legislation Cost

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Climate Bill in Senate Would Devote Pollution Allowances to Easing Energy Costs. Senate Democrats will initially devote 70 percent of the pollution allowances in their new climate measure to making it easier for people to pay their energy bills, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer said in an interview to be aired Sunday on C-SPAN. (washingtonpost.com)".

Another gimmick to fool the public and perhaps Senate members! Note that it says "initially". This likely means one year. However, once climate control legislation involving carbon dioxide is initiated, it will likely run 40 or 50 years. On that basis, the "70% devotion" to the public is reduced to about 1.5%.

However taking this at face value, 100% of the cost of any climate legislation will be borne by the American public in the form of increased electricity and heating bills. If government refunds, which I doubt, 70% to the American electricity and heat using public, the public is still paying 30% more than they are now. In addition, the 70% supposed refund would very likely be unreasonably distributed. I suspect most of it will go to "poor" people to help pay their utility bills on 5-bedroom houses, which they could not initially afford and on which they are now unable to make mortgage payments.

Senators should kill this bill. Fiscally responsible Republicans should cooperate with any Blue Dog Senators they can find.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Usurping Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "EPA, Senate Take Aim at Greenhouse Gases; Biggest Polluters Are in Cross Hairs. The Obama administration said Wednesday that it is moving ahead to curb carbon emissions by issuing a proposed rule that would require the nation's biggest greenhouse-gas emitters to install advanced pollution-control technology to operate any facility they plan to construct or significantly modify. The action by the Environmental Protection Agency came as Senate Democrats introduced a climate bill that would g nationwide limit greenhouse gases. The two efforts could influence the outcome of U.N.-sponsored talks in Copenhagen in December, where more 180 nations will attempt to forge a new international climate pact. Protection (washingtonpost.com)".

This is another move to bypass Congress. EPA was set up by Congress but is effectively now controlled by the President. It does what the President wants, because he's the boss, in spite of what the technological and financial considerations might be. I have harped on the fact that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has any effect on global warming. The whole situation is a political stunt to redistribute worldwide assets to the disadvantage of US citizens. I recall that only yesterday I pointed out that underdeveloped countries would not support a climate control bill unless they receive billions of US dollars.

This is pretty much in the same category of undermining Congress's authority, with the appointment of various czars as compared to cabinet appointees. The Cabinet appointee must be approved by the Senate. A czar does not.

If I were in Congress, my back would be up if I were to see the continuing usurping of my Constitutional authority by a power-mad, Socialistic/Communistic President.